Federica Donati Your Ref: 17.08.2026
HRC-SR Torture
[email protected] Our Ref 29.09.2026 No 11-3/6225-2
Response to the call for input (practical
measures to reduce and prevent prison
overcrowding)
Dear Ms Federica Donati
The Republic of Estonia respectfully submits the following response to the questionnaire issued by the
Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
concerning practical measures to reduce and prevent prison overcrowding.
The responses below provide an overview of the Estonian legal framework, policies, institutional
practices and relevant developments related to reducing prison populations, promoting alternatives to
detention and imprisonment, safeguarding the rights of persons deprived of liberty, and preventing
prison overcrowding.
The information is presented in accordance with the structure of the questionnaire. Where appropriate,
the submission highlights examples of effective measures, implementation experiences, challenges
encountered and lessons learned that may be relevant for consideration in other jurisdictions.
The Republic of Estonia remains committed to sharing experiences and good practices that may
contribute to international efforts to reduce prison overcrowding and ensure respect for the human rights
of persons deprived of liberty.
Should the Special Rapporteur require any further information, clarification or additional details
regarding any of the responses provided in this submission, including specific aspects of individual
answers, the competent authorities would be pleased to provide supplementary information upon
request. Please do not hesitate to contact us should any questions arise concerning the content of this
submission.
1. Measures that have successfully reduced prison populations
Over the past two decades, Estonia has justified its penal policy reforms as a means of enhancing public
safety through evidence-based and proportionate measures. The reforms have focused on reducing the
use of imprisonment in cases where alternative sanctions are better suited to support the offender’s
reintegration into society, reduce recidivism, and ensure more efficient use of public resources. Estonia’s
criminal policy is based on the principle that punishment should not serve solely a punitive function but
should also promote law-abiding behaviour, facilitate reparation of harm, and contribute to long-term
public safety.
Estonia has justified its reforms on the basis that the primary objective of the criminal justice system is
the reduction of offending rather than the maximization of imprisonment. To achieve this, Estonia has
expanded the use of alternative sanctions, including community service, probation supervision, and
electronic monitoring. It has also strengthened reintegration measures and support services for
Suur-Ameerika 1 / 10122 Tallinn / ESTONIA /+372 620 8100 /
[email protected]/ www.justdigi.ee
Reg no 70000898
individuals released from prison and increased the use of conditional early release. These measures
are intended to reduce reoffending while maintaining public safety.
In Estonia, one of the guiding principles has been the guidelines of criminal policy, which is approved
by the Parliament1. Among other things, the document sets the direction for Estonia's criminal justice
and prison policies. Estonia has pursued a criminal policy aimed at reducing unnecessary reliance on
imprisonment. This has been achieved through a combination of legislative reforms, the development
of community-based sanctions and investments in rehabilitation and reintegration measures (including
project-based initiatives)2. Prison, as a last resort, has been particularly important in responding to
juvenile crime since the 2018 child protection reform. The Penal Code established the principle that a
minor may be imposed a punishment only in case it is impossible to influence the minor not to commit
offences in the future by sanctions applicable to minors.
Over the years, there has been a shift toward greater use of probation and less reliance on incarceration.
Key measures include the expanded use of probation supervision, community service and electronic
monitoring. The availability of structured rehabilitation programs and evidence-based risk management
tools has further supported the reduction of reoffending and facilitated the safe management of offenders
in the community.
Reducing the prison population has been a criminal justice policy goal and a choice that has required
consistent effort. Effective cooperation among the courts, the prosecutor’s office, the prison and
probation service, local governments and civil society organizations has been essential for the
successful implementation of these reforms. Over the past 10 years, the number of prisoners has
decreased by about half, and the number of individuals under probation supervision has decreased by
about 40 percent. In 2016, there were 2,864 prisoners and 4,232 individuals under probation supervision
in Estonia. In 2025, there were 1,621 prisoners and 2,707 individuals under probation supervision in
Estonia.
2. Reducing entry into prison
Estonia has emphasized that imprisonment is not always the most effective response to offending.
Criminal policy has therefore promoted the use of diversion measures, restorative justice, conciliation
proceedings, treatment programs for offenders with substance-use disorders, and alternatives to
custody, particularly for young offenders. The rationale has been that sanctions should be individualized
and should support the offender’s capacity to lead a law-abiding life.
Estonia does not currently experience prison overcrowding at a level that would place persons deprived
of liberty at serious risk of torture or other ill-treatment. Where capacity pressures arise in an individual
prison, the prison population can be redistributed within the available capacity of the prison system,
including through transfers between prisons. Estonia has not had to resort to emergency population-
reduction measures specifically in response to critical overcrowding. Estonia has not experienced a
situation in which the legally established overall capacity limits of the prison system have been reached.
The prison system currently has sufficient available capacity to accommodate people deprived of liberty.
Capacity and occupancy levels are monitored as part of the management of the prison system. If
capacity pressures were to arise in an individual prison, they could be managed within the prison system,
including through the allocation of new admissions or transfers between prisons, taking into account
available capacity and applicable placement requirements.
It is important to note that in Estonia, both the number of prisoners and the number of reported crimes
have decreased over the past ten years. Estonia attaches particular importance to ensuring that
deprivation of liberty is applied only when necessary and proportionate. The decline in the number of
prisoners has been influenced by several factors, which are primarily based on our studies of recidivism
- that is, what works. For example:
- wider use of alternatives to incarceration in cases where a person’s risk level and dangerousness allow
the objectives of the sentence to be achieved within the community, without isolating the person from
society;
1 Kriminaalpoliitika põhialuste aastani 2030 heakskiitmine-Riigi Teataja
2 Project based initiatives examples:
Reentry service | Kriminaalpoliitika (2015-2023)
A youth-friendly legal system | Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs (2019-2024)
Preventing juvenile reoffending | Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs (2023-2029)
2
- promoting early release in cases where the inmate’s behavior, the course of the sentence, and the risk
assessment indicate that their safe reintegration into society is possible with the support of probation
services and, if necessary, electronic monitoring;
- using incarceration of minors as a last resort, which is also effective in preventing recidivism among
minors, thereby reducing the likelihood of them falling into the “vicious cycle of incarceration”.
The legal framework offers courts and prosecutors a variety of alternatives to imprisonment, including
probation, community service, conditional release from custody, and electronic monitoring. For minors
and young adults, the options are even broader. These measures make it possible to respond to
offenses on a case-by-case basis, while ensuring public order and supporting rehabilitation.
3. Reducing time spent in prison
There are several mechanisms available that can reduce unnecessary periods of incarceration while
ensuring public order and supporting reintegration into society. These include probation, release under
electronic monitoring (where provided for by law), sentencing plans focused on rehabilitation, and
access to behavioral, educational, and treatment programs. Such mechanisms create incentives for
constructive participation and support a successful return to society. Estonia’s experience indicates that
effective reintegration requires not only appropriate release mechanisms but also access to housing,
employment opportunities, healthcare and social support services. Accordingly, cooperation between
prison and probation service, municipalities and non-governmental organizations play a central role in
preparing individuals for release and reducing the likelihood of reoffending. Prior to release, the local
government is notified, and, if necessary, contact is made with cooperation partners who provide
services such as support services or housing. The probation service organizes needs-based meetings
within a secure cooperation framework, in which the person being released is involved alongside
specialists.
4. Capacity limits, prevention and emergency responses
Estonia has not established specific legal mechanisms or maximum occupancy thresholds specifically
designed to prevent or respond to prison overcrowding, as overcrowding has not been a practical
problem in the Estonian prison system in recent decades. Prison infrastructure has provided sufficient
capacity in relation to the prison population, and a substantial share of the available capacity remains
unused. Estonian legislation does, however, establish limits on the number of persons who may be
placed in individual prisons. Under § 1² of the Prison Placement Plan, the maximum numbers for closed
prisons are 1,190 in Tallinn Prison, 933 in Tartu Prison and 908 in Viru Prison. Separate limits apply to
open prisons and open prison units: 102 in Tallinn Prison, 60 in Tartu Prison and 75 in Viru Prison.
These limits primarily serve to regulate the placement and distribution of prisoners within the prison
system rather than constituting a specific mechanism for preventing overcrowding. Each prisoner is
guaranteed a minimum of 4.9 m² of personal space per prisoner in the cell.
5. Prison construction and expansion
The construction of new prisons in Estonia formed part of a broader modernization of the prison system,
including the replacement and closure of older prison facilities, rather than being solely a response
aimed at increasing capacity to address overcrowding. Over the longer term, Estonia's prison population
has declined substantially, and the country does not currently experience prison overcrowding.
Estonia has not experienced a sustained pattern whereby an increase in prison capacity was followed
by renewed growth in the prison population that absorbed the additional capacity. On the contrary, the
prison population has declined considerably over the longer term.
In Estonia’s experience, additional prison capacity alone does not ensure a sustainable reduction in
overcrowding. Its long-term impact depends on the development of the prison population and on broader
criminal justice policies and practices that influence the use and duration of imprisonment, including the
availability and use of non-custodial measures. A sustainable reduction in overcrowding therefore
requires that prison capacity and the factors affecting the size of the prison population are addressed
together, rather than relying on additional capacity alone.
No assessment has been identified indicating that prison construction in Estonia has diverted resources
from measures aimed at reducing reliance on imprisonment.
3
The Estonian experience suggests that increasing prison capacity should not be regarded as a stand-
alone or sustainable solution to overcrowding. While adequate prison infrastructure is essential for
ensuring appropriate conditions of detention, long-term prevention of overcrowding also requires
measures that address the factors determining the size of the prison population, including broader
criminal justice and sentencing policies.
6. Groups disproportionately affected and social drivers of imprisonment
Estonia recognizes that certain groups may face vulnerabilities within the criminal justice system and
may therefore be disproportionately affected by imprisonment. Children and young people are the focus
of special attention and the target of preventive approaches. Estonian criminal law establishes the
following principle: a minor may be sentenced or punished only if the measures applicable to the minor
are insufficient to deter him or her from committing future offenses. The goal of interventions must be to
change behavior, foster a sense of responsibility, and promote social inclusion, while avoiding
unnecessary contact with the criminal justice system or detention facilities. Estonia also considers that
successful reintegration depends upon access to housing, employment, healthcare and family support.
There is no serious problem with homelessness on the streets in Estonia, but we recognize its
importance in preventing recidivism. Strengthening these services contributes not only to individual well-
being but also to broader public safety objectives.
7. Obstacles to implementation
Despite the existence of effective measures, efforts to reduce the prison population may be affected by
number of challenges. These include public expectations that favor punitive measures for crimes,
resource constraints (including project-based initiatives) that affect community-based services, barriers
to social reintegration, and institutional challenges related to interagency cooperation. In addition, public
safety concerns may generate resistance to reforms aimed at reducing reliance on incarceration.
Estonia’s experience suggests that these challenges can be addressed through evidence-based
policymaking, transparent public communication, inter-agency cooperation, data-driven approach and
data-based decision-making, including systematic monitoring of recidivism rates. Engagement with civil
society organizations and academic institutions also contributes to informed policy development and
implementation.
8. Costs and allocation of resources
Estonia recognizes that imprisonment typically involves significantly greater financial and social costs
than many non-custodial measures. Investment in probation services, electronic monitoring,
rehabilitation programs, mental health services, substance use treatment and reintegration support can
contribute both to public safety and to reductions in reliance on imprisonment. To date, there have been
no significant examples of redirecting resources—for example, from building prisons to developing
alternatives to incarceration or expanding health and mental health services. Estonia’s approach has
focused primarily on modernizing prison infrastructure, with the goal of phasing out Soviet-era camp-
style prisons, creating modern working and detention conditions, and to create an environment that more
effectively supports reintegration efforts.
Yours sincerely,
(signed digitally)
Tiina Unuks
Head of the Prison Operations Unit
serving as Deputy Secretary General on Prisons
Angela Arbus +372 57801831
[email protected]
4