Pl. ÚS 5/94

The Exclusive Competence of Courts to Make Decisions Concerning
Punishment Including the Transfer of a Convicted Person   While
he is Serving his Sentence
Analysis of Punishment from Quantitative and Qualitative
Respects

                          Headnotes:


1.   A decision to transfer a convicted person from one type of
penitentiary to another, irrespective of the security level  of
that  prison, constitutes a decision concerning the  punishment
for a criminal act, which Article 40 para. 1 of the Charter  of
Fundamental  Rights and Basic Freedoms entrusts exclusively  to
the  jurisdiction  of courts, and in no case to  administrative
bodies.

2.  Decision-making concerning punishment is, on the one
hand, a decision about the type and duration of the
punishment and, on the other hand, a decision about the
manner in which a punishment of imprisonment [prison
sentence] will be carried out, which in the sense of § 39a
para. 2 of the Criminal Act , means a decision by a court to
assign the perpetrator to a certain category of prison.  If
the decision referred to in parentheses in § 122 para. 1 of
the Criminal Procedure Code (§ 39a, § 81 of the Criminal Act)
is to be considered as the original decision concerning
punishment, then the decision to transfer the prisoner from
one category of prison to another can be considered a
derivative decision, even though it is not explicitly
mentioned in the cited § 122 para. 1 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.

3. Both in concept and in content, the institution of
„punishment“ does not have merely a quantitative, a time,
dimension, but also a qualitative dimension corresponding to
the extent to which and to the manner in which the
perpetrator is to be deprived of his human freedom and
dignity. The interconnection of these dimensions is reflected
as well in the statutory requirement that, if an
unconditional sentence of imprisonment is imposed, that
decision must also include a statement concerning the manner
in which this sentence will be served (§ 122 para. 1 of the
Criminal Procedure Code). Thus, in essence, the statement of
judgment is at the same time a sentence of punishment placing
it into both a quantitative and qualitative category.  This
interpretation has support even in the understanding of human
rights and freedoms, for it is not concerned merely with the
duration of punishment, but also its relation to the limits
of these rights and freedoms and the intensity of the
impingement upon these rights and freedoms.


JUDGMENT
                               
of the Czech Constitutional Court Plenum of 30 November 1994,
file no. Pl. ÚS 5/94, in the matter of the petition of a group
of 44 Deputies of the Assembly of Deputies of the Czech
Parliament proposing the annulment of §§ 9 and 9a of Act No.
59/1965 Sb., on Carrying Out the Punishment of Imprisonment, as
amended by Act No. 294/1993 Sb., as well as point 198  of Act
No 292/1993 Sb., amending and supplementing Act No 141/1961
Sb., on Criminal Court Proceedings (Criminal Procedure Code)
(this judgment was published as No. 8/1995 Sb.).

                         I. STATEMENT
                               
§§  9  and  9a  of  Act  No 59/1965 Sb., on  Carrying  Out  the
Punishment of Imprisonment, as amended by Act No 294/1993  Sb.,
as  well  as  point  198 of Act No 292/1993 Sb.,  amending  and
supplementing   Act   No  141/1961  Sb.,  on   Criminal   Court
Proceedings (Criminal Procedure Code) are annulled  as  of  the
day this judgment is published  in the Digest of Laws.

                         II. REASONING
                               

    On  23  February  1994 a group of 44 Deputies  of  the
Assembly  of Deputies of the Czech Parliament submitted  a
petition concerning the annulment of §§ 9 and 9a of Act No
59/1965   Sb.,   on   Carrying  Out  the   Punishment   of
Imprisonment,  as  amended by Act No 294/1993  Sb.,  which
revised the conditions as well as the proceedings for  the
transfer  of  a  convict from one type of penitentiary  to
another.   The  group  of  Deputies  maintains  that   the
revision  of  the  law on Carrying Out the  Punishment  of
Imprisonment No 294/1993 Sb., has come into conflict  with
the  Constitution of the Czech Republic, as well  as  with
the  Charter  of  Fundamental Rights  and  Basic  Freedoms
(hereinafter "Charter"), due to the fact that it  entrusts
such  proceedings to the prison warden and the  review  of
his administrative decision to the District Courts.

    The petitioners criticize the new legal rules for
transferring to executive bodies the exercise of state powers
belonging only to courts, thus empowering executive bodies to
make decisions restricting the inviolability of convicted
persons.
    
    They further object that the amended act permits
administrative bodies to annul the legal force and the
enforceability of judgments as far as concerns the assignment
of convicts to different types of penitentiaries, and in these
cases by decisions to which the Administrative Procedure Code
does not even apply.  Finally they emphasize that this deprives
convicts of the rights which they otherwise have in
administrative proceedings, as well as the right that solely
their lawful judge of the first and second instance may make
decisions concerning the manner in which they serve a sentence
of imprisonment imposed upon them by the court.
    
    In   the   course  of  the  proceedings   before   the
Constitutional   Court  the  petitioners’   representative
amended the original petition in the sense of § 63 of  Act
No  182/1993 Sb., on the Constitutional Court,  and  §  95
para 1 of Act No 99/1963 Sb., of the Civil Procedure Code,
as  amended,  so  as to request that, in addition  to  the
above-mentioned provisions of the revised Act on  Carrying
Out  the  Punishment of Imprisonment, the part of  Act  No
292/1993  Sb.,  amending  and supplementing  the  Criminal
Procedure Code, which repealed the previous § 324  of  the
Criminal  Procedure Code, be annulled as well.  Under  the
latter  provision, it was the district  court  which  made
decisions  concerning changes in the  manner  in  which  a
sentence  was  served  and , accordingly,  concerning  any
reassignment as well.  In the alternative, the petitioners
proposed  that  the  Constitutional Court  defer,  for  an
appropriate  period of time, the entry into force  of  its
judgment  annulling  §§ 9 and 9a of  the  revised  Act  on
Carrying Out the Punishment of Imprisonment, thus offering
the  legislature  time  for  a suitable  revision  of  the
Criminal Procedure Code.
    
    The amendment of the petition to request in addition the
annulment of point 198 of Act No 292/1993 Sb., is substantively
connected with the petition proposing the annulment of §§ 9 and
9a of Act No 59/1965 Sb., as amended by Act No 294/1993 Sb., to
the extent that the subsequent consent of the 44 Deputies of
the Parliament can be reasonably assumed.  Accordingly, in this
case the Constitutional Court did not require that signatures
be given again (§ 64 para 6 of Act No182/1993 Sb.).  If,
however, no such direct substantive link had not existed, it
would have been necessary to proceed as indicated in the above-
cited legal provision.
    
    According  to the petitioners’ assertion, the  revised
legal  rules for carrying out a punishment of imprisonment
and for criminal proceedings are in conflict with Articles
39  and  40  of the Charter, according to which  solely  a
court   may   make  decisions  on  punishment  and   other
detriments  to  rights  that  may  be  imposed   for   the
commission of a crime. Another controversy is seen related
to  Article 38 para. 1 of the Charter, according to  which
nobody  may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful
judge.   The  contested provisions of the revised  Act  on
Carrying  Out the Punishment of Imprisonment, as  well  as
the  repealing provisions of the revised act  on  Carrying
Out  the  Punishment  of Imprisonment  and  the  repealing
provisions  of  the amendment to Criminal Procedure  Code,
finally, are in conflict with Articles 2, 4, and 90 of the
Constitution,  which  do not permit  executive  bodies  to
exercise any powers pertaining to judicial bodies.

    2.  A group of 44 Deputies of the Parliament [§ 64 para.
1, lit. b) of Act No. 182/1993 Sb.] submitted a petition
proposing the annulment, pursuant  to Art. 87 para. 1, lit. a)
of the Constitution, of a statutory provision, and they
entrusted, from among their ranks, JUDr. Jaroslav Ortmann to
represent them in the proceedings before the Constitutional
Court.  After ascertaining that no grounds exist either for
dismissing the petition on procedural grounds (§ 43 para. 1 of
Act No. 182/1993 Sb.) or for suspending the proceedings (§ 67
of Act No. 182/1993 Sb.), in conformity with § 69 of Act No.
182/1993 Sb., the petition was sent to the Czech Parliament,
along with a request for a statement of its views.

    3.  In the statement of its views signed by Deputy
Chairman of the Assembly of Deputies, ing. Jan Kasal, the Czech
Parliament, a party to the proceedings, states that, according
to its explanatory report, the purpose of the adopted legal
rule resides in the fact that the legal rule, in accordance
with which  the assignment of a convict to a certain type of
institution is decided by a court in its judgment practically
for the entire period of imprisonment, had not proved  to be
either adequate or flexible.  At that juncture a court cannot
foresee with any definite degree of probability how the
convicted person will behave under the conditions of
imprisonment and whether he will accept or, on the contrary,
reject the resocialization programs.  For this reason an
amendment was proposed that would ensure the necessary degree
of mobility between various types of penitentiaries, while
enabling the convicted person to seek judicial protection, if
his status has, during the course of his imprisonment, worsened
due to the decision of the warden.  Consequently, a convict
serving his sentence was not deprived of judicial protection
and always has the possibility, if he disagrees with the
decision of the warden of the penitentiary, to request judicial
review of that decision from an independent court.  However, at
the conclusion of the Czech Parliament’s statement of views, he
wrote that it is up to the Constitutional Court, within the
framework of separation of powers between the legislative, the
executive and the judicial branches, to adjudge whether the
contested rule of the revised Act on Carrying Out the
Punishment of Imprisonment is in conformity with our legal
order, and to issue the appropriate judgment.
    
    Following the amendment of the petition, which was
submitted in the course of the proceedings before the
Constitutional Court by the representative of the petitioners
in the presence of a representative of the opposing party, the
Deputy Chairman of the Assembly of Deputies of the Czech
Parliament, that representative informed the Court that it does
not propose any supplementary evidence and that it adheres to
its position.

    4.  In accordance with § 68 para. 2 of Act No. 182/1993
Sb., the Constitutional Court began by ascertaining whether the
legal norms which the petitioners contest as unconstitutional
had been adopted and issued within the bounds of the competence
set down in the Constitution and in the constitutionally-
prescribed manner.
    
    It was ascertained from the report of the Czech
Parliament, which refers to the stenographic record of the
meeting of the Assembly of Deputies, the Assembly printed
record No. 536, and the Collection of Laws, that the amendments
to the Act on Carrying Out the Punishment of Imprisonment had
been proposed of the Czech Government, which made use of its
right of legislative initiative pursuant to Article 41 para. 2
of the Constitution. The Act was adopted by the Assembly of
Deputies pursuant to Article 15 para. 1 and Article 106 para.
2, third sentence of the Constitution. The quorum and majority
prescribed by Article 39 paras. 1 and 2 of the Constitution
were achieved, since 158 Deputies were present at the 10
November 1993 session of the Assembly of Deputies, of whom 117
Deputies voted in favor of the Act, eleven against, and thirty
abstained. The constitutionally-prescribed means for adopting
statutes was thus observed, as were those concerning its
promulgation, since it was signed by the Chairman of the
Assembly of Deputies, by the President of the Republic, and by
the Prime Minister (Article 51 of the Constitution) and was
promulgated in the Collection of Laws (Article 52 of the
Constitution, § 2 of Czech National Council Act No. 545/1992
Sb., on the Collection of Laws of the Czech Republic) in issue
no. 74 of year 1993, distributed on 10 December 1993.  On that
day, Act No 294/1993 Sb., which amends and supplements Act No.
59/1965 Sb. on Carrying Out the Punishment of Imprisonment, as
amended by Acts No. 173/1968 Sb., No. 100/1970 Sb., No. 47/1973
Sb., and No. 179/1990 Sb., acquired validity and, pursuant to
its Article IV, came into effect on 1 January 1994.
    
    It was further ascertained from the stenographic record of
the meeting of the Assembly of Deputies, from Assembly printed
record nos. 535, 536, and from the Collection of Laws that the
amendment to Act No. 141/1961 Sb., on Criminal Court
Proceedings (the Criminal Procedure Code), that is Act No.
292/1993 Sb., was proposed by the Czech Government, making use
of its right of legislative initiative under Article 41 para. 2
of the Constitution.  The Act was adopted by the Assembly of
Deputies pursuant to Article 15 para. 1 and Article 106 para.
2, third sentence of the Constitution.  The quorum and majority
required by Article 39 paras. 1 and 2 of the Constitution were
achieved, since 155 Deputies were present at the 10 November
1993 session of the Assembly of Deputies, of whom 104 Deputies
voted in favor of the Act, ten against, and forty-one
abstained. The constitutionally-prescribed means for adopting
statutes was thus observed, as were those concerning its
promulgation, since it was signed by the Chairman of the
Assembly of Deputies, by the President of the Republic, and by
the Prime Minister (Article 51 of the Constitution) and was
promulgated in the Collection of Laws (Article 52 of the
Constitution, § 2 of Czech National Council Act No. 545/1992
Sb., on the Collection of Laws of the Czech Republic) in issue
no. 74 of year 1993, distributed on 10 December 1993.  On that
day, Act No 292/1993 Sb., which amends and supplements Act No.
141/1961 Sb., on Criminal Court Proceedings (the Criminal
Procedure Code), as amended by Acts No. 57/1965 Sb., No.
58/1969 Sb., No. 149/1969 Sb., No. 48/1973 Sb., No. 29/1978
Sb., No. 43/1980 Sb., No. 159/1989 Sb., No. 178/1990 Sb., No.
303/1990 Sb., No. 558/1991 Sb., No. 25/1993 Sb., and No.
115/1993 Sb., acquired validity and, pursuant to its Article
IV, came into effect on 1 January 1994.


    5. a)  The Constitutional Court then reviewed, as it is
obliged to do under § 68 para. 2 of Act No. 182/1993 Sb., the
contents of the contested provision of the revised Act on
Carrying Out the Punishment of Imprisonment, as well as the
revised Code of Criminal Procedure, having regard to their
conformity with constitutional acts and international treaties
under Article 10 of the Constitution.

    The contested provisions §§ 9 and 9a of the revised Act  on
Carrying  Out  the Punishment of Imprisonment are in  conflict,
above  all, with Article 39 of the Charter.  The point is  that
the  detriment to rights to which a convicted person is subject
in  consequence  of  the  transfer to a  more  severe  type  of
penitentiary  are  supported by the Act  on  Carrying  Out  the
Punishment of Imprisonment and the Ordinance thereto  (Ministry
of  Justice Regulation No. 110/1994 Sb., issuing the  Rules  on
the  Carrying out of the Punishment of Imprisonment),  however,
in consequence of the amended Act No. 294/1993 Sb., which is in
conflict   with  the  Charter  and the  Constitution  in  other
respects,  these  detriments also impinge  upon  the  convicted
person in an unconstitutional way.

    The contested provisions of the revised Act on Carrying
Out the Punishment of Imprisonment must be declared to be in
conflict also with Article 40 of the Charter.  A decision to
transfer a convicted person from one type of prison to another,
irrespective of the security level of that prison, constitutes
a decision concerning the punishment for a criminal act, which
the Charter entrusts exclusively to the jurisdiction of courts,
and in no case to administrative bodies.

    An important concept for considering the conformity or non-
conformity  of §§ 9 and 9a of the revised Act on  Carrying  Out
the  Punishment of Imprisonment with Article 40 para 1  of  the
Charter,  is  the  concept  of  "decision-making  by  a   court
concerning  punishment".  In reference to § 122 para 1  of  the
Criminal  Procedure  Code,  the  judgment  of  conviction  must
contain a statement concerning punishment as well as mention of
the  legal provisions under which the punishment has been meted
out.   If  an unconditional sentence of imprisonment  has  been
imposed,  the judgment must contain a statement concerning  the
manner  in which this punishment should be carried out  (§  39a
para  1  of the Criminal Act).  It follows from the above  that
decision-making concerning punishment is, on the  one  hand,  a
decision concerning the type and duration of punishment, and on
the  other hand, a decision concerning the manner in which  the
punishment  of imprisonment will be carried out, which  in  the
sense  of  § 39a para 2, means a decision by a court to  assign
the  perpetrator  to  a certain category  of  prison.   If  the
decision  referred to in parentheses in § 122 para.  1  of  the
Criminal  Procedure  Code (§ 39a, 81 Criminal  Act)  is  to  be
considered  the  original decision concerning punishment,  then
the decision concerning the transfer from one type of prison to
another can be considered as a derivative decision, even though
it is not explicitly mentioned in the cited § 122 para 1 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.

    The fact that a decision concerning the transfer of a
convicted person is a derivative decision can not be used
without any further considerations for inferring that it might
be entrusted to another body than a judicial one.  This derived
character does not convert it into a decision of an entirely
different character than the original one assigning the
convicted person to a type of prison.  The Constitutional Court
believes that the opposite is true.  Both the original and the
derivative decision in the above sense are judgments concerning
punishment.  Another argument in favor of this conclusion is
the content of § 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that had
been annulled by the revision and is being rehabilitated by the
present day finding; since its para 1 on changing the way of
confinement, which was understood to be in particular the
transfer of a convicted person from one correction group into
another, gives jurisdiction to  the District Court.

    The issue can be viewed also in the following way leading
to the same conclusions.

    Both  in  concept  and  in  content,  the  institution   of
„punishment“  does  not  have merely a  quantitative,  a  time,
dimension,  but  also a qualitative dimension corresponding  to
the  extent to which and to the manner in which the perpetrator
is  to  be  deprived  of  his human freedom  and  dignity.  The
interconnection of these dimensions is reflected as well in the
statutory  requirement  that, if an unconditional  sentence  of
imprisonment  is  imposed, that decision must  also  include  a
statement concerning the manner in which this sentence will  be
served  (§ 122 para. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code).   Thus,
in  essence,  the statement of judgment is at the same  time  a
sentence of punishment placing it into both a quantitative  and
qualitative category.  This interpretation has support even  in
the  understanding of human rights and freedoms, for it is  not
concerned merely with the duration of punishment, but also  its
relation  to  the limits of these rights and freedoms  and  the
intensity of the impingement upon these rights and freedoms.

    Another   discrepancy of the contended  provisions  of  the
revised  Act  of  Carrying Out the Punishment  of  Imprisonment
should  be  seen  also regarding Article  40  of  the  Charter.
Decisions on the transfer of a convicted person from  one  type
of  penitentiary into another, irrespective of the severity  of
their regime, equal deciding on punishment for a criminal deed,
with  which  the Charter endows exclusively the  Court,  by  no
means an administrative body.

    According to the last cited legal provision, § 9a para. 2,
the convicted person may, within eight days of receipt of the
written copy of the decision transferring him to a prison with
stricter security regime, lodge an appeal with the district
court in the district in which is situated the prison whose
director decided on the transfer.  The appeal does not have
suspensive effect.  A separate legal enactment applies to these
proceedings before the court.  And in this case, that special
legal enactment is the Civil Procedure Code (Act No. 99/1963
Sb., as amended, specifically §§ 250l - 250s thereof, which
govern decision-making in appeals against decisions of
administrative bodies).

    As was already stated, if an unconditional sentence of
imprisonment has been imposed, already at first instance the
court’s decision-making concerning punishment encompass
decisions concerning its type, duration and manner of serving
the sentence.

    Solely a proceeding at the appellate level, against which
no further appellate proceedings are admissible (§§ 250s para.
1 of the Civil Procedure Code), is permitted against decisions
under § 9a para. 2 of the revised act on Carrying Out the
Punishment of Imprisonment and §§ 250l through 250s of the
Civil Procedure Code.  In other words, it is only and
exclusively as a court of second instance that a court may
decide on the manner in which a sentence of imprisonment is
served pursuant to § 9a para. 2 of the revised Act on Carrying
Out the Punishment of Imprisonment and to the Civil Procedure
Code.  In this way, the possibility for the defense of the
convicted person against the transfer decision is substantially
burdened, as compared with the situation under the previous
rule in § 324 para. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, pursuant
to which and an appeal with suspensive effect lay against a
decision concerning the change of the manner in which a
punishment is carried out, that is, concerning a transfer as
well.  In addition, specific statistical data on the numbers of
convicts transferred to prisons with stricter security regime
evidences, to a certain extent, the character and impact of the
legal rule under § 9a para. 2 of the Act on Carrying Out the
Punishment of Imprisonment, as amended by Act No. 294/1993 Sb.,
now being annulled due to the considerations stated above.  A
report of the Ministry of Justice, covering the period from 1
January 1994 through to 31 October 1994, shows that 162 cases
were decided concerning the transfer of convicted persons into
prisons with stricter security regimes.  In ten of these cases
the convict lodged appeals, before the district court pursuant
to §§ 250l through 250s of the Civil Procedure Code, against
the decision.  In four of these cases the appeals were
dismissed, in one case the proceedings were suspended,  in one
postponed, and in the remaining four cases no decision had been
issued as of the date of the report (17 November 1994).

    Generally speaking, if the transfer of a convict is
constitutional solely when based upon the decision of a court
of first instance, then the lack of such decision can not be
replaced with a judicial decision that is merely a review of a
first instance administrative decision, and merely in the
contest of deciding an appellate remedy against that decision.

    By entrusting the prison warden with decision-making
concerning the transfer of a convict from one type of prison to
another, the courts were divested of decision-making concerning
the manner of serving one's sentence of imprisonment, or a
change thereof, which was entrusted to an administrative body.
In consequence, in the given issue, which had up until now been
decided by a court, the convict was removed from the
jurisdiction of the court or of his lawful judge.
Consequently, §§ 9 and 9a of the revised Act on Carrying Out
the Punishment of Imprisonment, are in conflict with Article 38
para. 1 of the Charter.

    Since state authority in the form of penal authority,
i.e., carrying out the sentence of imprisonment, including
changes in the manner it is carried out, can be applied solely
within the bounds and in the manner prescribed by law, however,
it must be a law which is not unconstitutional.  The revised
Act on Carrying Out the Punishment of Imprisonment No 294/1993
Sb., certainly exhibits such a conflict as is described above,
in consequence of which, its provisions in §§ 9 and 9a are in
conflict with Article 2 para 3 of the Constitution as well.

    Due to the fact that the contested provisions of the
revised Act on Carrying Out the Punishment of Imprisonment
represent the removal of a convict from the jurisdiction of his
lawful judge as regards transfers while he is serving his
sentence (see the conflict with Article 38 para 1 of the
Charter), in addition, one of the fundamental rights and basic
freedoms of convicted persons, i.e. personal freedom (Article 8
para 1 of the Charter), has been withdrawn from the protection
of judicial bodies, in violation of Articles 4 of the
Constitution.  These considerations prove that the contested §§
9 and 9a of the revised Act on Carrying Out the Punishment of
Imprisonment No 294/1993 Sb., are unconstitutional.
    
    To the extent that the petitioners consider the
unconstitutionality of the contested provisions of the revised
Act on Carrying Out the Punishment of Imprisonment resides in
their conflict with Article 90 of the Constitution, the same
arguments apply as did in the discussion of their conflict with
Article 40 para. 1 of the Charter.  According to both
provisions, only a court may decide upon guilt and determine
the punishment for criminal deeds.  Consequently, no
administrative organ whatsoever may do so, even if, in the
given matter, only decision-making about punishment is
concerned.
    
    Considering the fact that, for the above-stated reasons, a
conflict was found, in the sense of § 70 para. 1 of Act No.
182/1993 Sb., on the Constitutional Court, between §§ 9 and 9a
of Act No. 59/1995 Sb., on Carrying Out the Punishment of
Imprisonment, as amended by Act No. 294/1993 Sb., on the one
hand, and the cited articles of the Charter as well as the
Constitution, on the other hand, the Constitutional Court
decided to annul those legal regulations, as of the day this
judgment is published in the Collection of Laws.

    5.  b)  The petitioners had drawn attention only to the
discrepancy between the cited provisions of the revised Act on
Carrying Out the Punishment of Imprisonment No. 294/1993 Sb.,
as well as the revised Criminal Procedure Code, No. 292/1993
Sb., and domestic constitutional law provisions.  However, as
the Constitutional Court is limited to taking solely the action
requested in the of the petition, but is not limited by the
reasoning given therefor, the Constitutional Court, in view of
its official obligations in the sense of § 68 para. 2 of Act No
182/1993 Sb., also took into consideration the conformity of
the contested legal provisions with international treaties on
human rights and fundamental freedoms that have been ratified
and promulgated and by which the Czech Republic is bound
(Article 10 of the Constitution).  However, no discrepancies
have been found in this respect.

    Neither the Minimum Standard Rules for the Treatment of
Imprisoned Persons, approved by the Economic and Social Council
of the UNO by Resolutions No 663 C (XXIV) and No 2076 (LXII),
nor the European Prisoners Rules, having the character of a
recommendation to the member states by the Council of Ministers
of the Council of Europe, No. R(87) 3, were not taken into
consideration for this review.  Neither of these documents has
the character of an international treaty as meant by Article 10
of the Constitution.

6.   Since a regulation were issued for the implementation of  Act  No
59/1965  Sb.,  on  Carrying  Out the Punishment  of  Imprisonment,  as
amended by Act No. 294/1993 Sb., namely Ministry of Justice Regulation
No.  110/1994  Sb.,  issuing the Rules on  the  Carrying  out  of  the
Punishment of Imprisonment, it was necessary, in accordance with §  70
para.  3  of  Act  No. 182/1993 Sb., on the Constitutional  Court,  to
declare  in  the  judgment also that certain of  its  provisions  lost
validity, in particular §§ 11 lit. a), 13 and 14, as in substance they
bear an intimate connection to the annulled provisions, §§ 9 and 9a of
Act  No.  59/1965 Sb., on Carrying Out the Punishment of Imprisonment,
as amended by Act No. 294/1993 Sb.