On correctional labor performance

At first glance, the performance of correctional labor can no longer arise any questions or ambiguities. However, this idea is actually profoundly wrong. It is already the norm stating that corrective work shall be served by convicts who have no primary place of employment in places defined by local authorities in consultation with correctional inspections (Art. 1, Art. 39 of the Criminal Executive Code of the Russian Federation) that raises questions relating to its implementation. The first question is what "places" is and how local authorities can "define" them if these places are not in their administrative chain of command. Second, the given norm refers to the fact that these "places" should be located "in the area of residence of the convicted person", while there is no legal definition of the "area" and no indication of how far its borders should be from the actual place of residence of the convicted person. Hence, with different interpretations of the provisions of the above norm, a situation arises in which the performance of corrective labor becomes problematic, and, in some cases, almost impossible. However, to resolve these issues, it is reasonable to assume that places for serving correctional labor are companies and organizations of any ownership with no special requirements for workers (such requirements exist, for example, when applying for a state or municipal service). It is obvious that no institutions or organizations dealing with servicing or stay of children (minors) shall be considered as places for serving correctional labor. According to the regulations of Pt. 1, Art. 39 of the Criminal Executive Code of the Russian Federation, local authorities do not need a company's consent to include it in the list of places for serving correctional labor, as the determining criterion in this case, in the absence of the above limitations, is its location within the administrative boundaries of the territory in the relevant municipality. Pt. 1, Art. 39 of the Criminal Executive Code of the Russian Federation states that a consent is only required from a branch of the correctional inspection servicing the territory. In addition, within the meaning of the above norm, in order to guarantee the performance of correctional labor in the municipality, the list of places for serving correctional labor should include all businesses and organizations located within the administrative boundaries of the municipality, regardless of the presence or absence of vacancies at the time of their inclusion in the corresponding list. In this case, the resolution of issues of employment of persons sentenced to correctional labor in these enterprises or organizations is within the powers of the correctional inspection. Considering the issues related to the residence of the convicted person, it is logical to argue that the area of residence of the convicted person, as a general rule, is a municipal or city district in which the convicted person resides. Secondly, given that one municipal district may include several rural ones (or other settlements) and each of them will draw up a list of companies and organizations suitable for serving correctional labor, it will artificially narrow the range of companies and organizations; moreover, the situation may arise when a particular rural settlement has no places suitable for serving correctional labor. Therefore, the punishment will not be executed, which casts doubt on the observance of the principles of territorial enforcement of criminal penalties, as well as on the rights and legitimate interests of the prisoners themselves. When determining the location for serving correctional labor, the correctional inspection should take into account the remoteness of the organization that receives the convicted person from the actual place of their residence and direct them to the nearest organization with a suitable vacancy.

Keywords

Authors

References