The decision on the type of prison in which a convicted person will be placed is not merely a matter of public interest or prison administration but an issue with a strong constitutional dimension. In a recent judgment, the Constitutional Court addressed this matter when it annulled a decision to transfer a prisoner with mental health problems to a prison with a stricter regime.

Criminal repression allows public authorities to punish undesirable and socially harmful behavior with a wide range of penalties. From the perspective of interference with the fundamental rights of prisoners, the most intensive measure is imprisonment, representing a means of ultima ratio. Given the intensity of interference with the autonomy and rights of prisoners, which is inevitably associated with imprisonment, it is necessary to ensure the proportionality of the punishment and sufficient protection of their fundamental rights. This applies in particular to members of vulnerable groups, such as those with disabilities, as they usually require specialized medical care or another form of special treatment.

In practice, however, situations often arise where such individuals, because of their handicap, are disadvantaged compared to other prisoners in the execution of their sentence, in a way that makes serving the sentence more difficult for them and disproportionately harsh without a legitimate reason.

This possibility is addressed by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which the Czech Republic is a signatory. The Convention provides that states have an obligation to adopt so-called reasonable accommodations to ensure that restrictions on liberty affect prisoners with mental or physical disabilities to the same extent as prisoners without disabilities and that they are not subjected to discrimination.

The Transfer of the Ill Prisoner before the Constitutional Court

But how should the situation be resolved when a mentally ill prisoner repeatedly violates prison rules and poses a threat to himself and fellow prisoners while being unable to control his behavior? Under what conditions is it permissible to transfer a mentally ill prisoner to a stricter type of prison, and what requirements can legitimately be placed on the decision making of prisons and courts in such a situation?

The Constitutional Court addressed these questions in its recent judgment.[1] It dealt with the case of a complainant -a mentally ill prisoner serving a prison sentence, who, after repeated incidents, such as stealing food and medication from fellow prisoners, swallowing chess pieces, or otherwise engaging in self-harm, was transferred to a higher security prison.

The complainant disagreed with this measure. In addition to procedural errors by the ordinary courts, and with reference to an expert opinion, he argued that instead of such a restrictive measure, it would have been more appropriate for individual psychotherapeutic, social, and educational work to be conducted with him in the standard security prison where he had been placed until then. In his constitutional complaint, he also claimed that the real reason for his transfer was his health condition, while the state failed to meet its positive obligations to provide conditions of imprisonment that respected his specific needs. A chamber composed of President Daniela Zemanová, reporting judge Lucie Dolanská Bányaiová, and judge Jiří Přibáň upheld his arguments.

Proportionality of the Prisoner’s Transfer 

The Constitutional Court held that when transferring the complainant to a prison with a stricter regime, the ordinary courts had not respected the requirement of proportionality in interfering with the right to personal liberty. The complainant was transferred without considering less restrictive means of protecting his fellow prisoners and himself.

Moreover, the expert opinion showed that the transfer would probably have had the opposite effect than intended. The stricter and more restrictive regime of the high security prison would likely have had a negative impact on the complainant’s mental health, which the ordinary courts ignored. Instead, and contrary to the expert opinion , they assumed that in a prison with a stricter regime, there would automatically be more intensive psychotherapeutic treatment for the complainant. 

The expert opinion, on the other hand, stressed that improvement of his mental health required psychotherapy. Yet no such therapy had been provided in the prison where he had been placed; instead, he was simply transferred. 

Even setting aside the inadequate treatment during his sentence, the most serious shortcoming of the Prison Service’s approach was that the option of moving the complainant to one of the specialized units established for persons with mental disorders had not been considered at all.[2] These units are key for effectively fulfilling the state’s positive obligations toward vulnerable prisoners, as they provide appropriate individual care tailored to their specific needs.

Translated by Alexandra Eštoková and Kryštof Urban.

 

Notes

[1] Constitutional Court judgment dated 14 May 2025, file no. III. ÚS 3442/24.

[2] Section 94 of Decree of the Ministry of Justice No. 345/1999 Coll., issuing the Rules on Serving Custodial Sentences.

 

Sources

Constitutional Court judgment dated May 14, 2025, file no. III. ÚS 3442/24.

Constitutional Court. (May 2025). Transfer of a prisoner suffering from mental illness or disability to a stricter type of prison [press release]. Retrieved from https://www.usoud.cz/aktualne/pre-razeni-odsouzeneho-trpiciho-dusevnim-onemocnenim-ci-mentalnim-postizenim-do-prisnejsiho-typu-veznice