Within the legal assistance provided by the Protection of Rights without Border NGO, an application for the early conditional release of the convicted H.N. was submitted to the Court, given the fact that the person has the right to court protection and in the RA the court is the only body, which is authorized to solve the issue related to the early condictional release.
According to the description provided by the penitentiary institution, the convicted was evaluated positively, the current evaluation results were assessed medium, risk degree was low. A conculsion on the convictedss correction was issued that the latter got rid of criminal addictions and is in the correction way. Meanwhile, the issue of the early conditional release of the convicted was rejected by the Independent Commission was rejected without any justification.
It was highlighed in the application lodged to the court, that the RA legislation does not envisage concrete criteria on the basis of which the convicted will be evaluated, moreovere, the Independent Commission which approves the petition of the penitentiary institution on the early conditional release of the conviced does not in any way justify its made decisions.
The examination of the application and the appeal were conducted both by the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeals respectively. The Courts directly touched upon the issue of the early conditional release of the H.N., regardless the circumstance, the Independent Commission did not approve application and the application has been submitted by the conviced himself. The demand on the early conditional release were rejected both by the First Instance Court and Court of Appeals on the grounds of the justification that the convicted has not yet been corrected and there is a necessisty to bear the unserved part of the punishment.
An appeal by the lawyers of the Protection of Rights without Border NGO has been submitted to the Court of Appeals.
The following question was raised before the Court of Cassation: whether, while investigating the question of the early conditional release of the conviced in a judicial order, the data related to the correction of the convicted, the non-fullfilment of the personaliazed examination of the personal characteristics and non-demonstration of the differentiated approach do not violate the obligation to the comprehensive, full and objective investigation of the case, leading to a violation of the right to a fair trial.
It was also mentioned in the complaint, that the lower courts violated the principal of differentiation and personalization of the convicted, did not conduct examination of the comprehensive, full and objective investigation of the case ragrding the data related to the correction of the convicted, including his characteristics, in the outcomes of which a decision on the rejection of the early conditional was made.