Life Without Parole: An Inhuman and Degrading Punishment

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee

Life Without Parole An Inhuman and Degrading Punishment Special Report

Sofia April 2010

Life Without Parole An Inhuman and Degrading Punishment

1

Life Without Parole An Inhuman and Degrading Punishment Authors: Stanimir Petrov, Elitsa Gerginova

Editor: Krassimir Kanev Editor of the English text and lay-out: Desislava Simeonova

© Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, April 2010

7 Varbitsa Street, 1504 Sofia, Bulgaria

http://www.bghelsinki.org

http://www.bghelsinki.org/


2

Table of contents

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3

II. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 4

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................. 6

Content and differentiation between life imprisonment and life without parole ....................... 6 Life imprisonment with the possibility of parole................................................................... 6 Execution of the life imprisonment and LWOP punishments ................................................ 8

IV. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE BULGARIAN

STANDARDS ON THE TREATMENT OF LIFE SENTENCED PRISONERS.............. 10

V. NUMBER OF PRISONERS SERVING LWOP, SENTENCES HANDED BY YEAR

AND DISTRIBUTION BY PRISON ................................................................................. 12

VI. LEGAL STATUS OF PPRISONERS SERVING LWOP .............................................. 16

VII. SOCIAL PROFILE OF LWOP PRISONERS .............................................................. 18

VIII. LIVING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 20

IX. EMPLOYMENT .......................................................................................................... 28

X. RE-SOCIALIZATION ACTIVITIES ............................................................................. 28

XI. DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE ....................................................................................... 30

ХII. MEDICAL SERVICES ................................................................................................ 30

XIII. SUPERVISION ON THE EXECUTION OF LWOP SENTENCES ......................... 31

XIV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 31


3 I. INTRODUCTION

Unlike all other sentences for which mechanisms to alleviate their severity exist

(conditional release, pardon, commutation, leave, annual leave), the sentence “life

without the possibility of parole” (hereinafter called LWOP) cannot be changed to the

benefit of the imprisoned individual, regardless of the extent of their correction and

rehabilitation, thus making the main purpose of the punishment devoid of meaning.

The interest of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) in this specific area of penal

enforcement is due both to the above arguments and to the international standards on

the implementation of life imprisonment, which require an overall humanization of the

Bulgarian penitentiary system.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the legislation and the practice of handing the

most severe punishment in Bulgaria, life without parole, including the conditions, in

which this sentence is served in Bulgarian prisons. The study was conducted between

June 2009 and February 2010 by BHC researchers Elitsa Gerginova and Stanimir

Petrov, on proposal and under the general revision of Krassimir Kanev. Over this

period, the researchers reviewed the international standards on the treatment of

prisoners, the Bulgarian legislation and publications on the topic. They also processed

data provided by the National Statistical Institute, the Directorate General of

Execution of Sentences, the National Archive Fund and the administration of the

prisons, pertaining to people serving LWOP sentences with all consequences arising

thereof. At the same time, they developed a detailed questionnaire comprising general

information (age, education, marital status, religious affiliation, etc.), first-hand

impressions of the facilities, as well as information from interviews with life sentenced

prisoners and penitentiary staff working with them. Most of the cells inhabited by

these inmates in the maximum security zones in the eleven prisons, where they are

serving their sentences, were visited for the purposes of the study. Interviews with the

prisoners serving life sentences without parole were also conducted.

The overall conclusion of the study confirmed the initial opinion of the BHC that

LWOP contradicts the international standards on treatment of prisoners and should

not be applied in the penitentiary system. It therefore needs to be urgently eliminated

as a punishment under the Bulgarian Penal Code.


4 II. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The first Bulgarian Penal Act1 that laid down the foundations for the development of

penal law in the post-1878 Liberation period, did not provide for life without the

possibility of parole, but introduced the sentence life with the possibility of parole. The

most severe punishment at that time was the death penalty, followed by maximum

security confinement, high security confinement, (short-term) detention and fine.

Additional penal sanctions were also established: disqualification, confiscation of

certain items and promulgation of the sentence. Maximum security confinement had

two variations, lifelong and temporary, i.e. life imprisonment was a type of maximum

security confinement. The temporary maximum security confinement varied between 1

and 15 years and, in some cases, up to 20. The 1896 Penal Act did not provide for a

legal differentiation in the treatment and the legal status of the two categories of

prisoners sentenced to lifelong and temporary maximum security confinement. The

information on the execution of this sentence is scarce. “Those sentenced to maximum

security confinement are kept in general wards and are given food and clothes provided

in the prison”. 2 Life-sentenced solitary confined prisoners could be conditionally

released when they had served no less than fifteen years, i.e. their sentences are

comparable to present-day life with the possibility of parole, despite the significant

difference in the number of years served as a prerequisite for release. Another difference

is that, unlike now, in the past life sentenced prisoners were placed in “general wards”.

The 1951 Penal Act 3 did not provide for life imprisonment in the penal system.

Imprisonment was the most severe punishment, while capital punishment was allowed

as a temporary and exceptional measure. Debates on the existence of the capital

punishment began in Bulgaria in the late 1980s. The last death sentence was carried

out at the Sofia Prison on November 4, 1989, six days before the beginning of the

democratic changes in Bulgaria. A total of 14 death sentences were carried out in that

year. In 1990, President Petar Mladenov issued a decree commuting the death

sentences of 13 prisoners to imprisonment.4

On July 20, 1990 the Grand National Assembly adopted a decision to defer the

execution of judgments, which have the force of res judicata until the issue of the

execution of death penalties in Bulgaria was resolved. 5 This so-called moratorium

guaranteed the life of all prisoners sentenced to death until the elimination of capital

1 Promulgated State Gazette No. 40, 1896, based on the Austro-Hungarian Penal Code and the Russian draft Penal

Code. 2 See Karagyozova, M. “Life Imprisonment and Life without the Possibility of Parole”, Obshtestvo i Pravo magazine,

No. 7, Sofia, 2009, p. 42. 3 The Izvestia magazine, No. 13, 13.02.1951. 4 See Vasileva, P. “The Concept Pro and Contra the Death Penalty”. The Zatvorno Delo Magazine, No. 1, Sofia, 2004,

p. 13. 5 See Decision of the Grand National Assembly of 20.07.1990 on deferring the execution of absolute death sentences,

promulg. SG No. 60, 27.07.1990, APIS Law Library, vol. 3, p. 5, No. 402.


5 punishment from the Penal Code in 1999. Nevertheless, the courts continued to issue

“death by firing squad” verdicts until the end of 1998. Nine bills for amendments to

the Penal Code, including providing for the introduction of “life imprisonment”, were

submitted for a first reading by the National Assembly on July 24, 1994. In other

words, the capital punishment issue was raised before the parliament. The 1995

amendments to the Penal Code6 reinstated life imprisonment in the penal system - not

as a substitute to, but in parallel with capital punishment. In theory, there is an

opinion7 that imprisonment as a sanction has reached extremely high limits - up to 30

years for certain crimes - thus transforming it in life imprisonment in some cases. In

1989, when it became clear that capital punishment had become obsolete in Europe,

the Bulgarian legislators initiated steps towards making the penal law more human,

despite opposition from public opinion. The abolition of capital punishment did not

occur smoothly. To alleviate the raging opposition of the greatest supporters of capital

punishment, the legislator replaced it with another severe sanction, LWOP.8 This is

how the penal system ended with two types of life imprisonment, depending on the

possibility of commuting it to imprisonment for a specific term or the lack of such a

possibility. The above amendments to the Penal Code were not effected in conjunction

and simultaneously with the abolition of capital punishment, and are therefore subject

to some criticism.9

Twenty-two prisoners were on death row when the Penal Code amendment abolishing

the capital punishment came into effect. On January 25, 1999, by Decree No. 4 of the

Vice-President of the Republic of Bulgaria, one death penalty was commuted to life

imprisonment and twenty were commuted to LWOP. On March 6, 1999, by Decree

No. 17 of the Vice-President of the Republic of Bulgaria, the death sentence of one

prisoner was commuted to LWOP. Obviously, the first 13 prisoners on death row in

1990 had the incredible luck of having their sentences commuted to term sentences, as

the Penal Code at that time did not provide for life imprisonment. It wouldn't be

surprising if some of them have already served their sentences and have been released.

6 See art. 37, para 1, item 1 of the Penal Code, promulg. SG No. 50, 1995. 7 See Mihaylov, D. Penal Law Issues, General Part. Sofia, 2007, p. 71. 8 See art. 37, para 2 of the Penal Code, promulg. SG, No. 153, 1998. 9 See Vladimirov, R. “The 1995 Penal Legislation Reform”. The Savremenno Pravo magazine, No. 4, p. 16 and Gruev,

L. “The Sanction System of Bulgarian Penal Law”. Sofia, 1997, p. 70.


6 III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Content and differentiation between “life imprisonment” and “life without the possibility of parole”

Art. 38a. (new - SG, No. 50, 1995) (1) “Life imprisonment shall be the involuntary

isolation of the prisoner until the end of his life in a penitentiary facility“. Life

imprisonment restricts the possibility for the prisoner to move freely until the end of

his life.

There are several significant differences in comparison to imprisonment.10 Firstly, life

imprisonment means deprivation of liberty until the end of one's life. The preventive

nature of this penalty is obvious, as it is mostly aimed at limiting the possibility of the

prisoner to commit another crime. Secondly, the prisoner is not required to provide

community service. While not prohibited by law, there is also no obligation for the

state to provide for such service. However, if work is done, the days worked do not

count as working days. And last but not least, life imprisonment is served in special

isolation conditions. This makes it an exceptionally costly penalty.

Having denied this penalty for more than forty years, the Bulgarian penal law ended up

with two types of life imprisonment – one that may be commuted to imprisonment,

and another one that may not. This situation is the result from the fact that the issue of

the reinstatement of life imprisonment was dealt with separately from the issue of the

abolition of the capital punishment.

Life imprisonment with the possibility of parole

When life imprisonment was introduced in 1995, the legislator assumed that the

persons upon which this penalty can be imposed are in general subject to correction.

Therefore, para 3 of art. 38a provides an opportunity to have such sentences

commuted to imprisonment for up to 30 years. The only requirement is that the

prisoner should have served at least 20 years. The commuting procedure is regulated

under Part VII “Special Proceedings”, Chapter 35 “Proceedings Related to the

Execution of Penal Sanctions”, Section V of the Penal Proceedings Code. It stipulates

that a proposal to commute life imprisonment to imprisonment can be made by the

regional prosecutor at the location where the sentence is served. The proposal is

reviewed at the regional court at the location where the sentence is served, by a jury

comprised of two judges and three jurors. The participation of the prosecutor, the

warden and the prisoner is compulsory. The court rules by a ruling. Refusal is subject

to appeal. Another proposal may not be submitted in less that two years from the date

10 See Stoynov, Al. Penal Law, General Part. Sofia, 1999.


7 of the ruling.11 According to art. 38a, para 2 of the Penal Code, life imprisonment is

imposed when the crime committed constitutes an exceptionally serious criminal

offence. The wording “exceptionally serious criminal offence” is incorrect. 12 The

definition of “serious criminal offence” is contained in art. 93, item 7 of the Penal

Code: “A serious criminal offence” shall be a crime punishable by law by an

imprisonment for more than five years, life imprisonment or LWOP“. The criterion

for “exceptional seriousness” remains unclear. It obviously cannot be judged on the

basis of the possible penalties. It should be judged with regard to the damaging

consequences that have occurred and other aggravating circumstances that reveal an

extreme high degree of public danger of the act and the perpetrator, significantly

exceeding the in the typical occurrences of such crimes. According to case law, the

circumstances that need to be judged include the personality of the prisoner and the

victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed, the way in which the

crime was committed and the consequences from the crime. Establishing that the

perpetrator is incorrigible is not required when imposing this type of life

imprisonment.

Life without the possibility of parole

This sentence was introduced at the end of 1998 as a substitute to capital punishment.

This is why it is regulated by the same articles that regulated the latter, namely art. 37,

para 2 and art. 38 of the Penal Code. It is the most severe of all punishments and its

humanity is strongly contested.13

According to art. 37, para 2 of the Penal Code, the sentence is handed “for the most

serious criminal offences that endanger the foundations of the republic, as well as for

other especially dangerous premeditated crimes”. Unlike life imprisonment, there is

absolutely no possibility of parole. The prisoner may never lawfully regain his freedom,

except in the case of amnesty or pardon.

LWOP was announced as a temporary and exceptional measure.14 With regard to the

temporary nature, the legislator has obviously meant that the grounds for its use as

punishment will cease to exist over time, like in the case of capital punishment, and it

will be replaced by another penalty in the provision of art. 37, para 2 of the Penal

Code. As to its exceptional nature, given the peculiarities of the specific crime that has

been committed, the provisions in art. 38, para 1 of the Penal Code require that it be

exceptionally serious and that the penal purposes stipulated in art. 36 cannot be

11 See art. 449-450 of the Penal Proceedings Code. 12 See Stoynov, Al. Penal Law, General Part. Sofia, 1999. 13 See Vandova, Y., Kanchev, D. “Is the punishment life without the possibility of parole under the Bulgarian penal law

inhuman?” Pravata na Choveka magazine, No. 2, Sofia, 2008, pp. 15-28. See also Vasilev, P. “Applicability of Probation

in Bulgaria”, available at: http://www.arspbg.org/docl/docl1.htm. 14 See Stoynov, Al. Penal Law, General Part. Sofia, 1999, p. 404.

http://www.arspbg.org/docl/docl1.htm


8 achieved by means of a less severe punishment. In other words, in essence the

perpetrator is incorrigible and the specific danger posed to the public by both the

perpetrator and the act is extremely high and requires that the possibility of another

crime be limited forever. Also, the general prevention goals cannot be achieved even by

life imprisonment under art. 38a of the Penal Code. Given the specifics of the subject

of the crime, para 2 of art. 38 of the Penal Code restricts the scope of LWOP by

considering the age of the perpetrator and a possible pregnancy. LWOP may not be

imposed on a person under twenty – or eighteen for military personnel and in times of

war – at the crime of committing the crime. LWOP may not be imposed on a woman

who was pregnant when committing the crime or when the sentence was handed. The

grounds for these restrictions are humane.

As per the Penal Code, life imprisonment or LWOP are always envisaged as an

alternative to term imprisonment. And while life imprisonment (with or without the

possibility of parole) is always handed down for crimes against the republic or against

the person as an alternative to imprisonment, in the following chapters there is no logic

and consistency in prescribing either life imprisonment, or LWOP, or both. For

example, he who while driving rolling stock, an aircraft, a motor vehicle, a vessel, a

combat or specialized vehicle, breaches the traffic rules and causes death to one or

more persons, is punished by imprisonment of 10 to 20 years or, in especially grave

circumstances, from 15 to 20 years or life imprisonment (art. 342 of the Penal Code).

However, he who in time of war fails to perform his military service obligations by

simulating sickness, forging a document or by other deceptive means, when the act is

especially serious, shall be punished by imprisonment of 5 to 20 years or LWOP (art.

397 in conjunction with art. 383, para 3). Why has the legislator envisaged only life

imprisonment in the first case and only LWOP in the second? Isn't it worrying that

such a great variation, 5 years to LWOP, is foreseen for a single crime (see also art.

410b of the Penal Code)? LWOP alone (without life imprisonment) is foreseen for a

series of other crimes, with the most severe punishment imposed not only on the

commander but on every crew member of a sinking military vessel who leaves the vessel

without an order from his commander (art. 399 of the Penal Code). Everyone who

leaves a battlefield during combat or who surrenders to the enemy for fear or cowardice

or who refuses to use a weapon during combat (art. 400 of the Penal Code) is also

endangered by LWOP.

Execution of the life imprisonment and LWOP punishments

Under the Enforcement of Sentences and Guarded Detention Act (ESGDA),15 insofar

as no special provisions are applicable, the execution of life imprisonment and LWOP

punishments is subject to the general provisions on imprisonment, as in essence life

imprisonment is imprisonment for an unlimited period. Life imprisonment and

15 Promulg. SG No. 25, 03.04.2009, in force as of 01.06.2009.


9 LWOP are served in separate prisons or in separate wards in other prisons.16 For

prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or LWOP, the initial special regime may be

changed to a lighter one in case of good behaviour and when the prisoner has served at

least five years of the sentence. Persons sentenced to life imprisonment and LWOP can

be accommodated in common premises with the other prisoners and can participate in

joint employment, training, educational, sports and other activities upon decision of the

committee on the execution of penal sanctions, in case they were placed in high security

confinement and based on an assessment of their personality.17

LWOP is a punishment that is alien to the modern European penal systems. It is also

deeply inhuman, as it deprives the prisoner of any hope of freedom. It is in the light of

the distinction, whether or not the punishment may be commuted to a term sentence,

that the question whether imposing and serving LWOP violates art. 3 of the European

Convention on Human Rights is answered. This article bans torture, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

in Strasbourg has ruled on many occasions on the compliance of this punishment with

the prohibition in art. 3 of the Convention. In the past eight or nine years the ECtHR

has adopted a permanent interpretation, under which only the existence of legal

(substantive and procedural) and factual (consistent with the age of the prisoners)

possibilities for the reduction of life imprisonment to some final, albeit long, term of

imprisonment, upon the expiration of which the prisoner will be released, is a criterion

for the compliance of this punishment with the prohibition contained in art. 3. of the

Convention.18 The current Penal Code does not allow any possibility for life without

the possibility of parole to be commuted to term imprisonment. It therefore

contradicts the criteria for a minimum threshold of the humanity of penalties, as

adopted in the ECtHR case law, and should be abolished as a punishment under

Bulgarian penal law.

16 See art. 197 ESGDA. 17 See art. 198 ESGDA. 18 ECtHR, Einhorn v. France, complaint № 71555/01, admissibility decision of 16.10.2001; Stanford v. The United

Kingdom, complaint № 73299/01, admissibility decision of 12.12.2002; Leger v. France, complaint № 19324/02,

decision of 11.04.2006; Kafkaris v. Cyprus, complaint № 21906/04, decision of 12.02.2008. See also Kanev, K.

Protection against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee.

Sofia, 2009, pp. 140-141.


10 IV. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND

THE BULGARIAN STANDARDS ON THE

TREATMENT OF LIFE SENTENCED PRISONERS

On October 9, 2003 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted

Recommendation Rec(2003)23 to member states on the management by prison

administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners. For the purposes of the

recommendation, a long-term prisoner is one serving a sentence or sentences totaling

five or more years. The document makes no distinction between the recommendations

on the management of life sentences and the management of other long-term sentences.

The only exception is the requirement for “special management care and attention”

that needs to be paid to the particular problems “posed by prisoners who are likely to

spend their natural life in prison”. The use of the word “likely” indicates that the

Committee of Ministers does not regard the life sentence as absolute and

unconditional, unlike the Bulgarian penal enforcement law.

Recommendation Rec(2003)23 reflects the civilized understanding of the European

states that whatever the sentence of a prisoner, they need to have the opportunity to

demonstrate with their conduct whether they should be given an opportunity for

reintegration in society. Unlike this understanding, the Bulgarian National Standards

on the Treatment of Life Sentenced Prisoners, adopted by the director-general of the

Chief Directorate of Execution of Sentences on February 2, 2007, allow life sentenced

prisoners no other option than to spend their entire life in prison, despite the statutory

possibility of commuting the life sentence to a fixed sentence. The humanity of the

European standard is evident in the requirement that life sentenced prisoners should be

given a chance: “In order to allow terminally ill prisoners to die with dignity,

consideration should be given to releasing them so that they may be cared for and die

outside prison”.

Both documents are focused on the management of life sentences, but this is the only

similarity between them, as they reflect entirely different perceptions of the life

sentence. The Bulgarian national standards indicate the understanding that the

prisoners with life sentences are a separate category of inmates, characterized by the

fact that they will spend the rest of their lives in isolation. It is not accidental that the

first task formulated in these standards is “to ensure the necessary safety level for staff

and prisoners”. Unlike this understanding, the main focus in Recommendation

Rec(2003)23 is on working with prisoners to achieve the goal of the punishment, i.e.

rehabilitation and successful reintegration in society, including of life sentenced

prisoners.

The main difference between the European and the Bulgarian standard is that the

European one, albeit applicable to the life sentence, is in fact a standard on determinate


11 sentences. The differences between the two standards become most evident in the

comparison of the basic principles defining the approach to the treatment of prisoners

with life sentences:

BASIC PRINCIPLES

Recommendation Rec(2003)23

National standards

1. (Individualisation principle) Consideration should be given to the diversity of personal characteristics to be found among life sentence and long-term prisoners and account taken of them to make individual plans for the implementation of the sentence.

2. (Normalisation principle) Prison life should be arranged so as to approximate as closely as possible to the realities of life in the community.

3. (Responsibility principle) Prisoners should be given opportunities to exercise personal responsibility in daily prison life.

4. (Security and safety principle) A clear distinction should be made between any risks posed by life sentence and other long-term prisoners to the external community, to themselves, to other prisoners and to those working in or visiting the prison.

5. (Non-segregation principle) Consideration should be given to not segregating life sentence and other long-term prisoners on the sole ground of their sentence.

6. (Progression principle) Individual planning for the management of the prisoner's life or long-term sentence should aim at securing progressive movement through the prison system.

1. Introduction of criteria that describe in detail the enforcement of the most severe punishment.

2. Identification of the minimum requirements that have significant importance for respect of human rights and achieving the re-socialization effect.

3. Establishing a professional attitude on behalf of staff, combining vigilance and rigour with respect for the prisoners' dignity.

4. Striking a balance between security, protection of the individual rights of life sentenced prisoners and the way they are treated.


12 V. NUMBER OF PRISONERS SERVING LWOP,

SENTENCES HANDED BY YEAR AND

DISTRIBUTION BY PRISON

Life without the possibility of parole under the Bulgarian Penal Code has existed since

late 1998. Since then, the number of prisoners with such sentences has been growing

steadily. Between 1999 and 2008, a total of 90 LWOP sentences have come into

effect. Figure 1 below shows the number of sentences by year:

Fig. 1. Life without possibility of parole, sentences handed by year.

Source: National Statistical Institute19

These 90 sentences should be increased by the 21 “death by firing squad” sentences,

which in early 1999 were commuted to LWOP. The sentences handed in 2009, for

which the National Statistical Institute has not yet published data, should also be

added. However, data provided by the Chief Directorate of Execution of Sentences and

later confirmed during the BHC researchers’ visits to all prisons, indicate that by

August 1, 2009 there were a total of 58 prisoners serving life without the possibility of

parole. Their distribution by prison is as follows:

19 Data taken from the annual publications of the National Statistical Institute: Crimes and Convicted Individuals, table

12 “Convicted individuals sentenced under the Penal Code chapters and articles and the penalties imposed”. Data

provided by the administration of the Lovech prison, which the BHC visited in 2009, indicate that two LWOP

sentences have been handed on a single inmate in different years, i.e. the number of the sentences handed is greater by one

than the number of prisoners serving them.


13

Fig. 2. Number of prisoners serving LWOP sentences, by prison, as at August 1, 2009.

Source: Chief Directorate of Execution of Sentences

At this stage the BHC has no satisfactory explanation why the number of prisoners in

prison is considerably smaller than the number of sentences handed (58 compared to

111 sentences handed on 110 persons, as per the data quoted above). It should be

noted that this is the only category of prisoners that pardon has not been applied to,

and that there are no legal possibility whatsoever to commute these sentences. To

ascertain this fact, the BHC initiated two steps:

1. In a letter to the Vice-President of the Republic of Bulgaria from August 26,

2009, the BHC requested information on the number of prisoners sentenced to

LWOP who have been pardoned. The answer from the vice-president’s office

makes it clear that the documentation of the President through to January 21,

2002 has been submitted to the National Archive Fund. After this date, pardon

files had been created for 16 prisoners sentenced to life without the possibility

of parole, but pardon was denied to all of them. Upon a visit to the State

Archive Fund and a review of the Vice-President’s documentation, the BHC

established that no prisoners serving LWOP were pardoned prior to this date,

which means that pardon is only a theoretical possibility for them.

2. In a letter to the Prosecutor-General from January 6, 2010 the BHC requested

information whether the statute under art. 38, para 3 of the Penal Code –

commuting life imprisonment to imprisonment – is also applicable to those

serving LWOP, as well as information on the number of prisoners serving

LWOP for whom the prosecution has proposed commutation of their

sentences to life imprisonment, as provided under art. 449 of the Penal

Proceedings Code. The Prosecutor-General’s response included an analysis of


14 art. 38a, para 3 of the Penal Code, stating that: “The statute under art. 38, para

3 of the Penal Code is only applicable to life imprisonment under art. 38a”

(i.e., life with the possibility of parole). Therefore there are no prerequisites for

the submission of proposals under art. 449 to commute life without the

possibility of parole to a custodial sentence, and such proposals have not been

formulated“. The response makes it clear that the Prosecutor-General believes

that art. 449 of the Penal Proceedings Code is not applicable to prisoners

serving LWOP.

We can make several assumptions why there is such a large discrepancy between the

number of sentences handed and the actual number of prisoners serving sentences:

1. The number of prisoners serving LWOP in prisons is greater. This assumption

turned out to be untrue. In the second half of 2009, the BHC visited all

prisons and collected information on the number of prisoners in this category.

The information confirmed that the number of LWOP prisoners serving their

sentences - 58, as provided by the Chief Directorate of Execution of Sentences,

was correct.

2. The annual data of the National Statistical Institute about the number of

prisoners sentenced to LWOP is higher and probably either some of the life

imprisonment sentences were wrongly entered as LWOP (instead of life

sentences) or some of the sentences included were at first or second instance, in

other words, not final. To verify these assumptions, the BHC contacted the

National Statistical Institute. In an interview with a senior expert at the

Healthcare and Justice Statistics Department, the BHC learned that the most

severe punishment in the country is subject to special attention during the

processing and the publication of the data. When courts submit information

on the handing of such sentences, NSI staff contact these courts for

confirmation that the sentences reported are really LWOP and that they are

final.20

3. If the first two assumptions are correct, then it would be logical to assume that

the missing prisoners sentenced to LWOP have died. To verify this, the BHC

asked the Chief Directorate of Execution of Sentences to provide information

about the total number of the deceased serving such a sentence. The response

from February 9, 2010 makes it clear that the number of the deceased is not

52 – which is what it should have been had the first two assumptions been

correct – but 11. That the number of the deceased prisoners in this category is

not great is also evident from the Chief Directorate of Execution of Sentences’

reference quoted above, according to which by August 1, 2009 the number of

20 Interview with Ms. Ani Bachvarova, senior expert at the Healthcare and Justice Statistics Department, National

Statistical Institute, February 26, 2010.


15 prisoners sentenced to LWOP who had earlier been sentenced to death (and

had their death sentences commuted), was 19. This means that over the more

than 10 years that had passed since their death sentences were commuted in

1999, only two prisoners of a total of 19 had passed away.

4. It could be assumed that some of the prisoners serving LWOP have developed

a mental illness, have been deemed incapacitated and have been released on

such grounds. The BHC checked with the Judiciary Ward at the State

Psychiatric Hospital in Lovech and with the Specialized Hospital for Mental

Disorders at the Lovech prison. Their response was that no prisoners in this

category have had their sentence terminated after being diagnosed.21

21 Interview with Dr. Neshkov, head of the Specialized Hospital for Mental Disorders at the Lovech prison, February 26,

2010.


16 VI. LEGAL STATUS OF PRISONERS SERVING LWOP

Chapter 15 “Execution of life imprisonment and life without the possibility of parole”,

art. 187, para 2 of ESGDA stipulates: “Insofar as not provided otherwise under this

chapter, the execution of life imprisonment and life without the possibility of parole

shall be subject to the general provisions”. Apart from the conditions on regime

replacement and those on placement in common premises, the chapter doesn't impose

any other restrictions of the fundamental rights of prisoners sentenced to LWOP, i.e.

they should enjoy the same rights as the other prisoners.

According to art. 197 of ESGDA, life imprisonment and life without the possibility of

parole are enforced in separate prisons or in separate wards in other prisons. Art. 71,

para 2 of ESGDA specifies: “Prisoners under a special regime shall be accommodated

in permanently locked premises under closer supervision and guard”. Art. 213 of the

Regulations on the Application of ESGDA add: “They may participate in collective

activities only with prisoners of the same category”. The high security prison areas for

life sentenced or LWOP prisoners are not the same in all prisons. In some prisons,

these areas also host the penal cells, as well as the long-term isolation cells for accused

and defendants under closer supervision and guard. In other prisons, the cells for life

sentenced or LWOP prisoners are in separate hallways, thus reducing regime

restrictions concerning lavatory access, outdoor stay and other out-of-cell activities.

Data provided by the Chief Directorate of Execution of Sentences reveal that out of a

total of 58 prisoners serving LWOP, the regime of 18, or approximately one-third,

was changed from “special” (maximum security) to “secure”. As per art. 198, para 1 of

ESGDA, the initial (maximum security) special regime may be replaced with a lighter

one if the prisoner demonstrates good conduct and has served no less than 5 years of

the sentence.

“Pure special regime”, a term that does not exist in penitentiary norms, but is used by

the administration, is applied only for two LWOP prisoners in the Sofia prison and

one in the Burgas prison, for security reasons. This means that they are handcuffed

every time they are taken out of their cells and taken elsewhere, including to the

medical office, for a visit, to the library, etc. They spend the whole out-of-door stay

handcuffed. For the prisoner at the Burgas prison, this is due to “exhausted means”, i.e.

all attempts to positively influence him have failed.

The change of regime does not mean that the prisoners sentenced to LWOP can

automatically be moved to common premises under a lighter regime. The most

important thing that is done prior to making a decision on integration in the general

population is risk assessment. It is based on a series of behavioral and psychological

factors. Should the assessment team come up with a positive opinion, the life sentenced

prisoner may be moved to share a cell with other inmates. This is the only legal


17 possibility for these prisoners to be taken out of the high security area. The prison in

Pleven is an example of this practice. There, three inmates were accommodated in

common premises and this did not create any tension or conflict in the groups. It was

therefore deemed that this practice could be expanded to other prisons. At a later stage,

a total of 7 prisoners were moved to common premises at the prisons in Varna, Burgas

and Sofia. As for the remaining 11 prisoners serving life sentences, for some of them

the administration is not convinced that they would be able to share premises with

other inmates without a problem; others wouldn't move to common premises, even

though the administration has approved the move, as the living conditions in the

individual cells are better than those in cells occupied by 10 to 14 inmates. With the

exception of the four prisons mentioned above, in all other prisons during the second

half of 2009 the administration was either getting individual prisoners ready for

gradual integration (Plovdiv, Belene) or thought that there are no inmates who meet

the conditions and deserve to be taken out of the high security area.

While trying to provide LWOP prisoners the necessary diversity of living conditions,

the managements of some prisons have proposed to the Chief Directorate of Execution

of Sentences to initiate a rotation of this category of prisoners, i.e. to have them sent to

other prisons for certain periods of time. However, so far the arguments that relocating

prisoners would reduce the tension in the high security areas have not been deemed

substantiated.

The average prison stay of prisoners sentenced to LWOP does not exceed that of other

inmates with long-term sentences. According to data provided by the Chief Directorate

of Execution of Sentences, by August 1, 2009 there were no LWOP prisoners who

have served more than 25 years of their sentence. Four have spent more than 20 years

in prison (those who were sentenced to death prior to 1989 and whose death sentences

were commuted). By the same date, approximately ¼ of all 58 prisoners sentenced to

LWOP have served between 15 and 20 years in prison. The data gives the impression

that a significant share of the prisoners sentenced to LWOP are already of old age.

However, the data indicate that only three convicts are over 60. Most of the prisoners

in this category are aged 35 to 50. In several cases the crime was committed shortly

after the perpetrator had turned 20, the age under which a life sentence may not be

imposed under the Penal Code. These prisoners are currently in their thirties.

Although the Penal Code lists scores of crimes for which a LWOP sentence may be

handed, there are only several crimes for which the courts have actually handed such

sentences. Most often, the prisoners serving LWOP have been found guilty of more

than one premeditated murder committed with particular cruelty and in a painful

manner. In several cases the victims were children or elderly people. In most cases the

murders were preceded by robbery or rape, and were followed by horrifying attempts

to cover up the evidence of the crime.


18 VII. SOCIAL PROFILE OF LWOP PRISONERS

The handing of the most severe sentence in the country is not conditional on the

existence of a prior conviction. For half of the prisoners sentenced to LWOP the crime

for which they were sentenced was a first conviction. However, it was most often

committed with inhuman cruelty and in an especially painful for the victim manner. In

this respect, the most typical situation was at the Sofia prison, where approximately

90% of the LWOP prisoners were not multiple offenders. The situation was similar at

the Bobovdol prison, where 75% of the prisoners were not multiple offenders. At the

prisons in Varna, Vratsa, Burgas, Lovech, Stara Zagora and Pleven, the ratio between

first-time offenders and multiple offenders was generally 50:50. In two prisons, in

Plovdiv and Pazardzhik, all prisoners in this category were multiple offenders.

The study of the ethnic profile of prisoners sentenced to LWOP showed that the

relative share of the Bulgarians among them is around 65%. Minorities are

overrepresented in this category of prisoners, too, although not to such an extent as

among the other prisoners. The prisons in Sofia, Bobovdol, Plovdiv and Vratsa, where

all prisoners serving LWOP are of Bulgarian origin, are indicative in this respect.

Approximately 2/3 of the prisoners at the prisons in Burgas, Lovech, Belene, Stara

Zagora and Pleven are of Bulgarian origin. The relative share of the Bulgarians was low

only at the Varna and Pazardzhik prisons, 20% and 33%, respectively.

The study of the educational status of LWOP prisoners revealed a pattern that is not

typical among other categories of inmates. The main conclusion with regard to the

literacy in this specific category is that as a whole they have obtained a higher degree of

education in comparison to other inmates. For example, the relative share of university

graduates among LWOP prisoners is 7%, while its share among the inmate community

as a whole does not exceed 1%. Forty-three percent of those sentenced to LWOP have

completed secondary education, significantly more than among other categories.

Thirty-three percent have completed 8th grade, and only 14% have completed 4th grade

or are illiterate. During the first five years of their sentence, LWOP prisoners are not

allowed to go to school as they have no right to attend collective events. They can

study on individual curricula only, in line with art. 162, para 4 of ESGDA. Prisoners

sentenced to LWOP are yet to make use of this opportunity to continue their

education at the Lovech prison. Should they desire to attend school, the prisoners must

wait for their regime to be changed from maximum security to a lighter regime, as per

art. 198, para 2 of ESGDA. The same holds true for their participation in educational,

vocational and training courses. In response to a BHC query about the number of

prisoners sentenced to LWOP who are continuing their education at prison schools,

the Chief Directorate of Execution of Sentences stated that there are no students

among this category of prisoners.


19 The marital status of prisoners sentenced to LWOP does not differ substantially from

that of other inmates. Only 21% of the life sentenced prisoners are married, while

62% are single. The rest are either divorced or widowed, or have cohabited without

marriage. The ESGDA does not restrict the prisoners' right to marry. According to art.

89 of ESGDA, they are eligible to marry. In 2009 the Chief Directorate of Execution

of Sentences gave a prisoner serving a LWOP sentence at the prison in Pleven

permission to marry.


20 VIII. LIVING CONDITIONS

The ESGDA does not require that prisoners sentenced to LWOP are placed in single

cells. Data provided by the Chief Directorate of Execution of Sentences makes it clear

that 11 prisoners accommodated in single cells do not wish to be moved, although

their regime has been relaxed and they are eligible for accommodation under other

regime conditions. Two of them have refused to be moved to common premises

outside the high security area, while the remaining nine were not willing to live together

with other life sentenced prisoners. At the time of the BHC visits, all prisoners

sentenced to LWOP at the prisons in Belene, Plovdiv, Pazardzhik and Bobovdol were

placed in single cells. At the prisons in Sofia, Stara Zagora, Vratsa and Pleven, there

were two prisoners who shared a cell while the rest were in single cells. Since it is not

required that LWOP prisoners are separated from life sentenced prisoners, it is

possible that a life sentenced prisoner is placed in the same cell with a LWOP prisoner.

Neither the inmates nor the prison administrations reported any problems arising from

the accommodation of prisoners under such arrangements. In fact, they expressed

satisfaction with the opportunity to choose cell and accommodation depending on the

compatibility of prisoners' personalities. At the prison in Burgas, probably due to the

large number of prisoners sentenced to LWOP, three cells were occupied by two

inmates each, while at the prison in Varna there was one cell occupied by four inmates,

two of them sentenced to LWOP. In Lovech, one cell was occupied by two prisoners,

one by three and two cells with single occupants.

The surface area of the single cells for LWOP prisoners varies from 6-6.5 m2 (Varna,

Burgas) to 10-12 m2 (Sofia, Belene). In some prisons, however, both larger and smaller

cells are used. Such is the case in Belene, where the surface area of one cell is 3.8 m2; it

had been occupied by a high-risk inmate for seven years. The average surface area

available to an inmate placed in the high security area is greater than the respective

surface area of the common cells in other prison wards. With the exception of the

prisons in Vratsa (overhauled at the end of 2009, including new wiring, new floorings,

plastering, lavatories, showers, etc.), Bobovdol, Pazardzhik and Plovdiv, the cells in the

high security area are very much depreciated, the floors and the walls are dirty and the

furniture is hopelessly obsolete. Some cells are equipped with double bunks, the so-

called “second watchtower”, although the upper bed is rarely used. There are small

tables in all cells, but chairs are not always available (Burgas, Pleven), which hinders

normal eating in the cell (only the prison in Varna has a canteen in the high security

area, but it is not used for its intended purpose). The furniture is supplemented by

drawers and hangers, rarely by shelves. The furniture used by LWOP prisoners (beds,

tables, chairs, drawers, etc.) is fixed to cell floors and walls.

The sanitary and hygienic conditions in the high security areas are not different than

those in other prison wards. The only exception was the high security area at the prison


21 in Varna, which the BHC found to be the most neglected. A strong smell of urine

permeated the hallway. The food cupboard in the hallway was covered by grease

accumulated for years. The floor plastering in some cells was broken and the walls were

dirty and chipped. After a recent fight between inmates, prisoners were ordered to eat

in their cells. Inmates claim that this has allowed cockroaches to breed. The same holds

true for rats; both security staff and inmates were unanimous that rats get out of their

holes and walk down the hallways even in broad daylight. The holes can be easily seen

in the lower portions of the doors and in the hallway walls. According to security staff,

trying to have them poisoned is unthinkable for security reasons. The medical staff at

the prison medical facility, who under art. 150, para 1, item 1 of ESGDA are

responsible the hygiene and the cleanliness, are obviously incapable of controlling the

hygiene and destroying the cockroaches and the rodents. According to prison staff, no

funds were available in 2009 and no contract was signed with an exterminator.

The natural light in the cells is most often insufficient. When the artificial light is off,

twilight reigns in the cells. The windows of these cells are typically 1 meter long and

60-80 centimeters wide. In most prisons the windows are located two meters above the

floor. Combined with the fact that cell furniture is permanently fixed, this doesn't

allow the inmates to look outside.22

The windows of the cells in the high security area have new PVC frames in five prisons

(Burgas, Lovech, Vratsa, Bobovdol and Plovdiv). The artificial lighting is different,

varying from a standard bulb hanging on a cable to three bulbs in a large cell for three

inmates (Varna), luminescent lighting (Belene) or two new 25W lamps fixed to the

ceiling (Vratsa). With several notable exceptions (Varna), in all prisons the artificial

lighting remains on day and night – the so-called “24-hour watch light” – which

prison staff claim is due to security reasons, i.e. the inside of the cell must be visible at

all times through the spy hole in the door. This has caused discontent among some

inmates, who claim it makes it hard for them to fall asleep, especially when the lighting

is luminescent. In Vratsa, the only prison that was overhauled in 2009, the light

switches are in the hallway. Although the watch lights in the cells are never switched

off, the electricity is switched off at 10.30 p.m. and is switched on again at 6.30 a.m. In

individual cases, electricity is available for a longer period, especially during football

championships or as a reward during some weekdays. The TV channels are rarely

selected (Stara Zagora) and inmates have access to all channels offered by the cable

operator.

There is no ventilation equipment in high security prison areas. The ventilation is

natural only, i.e. by means of opening the windows which in the winter results in a

22 Rule 18.2 of the Revised European Prison Rules stipulates: “In all buildings where prisoners are required to live, work

or congregate:

a. the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and

shall allow the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning system”.


22 significant decrease of cell temperature. In most prisons the central heating is switched

on only for an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon, even during the

coldest days. All high security areas lack normal washing and drying facilities. Washing

clothes and underwear is even more difficult when there is no tap water in the cells and

access to a lavatory is restricted to several minutes. Clothes are dried on lines in the

cells as LWOP prisoners have no access to external or internal common drying

facilities.

LWOP prisoners take their food not in a canteen but in their cells. For this purpose,

everyone has plates and a spoon in the cell, washing them when he is allowed access to

the lavatory when there is no tap water in the cell. In most LWOP prisoner cells visited

by the BHC, improvised shelves and cupboards were used to store food received as a

postal package; those who were able to get food with the necessary quality and quantity

reported that they did not eat the food provided by the prison.

Sanitary facilities in the cells are of special importance to prisoners sentenced to

LWOP, as unlike other prisoners they are kept in permanently locked cells. Currently,

sanitary facilities in the cells of LWOP prisoners are available at the prisons in Sofia,

Bobovdol, Pleven, Lovech, Vratsa, Belene and in two cells at the prison in Burgas. The

remaining cells in Burgas, as well as those in Plovdiv, Stara Zagora, Varna and

Pazardzhik have no sanitary facilities. The high security areas in the Lovech and Burgas

prisons are the only ones where the toilets are a separate room accessed by a door. In

Lovech they are in the cell itself (taking up surface area, but cell size is sufficient for

this). In the high security area in Burgas, three adjacent cells were converted in two,

each with its own sanitary facility. For this purpose, the middle cell was split in two,

then each half was added to a cell as a sanitary facility. However, prison capacity

doesn’t allow for such reconstruction. The sanitary facilities in the other prisons are

located in an internal corner of the cell, behind a meter-high wall (a curtain in Sofia).

In some places, the prisoners use makeshift screens, usually made of bed linen. In most

cases, the sanitary facility comprises a toilet seat with a built-in flush tank. In Burgas,

despite the luxurious look of the toilet seat, the tank is empty as it is not connected to

the water-supply system; water is brought from the common sanitary facility. The

toilets in the high security area in Sofia are of the squat type, with showers installed

above them. In some prisons with cell toilets, there is also a small sink with cold tap

water; in Lovech, there is also hot water. In high security areas without toilets in the

cells the access to a sanitary facility is for 30 minutes in the morning, at lunchtime and

in the evening. This time needs to be used, apart from personal hygiene, for cleaning

the buckets and washing the dishes kept in the cells. Queues occur often, as the cells are

unlocked in groups of several and sanitary facility capacity doesn’t allow for use by a

large number of prisoners. For example, the sanitary facility in the high security area in

Burgas has two toilets, while in Varna apart from the two toilets there is also an urinal

– a cement channel in the floor using with a gravity drain (without running water)


23 through one of the holes. In the best case, there are three taps (usually a part of a built-

in common sink). Should the prisoners need access to a sanitary facility outside the

scheduled hours, they need to notify the security personnel. Most prisons have no

alarm system.23 So the inmates are forced to bang on the doors or to shout to have

their cells opened. This often causes dissent and conflict with security personnel. To

avoid this, inmates are often forced to meet their physiological needs by using buckets

and bottles; in case they are not alone in a cell, they have to do this in front of their

inmates. This practice has given prisoners grounds to file lawsuits with Bulgarian

courts. In the end, one of them has managed to prove that the practice constitutes

inhuman and degrading treatment on behalf of the state against the applicant. Below is

an excerpt from court decisions on a lawsuit filed by a LWOP prisoner who managed

to get a convicting verdict against the Ministry of Justice on two occasions:

Excerpts from Decision No. 456/2006 of the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeals:

“On September 8, 1999 N. D. D. was transferred to the Lovech prison, where

he stayed for different periods of time in cells No. 18, 19 and 22 at the 11th

ward. The judicial technical assessment, accepted and heard by the appellate

court, provides a conclusion on cell parameters - 13.12 m2, 12.80 m2 and 12.68

m2, respectively. It also provides the uncovered cell space - 6.29 m2, 5.90 m2 and

5.78 m2, respectively. The assessment indicates that in each of these cells there is

a plastic bucket for physiological needs, as the cells have no sanitary facilities.

The inmates in five cells used a common sanitary facility under a schedule

defined by the prison administration. Prisoners are allowed 1 hour of outdoor

stay a day. Apart from that, they are taken out of their cells during different

times (15 minutes in the morning for personal hygiene, 10 minutes before lunch

and 10 minutes before dinner), to a total of 45 minutes per day. The assessment

has also established that the prisoners occupying the above mentioned cells get

their meals in the cell.

The living conditions described above, under which the plaintiff was placed at

the prison in Lovech, are inconsistent with those prescribed by the legislation of

the Republic of Bulgaria regulating the execution of penal sanctions in prison –

art. 2, art. 9, art. 23 and art. 34 of the Execution of Penal Sanctions Act (EPSA).

The provisions of art. 167 of the Regulation on the Enforcement of EPSA on

closer supervision and security for persons serving „life imprisonment“ are not

grounds to restrict their normal human rights and to degrade their dignity…The

appellate court holds that the defendant should be held responsible for the fact

that due to the inaction of prison administration officials the plaintiff has not

23 Rule 18.2 of the Revised European Prison Rules stipulates: ”In all buildings where prisoners are required to live, work

or congregate:

c. there shall be an alarm system that enables prisoners to contact the staff without delay“.


24 been provided material living conditions consistent with the minimum

requirements under which the punishment may not be allowed to become a

means of inflicting degradation and torture. As a consequence from the fact that

during his stay at the Lovech prison the plaintiff was placed under conditions

that are inconsistent with the minimum requirements (insufficient area, extremely

small space for movement in the cell, lack of sanitary facilities and therefore use

of a plastic bucket for physiological needs in the cell where the prisoners take

their meals), he has suffered negative experiences arising from the inconveniences

caused by the conditions and the degradation of his human dignity...”

Excerpt from decision No. 204 / 2007 of the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeals:

“That plaintiff claims that he has been inhabiting cells without sanitary facilities

and tap water. These were replaced by a plastic bucket and 1.5 liter bottle for

physiological needs. He claims that the conditions in the cells didn’t meet the

generally accepted idea of hygiene and decency and the minimum standards

under the European Prison Rules. The claim also states that the illegal inaction

on behalf of the defendant, who hasn’t exercised sufficient control on the

activities of the Execution of Penal Sanctions Directorate-General with regard to

ensuring normal human living conditions during the plaintiff’s stay at the prisons

in Plovdiv and Lovech, has led to intensive and irreparable degrading of his

dignity in front of the other inmates, in whose presence he was forced to relieve

himself in a plastic bucket which didn’t close well and emitted irreparable smell

day and night.

The appellate court accepts the following factual circumstances:

The plaintiff has stayed in cells lacking sanitary facilities and tap water. The

testimony before the court of first instance of the witnesses I. A. and P. R., who

shared a cell with the plaintiff, helped establish the following: outside the

scheduled hours, the inmates have used a plastic bucket located about a meter

away from the table where they had their meals, and close to the beds. It was not

separated from the furniture by a screen. They had to use it often, which was

unpleasant for the plaintiff as a bad smell permeated the cell for hours. They had

to open a window but this was impossible during the winter, since it was

permanently closed. The witness P. R. has witnessed the plaintiff make

complaints in this respect, and the latter could hardly wait to go out for clean

air.”

In both lawsuits, the courts held that the Ministry of Justice pay the plaintiff a

compensation for non-pecuniary damages under art. 1, para 1 of the State and

Municipalities’ Liability for Damages Act.


25

All prisons comply with the requirement under art. 213 of the Regulation on the

Enforcement of EPSA that convicts sentenced to life imprisonment and LWOP be

kept in permanently locked premises. The only exception is the prison in Pleven, where

the high security area is structured as an investigation detention facility. The cells have

no windows. Light comes in through the hallway windows. The doors are replaced by

bars that remain open during the day. When BHC visited the prison, only the hallways

were locked. On the other hand, there were five cameras in the hallway for video

surveillance of both the hallway and the cells. The cameras were installed on the

hallway ceiling, between the cells, so every camera could monitor two cells at the same

time. Despite the freedom enjoyed by the occupants of the common hallway, however,

they expressed great discontent with this practice, as they believed that the sleeping

rooms and the sanitary facilities in the cells cannot be subject to permanent surveillance

and that this is a severe violation of their right to privacy.

Art. 167 of ESGDA stipulates that: “Access to penitentiary facilities shall be provided

to clergymen of the religious communities registered in the Republic of Bulgaria“. If

they are not accommodated in common premises, the prisoners sentenced to LWOP

cannot take part in religious services and rituals. At the same time, the law stipulates:

“The clergyman may meet the prisoners in private“, so if the inmates in this category

so desire, they could meet their religious needs. Each prison has a functioning chapel

and full-time clergymen. The share of believers among LWOP prisoners is not great.

According to the prison administration, very few of them have expressed desire to meet

the orthodox priest. Evangelist churches are active in two prisons and meetings between

LWOP prisoners and clergymen from these denominations have been organized. In

another three prisons, prisoners sentenced to LWOP stated they were Muslim and

wanted to meet an imam. The prisoner H. A. H., serving LWOP, filed a request with

the warden and the minister of justice, claiming that he was practicing Islam and he

wanted pork meat and products thereof excluded from his food. When this didn't

happen, he filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Justice. He lost the case at the district

court, lost again at the district court, but won at the Supreme Cassation Court, which

decided to have the plaintiff compensated for the inaction of the prison administration.

The results from the lawsuits related to a second complaint of this prisoner were

similar. He won another lawsuit, for a different period of time, at the cassation

instance, when he proved that he has suffered damages while practicing Islam because

pork meat and products made of it were not excluded from his meals.

Just like the other inmates, those sentenced to LWOP have the right to visits not less

than twice a month. They make use of this right considerably less than the other

inmates. The share of those who have visits is no more than 60%, including the

prisoners that have had only one visit over the past 2 or 3 years. No more than 30% of

the prisoners enjoy regular visits. This may be explained by the duration of their


26 sentences and the gradual breach of contacts with relatives, acquaintances and friends,

sometimes even due to the exceptional cruelty of the crime committed. The BHC

found extended visits at two prisons. Since the beginning of 2009, a total of seven

prisoners serving life imprisonment and LWOP at the prison in Sofia have been

allowed as a reward a 3-hour visit without bars between the prisoner and the visitor. A

similar incentive for the inmates is used at the prison in Bobovdol.

Prisoners sentenced to LWOP are not allowed to have unlimited correspondence

without an explicit decision of the court. When they were given the right to phone

conversation, the share of those among them who kept correspondence dropped

significantly. The study showed that their relative share does not exceed 35%, and that

a large share of the correspondence is not with relatives and kin but with different

institutions – requests and complaints with regard to the sentence or the legal status of

the plaintiffs.

The hallways in the high security area, as well as the other prison hallways, are

equipped with telephones which may be used by the prisoners sentenced to LWOP

under a schedule approved in advance. In May, 2002 the Supreme Administrative

Court reviewed a case filed by convicts sentenced to life imprisonment and LWOP

against a provision in the Regulation on the Enforcement of EPSA which stipulates

that „convicts sentenced to life imprisonment shall not be allowed to use a coin-

operated telephone“. The court held that the Regulation on the Enforcement of EPSA

contradicts the Execution of Penal Sanctions Act and that the right to use a telephone

to establish contact with other persons is granted by law and may not be revoked,

restricted or prohibited by a lower normative act, such as a regulation. Phone calls are

only possible if the prisoners have money for prepaid cards. The price for the phone

calls from the telephones installed in prison hallways (not only for LWOP prisoners)

is several times higher than the price for phone calls outside the prison (BGN 1 on the

average, compared to BGN 0.20 outside of prison). This not only has a negative

influence on inmates' contacts with kin, relatives and lawyers but also forces them to

look for alternatives, such as bringing and selling mobile phones behind prison walls (a

practice the prison administration admits cannot be stopped). At the same time, there

is always the risk that the mobile phone may be found by the administration and its

owner severely punished.

Unlike the other inmates, LWOP prisoners remain permanently locked in their cells

23 hours a day. Therefore, they badly need the 1-hour outdoor stay. The management

of most prisons has realized this and, whenever possible, has increased the outdoor

stay. In the Pleven and Lovech prisons, following the 1-hour outdoor stay the prisoners

who so wish may have another hour for sports activities. At the Vratsa prison, the

prisoners are allowed one hour in the fitness room and their outdoor stay increases as

the day grows, reaching a maximum of an hour and twenty minutes. However, not all


27 prisoners use the additional time for sports activities. The outdoor stay has also been

increased in Pazardzhik (by 40 minutes), Plovdiv (by 30 minutes) and Stara Zagora

(by 20 minutes). A new outdoor courtyard was built in 2009 in Burgas. All prisoners,

including those sentenced to LWOP, will have the right to two hours of outdoor stay,

subject to hiring and providing sufficient security personnel. At the Sofia prison, the

outdoor stay has been increased to an hour and a half, but prisoners residing in the

high security area have the right to an additional hour and a half to visit the club

located in the same hallway. Thus, the time spent by prisoners in their cells has been

reduced to 21 hours per day. In the Varna prison, a tennis table has been installed in

the hallway of the high security area; it may be used for half an hour twice a week.

During the remaining days, religious talks are organized at the high security area's

canteen. Once a week, the occupants of the high security area at the prison in Burgas

have access to the library. Also once a week, they are allowed access to the chapel.

In most prisons the open-air courtyards for the prisoners from the high security area

are different than those for the other inmates. Their surface area is significantly smaller

and in some prisons (Plovdiv, Belene) does not allow for normal intensive movement.

Following the escape of a prisoner sentenced to LWOP, the outdoor stay at the Varna

prison was relocated from the common courtyard to a small courtyard with an

additional net on top of it, which the inmates called “the Cuban square”. They

regarded the use of this courtyard as a collective punishment for the escape of the

prisoner residing in the high security area.


28 IX. EMPLOYMENT

In response to a BHC query on the number of prisoners sentenced to LWOP,

including the number of those employed, the Chief Directorate of Execution of

Sentences provided a table dated August 27, 2009. According to the table, a total of

seven prisoners were employed as of August 1, 2009 and were working in their cells,

while one was working outside his cell. The employment, which depends greatly on

external company orders, went down in the second half of 2009. When an order was

withdrawn, five prisoners who were folding envelopes for the prison printing office in

Sofia, had to cease work. The prison administration finds it difficult to provide

employment even for inmates accommodated in boarding houses who are allowed to

work outside of prison. It is even more difficult to find work for those sentenced to life

imprisonment and LWOP, given that they must work in their cells. No employment

has been provided to the prisoners at four prisons (Varna, Stara Zagora, Pazardzhik

and Lovech). Despite the difficulties, the other prisons have managed to find work for

one or more prisoners, for different periods of time: packaging of surgical gloves in

Plovdiv; folding of gift envelopes in Sofia, Belene, Pleven and Bobovdol; making

archive boxes in Varna. Two prisoners sentenced to LWOP and one prisoner

accommodated in a common cell outside the high security area continued to work at

the Burgas prison during the second half of 2009, assembling brushes and felt-tip pens.

One of the prisoners at the prison in Pleven had also kept his job, folding envelopes. A

prisoner in the high security area at the Sofia prison is periodically asked to write

scripts for celebrations organized in the prison.

X. RE-SOCIALIZATION ACTIVITIES

The National Standards on the Treatment of Life-Sentenced Prisoners24, adopted on

February 2, 2007, contain the following requirement: “The treatment regime for life-

sentenced prisoners shall include: wherever possible, appropriate work, training,

development of social habits, education, programs aimed at maintaining the physical

and mental health, medical services and other activities“. The provision of art. 87 of

ESGDA is also in force with regard to prisoners sentenced to LWOP: “The prisoners

may receive and read newspapers, magazines and books and study foreign languages.

They may listen to radio and watch television in compliance with procedures approved

by the warden of the respective penitentiary institution”. Most LWOP prisoners had

their own TV sets, some had radios. The only exception were two inmates in Sofia and

Belene, who according to the administration refused to have TVs in their cells. Their

risk assessment is very high, which is why they are not offered any alternative, such as

visiting a club or any other activity inside or outside of their cells.

24 See Appendix 3.


29

Some of the prisoners sentenced to LWOP, who have been occupying the same cells

for years, try to make the interior of the cell as close to home as possible, with

improvised cupboards, newspapers, books, curtains, a place for dishes, etc. Due to a

lack of living space in most prisons, the clubs in the high security area have been

transformed into cells. The high security areas in Lovech, Bobovdol, Varna, Belene,

Pazardzhik, Plovdiv and Stara Zagora have no club premises. Clubs exist in Sofia

(equipped with a TV set, computers, a library, chess boards and daily newspapers) and

Pleven. Opportunities for meaningful activities were provided to only a few prisoners

sentenced to LWOP in several prisons. In Sofia, one of them had the opportunity to

paint while another one was allowed to write scripts for celebrations, which is regarded

as work. A prisoner in Lovech was also allowed to paint, while another one, in Varna,

made tapestries, which his mother sold and then send the money to him in prison. A

young prisoner in the high security area in Stara Zagora was allowed to complete a

computer course and he was expecting to join a yoga course as well.

Providing comprehensive services to prisoners sentenced to LWOP is extremely

difficult given the fact that the sentence does not give them hope of returning to free

life. Nevertheless, in several prisons the BHC established serious attempts on behalf of

the teams working with such prisoners to provide the necessary psychological support

and to give a sense of perspective, to encourage self-assistance, social contacts and

involvement in various activities, to neutralize negative depressive and psychosomatic

symptoms. 25 However, the BHC found that most prisons did not meet the

requirements of the standards: development of a sentence management plan; collective

summary and analysis of the information on every individual case; elaboration of a

report in line with the risk assessment and methodological guidance for specific

actions. This holds true in an even greater extent for another obligation of the

administration – “…to provide access to cultural, information and sports activities for

prisoners with life sentences”. Several prisoners sentenced to LWOP complained about

this, reporting during the BHC visits that no individual work is being done and that no

cultural, informational or sports events are organized for them.

25 National Standards on the Treatment of Life-Sentenced Prisoners, adopted by the director-general of the Chief

Directorate of Execution of Sentences on February 2, 2007.


30 XI. DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE

Although the prisoners in the high security area are subject to the greatest restrictions,

the system of penalties and incentives for behavioral control of prisoners sentenced to

LWOP is not so well developed as in the common wards. This may be explained by

the higher educational status of these prisoners, by the lack of conflict due to single cell

occupancy, by the better adaptation to regime requirements due to the much longer

stay in prison, and by the lack of turnover among the inmates. The new ESGDA

provides a definition of “violation” and lists the hypotheses, in which a violation exists.

Cases of penalties imposed on LWOP prisoners were reported in the prisons in Burgas,

Pazardzhik, Belene and Varna. At the Stara Zagora prison, a prisoner whose regime

was changed from the initial “special” (maximum security) to “high security

confinement” was returned on a “special” regime again in 2009 after writing

complaints against the prison. If the prisoner has not made defamatory statements and

has not falsely accused staff as per art. 100, para 2, item 7 of ESGDA, he should not

be subject to disciplinary liability for the requests and complaints filed, as stipulated by

art. 90, para 5 of ESGDA. Rewards were given much more often than penalties at the

prisons in Sofia, Lovech, Burgas, Belene, Vratsa, Pleven and Stara Zagora. The

variation in the incentives given to prisoners sentenced to LWOP is not as wide as that

of the incentives available to the other inmates. The rewards are limited to a written

commendation, extended visiting hours and an extraordinary food package.

The better educational status of the occupants of the high security areas allows them to

better justify the requests and complaints they file. Some complaints are with regard to

conflict behaviour of other inmates in the high security area, others are related to

physical, sanitary or hygienic conditions, food quality and medical services. In several

cases the prisoners sentenced to LWOP claim that they were victims of unfair trial, but

there are also such who claim that in essence the LWOP sentence constitutes torture

and inhuman treatment.

ХII. MEDICAL SERVICES

The medical services to prisoners sentenced to LWOP do not pose problems different

than those faced by the other inmates. Their health status is affected by the isolation

and the lack of mobility but, on the other hand, this reduces the risk of infectious

diseases that are much more common among prisoners in common wards. The access

to medical facilities for LWOP prisoners is not different than the access for the other

inmates. As prison medical offices are incapable of checking all prisoners who report

sick in a day, each ward has access to the medical personnel on two working days.

Should they need a medical check, the inmates from the high security area have their

names written in a notebook provided by security staff. When there is no urgency, the


31 prisoners whose names are in the notebook are taken out of the high security area and

taken to the medical facility during the days allocated for the high security area. During

a BHC visit to the prison in Varna, a LWOP prisoner reported that he was in need of

treatment, but the medical center did not provide the medicines he needed. Medical

staff asked him whether he could afford to buy a certain medicine and have it delivered

by relatives. The practice in cases when this was impossible, was to start treatment only

if the medical center had the necessary medicines.

XIII. SUPERVISION ON THE EXECUTION OF LWOP

SENTENCES

Prisoners serving their sentences in the high security areas are not subject to special

supervision. The specifics of their punishment and the different treatment in

comparison to the other inmates requires also special monitoring of their rights.

Nevertheless, the institutions authorized to exercise supervision - inspectorate,

prosecution, ombudsman, monitoring committees - do not conduct topical inspections

of the high security areas. Also, the supervision of the execution of LWOP was not

included in the detailed National Standards on the Treatment of Life-Sentenced

Prisoners.

XIV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The reform of the Bulgarian penitentiary system began much later than the reform of

other areas of public life. The issues of the outdated penal policy, expressed also in the

existence of the “life without the possibility of parole” punishment in the Bulgarian

Penal Code, complement the material problems of the system arising from the public

unpopularity of the measures that need to be implemented. In essence, LWOP

constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment, which is inconsistent with the European

penal policy. In order to have this problem solved, the BHC is addressing the following

recommendations to the responsible state institutions:

1. To eliminate the punishment “life without the possibility of parole” from the

Penal Code.

2. To commute the LWOP sentences of all prisoners to other punishments.

3. To continue making steps towards accommodating and dislocating life-

sentenced prisoners not only on the basis of the sentence, but also on the basis of

the assessment of their needs and the updated risk assessment.


32 4. Based on the needs and the risk assessment, and considering the variety of

personal characteristics, to develop individual sentence management plans and

have them reviewed on a regular basis as well as in all cases when the needs or the

characteristics of the prisoners have changed.

5. To include in the sentence management plans optimum regime and re-

socialization activities, including human contacts, in order to compensate life in

isolation.

6. To improve the living conditions in the wards, in which life sentenced prisoners

serve their sentences.

7. To improve the visit conditions for life sentenced prisoners by providing better

opportunities for personal contacts, as well as opportunities for intimate visits.

8. To allow life sentenced prisoners access to various items that could help make

their everyday life more meaningful.

9. To comply with Recommendation Rec(2003)23 under which the individual

planning of life sentence management needs to ensure the achievement of

progressive change.

10. To have life imprisonment organized in such a way as to make it as close as

possible to the realities of living in the community.

11. Not to allow segregation of life sentenced prisoners on the basis of their sentence

only.

Documents

Life Without Parole: An Inhuman and Degrading Punishment