5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in the Ventspils district. 6.  On 6 December 2001 the applicant was convicted of kidnapping, aggravated murder and aggravated extortion and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld at two levels of appeal and took effect in 2002. 7.  In accordance with section 504(1) of the Sentence Enforcement Code (Latvijas Sodu izpildes kodekss), the applicant was placed at the maximum‑security level in a closed prison. 8.  On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to the medium‑security level of that closed prison. 9.  According to the applicant, in 2008 he realised that there was a difference in the respective treatment of male and female inmates with regard to the execution of custodial sentences. Male inmates who had been convicted of serious crimes started serving their sentences in closed prisons, while female inmates who had been convicted of the same crimes started serving their sentence in partly-closed prisons. As the applicant considered that this had a notable impact on restrictions of various prisoners’ rights, he lodged complaints about this issue with several State institutions. 10.  On 30 September 2008 the applicant was informed that his father had died. On 2 October 2008 he requested permission to leave prison in order to attend his father’s funeral. On the same day the prison director replied that he had no authority to allow the request, as the applicant was serving his sentence at the medium-security level of a closed prison. Under the Sentence Enforcement Code only prisoners serving their sentence at the medium- or minimum- security level in partly-closed prisons were eligible for such leave. 11.  In the years 2012-2015 the applicant was granted one prison‑leave day per year. The case file contains no information as to the type of prison and security level in which the applicant served his sentence during this time. 12.  On 11 September 2015 the applicant was conditionally released. 13.  On 1 July 2008 the Ministry of Justice examined the applicant’s complaint about the difference in treatment between convicted men and women. It referred to sections 504(1) and 505(1) of the Sentence Enforcement Code and observed that the legislature had chosen to create different legal frameworks in respect of sentence execution for men and women. The Ministry of Justice concluded that there was no discrimination on the grounds of sex because the rights of both male and female inmates were restricted, and both sexes were deprived of their liberty. 14.  On 25 October 2010 the Ombudsperson concluded the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the refusal to allow him to attend his father’s funeral. He observed that closed prisons hosted male convicts who had been sentenced to deprivation of liberty for having committed serious or especially serious crimes, as well as convicts who had been moved from partly-closed prisons for grave or systematic breaches of the regime under which they had been held. In closed prisons convicts were subjected to tightened security and maximum surveillance. It followed that the persons placed in those prisons were particularly dangerous to the society. Hence, the restriction imposed on the applicant was proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. 15.  On 9 July 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, arguing that section 504(1) of the Sentence Enforcement Code was discriminatory on the grounds of sex, in breach of Article 91 of the Constitution. As women convicted of the same crimes started serving their sentence in partly-closed prisons, they were entitled to more and longer visits, more phone calls and could progress to more lenient security levels more rapidly. In addition, women could be granted leave from prison for up to seven days per year, whereas no such right was provided for men. 16.  On 29 July 2008 the Constitutional Court, relying on section 20(6) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, declined to institute proceedings. It stated that the legal reasoning included in the complaint was evidently insufficient for the claim to be allowed (acīmredzami nepietiekams prasījuma apmierināšanai). In particular, the applicant had failed to specify why the difference in treatment between men and women should not be acceptable. 17.  On 7 August 2008 the applicant lodged a second constitutional complaint, adding that men and women who were convicted of serious and especially serious crimes were in the same circumstances in that they were both imprisoned. Yet, despite the prohibition of discrimination requiring men and women to be treated equally, their rights were restricted to a different extent. The applicant also pointed out that within the context of discrimination the burden of proof was shifted – namely, after a person had demonstrated a difference in treatment, it fell for the respondent to show that this difference had not amounted to discrimination. 18.  On 5 September 2008 the Constitutional Court again declined to institute proceedings. With respect to the first sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution, which addressed the principle of equality, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the following criteria had to be examined – the existence of comparable groups, a difference in treatment between those groups, and a lack of objective and reasonable justification for that difference in treatment. As the legal reasoning advanced by the applicant was based on the assumption that men and women who had committed similarly grave crimes were in comparable situations, the Constitutional Court considered this reasoning evidently insufficient for the claim to be allowed. With respect to the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in the second sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the applicant had failed to specify the human right in conjunction with which the discrimination complaint had been made. Thus, in relation to this part of the application, legal reasoning had not been provided (nav sniegts juridiskais pamatojums) and the formal requirements of a constitutional complaint had not been met. In so far as relevant, the Constitutional Court relied on sections 20(5)(3) and 20(6) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. 19.  In a third constitutional complaint of 20 October 2008, the applicant added that on 2 October 2008 he had been refused permission to leave prison to attend his father’s funeral. He had thereby been discriminated against on the basis of sex, as women in his situation would have been able to attend the funeral. In support of his discrimination-related complaint the applicant referred to the right to private life, right to family life, and freedom of expression. 20.  On 21 November 2008 the Constitutional Court declined to institute proceedings, invoking section 20(6) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. It noted that the application contained no reasoning as to why men and women who had been convicted of serious and especially serious crimes and given prison sentences would need to be subjected to the same rules of sentence enforcement – namely, how men and women were in comparable situations. On those grounds, the legal reasoning included in the constitutional complaint was held to be evidently insufficient for the claim to be allowed.