The article provides a comprehensive analysis of physical, dynamic, and procedural security in places of deprivation of liberty through the lens of international standards, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and the contemporary Ukrainian context of penitentiary system reform. It substantiates that security in penal institutions cannot be reduced solely to perimeter control and the application of isolation-repressive measures; rather, it should be understood as an element of the State’s positive obligations to ensure human rights, in particular the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The study examines the provisions of the European Prison Rules, the Nelson Mandela Rules, documents of the United Nations and the Council of Europe, as well as key ECtHR judgments (Kudła v. Poland, Sukachov v. Ukraine, Karabet and Others v. Ukraine, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine), which clarify the content of physical, dynamic, and procedural security. Based on materials from national and international monitoring bodies, the article highlights typical problems of Ukrainian places of detention, including outdated infrastructure, the predominance of a “force-based” response model, a deficit of dynamic security, and the insufficiency of effective procedural safeguards.

It is concluded that the three-component security model constitutes an effective tool for assessing the compliance of national penitentiary practice with international standards and should serve as a methodological foundation for further reforms aimed at combining an adequate level of security with respect for human dignity and the rights of persons deprived of liberty.

Key words: places of deprivation of liberty, physical security, dynamic security, procedural security, international standards, European Court of Human Rights, prohibition of torture, penitentiary reform in Ukraine.

References

1. Council of Europe (2006), European Prison Rules, аvailable at: https://rm.coe.int/european-prison-rules-978-92-871-5982-3/16806ab9ae (аccessed 20 January 2026).
2. United Nations (2015), The revised United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), аvailable at: https://cdn.penalreform.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/PRI _Nelson_Mandela_Rules_Short_Guide_WEB.pdf (аccessed 20 January 2026).
3. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2015), Handbook on Dynamic Security and Prison Intelligence, аvailable at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/UNODC_Handbook_on_Dynamic_Security_and_Prison_Intelligence.pdf (аccessed 20 January 2026).
4. Bodnar, I. V. (2021), “Ensuring security in penal institutions”, Scientific Herald of Sivershchyna. Series: Law, № 1 (12), pp. 92–102. https://doi.org/10.32755/sjlaw.2021.01.092
5. European Court of Human Rights (2000), Case of Kudła v. Poland (Application no. 30210/96), Judgment of 26 October 2000, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58920%22]} (accessed 20 January 2026).
6. European Court of Human Rights (2020), Sukachov v. Ukraine, Judgment of 30 January 2020, аvailable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int /ukr#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-12707%22]} (аccessed 20 January 2026).
7. Council of Europe (n.d.), European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), аvailable at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cpt (аccessed 20 January 2026).
8. EuroPris (2023), Application of dynamic security in places of imprisonment : methodological manual, Vilnius, аvailable at: https://www.europris.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Dynamic-Security-Handbook.pdf (аccessed 20 January 2026).
9. United Nations (1955), Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, аvailable at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_212 #Text (аccessed 20 January 2026).
10. European Court of Human Rights (2013), Case of Karabet and Others v. Ukraine, Judgment of 17 January 2013, Strasbourg, аvailable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115886%22]} (аccessed 20 January 2026).
11. European Court of Human Rights (2005), Case of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (Application no. 54825/00), Judgment of 5 April 2005, Strasbourg, аvailable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-68715%22]} (аccessed 20 January 2026).
12. Council of Europe (n.d.), Online trainings on dynamic security for the Criminal Executive Directorate personnel, аvailable at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/home//asset_publisher/Pur4r4szNjUn/content/online-trainings-on-dynamic-security-for-the-criminal-executive-directorate-personnel (аccessed 20 January 2026).
13. EU Law Live (2020), ECtHR condemns detention conditions in Ukraine and France, аvailable at: https://eulawlive.com/ecthr-condemns-detention-conditions-in-ukraine-and-france/ (аccessed 20 January 2026).
14. Prison Litigation Network (n.d.), Procedural obligations established by the European Court of Human Rights regarding physical conditions of detention and prison overcrowding, аvailable at: https://www.prisonlitigation.org/articles/procedural-obligations-detention-conditions/ (аccessed 20 January 2026).
15. Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (n.d.), Human rights in Ukraine, аvailable at: https://archive.khpg.org/en/1608809217 (аccessed 20 January 2026).