There was nowhere to hide his eyes from shame: the officials sent a letter to the prisoner about “the intended use of the body cavities.”

Such a letter caused a real shock to the prisoner: Vismantas S., recognized as a repeat offender, tried to explain why officials wrote to him about “body cavities” and their use “for their intended purpose”, but did not hear a clear message. answer. And then he decided not to keep silent: the actions of the officials of the Department of Prisons were appealed not only to the ombudsman of the Seimas, but also to the court.

The prisoner’s complaint stated that while he was in prison in the Šiauliai detention center, he had approached the director of the prison and asked him to ask for a razor. However, he soon received an answer: that it is impossible to find a razor that the convict would like to buy. The man disagreed with such an answer and complained to the Department of Prisons.

“And then I got an answer that is incomprehensible to the mind, humiliating me and trying to make fun of me,” said Vismantas S.

And presented a letter to officials.

“We believe that mutual courtesy, cooperation, adherence to legal requirements, use of body cavities as intended will help avoid misunderstandings between you and the Šiauliai Pretrial Detention Center in the future,” the department’s letter read. of prisons to the convict on the complaint of the razor.

“He still didn’t understand what the body cavities and the razor were used for here,” the prisoner explained, saying that officials not only belittled him but also insulted him.

Prison department officials, signing a letter to the convict, argued that they had no intention of offending the convict and argued that the negligence had caused a technical error. It is true that they still could not explain how this mistake could have been made.

We observed that due to technical errors and negligence during the investigation of the complaint, the situation was discussed with the personnel of the Security Management Division of the Department of Prisons, who were also reminded of the requirements for processing applications, requests and complaints. All the staff of the Department of Prisons were also informed by e-mail that the legal situation of the applicants had been taken into account during the examination of the applications, applications and complaints of persons held in prisons and remand centers. The Department of Prisons recognizes that negligent technical errors have been made in its response and hopes that similar errors will be avoided in the future, ”the department said.

The Seimas Ombudsman acknowledged that Vismantas S.’s complaint was justified because “it cannot be denied that the written sentence is ambiguous and could be understood as degrading his dignity.”

After receiving this conclusion, the convict went to court – in his complaint the inmate stated that he believed that the prison department officials had taken revenge on the complaints written to the courts and that the phrase about the body cavities was intended to mock him. and degrade their dignity.

According to the convict, the officials did not apologize for the letter.

“The Lithuanian state is guilty of employing incompetent, noncompliant officials in its institutions, who humiliate and despise people, abuse their current duties,” explained the prisoner who, due to the offensive content of the letter, felt unworthy, discriminated against because of their social and legal situation.

Vismantas S. asked the State to pay 6 thousand euros for non-pecuniary damage, supposedly due to a letter received.

The Department of Prisons, which did not agree to this request, stated that the letter “did not convey to the inmate any message or fact that could degrade the honor, dignity of the person or correspond to reality.”

“The plaintiff evaluated the sentence based on his negative attitude towards the institution and based on subjective internal criteria, possibly a desire for profit, although this was not a humiliating or offensive response,” officials reiterated that there was a technical error in the wording , cause of moral damage and consider it as a violation of the rights of the person who received the letter.

“The letter was probably written on an existing template,” officials said. At the time, the officer who wrote the letter emphasized that the phrase “the intended use of body cavities” was justified because the prisoner had filed a complaint for the use of electrical appliances.

“This phrase is also used in other letters prepared by the Department of Prisons on the procedure for the use of electrical appliances,” the official said.

The Department of Prisons also indicated that it receives around 480 complaints per month, which must be dealt with within the deadlines established by law.

At the time, the court ruled that prison department officials had acted irresponsibly and negligently, relying on the provisions of a law that did not correspond to his legal status (Vismantas S. was arrested at the time, not a convicted person). ) and used an Ambiguous Phrase unrelated to the dispute before it.

“There was no evidence in the event that the Department of Prisons had taken any measure to correct the technical error, the complainant stated in his complaint that the prison officials had not apologized and had not shown willingness to rectify the situation,” the The court said the department failed to properly implement the principle of good public administration and its actions were found to be unlawful.

Furthermore, the court noted that after the Seimas Ombudsman drafted a certificate determining a violation, the Department of Prisons had not taken any action to eliminate the violation or mitigate its consequences, stating that a technical error had been made but did not correct it. , and did not take any action to explain to the applicant why a mistake was made, did not apologize.

After evaluating the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that Vismantas S. “may have suffered additional negative spiritual experiences, deterioration in the quality of life, additional discomfort as a result of the rape, which she would not have suffered if the prison department had acted with diligence and responsibility and suffered moral damage. ”.

Taking into account the violation found in the case, the actions of the Department of Prisons without taking any active measures to eliminate the consequences of the violation even after the investigation and certificate of the Seimas ombudsman, the court decided to award moral damages to the inmate of the Lithuanian state represented by the Department of Prisons. In addition, the department was ordered to pay more than € 330 in legal costs.

In addition, the convicted person complained that an official from the prison department had communicated with him by phone in a disrespectful manner, but this complaint was rejected as unfounded.