The shadow code: How informal prison hierarchy undermines human dignity across post-Soviet prisons

In this expert blog, PRI’s Tinatin Uplisashvili explores the persistence of informal prison hierarchies across post-Soviet penitentiary systems, structures that continue to shape prison life through violence, social exclusion and informal authority. Drawing on recent reports by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and long-standing documentation from multiple countries, the blog analyses how caste-based control systems operate with tacit approval from staff and authorities. Tinatin examines the historical roots of this phenomenon, the systemic collusion that enables it, and the disproportionate harm caused to marginalised groups. 

In many post-Soviet penitentiary systems, real authority within prison walls is frequently wielded not by staff, but by people in prison. Commonly referred to as smotriašchije, polozhentsy, or leaders of the “thieves’ world” (vorovskoi mir), they enforce a rigid, caste-based system of control. Governed by an unwritten code known as poniatija, this informal hierarchy structures daily life and interactions within prisons, shaping who holds power, who is afforded protection and who is subjected to abuse.

This phenomenon is not restricted to isolated institutions or individual national contexts. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has consistently documented the existence of informal prisoner hierarchies throughout the post-Soviet region. Reports from Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia and other states reveal a recurring pattern: a widespread reliance on a system of order enforced by those in prison, often tacitly or explicitly acknowledged by the prison authorities themselves.

Historical foundations of informal power

The origins of this system can be traced back to Tsarist Russia and became entrenched during the Gulag era, where collectivist dormitory arrangements and criminal fraternities fostered self-governance structures. The delegation of authority to certain detainees was not incidental; rather, it was a deliberate instrument of control. These structures were formalised within a criminal ethos where leaders of informal prisoner hierarchies—the vory v zakone—exercised power through a combination of fear, ritual and control of communal resources (obshchak). The CPT’s 34th General Report (2024) and the Prison Standards CPT/Inf (2025)12 describe this as a form of “carceral collectivism,” which not only withstood the collapse of the Soviet Union but continues to shape prison governance across the region. 

Recent reports confirm that people in prison often view these informal rules as more authoritative than official prison regulations. According to findings by the CPT across closed and semi-closed institutions, “many people in prison regard the informal rules and hierarchy in place […] as being more relevant than the official regulations and instructions issued by staff”. This perception is reinforced through violence, social exclusion and ritual humiliation – practices most frequently directed at those occupying the lowest tier of the prison caste system, such as the so-called opushchennye or “untouchables.”  

Mechanics of detainee control  

These hierarchies are neither vague nor symbolic. They are highly organised, upheld by recognised leaders, and enforced through rituals, unwritten rules, and sanctions. The CPT has documented centralised systems of informal governance in which people in prison acting as leaders maintain discipline, allocate privileges and administer punishment for rule violations. Such punishments are often violent, arbitrary and devoid of transparency or procedural safeguards. 

In facilities throughout the region, these caste structures are acknowledged by both staff and people in prison. CPT reports and independent studies reveal that, in many prisons, staff defer to prison leaders to maintain order. This tacit cooperation frequently overlooks extortion schemes, forced labour and systemic abuse. In some cases, staff directly benefit from the informal economy sustained by these hierarchies. Moreover, in its recent prison standard on Informal Prisoner Hierarchy (CPT/Inf(2025)12), the CPT notes that, in several countries, high-ranking informal leaders continue their criminal activities from within the prisons, thereby reinforcing external criminal networks. 

The relationship between violence and social order  

Far from being chaotic, violence within these systems functions as a regulatory mechanism. It reinforces hierarchical structures, disciplines dissent and maintains control over communal resources (obshchak). A baseline study in Moldova, for instance, shows that higher levels of informal leadership correlate with increased perceptions of insecurity among both staff and people in prison. Rather than mitigating conflict, informal governance tends to institutionalise it—embedding violence into the very fabric of prison life. 

The CPT has linked these hierarchies to ill-treatment and possible violations of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Testimonies from people in prison and medical records document injuries resulting from inter-prisoner violence, often in settings in which staff deliberately avoid intervention or are complicit in the abuses. 

Targeted abuse: The caste of the rejected 

One of the most egregious aspects of the informal hierarchy is the relegation of certain people in prison to the lowest castes. These individuals endure ritualised exclusion: they are forced to clean toilets, sleep in degraded spaces, eat separately, subject to ongoing humiliation and remain isolated from others without any right to physical contact (touching) with those belonging to different caste categories. In Ukraine and Moldova, such treatment is not limited to isolated incidents but is described as a systemic practice affecting broad categories of people in prison, especially those accused of sex offences, LGBTQI+ persons, or anyone who violates the informal prison code. This caste system is widely understood by both staff and people in prison, who often identify categories such as “blatnye” (high-status detainees), “goats” (collaborators), “skiers” (those who reject the code), and “opushennye” (the untouchables). These labels have practical implications for how individuals are treated, where they sleep, and the types of abuse they may be subject to. 

When formal authority fails: The role of staff collusion 

By relying on hierarchies to maintain discipline, penitentiary systems effectively outsource governance. This gives rise to what some analysts call a “simulacrum of order” – a façade of stability built on informal violence and social control. The CPT and other observers have cautioned that such arrangements constitute a form of institutional abdication, whereby the state relinquishes its fundamental responsibility to uphold safety, legality and human dignity in places of detention. 

Informal hierarchies thrive in environments characterised by dormitory-style accommodation, inadequate classification systems, chronic understaffing and the absence of dynamic security measures. These structural deficits are common across most post-Soviet prison systems and create conditions in which informal power structures fill the vacuum left by weak formal governance. The CPT notes that nine countries with well-established informal hierarchies are all former Soviet republics. As noted in CPT’s dedicated prison standard on the topic: “This phenomenon continues to exist, albeit to varying degrees of influence, in the prison systems of nine States Parties to the ECPT, eight of which are member States of the Council of Europe. All nine countries were formerly part of the Soviet Union.” (CPT/Inf(2025)12, §4) 

Pathways to reform  

Dismantling these hierarchies requires systemic reform: 

• Replace dormitory-style accommodation with smaller, supervised units 

• Develop and enforce systems to classify people in prison based on risk and vulnerability 

• Train and deploy adequate staff capable of engaging in dynamic security 

• Establish complaint mechanisms that people in prison trust and use without fear of reprisal 

• Prohibit and sanction staff complicity with informal hierarchy 

In a standard on Informal Prisoner Hierarchy (CPT/Inf(2025)12), the CPT has cited positive examples, such as Estonia’s cellular regime and risk-based management, as evidence that reform is possible. But in most of the post-Soviet space, such changes remain partial or unrealised. 

Conclusion: From passive tolerance to active accountability  

Informal prison hierarchy is not a relic left consigned to Soviet history books. It remains a functioning system of social control and abuse, operating openly within contemporary prisons. It constitutes a failure of governance, a violation of fundamental rights and a profound contradiction at the heart of justice systems that claim to uphold the rule of law. 

If states are genuinely committed to prison reform, they must first acknowledge the scale and structure of these hierarchies, not as folklore, but as entrenched systems of power. Only then can meaningful efforts be made to dismantle them. 

Further Reading 

1. Council of Europe CPT, 34th General Report, 2024 (pp. 6–7) 

1. Council of Europe CPT, Informal Prisoner Hierarchy – CPT/Inf(2025)12 

1. CPT Country Reports: Moldova (2018, 2020, 2023); Ukraine (2024); Georgia (2022); Latvia (2025) 

1. Council of Europe Baseline Study: “Criminal Subculture in the Prisons of the Republic of Moldova”, 2018 

1. CPT-ECHR Blog: “Simulacrum of Prison Subculture” (2024) 

1. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights related to informal prisoner hierarchies: Case of S.P and others v. Russia (Applications nos. 36463/11 and 10 others, Judgment of 2 May 2023); D. v. Latvia (Application no. 56951/17, Judgment of 28 June 2022)