Today, August 21, a case has been initiated in the Constitutional Court entitled ‘On the conformity of the second paragraph of Section 638 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91, the first sentence of Article 92 and the second and third sentences of Article 95 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia”.
The contested provision stipulates that, where a sentence of deprivation of liberty has been imposed, the enforcement of the sentence may not be postponed in the case of a person convicted of a serious or particularly serious offence.
By a judgment that has entered into force, the applicant was convicted of committing a particularly serious offence and sentenced to deprivation of liberty. After the judgement came into force, the applicant was diagnosed with a serious illness. The applicant states that it is not possible to provide him with the healthcare he requires in a custodial institution in order to prevent his life from being put at risk.
The applicant states that the contested provision prevents the court from postponing the enforcement of the judgement, as he has been convicted of a particularly serious offence. In his view, the contested provision provides for unjustifiably different treatment compared with persons who have also been diagnosed with a serious illness but who have been convicted of a criminal offence or a less serious offence. Similarly, the applicant considers that the contested provision subjects him to cruel treatment and punishment that is degrading to human dignity, as it requires him to commence serving his sentence in a custodial institution so that the court may determine the impact of his state of health on the serving of his sentence. Consequently, the right to a fair trial enshrined in the first sentence of Article 92 has been infringed, and the principle of legal equality contained in the first sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution, and the prohibition on cruel and degrading treatment and punishment, as set out in the second and third sentences of Article 95 of the Constitution have been infringed.
The Constitutional Court invited the Saeima to submit by October 21 a writ of response detailing the factual circumstances of the case along with the legal justification thereof. The Court will decide on the procedure and date for hearing the case once the case is prepared.
At the same time, the Constitutional Court suspended enforcement of the part of the judgement of the Judicial Panel of Criminal Cases of the Riga Regional Court concerning the execution of the sentence of deprivation of liberty until the Constitutional Court’s ruling comes into force.
Linked case: 2026-14-01