The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has published in April 2025 standards on informal prisoner hierarchy. This phenomenon emerged in the Soviet Union and is still present in countries whose prison systems have inherited features from the Soviet system.
While the CPT previously addressed the existence and functioning of the informal prisoner hierarchy, in its country visit reports for years,[1] it emerged only later in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), with two significant rulings handed down in 2023 and 2024.[2]
Although it is not addressed in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU), it could constitute an obstacle to judicial cooperation in criminal matters between EU member states, as it is also documented in the Baltic States,[3] and the issue might become even more pressing in the event of Moldova and Ukraine joining the EU.
The document, which focuses on informal hierarchies as they manifest in the nine former Soviet states under its mandate (eight Council of Europe member states and the Russian Federation), describes in detail the hellish conditions imposed on prisoners belonging to the lower caste in this subculture. It rightly points out that the treatment imposed on this group amounts to a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.
Neglect of “Duty Prisoners” and Their Role in Ill-Treatment
The document presents the characteristics of the prison system in these countries (such as the collective accommodation of prisoners in dormitories, staff shortages, and inadequate resources) as leading the prison administration to tolerate the informal hierarchy as a means of regulating life in prison.[4] However, it downplays the role of the prison administration in perpetuating this prison subculture.
In particular, the delegation of responsibility for maintaining order is addressed only from the perspective of the prison administration’s tacit or active cooperation with representatives of the informal upper caste. This is certainly the case in many institutions, particularly in the Republic of Moldova.[5] However, the document makes virtually no mention of the caste of prisoners affiliated with the prison administration, which is mentioned only briefly in a footnote.[6]
It is surprising that these categories of prisoners, responsible for maintaining order in detention, often to counter informal prison authorities, are overlooked. This group established by the administration is regularly identified as a major factor in ill-treatment and torture by the CPT and its UN counterpart, the CAT.[7] Various events revealing the routine use of torture in prison have highlighted the role of these prisoners affiliated with the prison administration.[8]
Parole Recognised but Not Effectively Promoted
Several of the recommendations for combatting the informal prisoner hierarchy are questionable. This is particularly the case for measures targeting representatives of the informal hierarchy, such as the introduction of criminal penalties, intended to incentivise prisoners to withdraw from it,[9] segregation from the rest of the prison population[10] and the establishment of differentiated detention regimes,[11] despite the risk of them being used arbitrarily.
In the States where they exist, these systems are consistently criticised for their arbitrariness and their propensity to lead to ill-treatment, including by the CPT.[12] However, these recommendations are not accompanied by any call for caution or firm requirements in terms of procedural safeguards.
Conversely, although the document identifies parole as a potential incentive for prisoners to disengage from the subculture,[13] it fails to propose concrete measures to improve access to it. Instead, it vaguely recommends “strengthening the individual sentence planning” (p. 23) without outlining any strategy to make parole more accessible or appealing.
Ultimately, the document fails to acknowledge the complexity of the phenomenon and the interplay of factors that sustain it. This highlights the need for further CPT engagement, in particular, to address the role of administration-affiliated prisoners and to promote the alignment of prison systems with ordinary legal standards, including through the strengthening of community reintegration mechanisms.
[1] Among the most recent reports, see CPT report on its visit to Latvia (22-31 May 2024), CPT/Inf (2025) 04, 26 February 2025; CPT report on its visit to Armenia (12-22 September 2023), CPT/Inf (2024) 31, 13 November 2024; CPT report on its ad hoc visit to Lithuania (12-22 February 2024), CPT/Inf (2024) 25, 18 July 2024; CPT report on its visit to Ukraine (16-27 October 2023), CPT/Inf (2024) 20, 26 April 2024.
[2] See S. P. and Others v. Russia (nos. 36463/11 and 10 others, 2 May 2023 ) in which EPLN filed a third-party intervention, and D v. Latvia (no. 76680/17,11 January 2024). Following these two judgments, the Council for Penological Cooperation of the Council of Europe (PC-CP) addressed the issue at one of its meetings, stating that “this is an important issue of prison management and of crime control and needs attention and action” (35th Working Group Meeting, PC-CP (2024) 3, 4 June 2024).
[3] See a recent ruling by the Amsterdam District Court that refused to execute a European Arrest Warrant issued by Latvia, based on the fact that the requested person could be exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result of the informal prisoner hierarchy. See Rechtbank Amsterdam, no. 13-349098-24, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:1756, 19 March 2025, especially the conclusion “the information regarding the requested person does not sufficiently guarantee that he will be protected against violence and other negative consequences of the caste system [within the informal prisoner hierarchy]” (own translation).
[4] See in particular the following passages: as a result of the high rise in the number of prisoners in the Soviet Union from the 1940s, prison facilities “turned out to be impossible to govern […] without the authorities at least partially relinquishing their supervisory duties, both formal and informal, to the prisoners” (§ 2, emphasis added); and “many prison management teams have accepted the fact of the informal prisoner hierarchy with a degree of desperate resignation” (§ 21, emphasis added).
[5] On Moldova, see for instance, CPT report on its ad hoc visit to Moldova (5-13 December 2022), CPT/Inf (2023) 27, 13 September 2023: “The findings of the visit suggest that there continues to be tacit acceptance of the informal hierarchy by prison staff and even tacit ‘agreement’ between staff and informal prison leaders when it comes to ensuring ‘order’ among prisoners and ‘smooth operation’ of the establishments” (§ 26). This confirms the finding of previous visit reports (2020, 2018, 2016).
[6] See footnote no. 9 p. 8: “the goats (kozly) […] are the informers who collaborate with the prison administration”.
[7] For the CPT, see for example CPT report on its visit to Ukraine (16-27 October 2023), CPT/Inf (2024) 20, 26 April 2024, where the Committee regrets the persistence of “the practice of employing inmates as “duty prisoners” (днювальний), who were assigned supervisory tasks over other prisoners” (§ 47).
These prisoners were “selected by the prison management and given tasks involving the maintenance of order and control, including that of reporting to staff any incidents and violations of the regime” (idem). This practice was “formally provided for in the Internal Rules of Establishments for the Execution of Sentences (see Section XVIII, paragraph 2)” (footnote 62, p. 23).
These findings build on the CPT report on its visit to Ukraine (4-13 August 2020), CPT/Inf (2020) 40, 15 December 2020, were the contribution of “duty prisoners” to ill-treatment and torture is widely documented (especially §§ 14-27).
For the CAT, see CAT, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Ukraine, CAT/C/UKR/CO/7, 2 May 2025: “While taking note of the formal abolishment of practice of ‘duty prisoners’ (днювальний), inmates reportedly assigned by the prison administration to help maintaining order in prisons, the Committee is concerned about the reports indicating that the system is still functioning” (§ 23).
The Committee arguably relied on the three reports submitted by EPLN and Protection for Prisoners of Ukraine, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group and ZMINA, ULAG, Ukraine without torture, Freerights and OMCT. All refer to the CPT report on its 2020 visit to Ukraine (see above).
[8] In Russia, following the April 2020 riot at Angarsk Correctional Colony No. 15, at least 200 inmates were transferred to various SIZOs in the Irkutsk region were subjected to torture (including dozens to sexual violence) according to human rights defenders. Much of the abuse was carried out by so-called “activists” inmates collaborating with prison staff: https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2021/01/29/88949-oni-nasilovali-konkretno-teh-kto-za-chto-to-otvechal-v-kolonii.
In Ukraine, according to the State Bureau of Investigation, inmates previously selected by the administration of Berdyansk Correctional Colony No. 77 were used to carry out acts of torture and extortion against other prisoners between 2016 and 2020, as part of a system of “mass torture” organized and supported by the facility’s management: https://dbr.gov.ua/news/dbr-zatrimalo-shhe-odnogo-uchasnika-masovih-katuvan-zasudzhenih-u-berdyanskij-vipravnij-kolonii
[9] See recommendation p. 21: “putting an end to the practice of delegating authority to informal prisoner leaders and using them to maintain order among the general prisoner population; this might also entail membership in the informal prisoner hierarchy being criminalised, as is already the case in some countries”.
[10] See recommendation p. 22: “segregating the informal prisoner leaders and their close circle of supporters from the rest of the prison population (on the basis of a proper individual risk and needs assessment and in line with relevant safeguards)”.
[11] See recommendation p. 21: “creation of separate units/sectors for prisoners who do not (or no longer) wish to be involved in the informal prisoner hierarchy; offering adequate (or even superior) material conditions and regimes which reward pro-social and cooperative behaviour” (emphasis added).
[12] See CPT report on its visit to Ukraine (21-30 November 2016), CPT/Inf (2017) 15, in which the CPT strongly criticised the “grossly excessive” approach of the prison administration towards prisoners adhering to the prison subculture, leading to disciplinary sanctions and additional terms of imprisonment (§ 46).
[13] See § 33: “The most important change, however, seems to be the prospect of a transfer to a more open prison regime (including a halfway house) or even early conditional release, which in most countries is now much more widely available. This clearly delineated progressive pathway is obviously motivating many prisoners, even from the highest caste, to better comply with the official prison rules and to actively participate in implementing their individual sentence plan. As a result, there is a decrease in confrontations between prisoners and the prison administration and, consequently, the active engagement of prisoners with the informal prisoner hierarchy.”