Archive for category: Aresturi

1. On April 19, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH went to the General Police Direction custody facility to check information about the physical and mental state of detainee Ninel Viorel Onţică, a former drug addict who had been under methadone treatment for more than 10 years (methadone is a legal substitute). The substitute was administered by CAIA (Center for Integrated Assistance for Addictions) Obregia, which is subordinated to the National Anti-Drug Agency (ANA), under the authority of the Ministry of Interior. The same Ministry co-ordinates the activities of the General Police Inspectorate of Romania (IGPR). In other words, ANA and IGPR are mates – they work under the same umbrella and should follow the same rules. But while ANA and its subordinated branch CAIA offer substitute treatment to all addicts who wish to quit drugs, IGPR obstinately refuses treatment for detainees under its custody. Until 2-3 years ago, the police openly opposed methadone treatment in custody facilities, arguing that “abstinence is the best cure”. The answer provided by the IGPR to a report written by APADOR-CH following visiting the same facility on November 2, 2011, indicates that their attitude has changed in the meanwhile, at least on paper.

The answer, dated January 30 2012, includes clarification by the Medical Direction of the MoI, which had “already taken steps … to prepare regulation standards for medical assistance in centers for preventive arrest and detention, including assistance for drug users (our highlight); also, consultations were launched for… the continuation of substitution treatment for drug users who have already started this course of treatment (our highlight) before being taken into custody”. Unfortunately, 15 months later, the “steps taken” and “consultations launched” failed to materialize in any concrete results, and the police still categorically opposes the continuation of treatment in custody. This time, their arguments center round the lack of “procedures” for custody facility medical cabinets to receive and distribute the substance to people already undergoing treatment.

2. The legal situation of detainee Ninel Viorel Onţică raises a problem. Onţică was convicted for two counts, theft and drug dealing, which were merged and resulted in a jail term of 4 years and 5 month (the longer of the two convictions). The time spent in police custody and preventive arrest and the time already spent in prison were to be deduced from the total time. Onţică was imprisoned at Giurgiu Penitentiary, whence he was released on January 22, 2013, after 4 years and 3 months. (It must be said that during the whole time spent at Giurgiu Penitentiary, Onţică regularly received his daily methadone dose). In total, adding the time spent in Giurgiu , in preventive arrest, and the last days, when Onţică showed up at CPAD no. 1, it turns out that he served about 4 years and 5 months in prison.

For unclear reasons, Onţică himself decided he had some more time left to serve and phoned the police on April 4, 203, then gave himself up. Although it is a simple matter of calculus (the days when he was taken into custody, to person and released are exactly known) the matter can only be solved by the court . More exactly, no one knows at present, officially, what is the time the detainee still has to serve ( days or weeks ) or whether the sentence was completed or not. Of course, his methadone treatment was interrupted as soon as he was taken into custody. Onţică’s contestation to the court regarding the remaining jail time will be heard on April 24 2013. Because of his uncertain legal status, the Rahova Penitentiary Hospital , where his methadone treatment could have continued, refused on three occasions to accept his transfer.

The physical and mental state of detainee on the day of the visit was very poor after having his methadone cut on April 5. When the door opened in Room no. 4, Onţică was lying on the floor, his legs and head in spasms. He was holding a bottle of liquid detergent and claimed he had drunk from it. It was hard to check whether he had actually ingested the substance and how much of it. But the shaking and difficulty in walking (he was actually carried by two people) indicated a precarious state of health, to say the least. During the discussion at the medical ward and later, in a room inside the police station, Onţică had moments of lucidity alternating with moments of confusion and utter nervous breakdowns. Moreover, he sweated abundantly, vomited twice and repeatedly complained of massive pains in his body, that he “could no longer stand”. In the opinion of the representatives of the Association, all his symptoms were typical for withdrawal . Onţică suggested at some point that he had hidden a few more pills of methadone, so the actual withdrawal might have started a few days after being taken into custody. But the detainee was too incoherent to take the suggestion literally. On the other hand, the only medical notification is made by the Obregia Hospital doctor on 17 April, saying that the detainee suffered from post-withdrawal, because his methadone treatment had officially ceased on April 5, and the medical examination had taken place 12 days later, therefore after withdrawal had passed.

The same doctor recommended that he should be immediately admitted into hospital, but Onţică refused because he wanted to continue his methadone treatment, not to undergo detoxification. He also refused the medication prescribed by the Obegia Hospital , knowing that neither Tramadol nor Novocalmin, nor Diazepam nor Tiapridal could replace methadone. It must be said that Onţică received his methadone substitution treatment from CAIA Obregia, an institution located in the courtyard of the Obregia Hospital .

It must also be said that in Room no. 4 of the facility (eight detainees in eight bed, on a floor surface of about 16 sq m), the other six room mates (a seventh was in court that day) confirmed that Onţică suffered from crises every day.

4. The discussions between the representatives of APADOR-CH and the director Valentin Dragomir (before and after seeing Ninel Viorel Onţică) showed that even police can change their mentalities, at least in admitting that it is necessary to continue a substitution treatment started before arrest. The director talked to Onţică for hours, he sent a request to Rahova Penitentiary Hospital for his transfer, he took him to Obregia and would have had him admitted if the detainee had not objected. In the opinion of the representatives of the Association, the only immediate solution in this case would be to take Onţică to CAIA, to get the necessary amount of methadone , or to have CAIA staff come to the facility to continue his treatment. Given the time pressure (our visit took place on a Friday and CAIA does not distribute substitutes on weekends), the director gave assurances that he would press for approval from the Medical Direction of the MoI for one of these two solutions. The representatives of the Association asked to be kept informed on the results.

Conclusions:

• The court will decide on April 24 whether Onţică has to serve any more time in prison. If there are any days left from his term, he will be transferred to Rahova Penitentiary Hospital , where his methadone treatment will be continued. If not, he will be set free. But the 20 days of deprivation of treatment are, in the opinion of APADOR-CH, inhuman treatment, as defined by the European Court for Human Rights. The responsibility goes mainly to the Medical Direction of the MoI, where procedures for continuing substitute treatment in police custody facilities are stalled;

• The management of the Bucureşti General Police Direction had its hands tied in this case. All the efforts to transfer Onţică to the Rahova Hospital and to take him to the Obregia Hospital and the willingness to have him admitted there, the long discussions with the detainee, all remained fruitless. What the Police Direction should have done from the very start was to ask the Medical Direction to allow CAIA to step in, in the absence of procedures for continuing methadone treatment in the facility ;

• APADOR-CH asks the Medical Direction of the MoI to complete with celerity all the necessary procedures for the continuation of substitute treatment in police custody facilities. The Association reminds that substitute treatment is explicitly stipulated in normative acts which are in force: the Order of the Minister of Justice no. 1216/2006 on running integrated medical, psychological and social assistance programs for drug users deprived of freedom and Joint Order no. 282/2007 of the Ministry of Interior and Administration reform, the Ministry of Public Health and the Ministry of Labor, Family and Equality of Chances. These normative documents describe the situation of a drug addict under treatment who is deprived of freedom as a “special situation” and set clear responsibilities for the continuation of substitution treatment .

Manuela Ştefănescu Nicoleta Andreescu

Two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the custody facility attached to the Dolj County Police inspectorate on December 20, 2012.

 

The Association noted once again that the procedures used in police custody facilities were in contradiction with Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences and other measures decided by the judiciary bodies during the criminal trial. Thus, although the Detention and Preventive Arrest Centre (DPAC) managers had prepared had new interior regulations that took into account the provisions of the new law, the Dolj police custody facility still follows the rules provided by Order no. 988/2005 for the approval of the regulations on the organization and functioning of detention and preventive arrest facilities attached to police stations. As a consequence, handcuffing was a rule, not an exceptional measure, every time a detainee – even a minor or a woman – was taken outside the facility. APADOR-CH reminds the Ministry of Administration and Interior ant it holds the obligation to harmonize the procedures in custody facilities with the law, by issuing a new order to replace Order no. 988/2005.      

 

 

Population, personnel, detention space, furbishing

 

At the time of the visit, DPAC Dolj accommodated 60 arrestees – 48 adult males, 6 women and 6 minors (all of them male). Most of them had not been convicted, but some had been sentenced by first instance courts and had been brought to the facility for further investigation.

 

In exceptional cases, people with definitive sentences were also held here. This was the case of a woman who had a definitive conviction in Italy, had been extradited upon her request and waited to be transferred to a prison after forms were completed. The woman had been at DPAC Dolj for about two months.

 

Among the detainees who talked to APADOR-CH, one had been there for 4 months – the longest. According to the chief of the facility, the duration of the stay was not longer than six months, but was in general over one month.

 

The staff consisted of 30 agents (two of them women). One doctor and one nurse, employed by the County Police Inspectorate, came every day to the facility. There was no other type of specialized personnel available (psychologists, social assistants or educators). Anyway, the detainees had no activities except for the daily exercise time. Just a few of them took part in serving meals and managing the storage room.

 

DPAC Dolj was located in the semi-basement of a building of the Dolj Police Inspectorate. There were 29 detention rooms totaling 300 square meters (including the lavatories, where available). Three of the rooms required massive renovation and were out of use. The remaining 26 held, at the time of the visit, 85 beds. Only 14 rooms were occupied at the time of the visit, including the 4 that had their own lavatories.

 

The representatives of the Association visited two types of rooms, both overcrowded. Thus, a large room, no. 27, measuring about 28 sq m, held 14 beds. When all were occupied, each detainee had 2 square meters of space, half of the minimum space recommended by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). At the time of the visit, the room held 10 male detainees. A smaller room, no. 12, measuring about 9 square meters, held 4 beds, all of them occupied. Overcrowding was obvious in both types of room. APADOR-CH asks for urgent steps to reduce overcrowding, such as refurbishing unused spaces (at the time of the visit, several spaces in an advanced state of degradation sat unused) on the ground floor and semi-basement level.

 

Detention conditions were very different from one room to another. Rooms with lavatories were clean, well aired and well lit (natural light). The lavatories included toilet cabins, sinks and shower. Women were the first to have access to these rooms, then minors, then men.

 

Most male detainees were held in squalid rooms with no proper natural lighting. Since they had no lavatories, detainees had to call the guard each time they needed to use the toilet, both during the day and during the night. The Association considers that a person who depends on someone else’s benevolence for basic needs such as using the bathroom is submitted to a humiliating, degrading treatment; therefore, it considers that lavatories need to be accessible in every room. This is possible as long as the necessary funds are allocated. Moreover, the common lavatory, with three doorless toilet cabins and one urinal, was in dire need of repairs and cleaning. The shower room was also in a deplorable state, with rusty pipes and moldy walls. Cold water was available round the clock and hot water twice a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. DPAC provided detainees with bedding, soap and toilet papers.

 

The Dolj facility had five exercise yards, each measuring about 16 square meters. Detainees were allowed to spend at least one hour every day in these yards, which however had no equipment of any kind.

 

There were obvious discrepancies between some spaces in the facility and others. Just as some rooms were in excellent shape while others were in a very poor state, so the entrance contrasted with the corridor of the detention rooms. The entrance hall was clean, well lit and recently whitewashed (a Christmas tree decorated it at the tie of the visit), while the interior corridors were dirty, dark and cold.

 

Medical care was provided by a doctor who worked full time at the facility. He also gave the check up to detainees who were brought in. If a person showed signs of physical violence (or claims to have been beaten) a note was made and sent to the prosecutor. The chiefs of DPAC Dolj said there had been two such cases recently. There was no program to prevent blood or sexual transmission of HIV/hepatitis; treatment programs for (ex) substance abusers were also absent, although injectable drug users (Ketamin, more precisely) had recently been held at the facility. The detainees complained only that they were not allowed to keep any kind of medication on them; drug treatments were distributed daily by medical staff only.

 

 

Food

 

The food provided to detainees at DPAC Dolj was provided and prepared by Craiova penitentiary. The persons who talked to the representatives of APADOR-CH said that food was acceptable and bread was very good. However, most of them relied on food received fro visitors – at most 10 kilos of food, 6 kilos of fresh vegetable and fruit and 10 liters of water or juice per visit. Detainees were able to buy various items, mostly food, from the penitentiary in-house shop, by handing a list to their supervisor.

 

The facility had a kitchen, with dishes for the distribution of the meals. Two arrestees worked there. Detainees had a storage rooms and fridges to keep their food in.

 

 

Contact with the exterior

 

The visitation sector and the court clerk’s office were two rooms outside the facility, on the upper floor of the same building. Both rooms had separation walls used at all times. Detainees, especially women, complained that open visits were not allowed even for their children. Each detainee was able to receive at most three persons at a time, two adults and one child.

 

Three pay phones and the mailbox were in the entrance hall of the facility. Detainees were allowed to call their families twice a week (Mondays and Thursdays) and their lawyers every day, provided they had money on their ROMTELECOM cards, bought by their families. Phones had no booth or protection whatsoever to assure the confidentiality of the conversations. Detainees could mail their own letters, but only after it was recorded in a registry, mentioning the sender and receiver. Another registry recorded incoming mail. If the recording of incoming mail could be considered acceptable (the facility claimed it needed to prove it had transmitted the letters), there was no reason for keeping evidence of sent mail, because it could discourage detainees to write to the authorities or other entities.

 

The mailman brought in and picked up the mail three times a week (Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays). APADOR-CH considers that the right of the detainees to confidential phone conversation and mail was not observed and asked the chiefs of the facility to stop recording sent mail and to install phone booths or other type of plastic partitions for the pay phones.

 

The right to information was ensured by the fact that each room had a TV set (cable provider) and detainees could watch the programs with no restraints or schedule.

 

 

Other procedures used at DPAC Dolj – the liaison judge

 

The search of persons brought in took place in an enclosed space, respecting the right to intimacy of the detainees. More precisely, the body search took place behind a curtain and was performed by a guard of the same sex as the detainee. The room searches took place in the presence of a representative of the room, chosen on the spot by the occupants of that room themselves. The practice of choosing a room leader had been abandoned at DPAC Dolj.

 

If detainees needed to call a guard (a frequent situation in rooms with no lavatory), they triggered the visual alert system, which was functional in all rooms.

 

In hunger strike cases, the facility doctor visited the detainee every day and the liaison judge was called in. The liaison judge was in charge of the DPAC Dolj and the Penitentiary for Minors and youth in Craiova. He was present at the facility about twice a week and detainees could contact him on the phone (the number was posted on the mailbox). The activity and visibility of the liaison judge can be considered as good practice models.

 

 

The visit to detention rooms

 

Room 27 was among those without a lavatory. On the day of the visit, the 28 square meter room was overcrowded, although not all 14 beds were occupied. The room, like the whole facility, was well heated but without enough natural light. The 10 detainees held here were satisfied with detention conditions, except the quality of the mattresses and the absence of the lavatory.

 

Room 12 measured about 9 square meters and had four beds with good mattresses, a lavatory and shower. Hot water was provided twice a week. The four women held here complained that they were not allowed to receive medication from their family and could not keep any kind of pills in their rooms, so they had to bear pains all through the night, until the doctor arrived. They also complained that they could not hold their children when they came to visit, because all visitors were kept behind the separator.

 

Room 11 – similar to Room 12 in all but the quality of the mattresses – held 2 women in 4 beds. One of them said she suffered from disc hernia and had terrible pains because of the bad mattress.

 

The representatives of APADOR-CH also talked to the three detainees in Room 10 (9 square meters, four beds, lavatory) who were satisfied with detention conditions.

 

 

Conclusions and recommendations:

 

 

• The Association asks for urgent steps to be taken to reduce overcrowding and to equip every room with a lavatory. This may be achieved by minimal investment or by better management of resources, since the Dolj facility has both unused spaces and huge discrepancies in terms of furbishing and equipping between some spaces and the others.
• APADOR-CH recommends the reorganization of the visitation sector and allowing open visits, especially in the case of parents receiving their children.
• The Association reiterates its request that the practice of handcuffing detainees as a rule every time they are taken outside the facility be abandoned.

 

Other conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

 

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu                                                                Dollores Benezic

Two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Detention and Preventive Arrest Center no. 12, attached to the regional Railway Police Station on September 11, 2012. The center holds male minors and young detainees (18-21) without health problems.

 

The procedures still used at the Detention and Preventive Arrest Center no. 12 are in contradiction with Law no. 275/2006 and violate the rights of detainees. For instance, registering mail both received and sent, including information on the sender/receiver. The confidentiality of conversations between detainees and their solicitors is not ensured, because the venue of these meetings – an office ­– is not furbished to allow visual observation only. The door remains open at all times, while the guard stands in the doorway, therefore listening to everything said there.

 

Handcuffing is a rule for every detainee that leaves the premises, not an exception as Law no. 275/2006 provides. The most frequent justification for the regular use of handcuffs is the suspicion that all detainees have the intention to escape – exactly the exception provided by Law no. 275/2006. Of course, it is a mere pretext to make the work of the escorting guards easier. Escapes are rare and in general they are related to the negligence of the police escorts, not to handcuffing. APADOR-CH insists that this degrading – and sometimes inhuman – treatment be abandoned, as a rule, and only used in exceptional cases.

 

 

 

Detention space, population

           

On the day of the visit, the Detention and Preventive Arrest Center no. 12 held a number of 14 minors and young detainees (13 young detainees, one underage).

Two of the youths were here on their way to the penitentiary. Regarding the duration of preventive arrest, the management said it never lasted more than two months. The facility had 20 beds in five rooms, of which only four were occupied.

 

The representatives of APADOR-CH visited all five rooms. They measured about 12 square meters each, including the lavatory. Only one of the rooms had all 4 beds occupied.  APADOR-CH reminds that the Committee for the Prevention of Torture recommended at least 4 square meters of space per detainee, both in police custody facilities and in prisons. But in the room that was fully occupied, each detainee had less than 3 square meters of space, which is tantamount to overcrowding. Detainees said they never had to share heir beds. The windows had thick metal nets on the inside, the glass panes and bars on the outside. Natural light was scarce, so the light stayed on during the day. Lights could only be turned off from outside the cell, from the corridor. Windows could only be opened from the outside, by police agents. It was commendable that the facility had a properly working ventilation system. The sound alert system was out of order at the time of the visit, so detainees knocked on their doors to alert the guards.

 

Center no. 12 had a special room for body searching detainees when they are brought in. The money and personal belongings were kept in a safe, alongside a list of all the items withheld.

 

 

Hygiene conditions

 

Each room had its own lavatory, including a Turkish toilet, a sink and a shower. The cabins had curtains to ensure intimacy. A commendable fact was that hot water was available around the clock. Detainees were only provided with a bed, bed linen, a pillow and a blanket. The staff said there was a washing machine for the detainees’ laundry. Other items, like soap, toothpaste, toilet paper, razors, had to be brought by the detainees. Razors were kept in separate boxes for each detainee, in the guards’ office. A hairdresser came in twice a month to cut their hair.

 

 

Food

 

The food provided to the detainees was brought in from the Rahova Penitentiary. The representatives of APADOR-CH visited the room where detainees keep their own food in fridges. The fridges were all working, and each room had a separate compartment in one of them. The young men held at Detention and Preventive Arrest Center no. 12 said they ate both what their families brought in for them and what the Center provided and that they were satisfied with the quality of the food.

 

 

Activities, correspondence, contacts with the outside, other rights

 

The facility had an exercise yard of about 20 square meters where the minors/youths could not do anything other than stand or take a few steps. Both detainees and guards said that the yard was used every day, for one or two hours.

 

The Center did not have a “club” facility and did not run any activity program. A treadmill was on the corridor, but out of order. The staff said that there were some TV sets which could be used in the rooms, but the protection boxes were broken. A few shelves with books were available on the corridor, if the detainees wanted to take to their rooms to read.

 

The mailbox was on the corridor and the letters were posted by detainees themselves. Both upon departure and upon arrival, the destination/sender was registered. The practice was at least strange because, upon sending a letter, the detainee had first to step into the guards’ office and have the name of the receiver written down and only then to place the letter in the mailbox. APADOR-CH maintains that, this way, the right to correspondence is restricted and asks the management of the center to justify such a practice. The phone was also on the corridor. The detainees were watched as they spoke, so they had no confidentiality. Phone cards were provided by their families. Detainees were allowed at least one phone call per week, usually on Mondays, but if necessary they were allowed more. Each detainee had to provide a list of the numbers they used; phone calls to attorneys were unlimited.

 

The facility had video cameras installed on the corridor. APADOR-CH suggests that cameras should also be installed in investigation rooms. That way, the number of complaints, justified or not, about ill treatments from police agents during investigations, would be bound to decrease.

 

Detainees were allowed eight visits per month from family and friends and an unlimited number of visits from their solicitors. The inconvenience was that all visits took place in the same office, where visual supervision was not possible, so there was no confidentiality of conversations. APADOR-CH points out to the facility management that this is a violation of Law no. 275/2006 and recommends that a transparent door should be installed, so that supervision may be exclusively visual. The parcels brought in by visitors were opened and verified by agents in the presence of detainees.

 

As for the liaison judge, his phone number was posted on the corridor, alongside other numbers of general interest. The staff said that the detainees were aware of their right to call the liaison judge because they received a list of rights and obligations upon their arrival at the Center. The liaison judge only came in upon request. The staff said he had not been there for a long time, because there hadn’t been any solicitations or situations to require his presence.

 

 

Medical care

 

The staff of the facility said that, depending on the necessity, the doctor was called in, detainees were sent to the medical ward or they called 112.

 

Persons who were drug addicts upon arrest, stayed at Detention and Preventive Arrest Center no. 1 to be treated and were only afterwards transferred to Center no. 12.

 

The staff said that none of the detainees had any health problems at the time of the visit. There was no possibility for detainees to access any HIV/AIDS or other infectious disease prevention programs. No condoms were distributed. No methadone substitution program was available in case of need. The General Police Inspectorate does not accept drug substitution treatment, despite it being explicitly provided by the law.

 

The representatives of APADOR-CH talked to all the detainees at the center, who said they had no complaints about the quality of food or detention conditions and that they were taken to the exercise yard every day. They had no complaints either about the behavior of the agents or other rights, including correspondence or visits.

 

Conclusions and recommendations:

 

• The Association asks for a glass door to be installed in the visit room, so that supervision may be exclusively visual;
• APADOR-CH considers that the practice of writing down the names of addressees and senders of letters should be ceased, lest it should discourage detainees to exercise their right to correspondence;
• The Association asks the center to abandon the practice of handcuffing detainees every time they leave the premises and use restraining only when absolutely necessary.

 

 

Other conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

 

 

 

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu                                                              Doina-Adelina Boboşatu

 

Two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the custody facility of Police Section 9, in sector 2 of the capital, on November 9, 2011. Compared with the previous visit of the Association, in 2006, there were only three visible improvements: an increased number of rooms, from 3 to 4 (but detention space is still calculated by cube meters of air, not by square meters per person, as the Committee for the Prevention of Torture has been demanding for years); the permission for detainees to have TVs in their rooms (but only their own TV sets); and the introduction of a proper mailbox (instead of the former improvised cardboard boxes) where detainees may place their mail in safety. The facility was closed and refurbished in 2011, from June 29 to November 4.

1. Detention spaces

Detention rooms, in the basement, are very small (about 12 square meters each, room 3 has one extra square meter for a table and chair) and dark. Windows have metal nets inside, iron bars, then the window and another metal net outside. Of course, natural light is very dim, and the permanent light staying on 24/24 is of no use for the detainees (in order to read, they need to sit right under the bulb). Moreover, the windows can only be opened from the outside, by the guards, of course, and detainees don’t have access to the light button on the corridor, to turn it off, even during the day. Law no. 275/2006 mentions that authorities in custody facilities have the obligation to ensure satisfactory natural lighting, and that permanent lights should be on only if necessary. This is yet another example (about mandatory handcuffing on outings, see below) on how the police ignores ­– or interprets arbitrarily – the provisions of Law no. 275, while claiming to observe its own 2005 regulations, which have never been revised since the Law came into effect in 2006. The Association asks that either one of the metal nets be removed or they be both replaced by larger nets that allow the light in. If these changes are made, the Association also asks for the permanent light to be turned off, at least during the day.

The 22 detainees are all adults, brought in with preventive arrest warrants. Most of them come from Section 7 custody facility, now closed for “repairs”. A coincidence or not, the facility was closed shortly after detainee George-Dan Bălan died there, and mainly because several inmates were interviewed by TV reporters at the windows facing the street. Probably a technical solution is sought that would place detention room windows into a less accessible place.

The representatives of APADOR-CH visited 3 of the 4 detention rooms at Section 9. Rooms 1 (5 persons in 5 beds) and 2 (4 persons in 4 beds) are similar in size. Room 3 (6 detainees in 6 beds) is a little larger, with enough space for a table and a chair, but even darker than the others. In this room, the representatives of the Association talked to a detainee transferred here from Section 7 and former room-mate to the deceased (the case of Dan Bălan, dead in police custody, makes the object of a separate report of the Association). The detainees are provided with a bed, sheets, a pillow and a blanket. All the other necessary items (soap, toothpaste, toilet paper, razors) need to be procured by the detainees. The lavatories are functional and detainees said that hot water was provided every day. Rooms are reasonably heated.

The staff consists of 13 employees, two of whom have been transferred from Section 7. It is unclear why the guards made available by the closure of the Section 7 facility are not distributed to areas where personnel is scarce (for instance, public order), since, to the knowledge of the Association, being a custody facility agent requires no special training, and there are no special courses provided by either the police school or the police academy.

2. Food, daily exercise, correspondence, visits

Food is provided by Rahova penitentiary. It is of such quality that only detainees who are not visited and have no money eat it. Each person on preventive arrest is allowed to receive parcels containing maximum 10 kilos of food, 6 kilos of fruit and 20 bottles of water or juice per month. They have access to fridges where they can store it and a microwave oven to heat it.

The daily exercise time is more staying in open air than exercising. The exercise “yard” is a 24 square meter cage, but would allow some equipment, like push-up bars. In their absence, the detainees can only stand or walk a few steps. APADOR-CH suggests that sport equipments be installed in the exercise yard and some ball games be allowed. It would also be desirable to organize a club somewhere, to allow detainees do other things than stay in their rooms for 23/24 hours.

Detainees have access to a mobile mailbox, where they may place their letters. The secret of the correspondence seems to be observed. Not the same thing may be said about phone calls. The payphone is placed on the corridor, right outside the office of the supervisors, having the door permanently open. It is practically impossible for the guards no to hear everything the detainees say. Moreover, the phone had been broken for a week, and the staff raised their shoulders, saying that they made “repeated complaints” to Romtelecom, unsuccessfully. Their attitude shows not just carelessness towards the persons they have under custody, but neglect for a legal right, with potential consequences on the right to defense (detainees are in impossibility to contact their lawyers). The Association hopes that the technical problem has been remedied, but asks the Service for detention and preventive arrest of the Bucharest Police Direction to discuss this incident with all its employees.

Visits take place in an 8 square meter room on the ground floor. By the entrance, on the right, there is a separate 1 sq m space, with bars from floor to ceiling, where the detainee is introduced. The visitors stand and talk to the detainee in the presence of a guard, seated less than 3 meters away. APADOR-CH reminds that according to Law no. 275/2006, visits should be supervised visually only, in order to ensure the confidentiality of the communication. The Association asks for the agent to be seated on the corridor, in front of the door, which may remain open for the duration of the visit. At the same time, the cabin should be moved to the window and used only for high-risk detainees. For the others, benches, chair and perhaps a table should be provided. Scheduling may ensure that closed and open visits do not happen at the same time.

3. Handcuffing detainees when taken out of the facility

Law no. 275/2006 provides that handcuffing detainees is authorized only “in exceptional situations” (article 37 par.2), while paragraph 1 of the same article points out that temporary restraining aims at preventing “a real and tangible danger” in cases of escape, violence, bodily harm, destruction of property. The police say that all persons in custody are suspect of planning to escape, therefore handcuffing them for any trip outside the facility is justified and legal. On the one hand, that means overturning the rule, and making exception become the rule. On the other hand, it’s difficult to believe that the police ever bothered to analyze the real and tangible risk of escape for every detainee.

The police are covered by their regulations, dated 2005, prior to Law no. 275/2006, and which have not been updated and harmonized with the new legal provisions.

As a result, all police custody facilities use the practice of handcuffing all detainees, except minors, pregnant women and persons over 60. The measure is taken irrespective of the destination: court, prosecutor’s office, transfer, etc. The Association asks for a radical change of the procedures for leaving the facility, updating the regulations in conformity with article 37 of Law no. 275/2006. That would require an individual analysis of the “real and tangible risk of the detainee committing one of the acts mentioned under paragraph 1”.

Recommendations:
a)       Substantial improvement of natural lighting;
b)      Providing a few essential items for individual hygiene, especially for detainees who have no money or receive no visits;
c)      Substantial improvement of visiting conditions;
d)      Abandoning the practice of handcuffing all detainees every time they leave the facility.

Other recommendations have been inserted in the report.

Manuela Ştefănescu                                                                            Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu