Archive for category: Aresturi

You are here: / / Aresturi

Monitorizarea conditiilor de detentie – aresturi

Report on the follow up visit at the Center for Pre-Trial Arrest and Detention no. 12

/in , /by

On August 12, 2014, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Center for Pre-Trial Arrest and Detention (CPAD) no. 12, located in the Bucureşti Regional Railway Police Section. It was a follow up visit, after the one made on September 11, 2012, as part of the EU-funded project Children Deprived of Liberty in Central and Eastern Europe.

The general situation, as compared to the previous visit

The situation was different from the one encountered during the previous visit in that the facility could now accommodate only 15 detainees, male minors or young men, in its 5 rooms. A set of bunks had been removed from each room, so that there were now only 3 beds on about 12 sq. m of space (including the lavatory) – amounting to 4 sq. meters per detainee. All 15 beds were occupied at the time of the visit (12 minors and 3 young detainees). The chief of the facility said that detainees were never accepted beyond that capacity and if more than 15 minors were under arrest in Bucureşti and Ilfov, they were taken to CPAD 1 in Bucureşti, where they had a special room organized for them. Minors stayed at the facility for an average of 1-3 months.

The staff included 11 agents and the chief of the facility, who worked in shifts. The chief said there were 4 shifts, with 3 agents on each, except one, which only had two agents. He also mentioned that the two-agent shift posed no problem.

The chief of the facility said that minors and young detainees were only taken in after a medical exam at the central arrest unit. Detainees were also taken there for routine medical checkups, but in case of emergency an ambulance was called.

In some cases, it was difficult to obtain IDs for minors because their legal guardians could not be identified. In such cases, CPAD 12 co-operated with the General Direction of the Child Protection Agency, in charge with social investigations that could identify a parent or relative and assist in the release of ID papers.

As during the previous visit, detainees had no activities other than spending 1-2 hours per day in the exercise yard, watching TV or reading one of the few books available for borrowing in the hall of the facility. The exercise yard was unchanged (it had been whitewashed), and still uncovered, so that no activities could take place there in rain or snow. While at the center, the detainees were unable to go on with their studies.

Every month, each detainee was entitled to a bar of soap, a razor and a roll of toilet paper. There was no budget for buying envelopes and stamps, in order to guarantee the right to correspondence/petitioning, but the chief of the facility said that the staff provided the items themselves when a minor could not afford them. The payphone was located on the corridor and required special cards. There was no phone booth to ensure the confidentiality of the conversations and the agent stood right beside the detainees who used the phone. The Association asks for this problem to be remedied by the installation of a proper phone booth. In the meanwhile, the confidentiality can still be maintained by having the agents keep a reasonable distance from the detainees, so they cannot overhear what is being said.

The alert system had been repaired, which was an improvement. The bells were now functional, allowing detainees to inform their supervisors if they had any problem. According to the chief of the facility, detainees were no longer handcuffed by default whenever they were taken out of the facility – rather, each case was analyzed on its own merits. Detainees later confirmed that they were not handcuffed when taken outside the facility.

Upon their arrival, detainees were handed a file containing a set of documents regarding the rights and obligations of persons deprived of freedom. The representatives of the Association were able to see such a file. If a detainee was unable to read, he was informed of the contents of the file by members of the staff.

A negative aspect was that the room used for visits and meetings with the attorneys had no see-through door, so the agents had to stay inside during these meetings. The confidentiality of legal conversations was therefore not observed.

The representatives of the Association noted that the registries for in-coming and out-going mail were no longer in use.

Security cameras were still installed on the corridors, at the entrance and in the exercise yard, but the footage was not archived, for technical reasons, as the chief of the facility explained. The cameras were only used to monitor what was happening in real time.

Food was brought in from Rahova Penitentiary and detainee helped themselves from the kitchen and had their meals in the rooms. The kitchen had a microwave oven at the disposal of detainees, two fridges where they could keep the food they received, and one fridge for food samples. The staff made lists of things detainees needed to buy and did the shopping for them. According to the chief of the facility, such requests were rare, because in general the minors and young detainees did not have any money.

Clothes and bedding could be washed in house, in the washing machine, as often as needed.

The representatives of the Association visited room no. 5, occupied by three minors. The windows were still covered in double wire nets, both inside and outside, so that natural light was insufficient and the electric light was on at all times. The minors confirmed that they had been seen by a doctor prior to being detained, that they had been seen by a psychologist, that they received the file with documents listing their rights and obligations and that they went out to the exercise yard every day. The room had no TV set (apparently, it had been broken by the minors), but did have an improvised radio set. None of the occupants of the room had ID papers, so they waited for their documents to be released. The minors said that hot running water was available around the clock, but the lavatory was unclean and, since it was separated from the room merely by a curtain, the urine stench filled the room.

Room no.  1 accommodated the three young men held at the facility. They confirmed that their meetings with family and attorneys took place in the presence of an agent. Their room had a TV set, provided by the facility. The lavatory here was also unclean and the walls were damp, although they had been recently whitewashed, like the rest of the facility.

Conclusions and recommendations:

 

–          The Association recommends, as a priority, that a see-through door should be installed in the visitation room, in order to ensure the confidentiality of meetings.

–          The lavatories in the rooms need to be sanitized and dampness needs to be removed from the walls, where it occurs.

–          APADOR-CH recommends that the exercise yards should be properly equipped.

Adelina Boboşatu                                                                              Nicoleta Popescu

Report on the visit to the Center for Pre-Trial Arrest and Detention in Târgu Mureş

/in /by

Two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the custody facility of the Mureș County Police Inspectorate on July 2nd, 2014.

Population, personnel, detention space, equipment

At the time of the visit, the Mureș Center for Pre-Trial Arrest and Detention (CPAD) held 15 detainees, all of them adult males on pre-trial detention. The average time spent at facility was more than a month, with a maximum stay of five months, according to the chief of the facility.

The staff included 24 agents (one female), the chief of the CPAD and a single civil employee (the janitor, a woman who cleaned, served meals and did the shopping for detainees at their request). There were no vacancies in the personnel scheme, and there was enough staff for the average number of detainees held here.

The medical staff (a doctor and a nurse), who provided medical checkups upon arrival as well as the current care for detainees, were employed by the Mureş County Medical Center attached to the Medical Direction of the MoI, located at the headquarters of the Mureș County Police Inspectorate,at the same venue as the facility. In case of emergency, detainees were taken by ambulance to the nearest hospital. The Medical Center also included a dentist practice, where detainees also had access to treatment.

CPAD Mureş was located in a new unit (built in 2007) of the Mureș County Police Inspectorate. The facility had 22 detention rooms, 18 double rooms measuring about 10 sq. m and 4 rooms with four beds each measuring about 30 sq. m, including the lavatory. The building was inaugurated in 2008 and it observed the international standards, both in terms of detention space (4 sq. meters per detainee) and of detention conditions. Rooms were large, well lit, equipped with lavatoryies (toilet, shower and sink), with clean mattresses, with furniture allowing the occupants to serve their meals and with clothes hangers. A separate room, where the prosecutor conducted investigations, was equipped with a computer and placed under video surveillance.

Video surveillance was installed both inside the facility, on the corridors, and outside, on the perimeter, therefore there had been no need for double bars or wire nets at the windows. The two exercise yards measured about 25 sq. m each. Detainees could go out in these yards for one hour every day, but there was no equipment whatsoever in there. According to the chief of the facility, two phone booths were going to be installed in the yards.

Cold running water was available around the clock, while hot water was provided twice a week. Besides bedding, the CPAD provided detainees with soap and toilet paper. Those who could not afford them, also received paper, envelopes and stamps in order to be able to exercise their right to correspondence.

Detention conditions at this facility observed the standards of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture as well as the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

Food

The food of detainees at Mureş CPAD was prepared and provided by the Târgu Mureş Detention Center. The persons who talked to the representatives of APADOR-CH said that food was generally acceptable. However, most detainees ate the food brought in by their visitors. Detainees were able to buy goods, especially food items, by handing a list to the janitor.

The facility had a small kitchen equipped with a gas stove, microwave and fridge (where samples of the food were kept), where dishes were stored and food was distributed. The detainees had access to a storage room where they could keep the food they received from home.

Contact with the outside

The visitation sector and the registry office were located in the same room, inside the facility. The room was under video surveillance and equipped with separation devices, used for all detainees. The detainees complained that not even children could see them without a separating window. Each detainee could receive at most three visitors at a time, two adults and one minor. The supervisor did not stay in the room because a video-monitoring system was in place.  The same room was used for meetings between detainees and their attorneys.

Detainees were allowed to make phone calls, but they had problems in actually exercising their right because phone cards were not always available on the market. There had been two weeks gaps when detainees were unable to keep in touch with their families and legal advisors because of this. At the time of the visit, cards were available. The Association recommends speeding up the procedures for the purchase of a personal card telecommunication system, already in use  in other Romanian penitentiaries, in order to avoid dependence upon pre-paid cards that are harder and harder to find.

Detainees could not drop their correspondence into the mailbox themselves, rather they  handed  it to the supervisor, who then mailed it. APADOR-CH considers that the right of detainees to confidential correspondence may be restricted by this fact. The Association recommends for CPAD employees to allow direct access to the mail box for detainees, in order to eliminate any doubt regarding the outgoing mail. There was a registry for incoming mail and another with phone numbers used by detainees in outgoing calls.

The right to information was limited because detainees were not able to watch TV – none of the rooms had a TV set connected to a cable network, although there were electricity sockets in each room. The detainees expressed their wish to watch TV as a way to fill their time, since they had no activities whatsoever except for the one hour of exercise time in the yard. According to the persons in charge, the facility waited for expenses to be approved in order to purchase TV sets. As for the idea to bring in TV sets from home, the solution was not considered acceptable because the TVs had to be technically checked in Brașov (for hidden distance communication devices), and it was highly probable for detainees to be transferred away before the check was completed. The Association asks the CPAD management to speed up the procedures for the purchase of TV sets for detention rooms.

The body search of newly arrived detainees took place in an inappropriate venue, affecting the persons’ right to intimacy. The search took place in a large room, with no arrangement to protect the intimacy of the detainee (a curtain/cabin). It was however performed by an agent of the same sex as the detainee. Whenever detainees needed an agent, they used the visual alert system, which was functional in all rooms.

The representatives of APADOR-CH also talked to the three detainees held in Room 4, who said they were satisfied with detention conditions but protested the fact that there was no TV available in rooms.

One day before the visit, the Mureș CPAD management had introduced a new rule imposed by the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Appeal, as an interpretation of Article 110, par. 2 of Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of custodial sentences: in order for a detainee to receive the visit of family members or attorneys, it is mandatory to have the written approval of he prosecutor in charge with or overseeing the case. Since this rule was newly introduced, the CPAD management was unsure whether the decision of the prosecutor had to be signed for each visit, or for a certain period of time. It was also unclear, for the staff as well as for detainees, how long it took for such an approval to be issued. The Association hopes that the rights of detainees, especially the right to defense, will not be affected by this rule, which could prevent or delay the contact of detainees with their families and attorneys.

Conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

 

Nicoleta Popescu                                                                                Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu

Raport asupra vizitei în Centrul de reținere și arestare preventivă din subordinea Inspectoratului de Poliție al Județului Iași

/in /by

Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

Pe data de 13 mai 2014, reprezentanți ai APADOR-CH și RHRN au vizitat Centrul de reținere și arestare preventivă (CRAP) din județul Iași.

1. Efective, spații de deținere, igienă, hrană

Centrul funcționează cu regim provizoriu din 2006 la demisolul poliției municipiului Iași (se așteaptă renovarea arestului din clădirea IPJ Iași din Copou). Investiţia la noul arest este realizată în proporție de 40% însă lucrările au fost sistate din lipsa fondurilor. Nu se ştie când va fi finalizată renovarea şi când va fi dat în folosinţă noul Centru de reţinere şi arestare preventivă.

Capacitatea este de 81 de persoane (11 camere cu 3 paturi cu suprafaţa de 6,21 mp fiecare și 6 camere cu 8 paturi măsurând 13,8 mp fiecare). Nivelul supraglomerării este extrem. La data vizitei erau 29 de arestați, dintre care cinci femei. Au existat însă perioade când în Centru erau  şi mai mult de 70 de arestați.

Schema de personal este de 28 de angajați: un șef, 25 de agenți (dintre care o femeie) și două posturi vacante (care nu sunt ocupate pentru că nimeni nu este interesat din pricina salariilor mici, funcţiile fiind de debutanţi).

Camerele nu au grup sanitar, lavoar sau duș. Există o încăpere separată cu această destinaţie pe hol. Arestații cer voie supraveghetorului (ei au declarat că dacă cineva din cameră are nevoie să folosească grupul sanitar, trebuie să meargă toți din cameră odată !) pentru a folosi toaleta de pe hol însă doar între orele 6-22. În timpul nopţii, arestaţii folosesc recipiente din plastic şi  găleţi pentru a-şi satisface nevoile fiziologice. Asociaţiile atrag atenţia că imposibilitatea de merge la toaletă în orice moment din noapte constituie tratament degradant sancţionat de  articolul 3 din Convenţia Europeană.

Baia de pe hol este dotată cu două cabine, cu WC turcesc și duș; mai există două chiuvete dintre care una era defectă la momentul vizitei.  Încăperea era plină de aburi, cu apa scurgându-se pe pereții  cu  igrasie. Deţinuţii pot face duş de două ori pe săptămână și, obligatoriu,  merg în grup.

Camera de distribuire a alimentelor este dotată cu frigider și combină frigorifică unde deţinuţii îşi pot păstra alimentele aduse de familie.

Pe motivul că arestul este „la stradă”, ferestrele sunt acoperite de două straturi de tablă groasă perforată și gratii – găurile sunt foarte mici și împiedică aproape complet intrarea aerului și a luminii naturale. APADOR-CH şi RHRN cer ca, până la darea în folosinţă a viitorului arest, să se renunţe la obloanele de tablă. Dacă nu este posibil să se elimine ambele atunci măcar unul să fie demontat pentru a se îmbunătăţi, cât de cât, circulaţia aerului şi pătrunderea luminii naturale.

În Centru se aplică Legea nr. 254/2013 privind executarea pedepselor şi a măsurilor privative de libertate dispuse de organele judiciare în cursul procesului penal, deşi nu există până la acest moment un Regulament de punere în aplicare a legii pentru centrele de reținere și arestare preventivă din subordinea inspectoratelor de poliție. Angajaţii CRAP Iași aveau informaţii că acest regulament va apărea curând fiind la acest moment în dezbatere publică. Asociaţia precizează că Regulamentul anterior menţionat a fost în dezbatere publică încă din luna martie 2014 însă până la acest moment nu a fost adoptată o formă finală.

Cumpărăturile solicitate de arestaţi sunt făcute de către agenții CRAP de două ori pe săptămână, de la un magazin din apropiere. Asociaţiile dau ca exemplu CRAP Câmpina, unde angajaţii au găsit o metodă care nu naște suspiciuni și nu creează o dependență a persoanei private de libertate de un angajat  al arestului. Cumpărăturile sunt făcute de o firmă care le transportă la sediu, după ce angajații Centrului strâng listele de la arestați cu solicitările acestora.

Centrul pune la dispoziția arestaților, pe lângă cazarmament, săpun și hârtie igienică, dacă aceștia nu au din surse proprii.

Hrana asigurată arestaților din CRAP Iaşi este preparată și furnizată de Penitenciarul Iaşi și transportată zilnic. Persoanele cu care au discutat reprezentanţii celor două organizaţii au afirmat că hrana este de proastă calitate şi aproape imposibil de mâncat. Afirmaţiile arestaţilor sunt confirmate de reprezentanţii asociaţiilor care au constatat în vizita acestora la penitenciarul Iaşi că mâncarea oferită deţinuţilor şi arestaţilor era slabă caloric.

2. Asistența medicală

Cabinetul medical are o aparență austeră, mobilierul fiind alcătuit din piese vechi. Aici lucrează un medic (care este și medic de familie al cadrelor) și două asistente medicale cu program zilnic, şi  oricând este nevoie (la data vizitei, medicul nu era prezent – la ora 10.00)

Pentru urgențe se apelează la 112. Dacă arestații sunt aduși în CRAP până la ora 16, sunt văzuți de medic. După program, medicul este chemat să vină de acasă dacă arestatul declară antecedente medicale, iar dacă nu, sunt consultați a doua zi. Fiindcă nu există un cadru medical care să asigure asitenţa medicală permanentă, nu se poate asigura asistenţa medicală la momentul primirii arestaţilor.

În arest sunt permise medicamentele recomandate de un  doctor din afară în baza unei reţete, în afară de capsule, unguente, injectabile, deci doar pilule.

În 2013 a fost înregistrat un caz de deces (arestat mort „prin spânzurare”) şi la acel moment s-a desfăşurat o anchetă care a stabilit cauza decesului.

Nu există cazuri de persoane în tratament substitutiv pentru tratarea dependenței de droguri și nu există autorizație de deținere a metadonei în arest. Nu au existat cazuri de sevraj (în afară de alcool, care nu este tratat sub nicio formă). Consumatorii de droguri și alcool sunt consultați de un psihiatru, după ce sunt aduşi în arest.

Un consumator de droguri, C.V. (cu care  s-a putut discuta numai după ce comisarul-șef al Centrului a primit permisiunea  procurorului de caz prin telefon), arestat cu două zile înainte și care suferea de insomnie nu a beneficiat de control medical la introducerea în arest (era duminică). Abia după o zi a fost întrebat dacă are probleme medicale, iar la data vizitei încă nu fusese văzut de psihiatru.

3. Activități

Arestul este dotat cu două curți de plimbare de dimenisuni  mici (fiecare de 2,40×6,20 m), neacoperite, fără dotări, unde arestații pot ieși la aer o oră pe zi. Niciuna dintre camerele de deținere nu are televizor. De altfel ar fi inutile pentru că nu există cablu TV. Arestaţii nu au posibilitatea să desfăşoare nicio altă activitate, pentru că nu există nici măcar  aşa zisul „club” organizat în alte aresturi (o cameră cu televizor şi eventual jocuri).  Există totuşi o „bibliotecă” (un dulap şi câteva rafturi cu cărţi) într-o cameră   în care este cazat  un deţinut care deserveşte arestul, numit de către personal „arestatul de la munci”, însă nu este clar dacă în această cameră au acces şi ceilalţi deţinuţi sau este camera exclusivă a persoanei cazate în această cameră.

4. Corespondență și vizite

Telefonul este plasat la doar un metru de masa supraveghetorului, căruia  îi este imposibil să nu audă ce se vorbeşte. În aceste condiţii, „confidenţialitatea” convorbirilor este doar vorbă goală. Asociațiile solicită măsuri concrete pentru asigurarea dreptului la confidențialitatea discuțiilor dintre arestați și avocați sau familie și a apelurilor telefonice.

Alături de telefon există Legea nr 275/2006 (abrogată) („pentru ca arestații să poată să compare cu cea nouă” despre care  s-a spus că există într-o mapă, dar că o citește unul dintre arestați).

Camera de vizite are 4 locuri și este dotată cu separator. Supraveghetorul stă lângă vizitatori, astfel că nu se respectă dreptul la confidențialitatea convorbirilor, fie cu familia, fie cu avocatul.

CRAP  asigură  plicuri şi hârtie pentru cei care nu au posibilitatea finaciară să şi le achiziţioneze, dar nu asigură și timbre poștale. Corespondența este ridicată de un reprezentant al poştei române în fiecare zi.

5. Discuții cu deținuții

Discuțiile cu arestații au avut loc în prezența comisarului-șef sau a unui supraveghetor pe motiv că sunt obligați „să  asigure securitatea vizitatorilor” sau că trebuie informat pocurorul de caz pentru fiecare arestat şi doar cu acordul  acestuia se poate discuta, în particular, cu persoana privată de libertate.

6. Camerele de deţinere

În Camera 26 erau cazate două femei. Camera are o suprafață de aproximativ 12mp, și avea instalate 8 paturi dintre care 5 aveau și saltele. Camera este întunecoasă, neaerisită, fiind luminată în permanenţă de un bec  slab. În cazul în care toate paturile ar fi ocupate, persoanele private de libertate ar fi supuse unui tratament inuman datorită supraaglomerării şi aerului irespirabil.

O altă cameră vizitată era ocupată de doi arestați dar avea instalate 8 paturi. Deținuții aveau la dispoziție recipiente de plastic pentru urinat, iar  pentru alte necesități fiziologice trebuia să ceară să meargă în grup la baie. Situaţia este un exemplu de tratament degradant întâlnit şi în alte aresturi.

Concluzii:

Nu se respectă normele privind spațiile de deținere, aerisirea, igiena, confidențialitatea convorbirilor telefonice și a vizitelor. Asociațiile solicită măsuri concrete pentru asigurarea dreptului la confidențialitatea discuțiilor dintre arestați și avocați sau familie și a apelurilor telefonice.

Dat fiind că la fereastre există două rânduri de tablă perforată, toate camerele sunt lipsite de lumină naturală și aerisire. APADOR-CH şi RHRN cer ca, până la darea în folosinţă a viitorului arest, să se renunţe la obloanele de tablă. Dacă nu este posibil să se elimine ambele atunci măcar unul să fie demontat pentru a se îmbunătăţi, cât de cât, circulaţia aerului şi pătrunderea luminii naturale.

Asociațiile constată că există situații în care arestații sunt introduși în CRAP Iași fără a fi consultați de un medic și solicită măsuri pentru eliminarea acestei deficiențe.

Dragos Roşca                                                                                    Nicoleta Popescu

RHRN                                                                                              APADOR-CH

Report on the visit to the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention attached to the Iași County Police Inspectorate

/in , /by

On May 13, 2014, representatives of APADOR-CH and RHRN visited the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention (CPAD) of Iași County.

1.      Population, detention space, hygiene, food

Since 2006, the facility has been located on a temporary basis on the semi-basement of the Iași Municipal Police station (awaiting the refurbishment of the County Police Inspectorate custody facility in the Copou neighborhood). Only 40% of the costs for the new building have been covered before the works stopped for lack of funding. It is not known when it is to be completed and when the new CPAD will be ready.

The capacity of the current facility was of 81 persons (11 three-bed rooms measuring 6.21 sq. m each and 6 eight-bed rooms measuring 13.8 meters each). The overcrowding is extreme. At the time of the visit, the center held 29 detainees, of whom 5 women, but there have been times when the population went over 70.

The personnel scheme included 28 employees: one chief, 25 agents (one woman) and two vacant entry-level positions, (which were not filled because of the very low salaries).

The rooms had no lavatories, showers or sinks. The lavatory was located on the corridor. Detainees had to ask the supervisor to use it (they said that if someone needed to use the toilet, all occupants of the room had to go at the same time!), but only between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. During the night, they had to use plastic buckets. The signatory associations point out that the impossibility to use the toilet at any moment of day of night is tantamount to degrading treatment and is sanctioned by Article 3 of the European Convention for Human Rights.

The lavatory on the corridor included two cabins equipped with Turkish toilets and showers and two sinks, one of which was out of order at the time of the visit. The rooms were full of steam and water dripped on the moldy walls. Detainees could take a shower twice a week, always in groups.

The food storage room was equipped with a fridge and a combined fridge-freezer, where detainees could store the food they received from home.

On the grounds that the facility overlooked „the street”, windows were barred and covered with two thick perforated metal sheets – the perforations were very small so air and natural light were almost completely blocked. APADOR-CH and RHRN ask that, until the new facility is open, the current facility give up the metal shutters. If it is not possible to give up both, at least one should be removed, in order to improve ventilation and natural lighting.

The facility followed Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of custodial sentences, although the enforcement regulations for CPADs have not been approved yet. The staff of CPAD Iași knew that the regulations could be expected soon, because they had been placed under public debate. The Association points out that the Regulations had been under public debate since March 2014, but a final form failed to be approved to this day.

CPAD agents did the shopping for detainees twice a week, from a local shop. The signatory associations suggest that the CPAD Câmpina example should be followed, where the staff found a method beyond suspicion that does not make detainees dependent on members of the staff. Shopping there is provided by a private company, who buys the items on the lists collected by the staff and delivers them at the facility.

The facility provided detainees with bedding, but also soap and toilet paper, if they could not purchase their own.

The food for CPAD Iaşi was prepared and delivered on a daily basis by the Iaşi Penitentiary. The detainees who spoke with the two associations said that food was bad, almost impossible to eat. Their statements can be confirmed by the representatives of the association, who could see for themselves that the food offered to Iaşi Penitentiary inmates was low in calories.

2. Medical care

The medical office looked austere, equipped with old furniture. A doctor (who was also the family doctor for the staff) and two nurses worked here on a daily basis and could be called in if  needed (at the time of the visit, the doctor was absent at 10 a.m.)

Emergencies were treated by calling 112. If detainees were brought to the facility before 4 p.m., they were examined by the doctor. If they arrived at a later hour, the doctor was called in if they declared they had prior medical problems, or they were examined on the next day. As there was no permanent medical staff, medical care upon arrival could not be provided.

The facility allowed medication prescribed by external doctors, but only pills, not capsules, injections or creams.

In 2013, a death took place in custody and an investigation established the cause of death (dead “by hanging”)

None of the detainees followed a drug substitution treatment and methadone was not allowed at the facility. There had been no cases of drug withdrawal (only alcohol withdrawal, which received no treatment whatsoever). Drug and alcohol addicts were seen by a psychiatrist after their arrival at the facility.

A drug user, C.V. – who could only be interviewed by the representatives of associations only after the case prosecutor gave his consent, by phone, to the chief commissioner of the facility – had been arrested two days before and suffered from insomnia. He had not been examined by the doctor upon his arrival (it was a Sunday). It was only a day later that anybody asked him whether he had any medical problems and at the time of the visit, he had yet to be seen by the psychiatrist.

3. Activities

The facility had two small courtyards (2.40×6.20 m each), uncovered and with no equipment whatsoever, where detainees could spend one hour per day in the open air. None of the detention rooms had a TV set – it would have been useless, anyway, since there was no TV cable connection. Detainees had no organized activity, not even going to the so-called club, as in other facilities (a room with a TV set and possibly some games). There was however a “library”, a couple of shelves with books, in a room occupied by one detainee, whom the staff called “the works inmate”. It was unclear whether the other detainees had access to this room, or books were available exclusively to the person held there.

4. Correspondence and visitation

The pay phone was located one meter away from the desk of the supervisor, who could not help hearing the conversations. Under such circumstances, the “confidentiality” of phone calls is a mere empty word. The signatory associations ask for concrete steps to ensure the right to confidential communication between detainees and their lawyers, families and any phone interlocutors.

Next to the payphone, Law no. 275/2006 (abrogated) was posted in plain view (“so that detainee may compare it with the new one”, the staff said. The new one was supposed to be available in a printed form, but was “just being read by one of the detainees”).

The visitation room had 4 places and a separator. The supervisor sat right by the visitors, so the confidentiality of meetings, with either legal counsels or family members, was not observed.

The CPAD provided paper and envelopes for those who could not afford them, but not the necessary postal stamps. Mail was picked up every day by a postal worker.

5. Discussion with detainees

Discussions with detainees took place in the presence of the chief commissioner or of a supervisor, who claimed they were obliged “to ensure the security of visitors” or that the case prosecutor had to be informed about each private interview with a detainee and had to approve it beforehand.

6. Detention rooms

Two women were held in Room 26, which measured about 12 sq. m and had 8 beds, 5 of them with mattresses. The room was dark, lit only by a feeble electric bulb, and the air was stale. If all beds had been occupied, the overcrowding and unbreathable air would have amounted to inhuman treatment.

Another room was occupied by two detainees, but had 8 beds installed. Detainees had plastic tubs to urinate in and had to ask to go to the bathroom, in a group, if they needed to defecate. The situation is an example of degrading treatment and similar circumstances have been encountered in other police custody facilities.

Conclusions:

  • The standards in terms of detention space, ventilation, hygiene, confidentiality of meetings and phone calls were not observed at this facility. The signatory associations ask for concrete measures to ensure confidential conversation between detainees and their attorneys or families, as well as confidential phone conversations.
  • Given the double layered perforated metal sheet on the windows, all rooms are devoid of natural light and air. APADOR-CH and RHRN urge that, until the new building is ready, the metal shutters be removed. If it is not possible to remove both, at least one should be taken out, in order to improve ventilation and natural lighting, at least to some extent
  • The associations took note that in some situations detainees were brought in to CPAD Iași without a medical exam and ask for measures to remedy this problem.

Dragos Roşca                                                                                    Nicoleta Popescu

RHRN                                                                                                APADOR-CH

 

Report on the visit to the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention attached to the Prahova County Police Inspectorate

/in , /by

On April 4, 2014, representatives of APADOR-CH and RHRN visited the Center for Preventive Arrest and detention (CPAD) in Prahova County.

The facility was located in the semi-basement of the Câmpina city police, and was the only one in the county (functioning since December 2005). All detainees had to be transferred between Câmpina and Ploiești for court hearings, medical exams, etc. (according to the chief of the facility, transportation expenses for nine years would have covered the costs of a new building in Ploiești. The Prahova Police Inspectorate does plan to have such a facility built on the grounds of a former military base).

The average duration of stay at the facility was one month-one month and a half (the legal maximum is 180 days).

The 34 place facility held, at the time of the visit, 20 detainees (18 on preventive arrest and two convicted felons, all male) in six rooms (five six-bed rooms and one four bed room), separated for smokers and non-smokers. The rooms measured about 18-20 m2.

APADOR-CH points out that detention space per person was below the 4 square meter standard; rooms would have been overcrowded if all beds were occupied (the resulting space being about 3.5 sq. m per detainee). Police custody facilities still use the old standard, of 6 cubic meters per detainee, although the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) insisted, in its 2010 report on Romania, that they should observe the 4 sq. m norm.

  • 1. Population, detention space, hygiene, food

 

The staff of the facility included 28 agents (the chief of the facility, four shift managers, three drivers, 20 security agents).

The admission procedure for new arrivals included a medical examination at the Ploiești hospitals. If detainees were brought in during the night, they were taken for a medical exam at the local emergency room.

A small, clean room hosted the hairdressing shop, but detainees complained they were unable to have a haircut. Their requests were denied because, among other things, the electric hair trimmer was broken. Detainees were also not allowed to keep electric hair trimmers in their rooms.

 

Each room had a Turkish toilet. In each room, the hole had to be covered with a water-filled plastic bottle to prevent the stench and rats from coming in. The sanitization of the toilets must be done immediately. The lavatory was separated from the rest of the room by a piece of cloth nailed to the wall. The rooms had no furniture, so that personal belongings were kept on the floor (under the bed), in plastic bags.

Detainees bought their own cleaning materials and cleaned the room themselves. One of them said that he received no toilet paper or soap (he had been detained for 36 days), only bedding, which he didn’t use because it smelled bad. The mattresses were visibly worn, thin and broken. The two associations point out  that new bedding is necessary.

Detainees were able to take a shower twice a week. The shower room had old installations and taps and smelled unpleasantly. Detainees washed their clothes at the shower because they had no access to the washing machine, used only for bed clothes. There were no TV sets in detention rooms. There could not be, since there were no electric sockets either, and the only electric appliances used by detainees were on batteries.

On the other hand, there was:

  • A permanently lit electric bulb (when used to artificial light, one gets dizzy in contact with natural light); APADOR-CH and RHRN point out that it is mandatory to provide natural lighting to detention places. Permanent artificial lighting may damage the sight and the Police is directly responsible for the health of persons under its custody. For all these reasons, we consider that light must be turned off during the night and decent lighting must be provided during the day.
  • Video camera installed next to the light bulb, permanently turned on. According to the staff of the facility, video cameras are „useful for the protection of detainees”. They were installed after „a detainee died after being injured by a room-mate” in 2001. APADOR-CH and RHRN deem the presence of video cameras in detention rooms an unacceptable breach of the right to intimacy of detainees and ask that the devices be removed;
  • Loudspeaker turned on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. (detainees cannot change the radio channel or turn it lower, being forced to listen throughout the day to a radio program chosen by the staff). Each room must be provided with a loudspeaker switch that detainees may use.
  • Permanently open window – not clear if only during the daytime or also at night (under one door, newspapers were jammed to stop the air draft).
  • Very thick window bars, completely blocking the light into the semi-basement facility.

A generalized practice in Centers for preventive arrest and detention is for the staff to do the shopping for inmates, but this was not the case at the Câmpina facility, where a system was found that avoided suspicions and an unhealthy relation of dependence between detainees and the staff.

Shopping was provided by a company that bought whatever was written in the lists collected by the staff and delivered the items to the facility. At the time of the visit, several shopping bags waited to be distributed; each had a fiscal receipt next to the shopping list provided by the detainee. The two associations commend the solution and consider it a model of good practice, to be shared with other detention facilities. Each detainee was allowed to spend a maximum of 400 RON per month.

Food was provided by the Police School in Câmpina (on the day of the visit, it had not been delivered by 2:30 p.m., rather late for lunch). Detainees said that lunch was good. The kitchen was equipped with three fridges and a washing machine, but detainees only had access to the fridges.

2. Medical care

A medical office (created in March 2014) provided service from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., when a nurse was present. The doctor only came in if there were requests for examination. The medical office did not have an emergency kit containing medical supplies or drugs. Except for the occasional exam, the office only provided the regular medication for those under treatment.

Detainees complained about the quality of the medical care (they were examined „with the eyes”; in the record book, many of the consultations mentioned „medical education”, meaning that detainees were merely informed about their prescribed treatment).

A young man, A.M., serving time for drug dealing (convicted Article 16 of Law no. 143/2000) took „light calming medication” every day (three drugs, among which Alprazolam and Zolpidem, according to the nurse). He was not aware that he could request psychological counseling.

The same young man said that he was sent to hospital for a specialist exam one week after requesting assistance and received his medication two days after the psychiatrist wrote him a prescription with the adequate treatment. The two associations consider that delaying treatment for 10 days in the case of a psychiatric patient was unacceptable, given the possible medical consequences.

 3. Activities

A „social interaction” room had been prepared at the facility. It was furnished with a table and two chairs and was used as file storage room, not as an activity club for detainees.

The two small courtyards – one about 4 sq. m large and one 2-3 sq. m – were covered in Plexiglas sheets. They were used for outings lasting 30-60 minutes per day.

4. Correspondence and visitation

A glass pane separated the payphone from the supervisor’s office. Detainees were allowed 10 minutes of phone calls per week. The Romtelecom prepaid cards were no longer available on the market, meaning that detainees had a drastically limited right to communicate with the outside, as long as they were in the impossibility to purchase phone cards. The supervisor stood in the immediate proximity of detainees while they met their attorneys, meaning that the privilege of attorney-client confidentiality was not observed. The situation was similar in the case of private, family conversations.

Envelopes were provided for detainees who wanted to send mail and could not afford it.

Interior regulations provided that both outgoing and incoming mail was to be recorded, with sender, recipient address and date of expenditure/arrival. The signatory associations consider that keeping track of sent mail is a limitation of the right to correspondence.

The visitation room (measuring about 10 sq. m) had two tables and a few chairs. There was no window or other separator, so the supervisor had to be present during the visits (30 minutes per week). This was an obvious breach of confidentiality. APADOR-CH and RHRN ask CPAD Câmpina to provide detainees and their visitors a proper space where supervision may be exclusively visual (the agents must keep at a distance where they may see but not hear what is being said).

 Detainees were not present when their parcels arrived. Parcels were received in a different room and brought to the recipient after having been open and checked by the staff. In order to avoid possible suspicion, APADOR-CH and RHRN ask CRAP Câmpina that parcels be open and checked in the presence of both the visitor who brought it and the detainee who must receive it, as it happens throughout the penitentiary system.

5. Discussion with detainees

The representatives of the associations visited rooms 1 and 4. Information on facility regulations and on Law no. 275/2006 (abrogated) was posted on the door. Detainees complained that upon arrival they were made to sign some printed forms in a hurry, without reading what they contained: basically an abrogated piece of legislation (Law no.275/2006) and about five sheets of rights that they were not actually aware of. The staff explained that they had not updated the arrival information kit to include the new law on the execution of custodial sentences because they waited for the new regulations. Until then, detainees had to sign that they had been informed about a law no longer in effect.

Conclusions:

1. APADOR-CH and RHRN urge that video surveillance devices be removed from detention rooms. Their presence is a blatant violation of the right to privacy that needs to be observed even for persons who are deprived of freedom.

2. The associations ask for effective measures to ensure the right to confidentiality during meetings between detainees and their legal counsels, as well as for mail and phone calls.  The visitation room must be urgently refurbished so as to allow exclusively visual supervision.

3. The posters providing information of outdated legislation must be replaced and the information kit distributed upon arrival must be updated. Detainees must be given sufficient time to read the list of rights they are asked to sign.

Dragoş Roşca                                                                                      Nicoleta Popescu

RHRN                                                                                                 APADOR-CH

Raport asupra vizitei în Centrul de reținere și arestare preventivă din subordinea Inspectoratului de Poliție al Județului Prahova

/in /by

Sorry, this entry is only available in Romanian. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

La data de 4 aprilie 2014, reprezentanți ai APADOR-CH și RHRN au vizitat Centrul de reținere și arestare preventivă (CRAP) din județul Prahova.

Aspecte generale

Centrul funcționează la demisolul poliției municipiului Câmpina, fiind singurul de acest fel din județul Prahova (din decembrie 2005). Toți arestații sunt plimbați între Câmpina și Ploiești pentru cercetări, vizite medicale etc. (conform afirmației șefului de arest, cheltuielile pe nouă ani de transport ar fi putut contribui la construirea unui nou centru în Ploiești. De altfel, IPJ Prahova are în proiect construirea unui asemenea centru pe terenul unei foste unități militare).

Perioada de şedere în arest este în medie de o lună – o lună și jumătate (maximum legal este de 180 de zile). Cu o capacitate de 34 de locuri, la momentul vizitei erau găzduite 20 de persoane (18 arestați preventiv și doi condamnați definitiv, toți bărbați) în șase camere (cinci dintre ele cu șase paturi și una cu patru paturi) separat pentru fumători și nefumători. Suprafața fiecărei camere este de aproximativ 18-20 m. APADOR-CH semnalează faptul că suprafața per deținut este sub standardul de 4 mp deci camerele ar fi supraglomerate dacă toate paturile sunt ocupate. (Ar reveni cam 3,5 mp per deţinut.) De precizat că, în aresturile poliţiei, norma de cazare este tot cea veche de 6 mc per deţinut, cu toate că CPT a insistat, în raportul său după vizita din 2010, să se adopte norma de 4 mp.

Efective, spații de deținere, igienă, hrană

Personalul centrului este compus din 28 de agenți (un șef de arest, patru șefi de schimb, trei conducători auto, 20 de agenți de pază).

La depunerea în arest, pentru îndeplinirea procedurii de depunerere, persoanei arestate i se efectuează un examen medical la spitalul din Ploiești. a În situația în care persoana este reținută noaptea, aceasta este dusă întâi pentru un consult medical la spitalul civil de urgențe și apoi adusă în arest.

Există o cameră mică, curată, în care funcționează frizeria, dar arestații s-au plâns că nu se pot tunde, cererile în aceste sens fiind respinse, printre altele ,pentru că mașina de tuns este stricată. De asemenea arestații nu ai voie să dețină o mașină de tuns în camera. .

În fiecare cameră există un WC turcesc al cărui orificiu este acoperit cu un recipient din plastic umplut cu apă pentru a împiedica mirosul să se răspândească în cameră și pentru a preveni intrarea șobolanilor în camere. Salubrizarea grupurilor sanitare trebuie făcută de urgență.

Paravanul care separă grupul sanitar de restul camerei este o pânză prinsă în cuie de către cei din camere. Nu există mobilier în cameră – rafturi sau dulapuri, lucrurile fiind ținute pe jos în pungi (sub pat).

Arestații își cumpără din bani proprii materiale pentru curățenie și asigură igiena în cameră. Unul dintre arestați afirma că nu a primit hârtie igienică sau săpun de când a fost arestat (36 de zile), ci doar lenjeria de pat pe care nu o folosea din cauza mirosului. Saltelele au un grad de uzură vizibil, sunt subțiri și au căptușeala ruptă. Cele două asociaţii consideră că se impune asigurarea unui cazarmament nou.

Arestații pot face duș de două ori pe săptămână. Sala de dușuri are robinete vechi şi emană un miros neplăcut. Arestații își spală singuri hainele la duș pentru că nu au acces la maşina de spălat a centrului care se foloseşte doar pentru curăţarea lenjeriei de pat. În camere nu există televizoare. De altfel, ar fi imposibil să funcționeze din cauza lipsei prizelor ceea ce face ca arestații să folosească doar aparate pe baterii. În schimb există:

–        bec aprins permanent (obișnuința cu lumina produsă de acesta provoacă o senzație de amețeală în contactul cu lumina naturală); APADOR-CH şi RHRN atrag atenţia că în locuri de deţinere este obligatoriu să se asigure pătrunderea luminii naturale. Iluminatul artificial permanent poate dăuna vederii iar poliţia este direct răspunzătoare de starea de sănătate a persoanelor aflate în custodia sa; Pentru aceste motive considerăm că se impune stingerea luminii pe timpul nopții și asigurarea unui iluminat decent pe timpul zile;

–        cameră video cu funcționare permanentă în proximitatea becului. Conform declarațiilor angajaților din Centrul de reținere, camerele video sunt utile „pentru protecția arestaților”. Ele au fost montate după ce în 2001 „un arestat a murit în urma agresiunilor unui coleg de cameră”; APADOR-CH şi RHRN consideră prezenţa camerelor video drept o imixtiune inacceptabilă în intimitatea persoanelor private de libertate şi cer eliminarea acestor echipamente;

–        difuzor cu funcționare între orele 6 și 22 (arestații nu pot schimba postul sau da mai încet, fiind obligați să asculte în acest interval orar un post de radio ales de către angajați). Este necesară montarea în fiecare cameră a unui întrerupător pentru difuzor la care să aibă acces arestaţii.

–   geamuri deschise permanent – nu se ştie dacă și noaptea (sub ușa uneia dintre camere erau puse ziare pentru a împiedica curenții de aer);

–   gratii la geamuri cu ochiuri foarte dese, astfel încât lumina naturală este practic inexistentă, arestul fiind plasat la demisol.

O practică generalizată în centrele de reținere și arestare preventivă este ca angajații să facă cumpărături pentru persoanele private de libertate, dar această cutumă nu se aplică și la Câmpina, unde reprezentanții au găsit o metodă care nu naște suspiciuni și nu creează o dependență a persoanei private de libertate de un angajat de la arest.

Cumpărăturile sunt făcute de o firmă care le transportă la sediu, după ce angajații Centrului strâng listele de la arestați cu solicitările acestora. La data vizitei erau mai multe pungi cu produse aduse de firma respectivă și care avea fiecare un bon fiscal al produselor alături de lista solicitantului.

Cele două asociaţii apreciază soluția găsită de angajații arestului și consideră că ideea poate fi preluată ca bună practică și în alte centre de deținere. Limita de bani ce poate fi folosită la cumpărături este de 400 de RON pe lună.

Mâncarea este adusă de la școala de poliție din Câmpina (în ziua vizitei, prânzul încă nu venise la 14.30, oră destul de târzie pentru servirea mesei ). Arestații spuneau că mâncarea de la prânz este bună. În bucătărie există trei frigidere și o mașină de spălat, dar arestații nu au acces decât la frigidere.

2. Asistența medicală

Există un punct medical (înființat în martie 2014) unde este prezent un asistent medical între orele 8.00 şi 16.00. Medicul vine doar dacă există cereri de consult. Punctul medical  nu este dotat cu pansamente sau alte medicamente de strictă necesitate în caz de urgență. Practic, în afară de eventuale consultări, aici doar se distribuie medicamente pentru tratamentul curent prescris de un medic specialist.

Arestații se plâng de calitatea asistenței medicale (sunt consultați din privire; la vizitele trecute în registru se menționează în multe cazuri „educație medicală”, aceasta însemnând că li se dau explicații arestaților despre medicația pe care o iau).

Un tânăr, A.M., închis pentru trafic de droguri (pe baza art. 16 din Legea nr. 143/2000) ia zilnic „medicamente ușoare de liniștire” (trei, printre care alprazolam și zolpidem, conform asistentului medical). Acesta nu știa că are posibilitatea de a beneficia de consiliere psihologică.

Același tânăr a declarat că a fost dus la spital pentru un control de specialiate la o săptămână după ce a făcut cerere și a primit medicamentele la două zile după vizita la medicul specialist psihiatru care i-a prescris tratamentul adecvat. Cele două asociaţii consideră că întârzierea de aproape 10 zile în a administra un tratament de specialitate unei persoane aflate într-o stare care necesită medicaţie psihiatrică este de neacceptat având în vedere consecinţele medicale ce pot apărea la pacientul arestat.

3. Activități

În incinta arestului este amenajată o „camera de socializare” care conține o masă și două scaune. Această cameră este folosită ca spațiu de depozitare pentru dosare și nu pentru activitățile arestaților.

Există două mini-curți de plimbare cu acoperiș de plexiglas (una de aproximativ 4 m2, cealaltă de 2-3 m2). Durata ieşirii la aer variază între 30 şi 60 de minute zilnic.

4. Corespondență și vizite

Telefonul este separat de biroul supraveghetorului de un paravan de sticlă. Arestaţii au dreptul la 10 minute de convorbiri telefonice pe săptămână. Nu mai există cartele Romtelecom pe piață , prin urmare telefonul este practic imposibil de utilizat ceea ce înseamnă o reducere substanţială a dreptului de a comunica cu exteriorul atâta timp cât arestaţii nu pot achiziţiona în prezent cartele telefonice. Supraveghetorul stă în imediata apropiere (la 1 m) chiar și în timpul discuțiilor dintre arestați și avocați, astfel că nu se respectă dreptul la confidențialitatea convorbirilor, fie cu familia, fie cu avocatul.

Sunt asigurate din oficiu plicuri pentru corespondență pentru cei care nu au posibilități financiare.

Regulamentul intern prevede înregistrarea scrisorilor într-un registru (cu data primirii/trimiterii, destinatar, expeditor).

Asociaţiile consideră că dreptul la corespondenţă al arestaţilor este îngrădit atâta timp cât sunt înregistate scrisorile trimise.

Camera de vizite (de aproximativ 10 m2) este dotată cu două mese și câteva scaune – nu există geam ori altă modalitate de separare, astfel că vizitele se fac cu supraveghetorul alături (30 de minute pe săptămână).

În mod evident, se încalcă principiul confidenţialităţii. APADOR-CH şi RHRN cer CRAP Câmpina să pună la dispoziţia arestaţilor şi vizitatorilor un spaţiu amenajat corespunzător cu precizarea expresă că supravegherea trebuie să fie exclusiv vizuală (supraveghetorii trebuie să stea la o distanţă de la care să vadă dar nu să şi audă ce se discută).

Arestatul nu este de față la primirea pachetului, care are loc într-o altă încăpere. Angajatul îi aduce pachetul arestatului după desfacere şi control. Pentru evitarea unor posibile suspiciuni, APADOR-CH şi RHRN cer CRAP Câmpina ca desfacerea şi controlul pachetului să aibă loc în prezenţa arestatului şi vizitatorului care l-a adus, aşa cum se procedează în sistemul penitenciar.

5. Discuții cu deținuții

Au fost vizitate camerele 1 și 4. Aici erau afișate la intrare informații despre regulile arestului și despre Legea nr.275/2006 (abrogată). Arestații s-au plâns că semnăturile la intrarea în arest sunt puse în grabă, fără a fi citit ceea ce semnează: în principal, o lege abrogată ( Legea nr.275/2006) și aproximativ cinci foi cu drepturi pe care nu și le cunosc. Angajații au precizat că nu au modificat mapa cu noua lege a executării pedepselor fiindcă așteaptă apariția regulamentului; până atunci, arestații semnează că au luat la cunoștință de o lege abrogată.

Concluzii:

1. APADOR-CH şi RHRN cer eliminarea aparaturii de supraveghere video din camerele de deținere. Prezența lor înseamnă o încălcare vădită a dreptului la viață privată, drept ce trebuie respectat chiar și în cazul privării de libertate.

2. Asociațiile solicită măsuri concrete pentru asigurarea dreptului la confidențialitatea discuţilor dintre arestaţi şi avocaţi, corespondenței scrise și a apelurilor telefonice.Se impune, de urgenţă, reamenajarea camerei de vizită astfel încît să fie posibilă supravegherea vizuală

3. Schimbarea afișelor cu legislația aflate în interiorul camerelor și modificarea procesului verbal de înștiințare la introducerea în arest. Asigurarea unui timp suficient ca persoanele private de libertate să ia la cunoștință de drepturile lor.

Dragoş Roşca                                                                                    Nicoleta Popescu

RHRN                                                                                               APADOR-CH

Raspuns IJP Prahova

Report on the visit to the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention attached to the Constanţa County Police Inspectorate

/in /by

On November 22, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention (CPAD) in Constanţa County. The previous visit to this facility had taken place in 2009.

 

The representatives of the Association noted that one of the most serious problems found during their previous visit had still not been addressed. More precisely, APADOR-CH noted that video surveillance cameras were still installed and functioning in every room of the police custody facility. The Association reminds that such a measure is a serious violation of the right to private life for persons held in detention or on preventive arrest.  Video cameras may be installed on the corridors and even should be installed in investigation rooms, but under no circumstances may they be placed in detention rooms, lavatories or medical offices. It must be said that each room at the Constanţa CPAD had an alert system, so it could not be argued that surveillance cameras were necessary to ensure the physical “security” of detainees. Nor could it be argued that they compensated for the lack of personnel, since the facility had 31 employees.

 

The persons in charge said that video surveillance was off in women’s rooms. At the time of the visit, only one woman was detained at CPAD Constanța, in a two bed room. Indeed, the monitors showed no images from that particular room, only carrying the message VIDEO LOST. However, there was no certainty that the respective camera was permanently deactivated. APADOR-CH asks the General Police Inspectorate to immediately and definitively cease the permanent video surveillance of detention rooms by taking away all cameras. Whatever the legal grounds for installing the cameras, they represent a flagrant violation of ECHR standards regarding the right to private life and therefore can be considered degrading treatment.

 

 

1. Population, detention spaces, sanitary conditions, food

 

On the day of the visit, the facility held 45 detainees, of whom 36 adult males, 8 minors and one female. Five of them were convicted, while the rest were on preventive arrest. CPAD Constanța had 13 detention rooms totaling about 180 sq. m, including the lavatory

 

(a toilet cabin, a sink and a shower). The facility also had a supervisors’ club, a medical office, a detainees’ club (a former detention room with a TV set), a search room and a storage room where kitchenware was kept.

 

The facility was located in the semi-basement. The thick bars on the small windows did not allow for enough natural light or ventilation. As a result, the walls already looked moldy although they were last whitewashed in 2012. The lavatories were in a very bad state. CPAD Constanța had a constant supply of cold and hot water, just like the rest of the Police Inspectorate building, so that detainees could have a hot shower at all times and rooms were sufficiently heated.

 

The facility did only provide a bed, pillow, blanket and sheets. All other necessary sanitary items – soap, toothpaste, shaving cream, toilet paper and detergent – were either brought in by detainees with the rest of their personal belongings, provided by their families or purchased by detainees. In that respect, one practice had improved from the previous visit: supervisors at CPAD Constanţa now helped detainees purchase the goods they needed. Another positive aspect worth mentioning was that food was still prepared in a small kitchen by two employees of the Police Inspectorate. The kitchen and storage were very clean and rather well equipped. On the day of the visit, the menu included vegetable soup and pork with beans. The food and the bread awaiting distribution looked and smelled good.

 

 

  1. Medical care

 

Three doctors and two nurses attended to the detainees. According to the doctor on duty at the time of the visit, the medical staff provided 24/7 presence and the necessary medication was available. The staff said there had been no problems of drug abuse, only cases of acute alcoholic intoxication – when arrest was usually denied and the suspect was sent to a hospital. If a person brought into the facility complained of being brutalized, the doctor in charge of the examination made a mention in the medical record and notified the prosecutor. The most frequent conditions of arrestees were mental disorders, cardio-vascular problems and respiratory infections. There was no ongoing HIV/hepatitis prevention program (more precisely, no condoms were distributed and no methadone substitution treatment was available). The only female detainee at CPAD Constanța was pregnant at the time of the visit. She was regularly seen by a gynecologist at a civilian hospital (the detainee confirmed and said she was happy about the way she was treated).

 

 

  1. Activities

 

Detainees had the right to go on a hour-long walk every day They could use the three exercise yards, which were small and partly covered, but had no equipment whatsoever, so that the only activity was to walk a few steps to and fro. APADOR-CH asks the Police Inspectorate once again to install some simple equipment (like fixed bars) in the yards, in order to allow detainees to get some exercise.

 

As an improvement from the previous visit, rooms were now equipped with TVs that detainees were allowed to watch at all times. A club-room also existed, but no activities were organized there, so detainees preferred to sit in their rooms.

 

 

  1. Correspondence and visitation

 

In what concerns the violation of the right to confidentiality, the situation at CPAD Constanța had remained unchanged since the previous visit. All mail – both incoming and outgoing – was registered. If the registration of incoming mail could be justified as a proof that the letters were actually delivered to detainees, there was no justification for registering sent mail. APADOR-CH asks the Police Inspectorate to take steps to put an end to this procedure.

 

The payphone used by detainees was located in the supervisors’ office, with the former being present during the conversations. The office was small, so it was impossible for supervisors not to hear everything detainees said. APADOR-CH recommends that a phone booth should be installed in a different location, allowing detainees to hold their conversations in full confidentiality.

 

The visitation sector, located outside the facility, consisted of one room (also under video surveillance) equipped with 6 separated cabins and one table for the meetings with the lawyers. The Association requires assurances that the encounters between minors and their families took place around a table.

 

  1. Discussions with detainees

 

Room 10 (18 sq. m/10 beds installed) held six adult males who declared that the food was very good and that the staff behaved properly. They complained about the dim light and the lack of activity, which made them somnolent, sometimes unable to realize if it was day or night time. Three of the arrestees were actually asleep during the visit, around 11 a.m.

 

Five of the minors stayed in Room 6 (about 15 sq. m/5 beds installed). One of them showed clear signs that he had not been able to adapt to the prison environment (his voice was shaking, he seemed ready to burst into tears). Another minor, who had been held at CPAD Constanța for 10 months because he had no ID papers, was eager to be moved to a penitentiary to serve his time (he was already convicted). APADOR-CH points out that minors are a vulnerable category and asks the chiefs of the facility to provide psychological counselling and social/educational activities.

 

The only female detainee was in her third semester of pregnancy and occupied the room closest to the supervisor’s office – a six-bed room of about 12 sq. m. APADOR-CH recommends that part of the unused beds should be removed, to ensure minimum space to move around. The woman had one complaint: that the toilet was insalubrious.

 

Conclusions:

 

  1. APADOR-CH asks for the surveillance cameras to be removed from detention rooms.  Their presence indicates a clear violation of the right to private life, which needs to be observed even in the case of persons who are deprived of freedom;
  2. The Association asks for immediate steps to be taken in order to observe the right to confidentiality of mail and phone conversations;
  3. The sanitization of lavatories must be completed with celerity.

 

Other conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

 

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu                                         Dollores Benezic

 

 

 

 

 

Report on the visit to the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention attached to the Tulcea County Police Inspectorate

/in /by

Two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention (CPAD) attached to theTulcea County Police Inspectorate on November 19, 2013.

 

Population, personnel, detention spaces, furbishing

 

At the time of the visit, CPAD Tulcea held seven detainees, all of them male. Six of them were on preventive arrest and one was convicted, but hadnh’t been able to produce any papers at the time of his arrest and therefore had to be kept at the facility until his documents were issued. Persons who talked to the representatives of APADOR-CH had only been under arrest for a few days. Detainees usually spent no more than a few days at the CPAD and never more than a month, even when they didn’t have any papers, said the chief of the facility.

 

The staff consisted of 15 agents, among whom one woman. The female agent dealt exclusively with female detainees and did desk work when there were none present. A doctor and a nurse, employed by the Medical Center of the Ministry of Interior, performed a medical examination of detainees upon their arrival at the facility and provided medical care during detention. They did not only attend to the detainees, but also to the staff of the County Police Inspectorate, as their family doctors. If detainees presented traces of violence (or claimed to have been hurt), the fact was mentioned in their detention record. The doctor who replaced the MoI doctor on the day of the visit thought that detainees and members of the staff should be treated by different doctors, because doctors were not paid by the number of patients and therefore had to ensure permanent care for detainees without being paid accordingly.

 

A psychologist was employed to counsel both members of the staff and detainees, but she had been on maternal leave with her second child for more than 2 years. If required, a psychologist from Constanta was brought in for emergencies. The detainees who talked to the representatives of APADOR-CH did not seem to be aware that a psychologist was available. However, one personal file included a minute signed by the detainee stating that he had been informed that he could ask for psychological counseling if he felt it necessary. APADOR-CH points out that it is important to inform detainees about their rights and available services in a simple, accessible language. A mere signature on various documents presented in a highly emotional moment (when a person is arrested) may leave legal provisions devoid of content.

 

Detainees did not have any activity except for the daily exercise time in the yard and visits to the club, where they could watch TV. There was no pre-established schedule for access to the club.

 

The facility was located in the semi-basement of a Tulcea Inspectorate building. Detention spaces included 9 rooms of about 12 square meters each, with a total capacity of 27 beds. In 2006 and 2007, 5 of the 9 rooms were renovated. None of the rooms had lavatories or storage spaces – a serious deficiency, because detainees who depended on others for their physiological needs were placed in a humiliating position. Moreover, after the 10 p.m. lights off, detainees could no longer go to the bathroom because the guards locked the doors and left them with buckets to use instead. APADOR-CH points out that a person who must appeal to a guard’s benevolence in order to use the bathroom is placed in a humiliating position and that the impossibility of using the lavatories at night, having to use buckets instead, is, according to ECHR jurisprudence, tantamount to degrading treatment.

 

The representatives of the Association visited both types of rooms (renovated or not), as well as lavatories and shower rooms. The renovated rooms were generally clean, although the paint on the walls was already peeling off here and there; they had insulated windows, wooden floors and three beds each, but no other piece of furniture whatsoever. The remarkable thing in the rooms were the beds, very low and frail. The renovated area was separated from the un-renovated one by a thermopane door that remained closed. In the un-renovated area, a smell of mold and dampness made the air hardly breathable. The windows could only be opened from outside, if the guards wished. The four un-renovated rooms had window frames in an advanced state of decay and parts of glass panes missing, dirty and damp walls, with peeling paint and covered in mold. These rooms, too, had three beds each. Natural light was faint, because of the small windows were doubled by wire mesh and bars. Windows could only be opened from the outside, depending on the benevolence of the supervisors.

 

The mattresses throughout the facility were old and extremely worn out.

 

The shower rooms for detainees consisted of two dirty shower taps placed in an inadequate location, while the only toilet cabin (Turkish style) was dirty, producing a pestilential stench that could also be felt on the corridor of the un-renovated area. Detainees took a shower upon their arrival and every time the chief of the facility noted they smelled inappropriately (!). There was no fixed schedule for shower. Near the toilet, the ceiling was damp from the toilet sewage pipes upstairs and the smell was unbearable.

 

The CPAD rarely provided persons under arrest with soap and toilet paper. Bedding was the only thing provided.

 

The building had no video surveillance system on the corridors. Detention rooms were provided with audio systems (intercom) that were out of order. Whenever a detainee wanted to use the bathroom or communicate with the guards, he needed to pound on the door, loudly, in order to be heard. Since the rooms were located along a single corridor divided by a closed door, it was almost impossible for the guard placed at one end to hear the pounding from the room near the lavatory, on the other end.

 

The facility had only one exercise yard, rather small (5×5 m) and completely unequipped, covered with wire mesh but unprotected from rain or snow. The detainees were allowed to spend 30 minutes -1 hour per day in the yard, as they could at the club – a room with a TV set. Another room, marked as “Hairdresser’s”, apparently served no purpose, being filled with old fingerprinting and ID machines, but no trace of tools for a haircut. None of the detention rooms had a TV, because there were no electricity sockets, but they had speakers broadcasting music from a radio station selected by the agents.

 

 

Food for detainees

 

The food for detainees held at CPAD Tulcea was prepared and delivered by the Tulcea Penitentiary. Persons who talked to the representatives of APADOR-CH said that the food was acceptable. Detainees were allowed to receive food parcels from visiting relatives. They could also buy food stuff, by making a list and handing it out to the supervisor. The facility had a kitchen where kitchenware was kept and food was portioned, and where detainees could store and heat up food (it had a fridge, a microwave oven and an electric stove).

 

Contacts with the outside, other procedures in use at the Tulcea custody facility

 

The visitation sector was organized in a room outside the facility, close to the chief’s office. The same room was used for meetings with legal representatives. The agents were inside the room during all types of meetings, as confirmed both by detainees and by one of the agents – which was sure to impede upon the privacy of personal encounters and upon the confidentiality of the relation with the defense lawyers. The chief of the facility tried to convince the representatives of the Association that the agents actually remained outside the room and supervised meetings only visually, but his statement was not confirmed by any other person, either detainee or employee. Each detainee could receive the visit of maximum 4 persons at a time (two adults and two minors).

 

The facility did not have a room for body searches, so the procedure took place in the access hall, in front of the supervisor’s office.

 

The facility did not provide paper, envelopes or stamps for detainees who wanted to exercise the right to freedom of correspondence but could not afford it. The employees of the facility claimed that the unit had no obligation to cover the costs produced by the exercise of this right for detainees who had no pecuniary means. The Association points out that failing to observe Article 46, par. 5 of Law no. 275/2006 (also applicable in police custody facilities) represents a violation of the right to freedom of correspondence. The law expressly provides that: “The spending caused by the exercise of the right to petition and to freedom of correspondence fall under the responsibility of persons serving custodial sentences. If the persons in cause lack the means to exercise their right to petition legal bodies, courts or international bodies whose competence is accepted or recognized by Romania, as well as their right to correspond with their families, their defenders and human rights NGOs, the costs of correspondence will be covered by the penitentiary”.

 

The phone booth and the mail box were located inside the facility, on the corridor, close to the supervisor’s office. Detainees were allowed to phone their family or lawyers freely as long as they had hone cards (ROMTELECOM cards, bought and brought in by visitors). Both detainees and agents confirmed that for about two weeks, these cards had been impossible to find in Tulcea and as a result, the phone could no longer be used. The payphone had no booth or other type of protection to assure the confidentiality of conversations and was placed very close to the supervisor’s usual watch spot. APADOR-CH considers that the right of detainees to confidential phone calls was not observed at CPAD Tulcea and the lack of phone cards was a breach of their right to communicate with the outside.

 

The liaison judge

 

The name and contact number of the liaison judge, the same person who was also in charge with the Tulcea Penitentiary, was posted on the wall of the supervisors’ office, next to the interior regulations. The existence and role of the liaison judge were completely unknown to the detainees. This was confirmed by the chief of the facility, who said that he had no obligation to inform detainees about the attributions of the judge, but merely to post his contact information.

 

 

Conclusions and recommendations:

 

  • The Association asks for steps to be taken so that every room may have its own lavatory;
  • APADOR-CH asks for the 5 un-renovated room to be refurbished: painted, new doors/windows, cleaned and with reorganized/modernized shower-room;
  • The Association recommends the reorganization of the visitation sector, by the creation of a space that would ensure the confidentiality of meetings with lawyers and of discussions with the families;
  • The Association recommends that the place dubbed “Hairdresser’s
     should be turned into a search room, to allow for discretion during the search of new arrivals at the facility;
  • APADOR-CH asks for the budget to include the purchase of paper, envelopes and stamps, so that detainees who cannot afford them are still able to exercise their right to petition and correspondence;
  • The Association recommends for a solution to be found, together with the phone operator, to ensure the necessary phone cards; otherwise, another operator should be contacted and a new phone contract should be signed, in order to observe the right of detainees to make phone calls.

   

 

Other conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

 

 

Nicoleta Popescu                                                                  Adelina Boboşatu

 

Report on the visit to the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention attached to the Timiş County Police Inspectorate

/in /by

 

On November 8, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention (CPAD) attached to the Timiş County Police Inspectorate.

General considerations

At the time of the visit, CPAD Timiş held 40 persons, either retained or under arrest, among whom two minors, three young detainees and 35 adults. Two of the detainees were female and 38 were male.

Three of the detainees were only retained, 29 were on preventive arrest and 8 were convicts who underwent investigations in other criminal trials.

The detention capacity of the facility was 76 beds, distributed in 16 detention rooms: a confinement room, a double room and 14 rooms measuring 12-13 m 2 , furnished with 3-6 beds each.

At the time of the visit, the first floor was under renovation. The space used to be part of the Timiş Intelligence Archive, and was later turned into investigation rooms for the communist Security. The representatives of the facility said that funds were insufficient to complete the renovation and to organize detention spaces on the refurbished floor.

Lunch and dinner were provided by the Timişoara Penitentiary. Detainees complained about the quality of the food, which was often inedible.

Only one public payphone was available for the detainees and it was located in the office of the shift supervisor. Detainees could not have any confidentiality for their conversations, even for those with their families or legal advisors. Detainees complained that they could hardly use the phone, because the required phone cards were difficult to find on the market.

A mail box was located at the entrance of the facility. It was placed outside the detention area, so detainees who wanted to post a letter had to be escorted to the mailbox. Therefore, in exercising their right to freedom of correspondence, they depended upon the security agents and prison authorities in general. The envelopes were not opened, only mentioned in an out-going mail record.

CPAD Timiş did not have funds to buy stamps, envelopes, pens and paper; at the time of the visit, the right to freedom of correspondence was violated because detainees were not provided with the necessary materials. APADOR-CH recommends that a budget line should be created to purchase paper, envelopes, pens and stamps, so that detainees could exercise their rights.

The visitation room was separated in two and visits lasted for 30 minutes, 4 times per month. Detainees could not touch their visitors. This was pointed out by one of the detainees, who complained that he could not hug his baby during the visits.

The unit was under video surveillance, with video cameras located on the corridors. There had been no incidents involving the intervention squad.

Personnel

The facility employed 32 agents, one officer, one nurse and three drivers. It also worked with a psychologist employed by the Police Inspectorate, who provided counseling for detainees when necessary. The liaison judge came to the facility sporadically, in cases such as hunger strikes, when his presence was mandatory. Detainees who talked to the representatives of APADOR-CH did not know that they could ask for psychological counseling or that there was a liaison judge and what his attributions were.

APADOR-CH recommends that detainees should be informed about the possibility of requiring psychological counseling and about the existence of the liaison judge and the ways to get in touch with him.

Medical care

Medical care was provided by a nurse employed by CPAD Timiş and three collaborating doctors, who worked in weekly shifts. They were also the family doctors for many of the employees of the facility. The nurse also had security and escort duties when required.

Upon arrival at the facility, the detainees were identified, were asked a set of questions about their state of health and medical antecedents, were given a summary body check-up and then they were taken into custody and distributed to their quarters.

From the discussions with the nurse and the detainees, it turned out that the health control upon arrival was performed by the nurse, who made notations in the medical record that was later checked by a doctor. The doctor was called in only if the person brought to the facility bore visible marks of violence. It was not clear, from the discussion with the nurse, what was the schedule of the doctor on duty: he appeared to come in once in 24 hours and stay “as long as necessary”.

The medical office was equipped for primary medical assistance. In case of emergency, an ambulance was called.

No cases of withdrawal were registered among detainees; drug users were taken into custody only with a doctor’s approval. If the doctor considered it necessary, drug users were taken to the Neuro-Psychic Recovery and Rehabilitation Center for control and specialized treatment.

The visit to the facility

CPAD Timiş had two exercise yards where, according to the representatives of the facility, detainees could spend one hour per day, sometimes even longer. The information was not confirmed, however, during discussions with the detainees. The latter said they were allowed to stay outside for about half an hour; this only happened on weekdays so, to their discontentment, detainees had to spend Saturdays and Sundays locked in their rooms.

Detention rooms were on the ground floor and in the basement. The experts of APADOR-CH visited the following rooms: 8 (confinement), 6, 11 and 4 – on the basement; and 1(holding the two female detainees), 8 (holding the two minors) and 6 – on the ground floor. Each room had a barred window covered with a metal net, barely allowing in any natural light, especially underground, where electric lights were on permanently.

Rooms generally measured about 12 square meters and held three or four detainees. The rooms were in an advanced state of decay, with insalubrious toilets and showers. The shower hung above the Turkish toilet, separated from the rest of the room only by a curtain. In all rooms seen by the Association, the toilets were insalubrious and the stench filled the place. The toilet holes were filled with plastic bottles to keep rats away. The walls of the rooms were dirty and many of them were damp and moldy. The rooms were cold because the heating system had not been turned on yet.

The representatives of APADOR-CH talked to nine detainees, among whom the two women and a foreign citizen. The minors refused to talk to the representatives of the Association. During these discussions, detainees complained that they could not spend as much as one hour in the exercise yards and could not leave their rooms at all during the weekends. They also complained about the bad food, about the cold in the rooms, about the fact that they were not provided with envelopes to write to their beloved ones and about the fact that they could not find phone cards to be able to contact their families.

Conclusions:

As a result of their visit, the representatives of APADOR-CH recommend:

• Urgent sanitization of the detention spaces;

• Allotting funds to complete the works on the first floor of the building, given the fact that that space already has the characteristics of a detention center;

• Moving the payphone from the shift supervisor’s office to a space that may ensure confidentiality for the speakers; and moving the mailbox to a place that may be accessed by detainees directly.

Other findings and recommendations have been included in the report.

Nicoleta Popescu

Cristinel Buzatu

Report on the visit to the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention (CPAD)attached to the Cluj County Police Inspectorate

/in /by

 

On September 25, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Center for Preventive Arrest and Detention (CPAD) attached to the Cluj County Police Inspectorate (IPJ).

General considerations

CPAD Cluj was located in the semi-basement of the Cluj IPJ building. Detention conditions at CPAD Cluj were obviously in violation of the international standards that Romania has pledged to observe. The rooms had no windows and no source of light inside , so they were always dark and stuffy. The situation was worsened by the location of the facility – partly underground. Moreover, the floor and walls were humid from water infiltrations from the sewage system nearby. The management of the facility admitted that detention conditions were inappropriate and said that several attempts were made to close the Center, without results. Nor was the re-organization of the space possible, because the structure of the building would not allow it. The Romanian General Police Inspectorate said that a lack of financial resources was the main reason why the center had not been moved to another location. The management said that another solution was to apply for European funds to build a new facility.

Video cameras were installed on the corridors; the management said video surveillance was used to prevent or witness potential incidents, although there had been no such cases in a long time; they also said that cameras would have been useful in the hunger strike rooms and in other special cases. Footage was stored for 30 days.

At CPAD Cluj, detainees were chained, as a rule, every time they were taken outside the facility, with some exceptions in the case of minors (depending on their behavior and the crime they were charged with). The management said that the understaffing made it necessary to use handcuffs as a rule. For instance, minors who suffered from mental conditions were handcuffed; 3 of the 4 minors detained at CPAD Cluj at the time of the visit were registered as mental patients.

Population, personnel, detention spaces

At the time of the visit, the facility held both persons under preventive arrest (27 detainees of whom 4 male minors and one woman) and persons serving definitive sentences (8 detainees) transferred from the Baia Mare Penitentiary for a limited time, in order to be taken before the court.

CPAD Cluj had 27 detention rooms, some of them measuring about 12 square meters, equipped with 4 beds each, some 9 square meters, and some about 4 square meters, with two double bunk beds. Overcrowding in detention rooms was another major problem at CPAD Cluj, where the occupation rate was around 200% .

The Cluj Police Inspectorate building had its own heating system, so the custody facility was sufficiently heated in winter. Hot water was available twice a week. The facility also had 10 exercise yards, each measuring 10 square meters, with no equipment for sports or other activities. The detainees were taken out for exercise for one hour every day.

The management said that the facility was understaffed but did not provide the exact number of CPAD staff members. A policewoman was employed to deal with female detainees; if she was not at work when female detainees were brought in, a female worker of the Cluj Police Inspectorate was called in to perform the body search.

The medical ward of the facility was a small room without any standard equipment. The facility did not employ a doctor; the GP who saw the patients worked for IPJ Cluj. However, he did come down to the facility as often as needed and even granted emergency examinations outside his work schedule.

The chief of the facility said that there had been no recent cases of serious illness and no detainees listed as drug users. Nor was it possible to provide substitute treatment in case a person under arrest declared he/she was a drug user. According to Law no. 275/2006 and Order no. 1216/2006, substitute treatment needs to be provided during arrest as well, but MoI Order no. 988/2005 approving the Regulations for the organization and functioning of preventive arrest and detention facilities, still used in police custody facilities, despite the fact that it has not been updated to include the new legislation, does not provide the express obligation to grant substitution treatment, the general option being to prohibit it. APADOR-CH asks the General Police Inspectorate, once again, to solve this legal discrepancy, so that the rights of persons under arrest may be observed.

When someone arrived at the facility with visible signs of violence, he was examined by the IJP Cluj doctors. The victim was asked to sign a minute, mentioning if he/she was physically abused. Then, either the doctor notified the prosecutor about the signs of violence he found or the arrestee was taken to the Forensic Institute. The chief of the facility said that, in an incident 4 years earlier, an agent was fired after violent behavior against an arrestee.

Two psychologists worked at the facility, but there was no special space equipped for their meetings with the detainees. The rule was for detainees to expressly ask for psychological counseling in the statement they signed upon arrival. Otherwise, the management or the GP could ask for an examination at a local hospital if the behavior of a detainee showed signs of mental distress.

Detainees’ food

Food came from Gherla Penitentiary and meals were served in the rooms. The facility had two refrigerators where detainees were allowed to keep the food they received or bought. Every Wednesday, they could do the shopping by making a list of what they needed and handing it to the facility staff, who went to local shops to procure the items.

The visit to the rooms

The majority of the 27 rooms were located in sectors B and C. Only one room in sector A was occupied: it held the only female detainee.

Detention rooms were not provided with lavatories or toilets. The two common lavatories were located on the corridor (one with Turkish toilet cabins, the other one with the showers). Both were insalubrious, with dirty and mouldy walls. The toilets and showers were rusty, unclean and smelly. The stench of urine and feces could be felt all over the building. A toilet cabin, separated by the others by a wall, was reserved for the staff. Since the lavatories were on the corridor, detainees had to notify each time they needed to use the toilet and had to be accompanied by members of the staff. The management said that there were fewer staff after 16.00, so moving around was a risk for the safety of the whole facility. The Association considers that the appalling state of the lavatories and the fact that detainees depend on security agents for their physiological needs is tantamount to degrading treatment.

In sector C, the representatives of APADOR-CH visited one of the small rooms, which was empty at the moment. It contained two double bunk beds and an improvised table, fixed in the wall. The door was about 1.5 meters high, the room had no windows and no light inside. The only source of light was a bulb on the corridor, in front of the door. The metal blind was half open and the light of the bulb barely lit the room. All rooms, including the slightly larger ones, were in the same state. The absence of a light source is obviously a violation of minimal national and international standards . The mattresses were in a very bad state – old, soiled and uneven. The next room, also very small (about 4 square meters) had 3 beds, one of which was a double bunk. The three detainees said that food was terrible and they mostly ate what they received from home or bought themselves. They said they rarely received any sanitary items and they were not taken to the toilet every time they asked, sometimes having to urinate in plastic bottles. The beds were old and in bad shape, the floor was covered in cigarette bits, indicating the room had not been cleaned in a long time.

In sector B, the representatives of the Association also visited some of the rooms. In room 8, measuring about 12 square meters, there were four beds (two double bunks), all of them occupied. The light bulb outside barely lit the room. The alert system, like everywhere else, was to knock at the door.

In sector A, only one woman was held in one of the rooms. Until recently, she had also had a room mate who was then transferred to a penitentiary. The detainee complained that she had no activity whatsoever except the one hour of exercise per day and that she had no one to speak to. She had been seen by a psychiatrist several times and she claimed that only by autosuggestion did she manage to keep her head straight.

At the time of the visit, CPAD Cluj was registered as holding three minors, but they had been taken to Turda for investigations. Their rooms were in as bad a state as all the rest.

Correspondence, the liaison judge, other rights

Detainees had the right to make one phone call per week, for 10 minutes, and speak limitlessly to their attorneys. They had to pay for phone cards themselves. The phones were on the corridor.

The mailbox was also on the corridor and all detainees had free access to it. Mail was collected every day and only incoming mail was registered. There were no paper and envelopes available. In order to compensate the need, the agents provided writing materials from their own resources.

Discussions with lawyers and visits took place in the search room. The room was curtained during the searches and had a table and chairs for meetings. Surveillance was strictly visual.

The liaison judge was also employed at the Gherla Penitentiary and came to the facility upon request, usually in order to deal with various complaints. The management said that most complaints were cases of hunger strike.

Conclusions and recommendations

Detention conditions found at CPAD Cluj were in many ways against international standards recommended to Romania by the European committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. CPAD Cluj was overcrowded. Rooms had no airing and no natural or artificial lighting. Furniture items were decayed, rooms were dirty and exhaled a pungent smell, poisoning the already stuffy air. The stench of mould and urine coming from the lavatories and the plumbing system could be felt all over the facility. The management said that there were frequent cases when the water from the basement overflowed into the facility, and as a result the base of the walls was always wet.

All these elements indicated that detainees here were submitted to a degrading treatment throughout their stay at CPAD Cluj. Under such circumstances, the social reinsertion aspect that should go along with deprivation of freedom is impossible to pursue. Some of the persons held here had no court sentences against them and should be granted the benefit of the doubt .

APADOR-CH asks for CPAD Cluj to be immediately closed, since there is no realistic solution in sight for its refurbishment so as to observe detention standards provided bydomestic and international regulations.

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu

Doina-Adelina Boboşatu

APADOR-CH
Str. Nicolae Tonitza 8A
Sector 3 – Bucuresti
030113 Romania

Telefon: (40) 0733.078.720
e-mail: office@apador.org

Utilizarea și distribuirea informațiilor de pe acest site sunt libere, cu citarea sursei.