How to Eradicate Sovietism in Ukrainian Prisons
1. Proposed amendments to the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules
2. Proposed amendments to the Internal Prisons Rules
3. The draft of the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules prepared by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine
4. The draft of the Internal Prisons Rules prepared by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine
This publication is the first comprehensive attempt to familiarize general public with the problems of the Internal Rules of Ukrainian prisons. It contains suggestions of amendments to the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules, as well as the Internal Prisons Rules. The proposals are intended to implement international standards, such as recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The changes are based on international standards as well as other logical and legal arguments. The author points out the shortcomings of the two current Rules, which are considered as leftovers of the Soviet Union, and should therefore be changed in the light of modern approaches to prisoners’ rights.
The publication also contains draft amendments to the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules, as well as to Internal Prisons Rules developed by the Ministry of Justice as of August 2017.
The title of this work speaks for itself. Ukrainian prisons still live by the orders written in the days of the USSR. Today, these orders are made sustainable through many legal acts, but their quintessence is in the Internal Prison and Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules. These regulations are by-laws that have undergone several stages of review during the Ukraine independence. However, despite the large number of formal amendments and changes in terminology, they essentially preserve the basic philosophy and provisions of the Soviet internal prison regulations developed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR.
Every prison officer may confirm: these Rules are perceived as key documents that frame internal processes in prison. The Rules are sometimes referred to as the “Bible” of prisons, since their norms are perceived as sacred. At one time, a senior official responsible for the regime on the territory of all Ukraine indicated: “Every provision of the Rules is written by the blood of more than one generation of prison personnel and prisoners.” Therefore, in his opinion, maximum conservatism in the process of their revision is justified.
Such a vision is observed in every new generation of managers of the Ukrainian penitentiary system. New heads of the prison agency declared their readiness to reform the system in accordance with international standards. However, getting down to realities they became less enthusiastic. It either ended up with minor amendments to the Rules, as it was the case in 2013 and 2014, or everything was retained in its past forms.
My claims are based on own experience. I have repeatedly submitted to the new leaders of the penitentiary system concrete proposals for amendments to the Rules. These amendments were justified by references to specific international standards, including recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, some of which were continuously expressed to the Ukrainian authorities for more than a decade.
However, the government was not convinced. Everything followed a similar scenario: the officials received proposals for changes in the Rules, assigned them to the subordinated operational staff, former penitentiary employees, who, in turn, kept persuading the officials about the danger of international standards in Ukrainian conditions. As a result, the new officials ignored the proposals or, if they did take them into account, it concerned only a very small part of them. Moreover, during the last revision of the Rules, most of the provisions became even more repressive and introduced a number of new unreasonable restrictions. This motivated human rights activists to launch a public campaign.
These lines are written at the time when the Rules are once again being reviewed on the initiative of the new managers of the system. They have reassured that the progressive changes that had been offered to the previous managers will be finally taken into consideration now.
It is too early to speak about the probability of compliance with this promise. However, taking into account the previous experience, I decided that it would be better to compile the aforementioned suggestions in this publication. Let them serve as a benchmark for comparing the changes that have taken place, as well as those that still have to take place. The future senior officials and public who will take interest in changing the national penitentiary system will find this publication useful.
Historically, the penitentiary system has a monopoly on making changes to the Rules. Outsiders’ views are perceived with arrogance and suspicion. Understanding this, these amendments are not only proposed, but also justified. For this purpose, the international standards become true trumps and, therefore, the proposed amendments are full of justifications referring to them. However, not only from the point of view of international standards, but also from the point of view of common sense, the current Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules, as well as the Internal Prison Rules, concentrate sovietism, that is, leftovers of the Soviet past, whose philosophy was far from the values of human rights.
In my research on justification of restrictions imposed on prisoners’ rights, I found a number of deficiencies in the provisions of the Rules. The very idea of the mentioned research emerged as a result of the analysis of the Rules. Therefore, the present amendments can be considered as a continuation of the ideas formulated in the mentioned work. The reader is welcome to get acquainted with it for an in-depth analysis of the issue, which will be covered below.
In developing these changes, I proceed from the assumption that restriction of prisoners’ freedom of movement is a sufficient punishment in itself. Therefore, additional aggravation of their situation is unnecessary. The only exceptions are those limitations that are minimum necessary to achieve justified aims such as order and security. In this way, the difference between the living conditions behind bars and outside prisons can be reduced. The greater this difference is, the more difficult it is for the prisoner after his release to reintegrate into a free society. Therefore, minimizing restrictions is a prerequisite for preparing a person to lead a crime-free life once released.
In the long run, the Ukrainian penitentiary system should aim at reducing repression of the state in the enforcement of sentences. This can be confirmed by the full support of my initiative to exclude retribution from the goals of punishment in the Criminal Code of Ukraine. This support was demonstrated during the preparation of the draft “On the Penitentiary System of Ukraine”. So its high time for the Rules to break with the philosophy of retaliation and move toward the philosophy of human rights and reintegration.
How does sovietism manifest itself?
To begin with, lets consider some of the most obvious or even absurd examples:
- Frequency of taking a shower: once a week;
- Bald haircut, prohibition to have even a short beard or mustache;
- Prohibition of having pictures, drawings, records and even individual legal documents;
- Prohibition to have colored pencils and paints, watches, musical instruments, and utensils;
- Prohibition to have a refrigerator, which entails a ban on any perishable food (a birthday cake is no exception);
- Prohibition of flower pots, plants;
- Personnel refers to the prisoner as “prisoner N.” and the prisoner refers to the personnel with “citizen N.” followed by the relevant position or rank of the staff member. Formally one cannot refer to anybody by the first-name even in the case of mutual consent;
- Communication with a visitor in prison through a glass partition with a special device - telephone receiver. At the same time, there is an opportunity to have long-term visits, which envisage spending one or a few nights together with relatives in prison visiting premises;
- Possibility of video surveillance even in the toilet;
- Ban on sitting on a bed during the daytime;
- No rules requiring provision of shaving equipment, toothbrush and paste, shampoo;
- Strict limitation of food that can be passed on to prisoners. Prohibition of passing eggs, dairy and meat products, fruits, products requiring additional cooking (such as pasta or whole grains that need to be cooked), or even salt and pepper;
- Movement on the prison territory in line, hands behind back or handcuffed; systematic use of dogs;
- In disciplinary facilities, it is forbidden to own food, books, to have visits, telephone conversations, parcels, etc.
These are only obvious examples of provisions, unreasonableness of which is evident even to an outsider.
However, lets try to get to the point and bring out the main issues of concern that need to be reformed both in the Internal Rules of Pre-Trial Detention Centers, as well as in the Internal Rules of Prisons.
One of the main features of the Rules is a large number of prohibitions, often contrary to common sense. There is even a prohibition of colored pencils and paints, pics and drawings! The drafter of the Rules was so obsessed with the game “what else should be forbidden” that he even confused two types of legal regulation: he started with compiling a list of prohibited items (for example, Appendix 6), and then proceeded with a list of permitted items (Appendix 2). It turns out that he confused generally permitted type of legal regulation (everything that is not forbidden is allowed) and specially-permitted one (permitted is only that which is explicitly provided). From the point of view of the legal theory, the controversy of such mixing is obvious: what for do we need a list of permitted items, if there is a list of the forbidden ones, or else what for should we list the prohibited articles, if there is an exhaustive list of permitted ones?
The large number of such unjustified prohibitions leads to natural consequences: total non-compliance (e.g., prohibition of using obscene language and jargon), corruption (e.g., in connection with the prohibition of a wide range of foodstuffs), lack of legitimacy of prohibitions and, consequently, non-compliance (for example, a ban on sitting on beds). Another serious consequence is the selective application of the routine regulations. As pointed out by G.F. Khokhriakov: “The excessive number of rules and the high likelihood of violations associated with it puts prisoners in the position of naughty schoolchildren: there is always something to punish them for?”. As a result, each prisoner is in a state of permanent violation of the regime rules, meaning that everyone can be punished for something if there is a need. This exacerbates the crisis of relations between prisoners and prison administrations.
Another important consequence of a large number of prohibitions is the development of a subculture. In accordance with the so-called deprivation theory, the subculture is a response to restrictions. In this way the prisoners cope with various hardships of prison life (e.g., by forming a so-called “thieves’ pool” for “mutual assistance”). Consequently, minimizing restrictions can reduce the subculture.
Another consequence of unjustified restrictions is the complication of the reintegration of prisoners into society. The more restrictions exist in prison, the harder it is to integrate into society after them. For these reasons the doctrine of "normalization" has become popular in the world envisaging maximum approximation of living conditions in prison and at large (by the way, it is reflected in Article 102 of the Penitentiary Code of Ukraine). The normalization implies not only approximation of conditions, but also approximation of the rules of life in prison with those at large. I refer to this as "legal normalization", which involves minimizing the difference of prohibitions existing in prison and at large.
It is rather difficult to establish limits of such minimization. It is obviously impossible to abolish certain prison restrictions that do not exist at large (e.g., the prohibition to store and consume alcohol). Anyway, the restrictions should be correlated with the legitimate objectives with which they are applied. Moreover, the restrictions should not exceed what is necessary to achieve such objectives. If there is a less restrictive measure to achieve them, then it should be used. Whereas the prohibition of certain articles / substances is obviously meaningless, there are some prohibitions that cannot be assessed so easily and remain controversial. The proposals to abolish such restrictions should be carefully discussed. To launch such a discussion is one of the goals of this publication.
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture indicated to Ukraine that military discipline was inappropriate for prisons (paragraph 22 of the CPT Report on the visit in 2012). Instead, it recommended the introduction of dynamic security approaches based on the development of positive relations.
Contrary to the recommendations of the Committee, the Rules still require:
movement in the territory of the institution in the form of march in-line with hands behind the back;
ban on sitting on the bed at daytime;
stand up greeting of visitors (as a result, in some institutions they even practice "collective" greetings);
formal greeting and addressing prison personnel using their rank;
mandatory participation in the morning exercises, etc.
These examples can be supplemented with a number of the CPT recommendations concerning the inadmissibility of excessive use of handcuffs and dogs and other similar practices.
Obligatory bald haircut deserves particular attention. This obligation degrades human dignity. Maybe, in terms of hygiene, cutting short prisoners’ hair may be necessary, but this does not mean that it should be a bald haircut. To this end, it is suggested to allow prisoners to have hair up to 5 cm length, as well as a short beard and mustache. By the way, the prohibition of a short beard is considered by the European Court to be a violation of the Convention (Biržietis v. Lithuania, no. 49304/09, 14.06.2016).
Another typical feature is the tight schedule of the day without any flexibility. Among other things, it prescribes to get up at 6 a.m. In practice, in some establishments, sometimes getting up is required at 5 a.m. In the absence of a useful employment, such a getting up has no rational basis, except for the punishment.
In general, the military discipline is a ditch which separates the Ukrainian penitentiary from the implementation of normal relations between prisoners and personnel as well as the relevant international standards.
Way of life
The prison life is one of the most neglected spheres. The word "comfort" is perceived as not applicable to prisons. But in Ukrainian conditions, it is not even about "comfort", but about the basic living conditions.
For example, shower in Ukrainian pre-trial detention centers and prisons has to take place at least once a week. Often "at least once" is understood as "once". Although there are exceptions: in some prisons prisoners who work in prison can take shower daily.
Omitting the details of the physiological peculiarities and needs of people, one can nevertheless assert that having shower once a week is, to put it mildly, insufficient. The situation becomes even more complicated when it comes to shower for women or sick people.
The European Prison Rules set a minimum standard: taking shower has to take place at least twice a week, or more often, if necessary. This standard is complemented by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, which recommended Ukraine to ensure daily shower for certain categories of prisoners, such as sick persons.
I propose to introduce the possibility of showers for prisoners at least twice a week and for certain categories (women, sick, inmates who work in prison) on a daily basis. In addition, daily shower should also be allowed if the air temperature exceeds 30°C.
In general, the issue of the temperature level remains unresolved. The Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules contain no norms in this regard, and Prison Rules establish only the minimal temperature (18°C). Instead, the maximum limit is not established at all. In practice, there are cases where the temperature in prison reaches around 30°C, which leads to strokes and other diseases caused by overheating. Such a temperature regime is nothing more than torture in the conditions of having shower once a week, presence of cockroaches and rodents, as well as absence of ventilation.
Another basic aspect of hygiene in prison is the right to get shaving sets. Such an opportunity is currently not provided, and therefore prisoners have to seek ways to obtain these sets on their own.
There is a problem concerning the provision of the necessary furniture for the cells and other living premises. The prohibition of having refrigerators in the pre-trial detention centers, prohibition of having cooking instruments not only impedes the improvement of prison conditions at least at prisoners’ own expense, but also does not take into account international best practices in the sphere of reintegration. In many progressive penitentiary systems, the cooking is considered a way to prepare a person for reintegration. Therefore, the penitentiary administrations there have no interest in such restrictions; on the contrary, they enable cooking by providing foodstuffs and cooking instruments.
The equipment of living premises is also problematic from aesthetic point of view. Given the terrible state of a large number of dwellings in the Ukrainian prisons, decoration of the premises would have to be encouraged. Instead, it’s the other way around. For example, nobody knows why to ban flowers, ornamental plants, posters, etc.
Meeting with family and friends
Meeting visitors through a glass partition with the help of a receiver is another example of the legacy of the USSR. Such visits still take place in the presence of a "supervisor".
In the EU countries, it is a usual practice to organize short-term contact visits. They take place at the table without any obstacles, and therefore the physical contact between visitors and prisoners is possible. For example, a prisoner can hug, kiss his relatives or shake hands with them. In the course of communication, penitentiary staff members do not hang over their heads. If necessary, the control can be ensured with the help of video surveillance (without listening), or in the presence of a prison officer out of the hearing distance.
If there is a risk assessment that confirms that the prisoner is dangerous, such visits may be prohibited and then a meeting would be allowed through a glass partition. In this case, a prison officer may directly control the visit.
The conditions for conducting closed visits in Ukraine are all the more meaningless given that the Penitentiary Code of Ukraine provides for the possibility of long-term visits with the right to live together with virtually no control.
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has been for nearly 15 years now stressing the need to establish open visits in Ukraine as a rule and closed ones as an exception. The closed visits that are not justified by specific risks do not only contradict international standards, but also have a number of negative psychological consequences. For example, among them is the mental trauma of families visiting their imprisoned relatives, especially children who come to visit their parents.
It is proposed to provide for both options: open (contact) visits and closed (contactless) visits. At the same time, the procedural safeguards have to be introduced to prevent unjustified restrictions. This is about the presumption of open visits, risk assessment for their prohibition, adoption of a formal decision in the case of such a ban with the subsequent handing over of its copy to the person concerned. In addition, the effect of such a decision has to be limited in time, and its continuation would have to require additional motivation.
There is a separate issue, which it is suggested to settle more liberally. It concerns passing of certain items during a visit. Subject to compliance with some procedural safeguards in the form of verification by penitentiary personnel, passing of items not prohibited by law should not be limited. Of particular importance is the ability to pass over various documents.
Meanwhile, in the Ukrainian prisons it is considered a normal practice to search prisoners or their dwellings. The right to privacy is virtually not recognized. There is no wonder, because even legal scholars in the sphere of penitentiary law do not explore the issue of the right to privacy during searches in detention.
The searches are a significant interference with the right to privacy even in prison. This has long been recognized by the European Court and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Many international standards in this regard remain missing in the Ukrainian penitentiary legislation. The Rules broadly formulate the grounds for searches. These grounds can be characterized in a nutshell: "if necessary". More precisely, if the penitentiary staff finds it necessary.
Instead, a different degree of intrusiveness depending on different types of searches should include differentiation of grounds. The grounds for simple clothes inspection may be less burdensome. The grounds for strip searches should be more detailed and accompanied by procedural guarantees, especially, when it comes to searching of the body cavities. In view of this, the differentiated grounds for conducting searches should be clearly worded.
In any case, searches should be an exclusive measure, and if they are carried out, they should be reduced to an absolute minimum. Systematic searches of all and everybody during certain activities, such as before and after taking prisoners to work, shall not be permissible.
Strip searches should be conducted in a delicate way. Therefore, the relevant rules are proposed here. In addition, such searches have to be recorded by means of a motivated decision, the copy of which has to be handed over to the prisoner.
Additional guarantees should apply to searches of cells. For example, during such a search, a prisoner, whose dwelling is being searched, should be present. The use of dogs during such searches should be reduced to extreme cases.
The remaining problem is whether a cell or other living premise in a prison can be considered a "dwelling" as treated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. It needs to be further discussed by legal scholars and lawyers.
Video surveillance is a common though ignored interference with the right to privacy. Currently, video surveillance of prisoners is carried out on the basis of a subjective opinion. The place and conditions of its application is fully at the discretion of the prison administration.
It seems that nobody points out that currently video surveillance in the Ukrainian prisons is illegal. In accordance with Article 103 of the Penitentiary Code of Ukraine, the prison administration can use such supervision in order to prevent escape and other crimes, violations of the regime stipulated by law, obtain the necessary information about prisoners’ behavior. However, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the same article, the list of technical means of supervision and control and the procedure for their use shall be determined by a regulation of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. To date, such regulation has not been adopted despite the (unsuccessful) attempts to develop it. This means that the restriction of the right to privacy through video surveillance in prison is unlawful. Consequently, Article 8 of the Convention (the right to privacy and family life) is violated since the restriction of this right is not imposed "in accordance with the law".
As a result, it falls into absurdity where video surveillance seems to be allowed even in the toilet. Under such conditions, it is only a matter of time when the European Court of Human Rights begins to find first violations of the right to privacy given the problem of unregulated video surveillance.
Without waiting for such decisions, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture used to repeatedly criticize the current state of affairs with video surveillance in Ukrainian prisons. It even made detailed recommendations on what should be the guarantees to protect the right to privacy in case of video surveillance. The present proposals of amendments to the Rules are based on these recommendations.
Use of force and special means
The use of handcuffs and dogs is still not regulated in line with the CPT recommendations. The norms that affect life prisoners and that have been criticized by the CPT for more than a decade may serve a perfect indicator.
I formulate suggestions to improve this situation. However, the issue of the use of special means cannot properly solved in the Rules, since most of the relevant rules are established in the law.
Until now, disciplinary isolation of prisoners is not considered a sufficient punishment in itself. The logic of the Rules is based on a premise that prisoners should be punished with additional restrictions on food, personal belongings, sleeping, visits and correspondence. This logic was confirmed to me in 2013 by one of the managers of the state penitentiary service in response to my direct question during the discussion on changes to the Rules.
Instead, it is proposed to abolish all punitive restrictions, since additional isolation is sufficient punishment in itself. At the same time, certain excessive restrictions cannot be abolished as they result from the law.
An additional feature of prisons is that the human rights are often violated as a result of difficulties to prove the fact of the violation. Therefore, I suggest various procedural safeguards in order to facilitate the protection of rights in those areas that turned out to be the most problematic in practice (parcels, depriving of prohibited items, searches, visits, etc.). One of the most common safeguards would be issuing of a formal confirmation by the administration that the restriction of the right has taken place. This creates a better basis for challenging the relevant actions in the future.
Problematic is also the ability to have a variety of documents and records in prison. According to the Rules, the storage and use of any documents is prohibited, except for criminal case files (pre-trial detention centers) and court verdicts or court rulings (prisons). Even personal records are prohibited in pre-trial detention, which means the prohibition to keep memoirs, diaries or drawings. Such informational barriers not only impede the protection of own rights by prisoners, but are also obsolete, especially in the light of the widespread practice of unauthorized access to the Internet.
Another problem is the copying of documents. In 2015, the European Court found a systemic problem in connection with the failure to address this issue in the case of Vorobyov v. Ukraine. Lack of access to copying, including the case when there is no money, as well as the widespread restriction of the right to access information about one’s rights, creates obstacles for a proper legal defense. Despite the respective amendment to article 8 of the Penitentiary Code in 2016, the Rules failed to reflect the logic of simplifying copying of documents.
Sovietism in the laws
Unfortunately, amending the Rules will not help to get rid of many irrational provisions. Most of the Soviet leftovers are contained in the Law of Ukraine "On Pre-Trial Detention" and the Penitentiary Code of Ukraine. The former was adopted at the very beginning of the Ukraine’s independence and naturally absorbed all the leftovers of the USSR, and the latter was copied from the Penitentiary Code of the Russian Federation.
The change of many regressive provisions of the Rules remains impossible until these two key laws are amended. I have developed the relevant draft laws that were already adopted in the first reading and are pending adoption in the second reading (nos. 2685 and 2291a).
For example, the draft law no. 2291a stipulates the abolition of such significant restrictions in pre-trial detention as the prohibition of telephone calls, limitations of visits and correspondence: currently they can be carried out only upon the permission of the investigator (instead there should be a possibility of a ban on individual cases). The draft law no. 2685 abolishes the current de facto censure of correspondence, limits the discretion of interference into other aspects of the right to privacy. It is impossible to bring the Rules into line with international standards until these legislative initiatives are adopted.
It is self-evident that the described Sovietist approaches in Ukrainian prisons have nothing in common with European integration. They often get attention of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, but year by year the recommendations concerning solving of major issues remain unimplemented. Similarly, these approaches were repeatedly negatively viewed by the European Court of Human Rights.
Within the framework of the announced revision of the Rules, the Council of Europe Office in Ukraine joined the process of the reform of the Internal Prison Rules. The Office invited international experts to assess the Internal Prison Rules, but, unfortunately, not Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules. According to my information, most of the comments made by the experts relate to the same problems that I point out in this publication. Like the specific international standards referred to to justify the proposed amendments, these expert opinions additionally confirm their relevance.
The proposed amendments should be considered as minimum necessary in order to get rid of the most problematic provisions of the Rules. In future, they should also be reviewed in the light of best international practices and realities of abuse in Ukrainian prisons. Of course, it is clear that updating of the Rules is necessary, although not sufficient to change the situation for the better. However, such a change can be relatively quick and simple, and should therefore be implemented as soon as possible.
Proposed amendments to the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules
(prepared by Vadym Chovgan)
Draft version of the Ministry of Justice or current version
Justification / Explanation
 Chovgan V.O. Restrictions of Prisoners’ Rights: Legal Nature and Justification. Monograph / NGO “Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group”. – Kharkiv: Human Rights, 2017 (Човган В.О. Обмеження прав в’язнів: правова природа та обґрунтування. Монографія / В. О. Човган; ГО «Харківська правозахисна група». – Харків: Права людини, 2017).
 Khokhriakov G.F. Prison Paradoxes. – Moscow: Legal Literature, 1991. – p. 143 (Хохряков Г. Ф. Парадоксы тюрьмы. – М.: Юрид. лит., 1991. – С. 143).
 Liebling A., Crewe B. Prison Life, Penal Power, and Prison Effects // The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Edited by Maguire M., Morgan R. and Reiner R. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. – P. 913.
 Chovgan V.O. Restrictions of Prisoners’ Rights: Legal Nature and Justification. Monograph / NGO “Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group”. – Kharkiv: Human Rights, 2017. – p. 190-191 (Човган В.О. Обмеження прав в’язнів: правова природа та обґрунтування. Монографія / В. О. Човган; ГО «Харківська правозахисна група». – Харків: Права людини, 2017. – С. 190-191).
 Chovgan V.O. Reform of the Penitentiary Legislation in the Light of International Standards (proposals and comments). –Kharkiv: Human Rights, 2014. – p. 183-198 (Човган В. О. Реформування кримінально-виконавчого законодавства у світлі міжнародних стандартів (пропозиції та зауваження). – Харків: Права людини, 2014. – С. 183-198).
 See also : Subsection 3.7.1. “Draft laws on restrictions of prisoners’ rights”, in Chovgan V.O. Restrictions of Prisoners’ Rights: Legal Nature and Justification. Monograph / NGO “Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group”. – Kharkiv: Human Rights, 2017. – pp. 504-524 (підрозділ «3.7.1. Законопроекти щодо обмежень прав в’язнів» у виданні Човган В.О. Обмеження прав в’язнів: правова природа та обґрунтування. Монографія / В. О. Човган; ГО «Харківська правозахисна група». – Харків: Права людини, 2017. – С. 504-524).