Text file: 8253.txt
author: oxineva
downvotes: 2
end consideration date: 2017-05-12
id: '8253'
number comments: 3
number views: 2869
proposal type: Competent authority response
response: "Response from the Ministry of Justice\nThe Act on Amendments and Additions\
  \ to the Act on the Enforcement of Penal Sanctions (ZIKS-1F) introduced normative\
  \ changes in the field of regulation of the institution of suspension and interruption\
  \ of imprisonment. By amending Article 24 of the Act on the Execution of Penal Sanctions\
  \ (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the previous so-called medical reason for\
  \ suspending the serving of a sentence, which in practice, due to its normative\
  \ looseness, also allowed for the possibility of abuse of this institute, was replaced\
  \ by the reason that the suspension is only permissible for the purpose of the convicted\
  \ person's hospital treatment. The amendment thus establishes an unequivocal circumstance\
  \ justifying the suspension of the sentence and simplifies the procedure for deciding\
  \ on suspension of sentence on that ground, since under the previous regime the\
  \ capacity to serve the sentence on account of serious illness was also determined\
  \ by medical experts, which delayed the decision-making procedures. Despite the\
  \ above, the amendment does not affect the right of the convicted person to adequate\
  \ health care, since health care in penal institutions is provided by the health\
  \ centres in whose area the institution is located and, in addition, health care\
  \ for convicted persons may also be provided in appropriate health centres outside\
  \ the institution.\nWe further clarify that prior to the amendment to ZIKS-1F, it\
  \ was permissible to suspend a convicted person's sentence of imprisonment if the\
  \ convicted person was unable to serve it due to a serious illness. However, following\
  \ the adoption of the amendment to the ZIKS-1F, it is only permissible to interrupt\
  \ the sentence if the institution is unable to provide the convicted person with\
  \ adequate medical care in the specific case, in the light of his or her medical\
  \ needs. This change has shifted the focus of the decision on interruption of the\
  \ sentence from the ability of the convicted person to serve the sentence to the\
  \ relationship between the medical needs of the convicted person in the specific\
  \ case and the capacity of the specific institution to do so. All of the above changes\
  \ have limited the scope of the still permissible interruption of a prison sentence\
  \ to cases of case-by-case assessment of the provision of adequate medical care\
  \ to the convicted person during the period of his or her imprisonment.\nIn addition\
  \ to the above-mentioned normative changes in the field of grounds for suspension\
  \ or interruption of the serving of a sentence, the amendment to ZIKS-1F also established\
  \ new mechanisms aimed at preventing possible abuse of these institutions. The amendment\
  \ to the ZIKS-1F imposes an obligation on the convicted person, for the purpose\
  \ of suspending or interrupting his/her imprisonment, to submit a certificate on\
  \ the existence of grounds for suspension or interruption of imprisonment every\
  \ month and to ensure that the certificate is issued on a special form specifically\
  \ provided for in the Rules.\nIn addition to the above-mentioned mechanisms, the\
  \ amendment to ZIKS-1F also provides the court or the director of the institution,\
  \ in the procedures for deciding on the suspension or interruption of a prison sentence,\
  \ with a specific legal possibility to obtain the opinion of a special medical commission\
  \ in the event of suspicion of abuse or doubts as to the provision of adequate medical\
  \ care in the institution (Article 25, paragraph 3, and Article 82, paragraph 6\
  \ of the Act).\nIn view of all the above, the Ministry of Justice considers that\
  \ the latest amendment to the law has eliminated the previous excessive normative\
  \ laxity and, in this connection, we consider the current normative regulation to\
  \ be adequate, since the possibility of abuse of the institution of suspension of\
  \ sentence or interruption of sentence has been considerably reduced.\n "
response date: 2017-06-05
response due date: null
sent date: 2017-04-13
title: Enforcement of sentences
upvotes: 21
url: https://predlagam.vladi.si/predlog/8253
