Summary:

The article analyzes the legal mechanisms which regulate the possibility of introducing the institution of whistleblowers in the field of combating torture and other ill-treatment into the national penitentiary system. The author’s defines the institution of “whistleblower” as a natural person with legal capacity who, having proper, reliable information, on the basis of confidentiality, has reported the facts of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other criminal offenses against health, committed by another person, if such information became known to him/her in connection with his/her economic, public, scientific, professional or labor activity in the law enforcement sphere, service or training, or his/her direct participation in the procedures provided for by law that are mandatory for the commencement of such activity, service or training.

The author’s identifies the current challenges that lead to the introduction of the institution of whistleblowers in the penitentiary system in the field of combating torture and other types of ill-treatment, namely Inadequate conditions of detention of prisoners and convicts held in pre-trial detention centers and penitentiary institutions of the State Criminal Executive Service of Ukraine; failure to provide timely and adequate medical care to prisoners and convicts held in pre-trial detention centers and penal institutions of the State Criminal Executive Service of Ukraine; the existence of facts of “mutual responsibility” or silence regarding torture and other types of ill-treatment in the penitentiary system; insufficient effectiveness of the existing system of counteracting torture and other ill-treatment in the penitentiary system; insufficient effectiveness of investigations and mechanisms for documenting the facts of torture and other ill-treatment in the penitentiary system, avoidance of responsibility by officials and obstruction of fair justice; lack of reliable data on the facts of torture and other ill-treatment in the penitentiary system, the latency of this group of criminal offenses, which leads to silence of this problem in society and failure to take measures for its successful prompt resolution; lack of an effective dual (internal and external) system of regular penitentiary inspections and monitoring; lack of real compensation for victims of torture and other ill-treatment in the penitentiary system.

Keywords: whistleblower, counteraction, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, punishment, legislation, Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, convict, prisoner, staff, penitentiary system, penal authority, penal institution, State Criminal Executive Service of Ukraine.

References

1. Ukraine (2024), On Amendments to the Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated October 28, 2021 No. 1344: Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Kyiv.
2. Ukraine (2014), On the Prevention of Corruption: Law of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.
3. Ukraine (1996), The Constitution of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.
4. United States (1948), International Bill of Human Rights: Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, New York.
5. United States (1966), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, New York.
6. France (1950), European Convention on Human Rights: Convention of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
7. Ukraine (2001), The Criminal Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.
8. United States (1975), Declaration on the Protection of All Persons From Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, New York.
9. United States (1984), Сonvention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, New York.
10. Ukraine (2003), The Civil Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.
11. United States (1979), Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials: Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, New York.
12. United States (1988), Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment: Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, New York.
13. United States (1990), United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty: Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, New York.
14. United States (2015), United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules): Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, New York.
15. Ukraine (2003), The Criminal and Executive Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.
16. Ukraine (2014), On Approval of The Internal Regulations of Penitentiary Institutions: Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, Kyiv.
17. Ukraine (2012), The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.
18. Ukraine (2021), On The National Human Rights Strategy: Order of the President of Ukraine, Kyiv.
19. Ukraine (2021), On approval of The Strategy for Combating Torture in the Criminal Justice System and approval of the Action Plan for its implementation: Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Kyiv.
20. Ukraine (2022), On approval of The Strategy for reforming the penitentiary system for the period up to 2026 and approval of the operational plan for its implementation in 2022–2024: Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Kyiv.
21. Puzyrevskyi, M. and Sikun, A. (2024), “The Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights in Cases of Violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (on the Example of the State Criminal Executive Service of Ukraine)”, Crime and Counteraction to it in the Conditions of War and in the Postwar Perspective: An Interdisciplinary Panorama, Proceedings of the International Conference, Vinnytsia, April 19, 2024, Vinnytsia, pp. 442–445.