Homel: prisoner complains about conditions in pre-trial prison
On 9 November the
Tsentralny District Court of Homel turned down the lawsuit of the Homel
resident Halina Pratsko who demanded a compensation from the Homel-pretrial
prison for moral and physical damages. In her lawsuit the woman stated that she
got several diseases, including a nervous system disease, Raynaud's disease, diseases of internal organs, skin, and pediculosis during her stay in prison.
The 27-year-old woman was kept in the Homel pre-trial prison for more than a year, the whole term of investigation. At first she was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment on charges in traffic in people. However, as a result of numerous appeals the court changed the charges and changed the term to 2 years, as the article “trafficking in people” was abolished, and the woman was found guilty only of involvement of persons into prostitution.
In her lawsuit Halina complained that the consequences of the physical and moral damage inflicted to her by officers of the pre-trial prison yet remain to be assessed. If the progress of her diseases continues, even a fatal outcome is possible.
“He asked for gynecologist’s aid, as he had gynecologic problems and bleeding. She also had problems with her toenails. At first the prison medics diagnosed her with “fungus”, but the problems persisted. Later the medics gave her a different diagnosis. Numerous complaints to the procuracy and the medical unit gave no results. The administration often talked to her about the inadmissibility of such complaints,” commented the prisoner’s father, Aliaksandr Pratsko, who represented her interests at the trial, as Halina is still kept in prison.
Halina Pratsko demanded 45 million rubles in moral and physical damages. However, Judge Siarhei Shytsikau qualified actions of officers and administration of the pre-trial prison as lawful and turned the lawsuit down.
Nevertheless, the father is going to continue defending his daughter’s rights. He also filed a lawsuit against the Belarusian State TV and Radio Company, which broadcasted a close-up of the detention of her daughter. She wasn’t found guilty at that time, that’s why the TV company violated the presumption of innocence in this case.