1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

This issue belongs to the competence of Justice Ministry. Neverheless, it seems that alternative measures to prison have been more used.

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Mainly, open regimen and telematic control of inmates has been increased.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

As in question 1 a), this measure is not under our competence.

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

The measure applied has worked very efficently. Comparing with the Covid rate outside prisons, the impact of the pandemic inside prisons has been very low.

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

Same answer as 2 a).

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Organising the work of treatment officers and chosing inmates with less propability of recidivism.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

Same as in 2 a)

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

Application of telematic control of inmates and open regimen has continue in high levels.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

Yes. The covid crises has shown that other controls, different from traditional prison, can be efficently used in order to execute a penal sentence. Also in relation with sentence consisting on privation of freedom. Telematic control of inmates can be used in higher levels as the ones of the pre-covid period.

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

The Corps of Prison and Court Guard, as a body executing the court decisions issued in criminal proceedings, does not have the possibility to directly influence this decision-making (the prison service has to admit any person for serving pre-trial detention to whom the court issued the detention order, regardless the occupancy level of prison facilities or the applied measures to eliminate the spread of COVID-19 pandemic). Despite the mentioned, the Corps tried to communicate the complexity of the current situation with the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic and at the level of individual prison facilities with the locally competent courts. However, no systematic/legislative measures were implemented in order to decrease the numbers of prisoners in the pre-trial phase during the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

The Act no. 62/2020 Coll. on Certain Emergency Measures in connection with the spread of the dangerous contagious human disease COVID-19 and in the justice, as amended, was entered into force on 25 March 2020. Among other things, this act determined that the courts shall conduct proceedings, main proceedings and public meetings only to necessary extent in the times of extraordinary situation or the state of emergency. The mentioned was reflected in a slight decrease in the numbers of newly admitted convicts (compared to the relevant period of the previous five years, the number of newly admitted convicts was reduced by 8 %). However, it should be noted that the aim of this change in legislation was not to reduce the prison population but to decrease the mobility of persons in the premises of courts during the pandemic.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

See the answers to the questions 1.a) and 1.b).

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

See the answers to the questions 1.a) and 1.b).

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

See the answers to the questions 1.a) and 1.b).

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

See the answers to the questions 1.a) and 1.b).

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

See the answers to the questions 1.a) and 1.b).

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

See the answers to the questions 1.a) and 1.b).

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

None. Under Irish law, the Minister can grant early or temporary release to pre-trial (remand) prisoner’s in this jurisdiction.

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

The Minister approved an expansion of the criteria to be considered to release prisoners early from custody, with certain conditions (good behaviour etc) applying. At the commencement of the pandemic, there were approx 4200 prisoners in custody. On today’s date there are 3,676. In effect, certain prisoners were released at a stage earlier in their sentence that would normally be the case.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

I refer you to answer 1a) above.

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

The release of prisoners as outlined above. This also allowed us transfer prisoners from prisons with higher numbers of prisoners to prisons with spare capacity.

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

I refer you to answer 1a) above.

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

The significant challenge was to release greater numbers of prisoners than would normally be the case, without negatively impacting on public safety. This required a thorough consideration/Risk Assessment of every individual candidate prisoner for early/temporary release. This was also necessary to ensure public ‘buy-in’/support for the Plan.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

I refer you to answer 1a) above.

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

This will be a matter for consideration by the Minister/parliament. Rules around the granting of Temporary Release are governed primarily by legislation and Ministerial-level policy decisions.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

It cannot be said definitively. It is not a matter of ongoing ‘public debate’.

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

The remand prisons are not overcrowded in Lithuania, so no alternatives to pre-trial detention were introduced. Moreover, the Prison Department is not authorized to amend the court-assigned pre-trial measures. Seeking to reduce the transfer of pre-trial detainees between the establishments, the courts were requested to use video-conferencing and other video-audio platforms (MS Teams, Zoom, Skype) more actively for pre-trial investigation. Penitentiary establishments were obliged to ensure technical possibilities for courts, the parties to proceedings and pre-trial investigation authorities to conduct proceedings with pre-trial detainees and inmates remotely via video-audio platforms.

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Since 1 July 2020 conditional release procedures have been simplified for certain categories of inmates. Part of inmates upon whom a custodial sentence up to 1 year was imposed were transferred to open prison colonies.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

No additional measures were applied. The video-audio platforms for conduct of the court proceedings worked best to reduce the number of escorts and contacts.

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

The procedure for conditional release was simplified, some categories of inmates can be conditionally released under intensive supervision by the decision of the prison director, no court decision necessary.

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

No specific challenges were observed.

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

No specific challenges were observed.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

The use of video-conferences and other communication platforms could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic.

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

The amendments to the legislation were introduced as a result of the pandemic that simplified the conditional release procedures and they will be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

N/a

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

The main measure in Slovenian Prison System applied in order to reduce overcrowding in the pandemic period was acceptance of the Temporary Measures Relating to Judicial, Administrative and Public Law Matters for the Containment of the Spread of the Communicable Disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Act (Zakon o začasnih ukrepih v zvezi s sodnimi, upravnimi in drugimi javnopravnimi zadevami za obvladovanje širjenja nalezljive bolezni SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)). According to the Act summons to prison were halted and new procedures were not be initiated. As a result number of pre-trial prisoners was reduced.

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Temporary Measures Relating to Judicial, Administrative and Public Law Matters for the Containment of the Spread of the Communicable Disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Act (Zakon o začasnih ukrepih v zvezi s sodnimi, upravnimi in drugimi javnopravnimi zadevami za obvladovanje širjenja nalezljive bolezni SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)) was drafted and adopted, which includes several provisions related to the enforcement of criminal sanctions. For preventing the spread of the disease, the law allows termination of transfer of inmates to other correctional facilities, suspension of imprisonment for up to one month, with possibility of extension, where no security concerns exist, and early release of prisoners under certain conditions at least six months before completion of the penalty. In this way alternative forms of deprivation of liberty were included.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

Effective cooperation between the Government, Ministry of Justice and Prison Administration was crucial in order to adopt law basis for further possible actions.

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Same answer as in 2. a) applies here.

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

Main challenges were to communicate about the needs in situation and to find adequate solutions for them. It was also necessary to be transparent to outside society about each step taken.

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Same answer as in 3. a) applies here.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

We have to complete further analysis and thus it is too early to say what could be effective to reduce overcrowding also after the pandemic period. For sure there have to be cooperation and communication between different involved parties and levels with common goal.

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

Same answer as in 4. a) applies here.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

It is also difficult to come to conclusions about changes in professional culture, especially when pandemic period is still present. However measures that took place during this pandemic could function as a proof that changes can be implemented and that also professional culture could be change through implementation of values that are promoted also through our system’s strategy.

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

None. In the judiciary a lot of cases, verdicts, and decisions were suspended due to the coronavirus epidemic, which to some extent reduced the number of incoming prisoners, but this was not an intentional measure to reduce the number of prisoners.

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

The Ministry of Justice first issued a decree on postponing the enforcement of prison sentences of a maximum six months and conversion sentences for unpaid fines during the time period from 19 March to 19 June 2020. The purpose of this decree was to lower the number of short-term prisoners and prevent the spreading of coronavirus among prisoners and staff. Subsequently, on 7 April 2020, an Act of Parliament postponing the enforcement of prison sentences and conversion sentences for unpaid fines during the time period from 10 April to 31 July 2020 was enacted. This act revoked the previous decree. The scope of application of this act was broader than the previous decree as it encompassed the postponing the enforcement of all prison sentences and conversion sentences for unpaid fines. Remand prisoners who are sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment were, however, not within the scope of applications of the act. As a result of the act the number prisoners was at its lowest about 400 less than normally (the average daily number of prisoners in 2019 was 2 952). Thirdly, on 4 December 2020 the Ministry of Justice issued again a decree on postponing the enforcement of prison sentences of a maximum six months and conversion sentences for unpaid fines until 3 March 2021. The Criminal Sanctions Agency (i.e. prison and probation service) has already proposed that the degree would be prolonged.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

N/A

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Postponing the enforcement of prison sentences.

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

N/A

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Postponing the enforcement of prison sentences creates a queue that will have to be dealt with later. It will be a big challenge the enforce the sentences in controlled manner. Since the postponed sentences are mainly very short, the enforcement will cause a lot of incoming and outgoing movement in the prisons.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

N/A

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

None.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

No, these were only temporary measures.

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

According with Part 1 Section 2 of Prisons Administration Law, the Prisons Administration (hereinafter – Administration) is a State administrative institution subordinated to the Ministry of Justice, which implements State policy in the field of detention as a security measure and the deprivation of liberty as the execution of a criminal punishment. According with Part 1 Section 2 of Law on the Procedures for Holding Under Arrest, a decision of an investigating judge or a court adjudication regarding application of arrest shall be the grounds for executing arrest. Whereas, Paragraph 1 Part 1 Section 5 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, the Administration deprivation of liberty institutions execute the criminal sentence – deprivation of liberty – that is imposed as a basic penalty. Taking into account the above mentioned, the questions related to the reduction of the number of prisoners in the pre-trial and post-trial phase (until the entry into force of the court decision) relate to the actions/measures of criminal proceedings/facilitators of criminal proceedings. Regarding the reduction of prisoners’ number and according with the Cabinet of Ministers order, during the state of emergency declared in Latvia: 1) we have postponed serving a temporary imprisonment sentence and a criminal penalty – arrest - in prisons, as well as, we are no longer transferring to prisons the persons who have been sentenced with temporary imprisonment or a criminal penalty - arrest - or whose fine or community service imposed by a court decision has been replaced by a temporary imprisonment; 2) the transfer of persons convicted and arrested abroad for further execution of an imprisonment sentence or detention in the territory of the Republic of Latvia has been postponed, unless the foreign country has refused to extend the term of transfer or it is impossible to extend the term of detention and the person to be transferred is tested for Covid -19 72 hours prior to entry and the test is negative. On 3 February 2020, there were 3396 prisoners in prisons under the Administration, incl. 927 detainees and 2469 inmates (incl. 82 persons sentenced to temporary imprisonment sentences). On 1 February 2021, there were 3038 prisoners in prisons under the Administration, incl. 795 detainees and 2243 inmates (incl. 1 person sentenced to temporary imprisonment sentence).

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

See answer to Question 1.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

See answer to Question 1.

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

See answer to Question 1.

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

See answer to Question 1.

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

See answer to Question 1.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

See answer to Question 1.

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

See answer to Question 1.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

See answer to Question 1.

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

N/A

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

In 2020, the global outbreak of a novel coronavirus, COVID-19, rapidly lead to an international pandemic. The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Scotland was confirmed on the 1st of March 2020. By the 26th of March, 25 deaths in Scotland had been attributed to COVID-19, and 896 people in Scotland had been confirmed positive for the virus. Given the nature of the virus’s transmission – through the exchange of droplets from one proximate individual to another, the need for “distancing” – both socially and physically – between individuals was a priority which governments across the world identified as a crucial means of minimising virus spread. As such, locations in which social and physical distancing was difficult received a good deal of initial attention as potential sites where the number of those infected with the virus might proliferate. Within prison settings, literature highlighted the need for physical distancing measures, screening initiatives, and ‘decarceration’ to take effect to combat the spread and transmission of COVID-19. This last point, of decarceration, relates to processes through which a state or justice system reduces the numbers of individuals in prison, through both the reduction in sentencing practices which prioritise prison sentences over other non-custodial sentences, and by removing individuals from custody who are nearing the end of ‘less serious’ sentences. The Scottish Government, on the 1st of April 2020, implemented the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020, which provided provisions for the release of those held in custody, to minimise the numbers held in the prisons to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within Scotland’s prisons. Schedule 4, part 8, of this legislation set out a list of criteria for the identification of prisoners who were eligible or ineligible to be released early from their sentences. Section 19(1) of the Act states that any prisoner who fell within the classification as set out by this part of the Act “is to be released from prison”. As such, the Scottish Prison Service were legally obliged to facilitate the release of these individuals within their care. For the purposes of the Act, this meant that all individuals in prison who had 90 days or less left to serve in custody as of the 4th of May, who were serving sentences of 18 months or less, and did not fall within the legislation’s list of excluded individuals, were to be released from prison. The only other exception to this rule which prevented the release of an individual who met the above criteria was if that individual was identified as a risk to a ‘named person’; themselves, or another person with the community. If a person could be shown as presenting a risk to the safety of that individual, and there was evidence to support that this was a real and identifiable risk, the governor of the establishment in which that individual was held in custody could prevent that individual from being released early under the legislation. To satisfy these conditions, the SPS generated a step-by-step process through which these individuals could be released early from their sentences to minimise the numbers held in custody to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Firstly, staff at SPS Headquarters generated lists of those who were considered eligible for release based on the criteria as was laid out by Parliament by means of the legislation. These lists were then shared with establishments, and local NHS leads, so that they could gather further information; to facilitate provision relating to prisoner needs post release, and to consider any information which may give reason for the Governor within their establishment to exclude them from the process as presenting a risk to any named individual. Local teams within each of the establishments gathered this information from a range of appropriate sources, including prisoner records and outstanding warrants, to provide assurance within the final decision-making process. SPS partners were then provided with a new earliest date of liberation for each of these individuals, amended to show the new release date for those individuals. These releases were divided into three ‘tranches’ to allow for staff to organise and implement these releases in three waves. Once the decision was made about the individual’s eligibility, the individual was issued with a decision letter. A consideration of needs took place with each of these individuals to identify any support which they may need at the point of release, and to organise any provision ahead of their release which the individual might need. These discussions resulted in the production of documentation which recorded those needs, and actions were identified to ensure that this support was in place upon release. The individual was issued a liberation pack which provided information about services post-release, and transportation was arranged for individuals to get them to appropriate travel routes to their destination. From that point onward, the standard practices of liberation are followed to release the prisoner on their new liberation date.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

N/A

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

N/A

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

N/A

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Lessons learned: • Revisit national guidance around the policy and processes involved in the release of individuals from custody; • Reflect on the processes of release with sensitivity to local establishment variation in staffing and prison population; • Enhance staff understanding of the different roles and responsibilities of partners within the release process; • Policy and resourcing around communication and data sharing within the release process require to be enhanced; • Consider introduction of new roles which can enhance information and data sharing between establishments and partners.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

N/A

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

There are no plans to extend emergency early release Covid-19 measures post-pandemic. Normal early release conditions on licence will continue to be applied.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

As above.

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

In accordance with the provisions of art. 176 (1) from the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova, preventive measures may be applied by the prosecutor, either ex officio or upon the proposal of the criminal investigative body, or as the case may be, by the court only when there are sufficient, reasonable grounds, supported by evidence.

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

During the period 01.01.2020 and until now, 650 approaches were submitted to the courts by the Moldovan penitentiary institutions regarding the application as regards of the provisions of Articles 91, 92 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova, of which 442 approaches have been admitted with the release of the concerned inmates. We note that the application of the provisions of Articles 91, 92 Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova is of the competence of the courts. Amendments and completions were made to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova, to the Articles 4732 to 4734, by which it was established the national compensatory mechanism regarding the reducing of the term of execution of the punishment for the establishment of violation of Article 3 of the ECHR (inhumane and degrading conditions in the penitentiary institutions).

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

Penitentiary institutions, as an enforcement bodies, are not empowered to reduce the number of persons in pre-trial detention or the duration of pre-trial detention applied to them.

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Application / implementation of the compensatory mechanism; - During the concerned period, the number of inmates has been reduced from the account of the implemented compensatory mechanism under the Article 385, 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova (2054 inmates, of whom 320 were released and 1734 reduced from the term of punishment) and with the application of Article 91, 92 (Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova) - 442 inmates. We note that the application of the compensatory mechanism under the Article 385, 473 CPC RM is of the competence of the courts.

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

Do not fall within the sphere of our competence.

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

- The correct application of legislation; - Do not fall within the sphere of our competence.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

- All the measures listed above; - Do not fall within the sphere of our competence;

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

- All the measures listed above; - Continued submission of approaches for the application of Articles 91, 92 CCRM, as regards the inmates complying with the legal requirements.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

No

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

A new Ad-Hoc Committee was established in order to make a proposal by the end of February 2021, for permanent solutions to the problem of overcrowding including alternative measures and sanctions to imprisonment. Note that the Director of Prisons is heading the Committee and the Senior Prison Officer of the Cyprus Prisons Department, is a member of the Committee. At the moment, the only alternative measure to imprisonment which could be applied in the pre-trial phase is electronic monitoring, but only following a relevant Court decision, as the use of electronic monitoring for pre-trail detainees is not part of the legislation yet. However, the Ad Hoc Committee will inter-alia suggest that this measure is regulated by the law, in order to render it more efficient.

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Prison Department’s Management has conducted a study, which was duly promoted with the aim of decongesting the prison population with the early release of prisoners amid the serious threat of pandemic coronavirus, reflecting the Recommendations of the competent Committees and councils of the Council of Europe, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT), as well as the Council of Europe’s Council for Penological Cooperation (PC-CP). As a result, 121 prisoners were simultaneously released on 31.3.2020, out of a total of 820 prisoners. In addition, during the months of April, May and up until mid-June, with the start of flights, 101 foreign prisoners and 7 other Greek-Cypriot prisoners were also released. Moreover, due to the actions/initiative of the Cyprus Prisons Department, our country was in the top 3 countries of the Council of Europe with the highest percentage of inmates released as a preventive measure related to COVID-19. As mentioned in Question 1.a, the Ad-Hoc Committee was established in order to make a proposal by the end of February 2021, for permanent solutions to the problem of overcrowding such as alternatives measures and sanctions to imprisonment. Moreover, the recent amendment of the national prisons legislation, as regards parole/conditional release of inmates, now allows inmates to apply to the Parole Board 6 months prior to their eligibility date for parole and also provides that the reduction of their prison sentence due to good behaviour and diligence is also calculated. Following the recent amendment of the national prisons legislation, the use of electronic monitoring was expanded, to continue serving the inmates’ sentence as a form of smooth transition from prison back into the society, with the long-term purpose of further easing the overcrowding issue. Subsequently, electronic monitoring is now an option, also for inmates carrying out sentences below 12 months after serving 1/3 of their sentence. Even though this measure does not alleviate the number of inmates in the closed prison, it is available in the post-trial phase.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

As mentioned in Question 1.a, the Ad Hoc Committee will inter-alia suggest that the use of electronic monitoring will be regulated by the law, in order to render it more efficient.

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

As explained in Question 1.a, the measure that worked best in the post-trial phase, was the early releases/pardons.

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

In the pre-trial phase, there was a lack in the use of alternative measures and at the same time, there was over-use of imprisonment for pre-trail detainees.

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

In the post-trial phase, there was also a lack in the use of alternative measures and sanctions to imprisonment.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

As explained in Question 1.a, the Ad Hoc Committee will suggest that the use of electronic monitoring will be regulated by the law, in order to render it more efficient and thus it can be implemented as the main alternative measure for pre-trial detainees.

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

Early-releases, the Parole as well as electronic monitoring, are all measures that can continue serving the prisons, in the context of dealing with overcrowding. Nevertheless, as the issue of overcrowding is a major one, more measures and alternative sanctions to imprisonment should be used, in order to handle it, and that is the role of the Ad-Hoc Committee that will make suggestions for broadening their use, in pre-trial phase and in post-trial phase.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

In the Spanish criminal justice system, at the pre-trial stage the judge can resort to different so called cautionary measures (medidas cautelares) to ensure the attendance of the accused to the trial, the preservation of evidence or to prevent the risk of recidivism. As foreseen in the Criminal Procedural Code, cautionary measures include pre-trial detention, bail, prohibition to leave the country, to drive or to live in a particular place or a restraining order. These measures are considered temporary and dependent on the need to secure the trial, are not regarded as punishment or penalty, therefore cannot be equated to “alternative sentences” as prison sentences or sanctions alternative to prison (treatment, community work, training, etc.) will only be imposed after a trial has been held. The assessment on the whether it is necessary or not to impose pre-trial detention or any of the available cautionary measures, lies with the judge, therefore the Secretariat of Criminal Sanctions, Rehabilitation and Victim Support (hereinafter SCSRVS) cannot implement any temporary measures to reduce pre-trial detention nor prison sentences. Moreover, the data concerning these measures belong to the General Council of the Judicial System (Consejo General del Poder Judicial) and the SCSRVS has no access to them. Against this background, both the Catalan Minster of Justice, Ms Capella, and the Secretary of Criminal Sanctions, Rehabilitation and Victim Support, Mr Calderó, requested the president of the High Court of Catalonia (Tribunal Superior de Justícia de Catalunya) to introduce temporary recommendations for all the criminal courts to help reduce new admissions into prison to the extent possible. To this date, the SCSRVS is not aware that any particular measure was recommended in order to reduce pre-trial detention or postpone the enforcement of prison sentences. Over the months of strictest lockdown, the number of new admissions decreased significantly, due to the suspension of judicial and procedural activity. This led to a natural reduction of the pre-trail detainees and new sentenced inmates in prison. However, when the judicial activity was resumed, the number of new admissions increased again (see tableS in attachment).

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

A significant number of inmates have been granted a specific type of open regime foreseen by art. 86.4 of the Prison Regulations. Art. 86.4 PR is meant for inmates that have been granted 3r grade and allows them to live in their home or in a half-way house, without having to spend the night in prison, while being supervised by the prison multidisciplinary teams. In 2020, a total of 2169 inmates were granted art. 86.4 PR, compared to the 539 that were granted this open regime in 2019. In order to be granted art. 86.4 PR, the inmate has to meet the following criteria: • Presenting indicators that they will be able to comply with the lockdown measures applicable in the community • Having a place of residence • Having sufficient source of livelihood • Presenting low risk of reoffending and low risk of drug/alcohol consumption relapse. The prison multidisciplinary teams closely monitor these inmates through different means such as the electronic monitoring bracelet, alcoholometer, geolocation and videocall. In addition to all of the above, in-person follow-up is also being conducted contacting inmates at least twice a week to monitor their progress in the community. With regard to those inmates with a pre-existing health condition rendering them particularly vulnerable to covid-19, or those older than 70 years old, their situation has also been reviewed. Those who met the criteria mentioned above, have been granted art. 86.4 PR so that they are at home or in supervised apartments while being monitored. Those who meet all the requirements but do not have a place to live, have been placed in half-way houses that have been rearranged to comply with the strict health safety measures these particularly vulnerable inmates require. Close monitoring in the terms described earlier is also being conducted. All cases in which art. 86.4 PR has been granted over the months of the pandemic, are being evaluated regularly by the prison treatment boards over the 6 months following the decision, in order to assess whether the open regime under art. 86.4 PR, is being beneficial for the inmate thus it can be confirmed, or needs to be withdrawn. Moreover, the cases of inmates that were serving a security measure in the Prison Psychiatric Hospital Unit were assessed to identify those who could be relocated to complete the last stages of the security measure in a psychiatric hospital in the community.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

As explained under 1. a) the number of new admissions into prison decreased in 2020 compared to 2019, partly due to the reduction of criminality during the lockdown periods and also due to the suspension of the courts activity during the lockdown, but as far as we know, not because of any specific measure implemented by the judiciary to reduce the number of inmates in prison.

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

All measures mentioned under 1.b) contributed significantly to reduce the number of inmates in prison at the post-trial stage. The prison treatment boards, when reviewing the evolution of an inmate on 3rd grade or on art. 86.4, have decided to maintain it in a high rate of cases. The positive outcomes in the extensive application of 3rd grade and art. 86.4 PR during the pandemic are a solid evidence that when being properly supervised and given the right support in their reintegration process, a larger share of inmates is prepared to serve their sentence in the community (3rd grade) and not spending the night in prison (art. 86.4) without breaking the sentence. The relocation of inmates with a mental condition in psychiatric hospitals in the community, has also had very positive outcomes. This shows that in actual practice there are more inmates eligible to serve the last stages of their security measure in a psychiatric hospital in the community, which in its turn, favours their reintegration process.

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

See 1. a)

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

The Secretary had informed the Prison Surveillance Coordinator Prosecutor (Fiscal Coordinador de Vigilància Penitenciària) about the professional criteria that would applied to grant art. 86.4RP to more inmates who were eligible for it. The Prosecutor considered that these criteria could only be applied exceptionally for the time span the state of alarm was declared and the strictest lockdown was in place. Currently the Prosecutor is appealing an important number of decisions of the prison treatment boards granting art. 86.4PR on the grounds that the exceptional circumstances do not apply any longer. Following from that, the Prison Supervision Court (Jutjat de Vigilància Penitenciària) is revoking art. 86.4 PR for a relevant number of inmates. This adds to the fact that to our knowledge, as pointed out earlier, criminal courts have not implemented any specific strategy or measures to reduce the prison population by postponing the enforcement of prison sentences nor reducing the number of prison sentences imposed and resort to alternative sentences instead. It is also worth mentioning that was challenging to find vacancies in Psychiatric Hospitals in the community for those inmates serving a psychiatric security measure. It was also the case for those inmates that were prepared for the open regime under art. 86.4 PR but did not have a place to live. In both cases it required new organisation arrangements in order to accommodate the increased demand.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

As mentioned under 1. a), the decision on whether to impose a pre-trial cautionary measure and which type, lies with the judge, hence implementing measures to reduce prison population at the pre-trial stage is out of the reach of the SCSRVS.

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

The SCSRVS is determined to reach the point in which 30% of the prison population is on 3rd grade and to provide the means to support these inmates so that they successfully comply with the requirements of this life regime. Amongst others, the prison leaves have been extended so that the Individual Treatment Programmes continue to progress and support a safer return to the community. With regard to those inmates who are serving a security measure in the Prison Psychiatric Hospital, the cases will be assessed with the new approach used in pandemic times so that those who that are prepared, can complete the last stages of their security measure in a psychiatric hospital in the community.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

The positive experience of applying these measures at the post-sentence stage, has convinced prison professionals and senior officials that, more inmates could be eligible to an open regime and progress successfully. Namely, open life regimes can be granted on more instances and the SCSRVS has set the objective that once the pandemic is over, there should be at least the 30% of the prison population on 3rd grade. Unfortunately, it seems that the professional culture of judiciary and the prosecution office has not changed significantly. From our viewpoint, they continue to resort to the prison sentence in excess. We firmly believe that judicial authorities, currently and in the future, could easily resort to alternative sanctions and restorative justice practices in a higher number of cases than they usually do. These are both fully legislated options for the whole of Spain and count on service provision available all across Catalonia.

Attachments:

• Download

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

The development of the prison population in the pre-trial phase does not fall into the responsibility of the Directorate General for the Administration of Custodial Sanctions and Measures involving Deprivation of Liberty.

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

In order to reduce the risk of the COVID-19 virus spreading in prisons the Austrian Federal Minister of Justice was authorized to issue certain measures by ordinance if necessary: • It can be ordered that prison sentences do not have to be started. • It may be determined that a postponement of the execution of a custodial sentence is not to be revoked if charitable services cannot be provided. • A disease of COVID-19 and the mere suspicion of an infection can be declared as reasons for a lack of ability to start imprisonment. • Imprisonment may be postponed for the duration of the measures against the spread of COVID-19, if the convicted person is not particularly dangerous and the prison sentence does not exceed three years. • The interruption of the period for the reappearance of punishment after interruption of execution and exit as well as the execution of measures after interruption can be ordered. • Finally, it can be determined that the detention in the electronically monitored house arrest (“shackle”) cannot be revoked, if it is not possible to perform work due to the measures against the spread of COVID-19.

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

See answer to 1.a).

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

The Directorate General for the Administration of Custodial Sanctions and Measures involving Deprivation of Liberty at the Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice does not have statistical data about the question which of the measures mentioned above worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners. However, as the attached statistical data clearly indicate, the mentioned measures have served their purpose.

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

See answer to 1.a).

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

The end of the deferment of the execution of sentences of imprisonment is timely staggered. During the pandemic the above mentioned measures are/were a relief for the Austrian prison system. However, with the end of this deferment, the number of inmates will increase again.

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

See answer to 1.a).

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

None of the above mentioned measures to reduce the number of inmates in prisons is foreseen to be continued after the pandemic. However, other measures, such as the extension of phone and video calls for inmates as possible alternative to visits to stay in contact with their families, will be continued to be applied also after the pandemic.

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

The specific effects of the above mentioned measures have not primarily changed the professional culture in prisons. However, the constant exchange of information between the Heads of the Prisons and the Directorate General for the Administration of Custodial Sanctions and Measures involving Deprivation of Liberty at the Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice has been intensified due to the fast development of the current pandemic.

Attachments:

• Download

1.a) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

General Covid-19 has presented a unique set of challenges that we have addressed to maintain services in custody and the community. We are working very closely with public health authorities to ensure our approach is based on the best scientific advice available.  We have well-developed policies and procedures in place to manage outbreaks and infectious diseases. This means prisons and probation services are well prepared to take immediate action whenever cases or suspected cases are identified.   Our measures so far have included restricting regimes, minimising inter-prison transfers and compartmentalising our prisons into different units to isolate the sick, shield the vulnerable and quarantine new arrivals.   As prisons are part of the community, with staff entering and leaving continually, it was inevitable that the rate of infection would increase when community incidence rates rose. We have, to date, had some success in limiting the frequency and severity of outbreaks.

1.b) What measures / alternative sentences did you apply to reduce overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

Pre-trial (Remanded in Custody) Since March 2020, the priority of the Government, working closely with the judiciary and others, has been to ensure the justice system continues to perform its vital role while keeping court and tribunal users safe in line with public health guidelines. To achieve this, HMCTS rapidly expanded the use of technology to allow hearings to be conducted by phone and video. HMCTS also temporarily closed around half of its buildings to focus effort and resources more effectively. The most urgent cases have been prioritised by the judiciary to ensure public safety, protect the vulnerable and safeguard children. Crime recovery work is moving at pace and there are currently more than 290 courtrooms available to hold jury trials and the Nightingale programme currently provides 40 courtrooms across the estate, with more scheduled to open this month. Meanwhile, 20,000 hearings are being undertaken via the Cloud Video Platform (CVP) each month as we continue to make full use of remote alternatives wherever possible. Cases where the defendant is held in custody are actively monitored and continue to be prioritised. The remand population has increased during the pandemic, mostly due to the challenges in holding Crown Court trials during this period. However, the remand population is forecasted to drop by September 2021 as trial capacity is expected to increase in the next year as the court system recovers from the impact of the pandemic. Pre-trial detention is never considered lightly and is designed to minimise the risk that defendants who pose a risk to the public, or those likely to abscond and evade justice, could be released back into the community on bail before their trial can be listed. In the event this was to happen, this could significantly undermine public confidence in the justice system and have a detrimental impact on victims and witnesses. More information on the response of the Court administration system to the challenges of Covid-19 can be found in the following report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/915493/HMCTS401_recovery_overview_for_crime_WEB.pdf

2. a) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

Post-trial (Sentenced to Custody) Our strategy for managing the prison population during the pandemic has three main elements: protecting those most susceptible to the virus, isolating the symptomatic, and temporarily separating newly received prisoners from the main population. These measures minimise the risk of infection spreading throughout prisons, but also impact prison capacity. The necessary capacity to deliver this strategy has been delivered through a range of means, including early release measures, expediting of remand cases, and the temporary expansion of the estate. In April 2020, the Government announced the introduction of the End of Custody Temporary Release (ECTR) scheme, to allow the temporary release of risk-assessed prisoners who are within two months of their release date, as part of the national plan to protect the NHS and save lives. This scheme saw the release of around 300 prisoners, and was paused in August 2020. We also expanded the prison estate by introducing temporary accommodation to increase space and help reduce the spread of Covid-19. As part of this work we are targeted the use of these units at prisons where there is the highest number of shared cells, lack of in-cell sanitation and where there are high numbers of vulnerable prisoners. While this accommodation remains within the existing, secure, prison estate only lower-risk prisoners will be held in the units, following careful risk assessment. Since March 2020 the overall prison population has reduced by 6,000.  More information on the response of the prison system can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-and-prisons

2. b) What measures worked best to achieve the reduction of overcrowding / number of prisoners in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

3. a) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE?

3. b) What where the main challenges in applying such measures or resulting from those measures in the POST-TRIAL PHASE?

4. a) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the PRE-TRIAL PHASE??

4. b) Which measures could be continued to be applied in a similar way after the pandemic in the POST-TRIAL PHASE??

5. Are you confident that the effects of these measures have changed professional cultures on a long term?

Learning for the future We have been carrying out work to draw the learning from Covid-19 into prison regime models in the future, and to ensure that these lessons from the pandemic period to date are taken into account. The Youth Custody Service commissioned a Covid-19 Research and Evaluation Programme in May this year in order to enable learning from the experiences of dealing with Covid-19 to improve youth custody in the long-term. It is clear that some of the changes implemented to manage the emergency will be time-limited and will stop with the end of the pandemic, while others may be useful in the longer term. We need to continue to ensure that technology recently introduced or expanded works effectively for all participants in Justice proceedings.