| Dokumendiregister | Õiguskantsleri Kantselei |
| Viit | 7-7/262016/2608503 |
| Registreeritud | 12.10.2026 |
| Sünkroonitud | 14.10.2026 |
| Liik | Väljaminev kiri |
| Funktsioon | 7 Järelevalve põhiõiguste ja -vabaduste järgimise üle |
| Sari | 7-7 Omaalgatuslik riigiorgani või -asutuse tegevuse kontroll |
| Toimik | 7-7/262016 |
| Juurdepääsupiirang | Avalik |
| Adressaat | Tartu Prison, Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs of the Republic of Estonia, Ministry of Justice of the Kingdom of Sweden, Prison and Probation Service of Sweden, Parliamentary Ombudsmen of Sweden, Ombudsman for Children in Sweden |
| Saabumis/saatmisviis | Tartu Prison, Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs of the Republic of Estonia, Ministry of Justice of the Kingdom of Sweden, Prison and Probation Service of Sweden, Parliamentary Ombudsmen of Sweden, Ombudsman for Children in Sweden |
| Vastutaja | Ksenia Žurakovskaja-Aru (Õiguskantsleri Kantselei, Kontrollkäikude osakond) |
| Originaal | Ava uues aknas |
| Taotle dokumendi eemaldamist või parandamist |
Tartu Prison
Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs
of the Republic of Estonia
Ministry of Justice of the Kingdom of Sweden
Prison and Probation Service of Sweden
Your ref. No
Our ref. 12.10.2026 No 7-
7/262016/2608503
Inspection Visit to Tartu Prison
Dear Director of Tartu Prison, Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs of the Republic of Estonia,
Minister of Justice and Head of the Prison and Probation Service of the Kingdom of Sweden
One of the tasks of the Chancellor of Justice is to regularly inspect the activities of places of
detention and the conditions in which people are detained (sections 1(7) and 27 of the Chancellor
of Justice Act; Article 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). The Chancellor of Justice must
therefore also regularly inspect the detention conditions and treatment of prisoners transferred
from Sweden to Estonia under the Agreement between the Republic of Estonia and the Kingdom
of Sweden on the Enforcement in the Republic of Estonia of Prison Sentences of the Kingdom of
Sweden (hereinafter also referred to as the prison lease agreement).
Advisers to the Chancellor of Justice inspected the detention conditions of prisoners transferred
to Tartu Prison on 27 August 2026. The inspection visit was unannounced. We would like to
thank the prison for its cooperation, smooth organisation and the professional explanations
provided by prison officers both during and after the inspection visit.
At the time of the inspection visit, fifteen Swedish prisoners were being held in Tartu Prison.
Four prisoners had been transferred to the prison on 18 August 2026 and eleven on 25 August
2026. The Chancellor’s advisers spoke privately with eight prisoners, met with prison officers,
toured the prison premises and examined selected documents.
The prisoners confirmed that no means of restraint had been used on them during their journey to
Estonia and that they had been able to drink, eat and use the toilet during the journey. On arrival
at the prison, the prisoners agreed to undergo a medical examination and were satisfied that the
medication they needed was provided promptly.
The information gathered during the inspection visit nevertheless indicates that, before being
transferred to Estonia, the prisoners had not been given sufficient information about the
conditions of detention at Tartu Prison and the rules applicable in the prison. At Tartu Prison, the
language barrier makes it more difficult for them to understand the information provided and to
communicate with prison officers and other staff. The prisoners were concerned about how they
could keep in contact with their families and children, as they considered telephone charges to be
high and, in August, video calls had not yet been made available to them. According to the
prisoners, their families’ financial circumstances do not allow them to travel to Estonia for visits.
The inspection visit also revealed several differences in the organisation of everyday life in
Swedish and Estonian prisons that require further analysis. Consideration should also be given to
making cell furnishings safer and prisoners should be provided with privacy in shared washing
facilities. A further issue raised during the inspection visit was how Muslim prisoners can
practise their religion, including meeting an Islamic chaplain and participating in communal
prayers.
These issues can only be resolved through cooperation between Estonia and Sweden. We are
therefore also forwarding the observations set out in this summary to the competent authorities
of the Kingdom of Sweden.
1. Preparation for and information concerning the transfer
Most of the prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice said that they had
not consented to being transferred to Estonia. According to them, they were notified of the
transfer only shortly in advance – in some cases approximately two weeks beforehand and in
others only a few days beforehand. The prisoners had an opportunity to submit objections, but in
their view the responses they received were general and brief, in some cases consisting of only a
couple of sentences. The prisoners considered that they had not in fact been given a genuine
opportunity to defend their position and that their individual circumstances had not been taken
into account when the decision was made.
The prisoners explained that, while held in Swedish prisons, they had allegedly been well-
behaved and motivated prisoners. They therefore believe that the purpose of transferring them to
Estonia is not to support their reintegration into society, but rather to present the prison lease
arrangement as a success. They perceive the transfer to Estonia as a form of double punishment,
and said that their previous motivation to work towards a law-abiding life had disappeared.
Concerns were also expressed that dissatisfaction among prisoners could lead to more serious
problems in the prison, particularly as the number of prisoners transferred from Sweden
increases.
All the prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice stated that, while in
Swedish prisons, they had received information about detention conditions in Estonia mainly
from an information leaflet. They considered that the information provided in Sweden differed
significantly from the actual conditions in the Estonian prison. Some prisoners claimed that they
had been assured in Sweden that they would continue serving their sentence at Tartu Prison
under Swedish law. They also said they had been told that prisoners at Tartu Prison would enjoy
at least the same benefits as, or even more benefits than, prisoners in Swedish prisons. According
to the prisoners, this is not the case.
In addition, it was not clear to the prisoners on what matters, to whom and by what procedure
they were entitled to submit requests and complaints while being held in Tartu Prison.
The Chancellor of Justice does not know and cannot confirm what information was provided to
the prisoners in Sweden or how it was communicated to them. However, all the prisoners had a
similar understanding and perception of the information they had received.
Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning foreign prisoners provides that foreign prisoners must be given, in a language they
understand, information about their rights and duties, as well as about the prison regime and
internal rules, procedures for making requests and complaints, and access to legal advice and
assistance (Rules 15.1 and 15.3). The right of foreign prisoners to receive information in a
language they understand, both in writing and orally, is also emphasised in Rules 54–55 of the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules)
and in Rule 30.1 of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council
of Europe on the European Prison Rules (the European Prison Rules).
In the context of a prison lease arrangement, the obligation to provide information is not limited
to the time of arrival at the prison and the period thereafter but also extends to the period
preceding the transfer. In the context of prison leasing, the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has
emphasised that prisoners who are to be transferred to a prison abroad should be informed of the
transfer in good time, i.e. at least two weeks in advance, and should be provided with adequate
information about the conditions of detention in that prison (CPT report concerning Tilburg
Prison, 2012, para. 8). The purpose is to ensure that, before the transfer, the prisoner knows
under what conditions and according to what rules they will continue serving their sentence.
In order to ensure the effective protection of prisoners’ rights, it would be important for
the competent Swedish authorities to provide prisoners with sufficient information about
their transfer to Estonia and the conditions of detention at Tartu Prison. It is important
that prisoners have sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the information and an
opportunity to ask questions.
It would also be helpful to provide visual material, such as photographs and videos,
showing the conditions of detention at Tartu Prison. This would give prisoners a clearer
idea of the prison environment and the organisation of daily life. Incomplete or inaccurate
information may increase uncertainty and dissatisfaction, create misconceptions and make
it more difficult to adjust to the new conditions of detention. This, in turn, may foster a
negative attitude towards the transfer to Estonia, reduce prisoners’ willingness to comply
with the rules in force at Tartu Prison and increase security risks. It may also hinder
preparations for reintegration into society, towards which both the individual concerned
and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service may often have worked for years.
Prisoners should also have easy access to information about the available complaints
procedures. To this end, the competent Swedish and Estonian authorities could consider
jointly preparing an information sheet explaining on what matters, to whom and in what
manner a prisoner may turn if they consider that their rights have been violated.
2. Right to receive information in a language understood by the prisoner
The prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice had some command of
English. However, there is reason to believe that several prisoners who were being held in Tartu
Prison at the time of the inspection visit do not understand information provided in English well
and find it difficult to communicate with prison officers in English, particularly when more
complex matters are discussed. The prisoners claimed that, in their view, not all officers speak
fluent English either. As a result, they communicate relatively little with the officers, and the
officers have found it difficult to answer the prisoners’ questions. According to the prisoners,
this increases the risk of misunderstandings, which may lead to unnecessary conflicts.
For example, one prisoner was prohibited from using an item that some other prisoners were
allowed to use. The prisoner perceived this difference in treatment as hostile and believed that it
was related to his skin colour and/or origin. Subsequent discussions with prison officers revealed
that he had not been allowed to take the item into his cell because security labels first had to be
attached to it. The allegation of discriminatory conduct by prison officers was not substantiated.
The situation, and the unnecessary tension it caused, could have been avoided if the
circumstances had been explained to the prisoner promptly and in a language he understood.
The prisoners also specifically noted that they would have liked to understand better the
explanations given during the admission procedures following their arrival at the prison and
during the medical examination.
It was further noted that prison officers had so far not used translation applications when
communicating with prisoners. An interpreter was present during the medical examination, but
the interpretation was from Estonian into English rather than into Swedish. For example, one
prisoner was found during the examination to have a heart-related health problem. The prisoner
stated that he would like to receive more information about his health condition in Swedish and
to have an opportunity to ask questions about this complex matter and receive answers that he
could fully understand.
The international guidelines and recommendations referred to in section 1 of this summary
emphasise that foreign prisoners have the right to receive information in a language they
understand. Article 14.3 of the prison lease agreement provides for the right to use the assistance
of an interpreter. It is important to note that the language understood by the prisoner and/or the
language into which interpretation is provided need not be English, which is designated as the
working language of the prison under Article 14.1 of the prison lease agreement. In its 2012
report on Tilburg Prison, the CPT likewise pointed out (para. 35) that in a leased prison,
information must be provided in the languages habitually in use in the prison (which, in Tilburg
Prison, also included French and Arabic), and that providing information only in the prison’s
working language is not sufficient.
The Mandela Rules (Rule 61.2), the European Prison Rules (Rule 38.3), and Recommendation
CM/Rec(2012)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (Rules 8, 21.1, 21.3,
21.5 and 31.4) all emphasise that foreign prisoners must be provided with competent
interpretation. Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)12 specifically notes that interpretation may be
particularly important during medical consultations (Rule 31.4).
Tartu Prison, in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, should
consider how to ensure that Swedish prisoners receive the necessary information in a
language they understand, both upon arrival at the prison and thereafter. This may
require the use of translation applications as well as professional interpretation services.
3. Information on progress towards the objectives of imprisonment and future options
Several prisoners said that, in the Swedish prison, they had had a case manager with whom they
could regularly discuss the progress of their imprisonment, their progress towards transfer to a
less restrictive prison regime, and opportunities to apply for alternative ways of serving their
sentence. It was not clear to the prisoners whether and how this contact would continue at Tartu
Prison, or whom they could approach in future to discuss progress towards the objectives of their
imprisonment and preparations for release.
Consideration should be given to how prisoners can continue to receive consistent support
and counselling after their transfer to Tartu Prison. At present, prisoners do not know with
whom they can discuss matters relating to their imprisonment, and this may make it more
difficult for them to prepare for reintegration into society. It would be worth exploring
whether the case managers who worked with them in Swedish prisons could continue to
counsel prisoners transferred to Tartu Prison, for example by telephone or video call, or
whether another solution should be found to ensure that prisoners are able, when
necessary and if they so wish, to contact a competent person in Sweden concerning matters
relating to their individual case.
4. Suitability for transfer and the rights of the child
Point 3.C.20 of Annex A to the Memorandum of Cooperation, concluded pursuant to Article 4 of
the prison lease agreement, provides that the Swedish party must assess whether a prisoner meets
the conditions for transfer to an Estonian prison. In doing so, account must also be taken of the
prisoner’s ties to Sweden and family relationships.
The information gathered during the inspection visit raises questions as to how thoroughly the
family ties of the Swedish prisoners transferred to Tartu Prison in August, as well as the rights
and interests of their children, were assessed.
Several prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice stated that their family
members lived in Sweden and that, before their transfer to Estonia, they had regularly
communicated and met with them. According to the prisoners, the transfer to Estonia has made
communication with their family members considerably more difficult and visits impossible.
One younger prisoner said that he was very close to his mother and his two minor sisters.
According to him, the transfer to Estonia has been very difficult both for him and for his family,
because his family had been a major source of support and had encouraged him to begin living a
law-abiding life. Another prisoner stated that he had a child of approximately ten years of age in
Sweden and that, before being transferred to Estonia, he had hoped to reach an agreement with
the child’s mother that would have enabled the child to visit him in prison. According to him, the
transfer to Estonia has made such a visit impossible. A third prisoner said that his approximately
two-and-a-half-year-old child lived about 20 minutes away from the Swedish prison where he
had been serving his sentence, and that he had regularly seen his child in prison once a week
since the child was three months old. The prisoner was very concerned that his relationship with
the child would be irreparably damaged and that the child would become estranged from him.
To the knowledge of the Chancellor of Justice, the Europe-wide network Children of Prisoners
Europe (COPE) sent an official letter to the Estonian and Swedish ministries of justice, drawing
the attention of both countries to the fact that prison leasing concerns not only the rights of
people held in prison, but also the rights of their children. According to information available to
the Chancellor of Justice, both the Estonian and Swedish ministries assured COPE that, in the
context of prison leasing, the best interests of the child would be treated as a primary
consideration and children’s right to maintain regular and direct contact with their imprisoned
parent would be safeguarded.
In monitoring discussions concerning prison leasing, the Chancellor of Justice repeatedly drew
the attention of the Estonian Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs to the fact that transfer to
Tartu Prison could have a detrimental effect on prisoners’ family relationships and, in particular,
could adversely affect the rights and interests of prisoners’ children. In this connection, the
Chancellor of Justice also referred to the fact that, in 2023, the United Nations Committee
against Torture (CAT), in its report concerning Denmark’s plan to lease prison places in Kosovo,
expressed concern about the possible impact on prisoners’ family ties (CAT/C/DNK/CO/8,
paras. 16–17). The weakening and/or severing of family ties was also confirmed by Norway’s
experience when Norway leased prison places at Norgerhaven Prison in the Netherlands. In its
2016 report, the Norwegian Parliamentary Ombudsman noted that very few family members
visited prisoners in the Dutch prison. The main obstacles were the long distance and high travel
costs (section 8.6).
Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning children with imprisoned parents emphasises that children should generally be able
to visit an imprisoned parent on a weekly basis and that very young children should, where
appropriate, be allowed even more frequent visits (Rule 17). In its 2024 report on Estonia, the
CPT likewise recommended that visits should be allowed every week (para. 78).
Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning foreign prisoners emphasises that states should take measures to enable foreign
prisoners to maintain regular and meaningful contact with their children (Rule 22.7). It is
important to note in this context that video calls are an additional means of communication, not a
substitute for face-to-face contact (CM/Rec(2018)5, Rule 25).
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has also addressed a child’s right to maintain
contact with an imprisoned parent. In Deltuva v. Lithuania (judgment of 14 June 2022), a case
concerning a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the
ECtHR assessed visiting rights from the perspective of the rights of the child and found that the
absence of visits had had an adverse effect on the child. In that judgment, the Court also referred
to Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning children with imprisoned parents. In addition, the ECtHR has on several occasions,
in differing circumstances, found a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR where a prisoner was
required to serve their sentence far away from their family (see, for example, the ECtHR
judgment of 23 October 2014 in Vintman v. Ukraine, paras. 79–83, and the judgment of 25 July
2013 in Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, paras. 835–838).
Only the competent Swedish authorities can establish whether, when assessing the
suitability for transfer of all prisoners who were being held in Tartu Prison on 27 August
2026, due account was taken of their family ties and whether the best interests of the
prisoners’ children, as well as the children’s right to maintain regular communication and
direct contact with their imprisoned parent, were properly taken into consideration.
5. Means of communication and related costs
The prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice stated that, in their view,
calling family members from Estonia, particularly making calls to third countries, is more
expensive than calling from Sweden. As a result, they may no longer be able to stay in contact
with their family members as frequently as before. At the time of the inspection visit, prisoners
transferred from Sweden to Estonia did not yet have access to video calls.
All the prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice said that, because of
travel costs and other expenses related to visits, including the fee charged for a visit, their family
members would not be able to travel to Estonia. According to most of the prisoners, neither they
nor their family members had been informed whether financial assistance was available to cover
travel and other costs associated with visits and, if so, how such assistance could be applied for.
Only one prisoner who took part in the discussions mentioned that he had heard that such
assistance might be available.
Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning children with imprisoned parents states that states should support children with
imprisoned parents and their families in dealing with their particular circumstances and specific
needs and in maintaining contact with the imprisoned parent. Such support may include financial
and logistical assistance (Rule 6). The Recommendation also provides that imprisoned parents
should be assisted with the costs of communicating with their children where their financial
circumstances do not allow them to bear those costs themselves (Rule 25). The European Prison
Rules likewise impose a positive obligation on the state to assist prisoners in maintaining contact
with the outside world (Rule 24.5). The same principle is reflected in Recommendation
CM/Rec(2012)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning foreign
prisoners (Rules 22.6 and 35.2.c). Read together with Rules 6 and 25 of Recommendation
CM/Rec(2018)5, this may also entail financial assistance.
The Chancellor of Justice has previously pointed out, in the summary of the 2025 inspection visit
to Tallinn Prison (section 3), that foreign nationals held in Estonian prisons face difficulties in
maintaining contact with their family members and children.
The Chancellor of Justice has also repeatedly and over a long period drawn the attention of the
Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs to the fact that requiring either the prisoner or the person
coming for a long-term visit to bear the costs of that visit does not facilitate visits (summary of
the 2020 inspection visit to Tartu Prison, section 6.3; summary of the 2022 inspection visit to
Tallinn Prison, section 4; summary of the 2023 inspection visit to Tartu Prison, section 3.3;
summary of the 2024 inspection visit to Viru Prison, section 2.3; summary of the 2025
inspection visit to Tallinn Prison, section 1.6.1). Requiring payment of the costs of a long-term
visit turns the right to receive visits into a privilege that less well-off families cannot afford, or
can afford only rarely. Such a requirement may have a particularly significant impact on a child
who, because of the fee, is unable to maintain regular and direct contact with an imprisoned
parent (see Article 9(3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and section 143(1) of the
Family Law Act).
It is entirely foreseeable that, for the families and children of Swedish prisoners, travel and
accommodation expenses and other costs associated with travelling to Estonia may constitute an
even greater obstacle than the requirement to bear the costs of a long-term visit itself.
The competent Estonian authorities should find a solution to facilitate prisoners’ telephone
contact with their family members and to make video visits available. The Estonian
Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs should prepare the necessary legislative
amendments to abolish the requirement to pay the costs associated with long-term visits.
Care should be taken to ensure that information about visits, including information on
financial assistance available in connection with visits, is readily accessible to prisoners
transferred to Estonia and to their family members.
6. Living conditions
The prisoners were dissatisfied with the fact that the two televisions in cells at Tartu Prison are
positioned next to each other. According to the prisoners, in Swedish prisons, televisions are
placed on the wall opposite the beds so that cellmates can watch television without disturbing
one another. Although prisoners are permitted to use headphones, they find it disturbing to watch
two different programmes at the same time on adjacent screens. The prisoners considered that
this situation could easily lead to conflicts.
Several prisoners pointed out that they did not feel safe sleeping in the upper bunk because it had
no guard rail. They said that they were afraid of falling out of bed while asleep and
acknowledged that this was disturbing their sleep. Lack of sleep may have an adverse effect on a
person’s mental health (see also the discussion of prisoners’ sleep problems in the summary of
the Chancellor of Justice’s 2025 inspection visit to Tallinn Prison, section 2). The prisoners
explained that they had informed prison officers of their concerns and had been placed alone in
cells where they could use the lower bunk. According to the prisoners, however, the problem
may arise again once more prisoners arrive and two people are accommodated in each cell.
The prison has a duty to protect the life and health of people held there (sections 16 and 28 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Estonia) and to ensure their safety in prison (section 66(1) of the
Imprisonment Act). This means, among other things, that the prison must provide a safe physical
environment and reduce reasonably foreseeable risks that could endanger a person’s life or
health, for example by causing injury. Fulfilling this obligation may also require prison
furnishings to be made safer.
The competent Estonian authorities should assess whether the beds in cells at Tartu Prison
and other Estonian prisons are sufficiently safe and, where necessary, take measures to
reduce the risk of falling from an upper bunk. This may require the installation of guard
rails on the beds. Consideration should also be given to repositioning the televisions in cells
so that the simultaneous use of two televisions does not cause excessive disturbance to
cellmates.
7. Ensuring privacy while showering
The prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice pointed out that the
washing room in the accommodation sector has three shower heads positioned close to one
another and intended for use by approximately 40 prisoners. The prisoners considered that their
privacy while showering was not adequately protected because there are no partitions between
the shower areas. As a result, they currently shower one at a time. The prisoners explained that
when there are seven or eight prisoners in the sector, it is possible for them to shower
individually, but this becomes very difficult when there are more prisoners. It is not realistic to
expect nearly 40 prisoners to be able to use the shower room one at a time every day.
The Chancellor of Justice has previously drawn prisons’ attention to the need to ensure
prisoners’ privacy in shared washing facilities by separating individual shower areas (see, for
example, the summary of the 2017 inspection visit to Tallinn Prison, section 2.3). The CPT has
also made recommendations to several countries concerning the separation of shower areas (see,
most recently, the CPT’s 2024 recommendations concerning Serbia, para. 57).
Tartu Prison should ensure prisoners’ privacy while showering. To this end, the shower
areas should be separated from one another by suitable partitions and/or curtains.
8. Observance of religious beliefs
Muslim prisoners noted that they had not yet had an opportunity to meet with a Islamic chaplain
or to take part in communal prayer.
Prison officers acknowledged that prisoners must be given an opportunity to meet their religious
needs. However, it remained unclear whether arranging the involvement of Islamic chaplains is
the responsibility of the Estonian or the Swedish authorities.
Under the European Prison Rules, prisoners’ freedom of thought, conscience and religion must
be respected and, as far as practicable, the prison regime should be organised so as to allow
prisoners to practise their religion and to attend services or meetings led by approved
representatives of their religion or beliefs (Rules 29.1–29.2). The same principles are set out in
Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)12 concerning foreign prisoners (Rules 30.1 and 30.2).
The Commentary to the European Prison Rules emphasises that, where possible, prisons should
provide places where representatives of different religions and beliefs can hold services and
meetings, and should allow approved religious representatives to conduct regular services and
activities. Such approved representatives should be permitted to hold regular services and other
activities and to visit members of their faith in prison in private in order to provide spiritual
support (Part II, Freedom of thought, conscience and religion). Similar recommendations are
contained in the Council of Europe Guidelines for prison and probation services regarding
radicalisation and violent extremism (paras. 24–25). A failure to allow a prisoner to meet with a
representative of their religion may, in certain circumstances, amount to a violation of the right
protected by Article 9 of the ECHR (see, for example, the ECtHR judgment of 23 February 2016
in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, paras. 197–198).
The Council of Europe Handbook for prison and probation services regarding radicalisation and
violent extremism also states that respect for prisoners’ religious identity can contribute to
rehabilitation and help reduce violent extremism. Considerable care and sensitivity should be
taken to ensure that religious practice is not equated per se with interest or involvement in
violent extremism (p. 86).
In its judgment of 14 June 2022 in Abdullah Yalçın v. Türkiye (no. 2), the European Court of
Human Rights held that Islamic religious practices, such as prayer performed both individually
and together with others, including Friday communal prayer, fall within the scope of protection
of Article 9 of the ECHR (para. 24). Although stricter rules in high-security prisons may entail
more extensive restrictions on rights protected by Article 9, the necessity of such restrictions
must be assessed in the light of the specific circumstances of each case (para. 32).
In that case, the authorities had not carried out an individual risk assessment of the applicant,
including an assessment of whether he posed a specific security risk, had previously behaved
violently, had attempted to escape from prison or had otherwise breached prison rules (para. 32).
Nor had they sufficiently assessed whether, in the particular circumstances, a gathering of
prisoners for Friday communal prayer could create a security risk justifying treatment different
from that of other gatherings of prisoners, for example for rehabilitation activities (para. 33). The
ECtHR also considered insufficient the authorities’ reasoning that the prison lacked suitable
premises for Friday communal prayer. In that regard, the applicant pointed out that the prison
had premises used for other gatherings: for example, prisoners met once a week in a designated
room for sports activities (para. 18).
The Court concluded that the authorities had not adequately balanced the competing interests or
provided relevant and sufficient reasons in a manner consistent with the positive obligations
arising under Article 9 of the ECHR to ensure that the applicant could manifest his religion in
community with others, that is, by participating in Friday communal prayer in prison. The Court
therefore found a violation of Article 9 of the ECHR.
In view of the above, the competent Estonian authorities, together with the corresponding
Swedish authorities, should consider jointly how best to ensure that prisoners’ religious
needs are met. This includes, among other things, resolving whether and in what manner
Muslim prisoners can meet with an Islamic chaplain and how they can be provided with an
opportunity to participate in communal prayers.
Please provide feedback on the observations and recommendations by 4 December 2026.
Yours respectfully,
/Signed digitally/
Olari Koppel
Deputy Chancellor and Director of the Office of the Chancellor of Justice
performing the duties of the Chancellor of Justice
Copy: Parliamentary Ombudsmen of Sweden ([email protected]); Ombudsman for
Children in Sweden ([email protected])
Ksenia Žurakovskaja-Aru 693 8415
Tartu Prison
Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs
of the Republic of Estonia
Ministry of Justice of the Kingdom of Sweden
Prison and Probation Service of Sweden
Your ref. No
Our ref. 12.10.2026 No 7-
7/262016/2608503
Inspection Visit to Tartu Prison
Dear Director of Tartu Prison, Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs of the Republic of Estonia,
Minister of Justice and Head of the Prison and Probation Service of the Kingdom of Sweden
One of the tasks of the Chancellor of Justice is to regularly inspect the activities of places of
detention and the conditions in which people are detained (sections 1(7) and 27 of the Chancellor
of Justice Act; Article 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). The Chancellor of Justice must
therefore also regularly inspect the detention conditions and treatment of prisoners transferred
from Sweden to Estonia under the Agreement between the Republic of Estonia and the Kingdom
of Sweden on the Enforcement in the Republic of Estonia of Prison Sentences of the Kingdom of
Sweden (hereinafter also referred to as the prison lease agreement).
Advisers to the Chancellor of Justice inspected the detention conditions of prisoners transferred
to Tartu Prison on 27 August 2026. The inspection visit was unannounced. We would like to
thank the prison for its cooperation, smooth organisation and the professional explanations
provided by prison officers both during and after the inspection visit.
At the time of the inspection visit, fifteen Swedish prisoners were being held in Tartu Prison.
Four prisoners had been transferred to the prison on 18 August 2026 and eleven on 25 August
2026. The Chancellor’s advisers spoke privately with eight prisoners, met with prison officers,
toured the prison premises and examined selected documents.
The prisoners confirmed that no means of restraint had been used on them during their journey to
Estonia and that they had been able to drink, eat and use the toilet during the journey. On arrival
at the prison, the prisoners agreed to undergo a medical examination and were satisfied that the
medication they needed was provided promptly.
The information gathered during the inspection visit nevertheless indicates that, before being
transferred to Estonia, the prisoners had not been given sufficient information about the
conditions of detention at Tartu Prison and the rules applicable in the prison. At Tartu Prison, the
language barrier makes it more difficult for them to understand the information provided and to
communicate with prison officers and other staff. The prisoners were concerned about how they
could keep in contact with their families and children, as they considered telephone charges to be
high and, in August, video calls had not yet been made available to them. According to the
prisoners, their families’ financial circumstances do not allow them to travel to Estonia for visits.
The inspection visit also revealed several differences in the organisation of everyday life in
Swedish and Estonian prisons that require further analysis. Consideration should also be given to
making cell furnishings safer and prisoners should be provided with privacy in shared washing
facilities. A further issue raised during the inspection visit was how Muslim prisoners can
practise their religion, including meeting an Islamic chaplain and participating in communal
prayers.
These issues can only be resolved through cooperation between Estonia and Sweden. We are
therefore also forwarding the observations set out in this summary to the competent authorities
of the Kingdom of Sweden.
1. Preparation for and information concerning the transfer
Most of the prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice said that they had
not consented to being transferred to Estonia. According to them, they were notified of the
transfer only shortly in advance – in some cases approximately two weeks beforehand and in
others only a few days beforehand. The prisoners had an opportunity to submit objections, but in
their view the responses they received were general and brief, in some cases consisting of only a
couple of sentences. The prisoners considered that they had not in fact been given a genuine
opportunity to defend their position and that their individual circumstances had not been taken
into account when the decision was made.
The prisoners explained that, while held in Swedish prisons, they had allegedly been well-
behaved and motivated prisoners. They therefore believe that the purpose of transferring them to
Estonia is not to support their reintegration into society, but rather to present the prison lease
arrangement as a success. They perceive the transfer to Estonia as a form of double punishment,
and said that their previous motivation to work towards a law-abiding life had disappeared.
Concerns were also expressed that dissatisfaction among prisoners could lead to more serious
problems in the prison, particularly as the number of prisoners transferred from Sweden
increases.
All the prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice stated that, while in
Swedish prisons, they had received information about detention conditions in Estonia mainly
from an information leaflet. They considered that the information provided in Sweden differed
significantly from the actual conditions in the Estonian prison. Some prisoners claimed that they
had been assured in Sweden that they would continue serving their sentence at Tartu Prison
under Swedish law. They also said they had been told that prisoners at Tartu Prison would enjoy
at least the same benefits as, or even more benefits than, prisoners in Swedish prisons. According
to the prisoners, this is not the case.
In addition, it was not clear to the prisoners on what matters, to whom and by what procedure
they were entitled to submit requests and complaints while being held in Tartu Prison.
The Chancellor of Justice does not know and cannot confirm what information was provided to
the prisoners in Sweden or how it was communicated to them. However, all the prisoners had a
similar understanding and perception of the information they had received.
Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning foreign prisoners provides that foreign prisoners must be given, in a language they
understand, information about their rights and duties, as well as about the prison regime and
internal rules, procedures for making requests and complaints, and access to legal advice and
assistance (Rules 15.1 and 15.3). The right of foreign prisoners to receive information in a
language they understand, both in writing and orally, is also emphasised in Rules 54–55 of the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules)
and in Rule 30.1 of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council
of Europe on the European Prison Rules (the European Prison Rules).
In the context of a prison lease arrangement, the obligation to provide information is not limited
to the time of arrival at the prison and the period thereafter but also extends to the period
preceding the transfer. In the context of prison leasing, the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has
emphasised that prisoners who are to be transferred to a prison abroad should be informed of the
transfer in good time, i.e. at least two weeks in advance, and should be provided with adequate
information about the conditions of detention in that prison (CPT report concerning Tilburg
Prison, 2012, para. 8). The purpose is to ensure that, before the transfer, the prisoner knows
under what conditions and according to what rules they will continue serving their sentence.
In order to ensure the effective protection of prisoners’ rights, it would be important for
the competent Swedish authorities to provide prisoners with sufficient information about
their transfer to Estonia and the conditions of detention at Tartu Prison. It is important
that prisoners have sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the information and an
opportunity to ask questions.
It would also be helpful to provide visual material, such as photographs and videos,
showing the conditions of detention at Tartu Prison. This would give prisoners a clearer
idea of the prison environment and the organisation of daily life. Incomplete or inaccurate
information may increase uncertainty and dissatisfaction, create misconceptions and make
it more difficult to adjust to the new conditions of detention. This, in turn, may foster a
negative attitude towards the transfer to Estonia, reduce prisoners’ willingness to comply
with the rules in force at Tartu Prison and increase security risks. It may also hinder
preparations for reintegration into society, towards which both the individual concerned
and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service may often have worked for years.
Prisoners should also have easy access to information about the available complaints
procedures. To this end, the competent Swedish and Estonian authorities could consider
jointly preparing an information sheet explaining on what matters, to whom and in what
manner a prisoner may turn if they consider that their rights have been violated.
2. Right to receive information in a language understood by the prisoner
The prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice had some command of
English. However, there is reason to believe that several prisoners who were being held in Tartu
Prison at the time of the inspection visit do not understand information provided in English well
and find it difficult to communicate with prison officers in English, particularly when more
complex matters are discussed. The prisoners claimed that, in their view, not all officers speak
fluent English either. As a result, they communicate relatively little with the officers, and the
officers have found it difficult to answer the prisoners’ questions. According to the prisoners,
this increases the risk of misunderstandings, which may lead to unnecessary conflicts.
For example, one prisoner was prohibited from using an item that some other prisoners were
allowed to use. The prisoner perceived this difference in treatment as hostile and believed that it
was related to his skin colour and/or origin. Subsequent discussions with prison officers revealed
that he had not been allowed to take the item into his cell because security labels first had to be
attached to it. The allegation of discriminatory conduct by prison officers was not substantiated.
The situation, and the unnecessary tension it caused, could have been avoided if the
circumstances had been explained to the prisoner promptly and in a language he understood.
The prisoners also specifically noted that they would have liked to understand better the
explanations given during the admission procedures following their arrival at the prison and
during the medical examination.
It was further noted that prison officers had so far not used translation applications when
communicating with prisoners. An interpreter was present during the medical examination, but
the interpretation was from Estonian into English rather than into Swedish. For example, one
prisoner was found during the examination to have a heart-related health problem. The prisoner
stated that he would like to receive more information about his health condition in Swedish and
to have an opportunity to ask questions about this complex matter and receive answers that he
could fully understand.
The international guidelines and recommendations referred to in section 1 of this summary
emphasise that foreign prisoners have the right to receive information in a language they
understand. Article 14.3 of the prison lease agreement provides for the right to use the assistance
of an interpreter. It is important to note that the language understood by the prisoner and/or the
language into which interpretation is provided need not be English, which is designated as the
working language of the prison under Article 14.1 of the prison lease agreement. In its 2012
report on Tilburg Prison, the CPT likewise pointed out (para. 35) that in a leased prison,
information must be provided in the languages habitually in use in the prison (which, in Tilburg
Prison, also included French and Arabic), and that providing information only in the prison’s
working language is not sufficient.
The Mandela Rules (Rule 61.2), the European Prison Rules (Rule 38.3), and Recommendation
CM/Rec(2012)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (Rules 8, 21.1, 21.3,
21.5 and 31.4) all emphasise that foreign prisoners must be provided with competent
interpretation. Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)12 specifically notes that interpretation may be
particularly important during medical consultations (Rule 31.4).
Tartu Prison, in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, should
consider how to ensure that Swedish prisoners receive the necessary information in a
language they understand, both upon arrival at the prison and thereafter. This may
require the use of translation applications as well as professional interpretation services.
3. Information on progress towards the objectives of imprisonment and future options
Several prisoners said that, in the Swedish prison, they had had a case manager with whom they
could regularly discuss the progress of their imprisonment, their progress towards transfer to a
less restrictive prison regime, and opportunities to apply for alternative ways of serving their
sentence. It was not clear to the prisoners whether and how this contact would continue at Tartu
Prison, or whom they could approach in future to discuss progress towards the objectives of their
imprisonment and preparations for release.
Consideration should be given to how prisoners can continue to receive consistent support
and counselling after their transfer to Tartu Prison. At present, prisoners do not know with
whom they can discuss matters relating to their imprisonment, and this may make it more
difficult for them to prepare for reintegration into society. It would be worth exploring
whether the case managers who worked with them in Swedish prisons could continue to
counsel prisoners transferred to Tartu Prison, for example by telephone or video call, or
whether another solution should be found to ensure that prisoners are able, when
necessary and if they so wish, to contact a competent person in Sweden concerning matters
relating to their individual case.
4. Suitability for transfer and the rights of the child
Point 3.C.20 of Annex A to the Memorandum of Cooperation, concluded pursuant to Article 4 of
the prison lease agreement, provides that the Swedish party must assess whether a prisoner meets
the conditions for transfer to an Estonian prison. In doing so, account must also be taken of the
prisoner’s ties to Sweden and family relationships.
The information gathered during the inspection visit raises questions as to how thoroughly the
family ties of the Swedish prisoners transferred to Tartu Prison in August, as well as the rights
and interests of their children, were assessed.
Several prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice stated that their family
members lived in Sweden and that, before their transfer to Estonia, they had regularly
communicated and met with them. According to the prisoners, the transfer to Estonia has made
communication with their family members considerably more difficult and visits impossible.
One younger prisoner said that he was very close to his mother and his two minor sisters.
According to him, the transfer to Estonia has been very difficult both for him and for his family,
because his family had been a major source of support and had encouraged him to begin living a
law-abiding life. Another prisoner stated that he had a child of approximately ten years of age in
Sweden and that, before being transferred to Estonia, he had hoped to reach an agreement with
the child’s mother that would have enabled the child to visit him in prison. According to him, the
transfer to Estonia has made such a visit impossible. A third prisoner said that his approximately
two-and-a-half-year-old child lived about 20 minutes away from the Swedish prison where he
had been serving his sentence, and that he had regularly seen his child in prison once a week
since the child was three months old. The prisoner was very concerned that his relationship with
the child would be irreparably damaged and that the child would become estranged from him.
To the knowledge of the Chancellor of Justice, the Europe-wide network Children of Prisoners
Europe (COPE) sent an official letter to the Estonian and Swedish ministries of justice, drawing
the attention of both countries to the fact that prison leasing concerns not only the rights of
people held in prison, but also the rights of their children. According to information available to
the Chancellor of Justice, both the Estonian and Swedish ministries assured COPE that, in the
context of prison leasing, the best interests of the child would be treated as a primary
consideration and children’s right to maintain regular and direct contact with their imprisoned
parent would be safeguarded.
In monitoring discussions concerning prison leasing, the Chancellor of Justice repeatedly drew
the attention of the Estonian Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs to the fact that transfer to
Tartu Prison could have a detrimental effect on prisoners’ family relationships and, in particular,
could adversely affect the rights and interests of prisoners’ children. In this connection, the
Chancellor of Justice also referred to the fact that, in 2023, the United Nations Committee
against Torture (CAT), in its report concerning Denmark’s plan to lease prison places in Kosovo,
expressed concern about the possible impact on prisoners’ family ties (CAT/C/DNK/CO/8,
paras. 16–17). The weakening and/or severing of family ties was also confirmed by Norway’s
experience when Norway leased prison places at Norgerhaven Prison in the Netherlands. In its
2016 report, the Norwegian Parliamentary Ombudsman noted that very few family members
visited prisoners in the Dutch prison. The main obstacles were the long distance and high travel
costs (section 8.6).
Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning children with imprisoned parents emphasises that children should generally be able
to visit an imprisoned parent on a weekly basis and that very young children should, where
appropriate, be allowed even more frequent visits (Rule 17). In its 2024 report on Estonia, the
CPT likewise recommended that visits should be allowed every week (para. 78).
Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning foreign prisoners emphasises that states should take measures to enable foreign
prisoners to maintain regular and meaningful contact with their children (Rule 22.7). It is
important to note in this context that video calls are an additional means of communication, not a
substitute for face-to-face contact (CM/Rec(2018)5, Rule 25).
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has also addressed a child’s right to maintain
contact with an imprisoned parent. In Deltuva v. Lithuania (judgment of 14 June 2022), a case
concerning a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the
ECtHR assessed visiting rights from the perspective of the rights of the child and found that the
absence of visits had had an adverse effect on the child. In that judgment, the Court also referred
to Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning children with imprisoned parents. In addition, the ECtHR has on several occasions,
in differing circumstances, found a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR where a prisoner was
required to serve their sentence far away from their family (see, for example, the ECtHR
judgment of 23 October 2014 in Vintman v. Ukraine, paras. 79–83, and the judgment of 25 July
2013 in Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, paras. 835–838).
Only the competent Swedish authorities can establish whether, when assessing the
suitability for transfer of all prisoners who were being held in Tartu Prison on 27 August
2026, due account was taken of their family ties and whether the best interests of the
prisoners’ children, as well as the children’s right to maintain regular communication and
direct contact with their imprisoned parent, were properly taken into consideration.
5. Means of communication and related costs
The prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice stated that, in their view,
calling family members from Estonia, particularly making calls to third countries, is more
expensive than calling from Sweden. As a result, they may no longer be able to stay in contact
with their family members as frequently as before. At the time of the inspection visit, prisoners
transferred from Sweden to Estonia did not yet have access to video calls.
All the prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice said that, because of
travel costs and other expenses related to visits, including the fee charged for a visit, their family
members would not be able to travel to Estonia. According to most of the prisoners, neither they
nor their family members had been informed whether financial assistance was available to cover
travel and other costs associated with visits and, if so, how such assistance could be applied for.
Only one prisoner who took part in the discussions mentioned that he had heard that such
assistance might be available.
Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
concerning children with imprisoned parents states that states should support children with
imprisoned parents and their families in dealing with their particular circumstances and specific
needs and in maintaining contact with the imprisoned parent. Such support may include financial
and logistical assistance (Rule 6). The Recommendation also provides that imprisoned parents
should be assisted with the costs of communicating with their children where their financial
circumstances do not allow them to bear those costs themselves (Rule 25). The European Prison
Rules likewise impose a positive obligation on the state to assist prisoners in maintaining contact
with the outside world (Rule 24.5). The same principle is reflected in Recommendation
CM/Rec(2012)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning foreign
prisoners (Rules 22.6 and 35.2.c). Read together with Rules 6 and 25 of Recommendation
CM/Rec(2018)5, this may also entail financial assistance.
The Chancellor of Justice has previously pointed out, in the summary of the 2025 inspection visit
to Tallinn Prison (section 3), that foreign nationals held in Estonian prisons face difficulties in
maintaining contact with their family members and children.
The Chancellor of Justice has also repeatedly and over a long period drawn the attention of the
Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs to the fact that requiring either the prisoner or the person
coming for a long-term visit to bear the costs of that visit does not facilitate visits (summary of
the 2020 inspection visit to Tartu Prison, section 6.3; summary of the 2022 inspection visit to
Tallinn Prison, section 4; summary of the 2023 inspection visit to Tartu Prison, section 3.3;
summary of the 2024 inspection visit to Viru Prison, section 2.3; summary of the 2025
inspection visit to Tallinn Prison, section 1.6.1). Requiring payment of the costs of a long-term
visit turns the right to receive visits into a privilege that less well-off families cannot afford, or
can afford only rarely. Such a requirement may have a particularly significant impact on a child
who, because of the fee, is unable to maintain regular and direct contact with an imprisoned
parent (see Article 9(3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and section 143(1) of the
Family Law Act).
It is entirely foreseeable that, for the families and children of Swedish prisoners, travel and
accommodation expenses and other costs associated with travelling to Estonia may constitute an
even greater obstacle than the requirement to bear the costs of a long-term visit itself.
The competent Estonian authorities should find a solution to facilitate prisoners’ telephone
contact with their family members and to make video visits available. The Estonian
Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs should prepare the necessary legislative
amendments to abolish the requirement to pay the costs associated with long-term visits.
Care should be taken to ensure that information about visits, including information on
financial assistance available in connection with visits, is readily accessible to prisoners
transferred to Estonia and to their family members.
6. Living conditions
The prisoners were dissatisfied with the fact that the two televisions in cells at Tartu Prison are
positioned next to each other. According to the prisoners, in Swedish prisons, televisions are
placed on the wall opposite the beds so that cellmates can watch television without disturbing
one another. Although prisoners are permitted to use headphones, they find it disturbing to watch
two different programmes at the same time on adjacent screens. The prisoners considered that
this situation could easily lead to conflicts.
Several prisoners pointed out that they did not feel safe sleeping in the upper bunk because it had
no guard rail. They said that they were afraid of falling out of bed while asleep and
acknowledged that this was disturbing their sleep. Lack of sleep may have an adverse effect on a
person’s mental health (see also the discussion of prisoners’ sleep problems in the summary of
the Chancellor of Justice’s 2025 inspection visit to Tallinn Prison, section 2). The prisoners
explained that they had informed prison officers of their concerns and had been placed alone in
cells where they could use the lower bunk. According to the prisoners, however, the problem
may arise again once more prisoners arrive and two people are accommodated in each cell.
The prison has a duty to protect the life and health of people held there (sections 16 and 28 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Estonia) and to ensure their safety in prison (section 66(1) of the
Imprisonment Act). This means, among other things, that the prison must provide a safe physical
environment and reduce reasonably foreseeable risks that could endanger a person’s life or
health, for example by causing injury. Fulfilling this obligation may also require prison
furnishings to be made safer.
The competent Estonian authorities should assess whether the beds in cells at Tartu Prison
and other Estonian prisons are sufficiently safe and, where necessary, take measures to
reduce the risk of falling from an upper bunk. This may require the installation of guard
rails on the beds. Consideration should also be given to repositioning the televisions in cells
so that the simultaneous use of two televisions does not cause excessive disturbance to
cellmates.
7. Ensuring privacy while showering
The prisoners who spoke with the advisers to the Chancellor of Justice pointed out that the
washing room in the accommodation sector has three shower heads positioned close to one
another and intended for use by approximately 40 prisoners. The prisoners considered that their
privacy while showering was not adequately protected because there are no partitions between
the shower areas. As a result, they currently shower one at a time. The prisoners explained that
when there are seven or eight prisoners in the sector, it is possible for them to shower
individually, but this becomes very difficult when there are more prisoners. It is not realistic to
expect nearly 40 prisoners to be able to use the shower room one at a time every day.
The Chancellor of Justice has previously drawn prisons’ attention to the need to ensure
prisoners’ privacy in shared washing facilities by separating individual shower areas (see, for
example, the summary of the 2017 inspection visit to Tallinn Prison, section 2.3). The CPT has
also made recommendations to several countries concerning the separation of shower areas (see,
most recently, the CPT’s 2024 recommendations concerning Serbia, para. 57).
Tartu Prison should ensure prisoners’ privacy while showering. To this end, the shower
areas should be separated from one another by suitable partitions and/or curtains.
8. Observance of religious beliefs
Muslim prisoners noted that they had not yet had an opportunity to meet with a Islamic chaplain
or to take part in communal prayer.
Prison officers acknowledged that prisoners must be given an opportunity to meet their religious
needs. However, it remained unclear whether arranging the involvement of Islamic chaplains is
the responsibility of the Estonian or the Swedish authorities.
Under the European Prison Rules, prisoners’ freedom of thought, conscience and religion must
be respected and, as far as practicable, the prison regime should be organised so as to allow
prisoners to practise their religion and to attend services or meetings led by approved
representatives of their religion or beliefs (Rules 29.1–29.2). The same principles are set out in
Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)12 concerning foreign prisoners (Rules 30.1 and 30.2).
The Commentary to the European Prison Rules emphasises that, where possible, prisons should
provide places where representatives of different religions and beliefs can hold services and
meetings, and should allow approved religious representatives to conduct regular services and
activities. Such approved representatives should be permitted to hold regular services and other
activities and to visit members of their faith in prison in private in order to provide spiritual
support (Part II, Freedom of thought, conscience and religion). Similar recommendations are
contained in the Council of Europe Guidelines for prison and probation services regarding
radicalisation and violent extremism (paras. 24–25). A failure to allow a prisoner to meet with a
representative of their religion may, in certain circumstances, amount to a violation of the right
protected by Article 9 of the ECHR (see, for example, the ECtHR judgment of 23 February 2016
in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, paras. 197–198).
The Council of Europe Handbook for prison and probation services regarding radicalisation and
violent extremism also states that respect for prisoners’ religious identity can contribute to
rehabilitation and help reduce violent extremism. Considerable care and sensitivity should be
taken to ensure that religious practice is not equated per se with interest or involvement in
violent extremism (p. 86).
In its judgment of 14 June 2022 in Abdullah Yalçın v. Türkiye (no. 2), the European Court of
Human Rights held that Islamic religious practices, such as prayer performed both individually
and together with others, including Friday communal prayer, fall within the scope of protection
of Article 9 of the ECHR (para. 24). Although stricter rules in high-security prisons may entail
more extensive restrictions on rights protected by Article 9, the necessity of such restrictions
must be assessed in the light of the specific circumstances of each case (para. 32).
In that case, the authorities had not carried out an individual risk assessment of the applicant,
including an assessment of whether he posed a specific security risk, had previously behaved
violently, had attempted to escape from prison or had otherwise breached prison rules (para. 32).
Nor had they sufficiently assessed whether, in the particular circumstances, a gathering of
prisoners for Friday communal prayer could create a security risk justifying treatment different
from that of other gatherings of prisoners, for example for rehabilitation activities (para. 33). The
ECtHR also considered insufficient the authorities’ reasoning that the prison lacked suitable
premises for Friday communal prayer. In that regard, the applicant pointed out that the prison
had premises used for other gatherings: for example, prisoners met once a week in a designated
room for sports activities (para. 18).
The Court concluded that the authorities had not adequately balanced the competing interests or
provided relevant and sufficient reasons in a manner consistent with the positive obligations
arising under Article 9 of the ECHR to ensure that the applicant could manifest his religion in
community with others, that is, by participating in Friday communal prayer in prison. The Court
therefore found a violation of Article 9 of the ECHR.
In view of the above, the competent Estonian authorities, together with the corresponding
Swedish authorities, should consider jointly how best to ensure that prisoners’ religious
needs are met. This includes, among other things, resolving whether and in what manner
Muslim prisoners can meet with an Islamic chaplain and how they can be provided with an
opportunity to participate in communal prayers.
Please provide feedback on the observations and recommendations by 4 December 2026.
Yours respectfully,
/Signed digitally/
Olari Koppel
Deputy Chancellor and Director of the Office of the Chancellor of Justice
performing the duties of the Chancellor of Justice
Copy: Parliamentary Ombudsmen of Sweden ([email protected]); Ombudsman for
Children in Sweden ([email protected])
Ksenia Žurakovskaja-Aru 693 8415