APADOR-CH
  • Home
  • Who we are
    • About APADOR-CH
    • Afilieri internaționale
    • APADOR-CH friends
    • Parteneri
    • Personal data processing practices of APADOR-CH
  • Activities
    • Detention Monitoring
    • ECHR
      • Information
      • Executarea hotărârilor CEDO
    • Legal advocacy
  • Projects
    • Ongoing projects
    • Finalized projects
  • Reports
    • Monitoring visits in police lock-ups
    • Monitoring visits in prisons
    • Law enforcement abuses
    • Rapoarte speciale
    • Annual Reports
  • Civil Rights
    • What are human rights
    • Useful Resources
  • Media
    • Press releases
    • APADOR-CH
      in Media
    • Editoriale Adevărul
    • Video
  • English
    • Română Română
    • English English
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Archive for category: Penitenciare

You are here: Home1 / Monitorizare condițiilor de detenție2 / Penitenciare

Monitorizarea conditiilor de detentie in penitenciare

Report on the visit to the Târgşor Penitentiary for Women

07/11/2013/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

 

Report on the visit to the Târgşor Penitentiary for Women

07.11.13

On November 7, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Târgşor Penitentiary for Women. The previous visit had taken place on September 10, 2009.

1. General considerations

The Târgşor Penitentiary, located near the city of Ploieşti , in Prahova County , was still the only facility in the country holding exclusively female detainees, both those serving definitive sentences and those convicted by a definitive court order but placed under preventive arrest for investigations in a different case. The Association reminds that the existence of a single penitentiary for women in Romania generates a serious problem in enforcing Article 5[1] of Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of custodial sentences, which stipulates that proximity to the place of residence must be taken into account in distributing the detainees to custody facilities. For women distributed to Târgşor, the criterion of proximity from their home and family was difficult to apply. It’s true, most penitentiaries had sections for women, with their advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage was the (relative) proximity to their family, while the disadvantages were the limited space, with the consequence that detention regimes (maximum security, closed, semi-open, open) could not be separated, the probability of getting work during detention was lower, very few social and educational activities were available etc.

The general atmosphere at Târgşor Penitentiary was relatively relaxed, but some problems persisted for part of the detainees, especially the ones who lived in distant regions. They received few visits, if any, and the number of parcels was proportionally smaller. It must also be said that access to the facility was almost impossible without a car and a visit required at least one night at a local hotel, expenses that few visitors of the detainees could afford.

APADOR-CH asks the National Administration of Penitentiaries (ANP) once again to take steps to create at least two other penitentiaries for women in the North-Northwestern and East-Northeastern areas of the country.

Under these circumstances, the Association reminds the negative impact that the Order of the Minister of Justice no. 3042/2007, prohibiting mail sent parcels for detainees, had upon the prison population in general and especially upon female detainees at Târgşor. (The Order of the Minister of Justice no. 2714/2008, now in effect, replace the above mentioned order but failed to correct the issue, maintaining the prohibition of mail parcels). At present, persons held under the custody of the ANP are able to add to their prison ratios (usually of poor quality and insufficient) by purchasing food from the in-house shops opened in penitentiaries or fro the parcels they receive directly from their visitors. Both modalities are more expensive for the family than mailing a parcel of food. A rural family with little income can hardly afford to send money to a detainee or to pay for a trip to a remote penitentiary, but would easily afford to send food they produce themselves. APADOR-CH reiterates its suggestion that any limitation of the possibilities detainees have to supplement their food should be enforced only when prison food is substantially improved, both in terms of quality and of quantity. Until then, APADOR-CH asks the minister of justice to amend Order no. 2714/2008 so as to allow detainees to receive parcels from their families by mail.

At Târgşor Penitentiary, each detention regime was applied according to the regulations and daily activities were organized for detainees. Unlike in 2009, when the previous visit took place, detainees were no longer taken out, to community events, and the number of the working women was considerably lower (88 detainees of 700). The prison management said that it stopped the outings for several reasons, one of which was that during the outings, detainees were invited for meals over which there was no control and there was a risk of food poisoning. APADOR-CH considers that outings and contacts with the community increased the detainees’ chances of social reinsertion after release and recommends that the outings should be resumed. The risk of food poisoning could be avoided by informing the organizers of the community events that detainees were only allowed to have pre-packaged food, water or juice.

2. Population, detention conditions, personnel

On the day of the visit, the Târgşor Penitentiary held 706 detainees, including a minor in transit. Their distribution by detention regime was the following: maximum security – 23 detainees (of whom four were categorized as high-risk); closed regime – 154; semi-open regime – 282; open regime – 132 (of whom 8 male detainees who did specific works; preventive arrest – 94, observation/quarantine – 21.

Detainees held under the open regime were free to move freely, unescorted, inside the penitentiary (the doors were only locked during emergency situations), while detainees held under the semi-open regime could move freely during the day (the rooms remained locked from 10 p.m. till 6 a.m.)

Detention rooms looked well: walls were whitewashed; windows were insulated; the walls and floors of the lavatories were tiled; sinks, toilets and showers were in a relatively good state (some showers and sinks required repairs). The downside of living condition was the absence of hot running water and the interruption of electricity from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., a measure introduced in order to cut down the bills. The governor said that he had to pay a 150,000 lei electricity bill and that he preferred to use the money saved by the rationalization of electricity on food. However, since hot water was provided only twice a week, detainees had to heat water with the electric heaters to ensure minimal hygiene. It should be analyzed whether providing hot running water more often would not lead to a substantial decrease of the electricity bill, since heating appliances are known to be among the largest electricity consumers.

At the time of the visit, the Târgşor Penitentiary followed the old standard of 6 cubic meters of air per detainee. According to the data provided by the prison management, by this standard the facility had a legal capacity to hold 709 detainees and a number of 829 beds (10 of which were at the infirmary). The total detention space of the Târgşor Penitentiary was 1,890 sq m, which, divided by 706 detainees, meant 2.67 sq m per person, much under the 4 sq m standard provided by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). There were many rooms where detainees shared a bed or two women slept in two adjoined beds. The Târgşor Penitentiary was overcrowded.

Of the existing penitentiary staff, 158 worked directly with the detainees: 135 in the operative department (male and female), 8 in the medical department and 13 in the reeducation department. The medical office had a permanently employed GP and 7 nurses. A gynecologist and a dentist also came to the facility for consultations and treatment.

3. The activity of the education and psycho-social assistance department; leisure time

At the time of the visit, the social and educational department had 13 employees, among whom: three psychologists (one of them was going to get transferred, at his request), a social worker and two sport trainers (they had little activity after the gym had been closed in order to make room for new detention spaces), four educators, one priest, one technical worker and one chief of department.

According to the prison management, two social workers, two educators and one psychologist would be enough to solve the personnel shortage. The department organized reading groups (the library was rather well kept by a detainee, who also worked for the in-house magazine); general knowledge courses; sanitary education; “The Second Chance” alternative literacy course; and psychological counseling, upon request. The facility also planned to organize qualification courses for tailoring, hairdressing, cooking. The hair dressing studio of the penitentiary had modern equipment and, for the moment, there was only one trained detainee working there.

Other options for detainees to spend their time were to go to the club, to work traditional crafts (stitching, weaving), or to watch TV when electricity was on. Detainees held under the open and semi-open regimes had unrestrained access to the exercise yards; those on preventive arrest and under the closed regime could spend two hours, twice a day, in three separate yards.

Detainees at Târgşor Penitentiary could attend school courses for grades I-IV and V-VIII. About 100 detainees were included in the “Second Chance” literacy program. The facility also worked together with seven NGOs which organized cultural and educational programs with detainees or made donations to improve the prison environment (such as painting or cleaning materials, as the governor explained).

4. Medical care

The medical staff was insufficient. One GP and seven nurses (one of whom was in fact a dental technician) ensured a permanent presence at the facility. A gynecologist came in one day per week and a dentist twice a month. On the day of the visit, the gynecologist had seen 15 detainees.

The medical office had recorded 102 cases of hepatitis C, 15 cases of hepatitis B, 60 mental patients under treatment, 339 chronic patients and 47 cases of syphilis.

The medical staff claimed that there had been no gaps in medicine and sanitary material supplies, but from discussions with detainees, the representatives of APADOR-CH gathered that they were rarely taken to the medical office (once a month) and had difficulty in obtaining the prescribed medicines.

The medical nurse on duty said that medical emergencies were taken for treatment to the Prahova County Hospital , an institution that co-operated very well with the prison management. The non-emergency cases requiring specialized treatment and substance dependence cases were transferred to the Rahova Penitentiary Hospital .

One insulin dependent diabetes patient and one HIV patient were held at the infirmary. The HIV patient was at Târgşor only for a few days, before she appeared before the court. She was currently detained at Jilava Penitentiary Hospital , where had been was transferred as soon as she was diagnosed. The detainee complained that she had to serve her term in a prison hospital where there was no work available there and only very few activities. Moreover, the semi-open regime could not be applied at the hospital. APADOR-CH points out that automatically transferring HIV infected detainees at the Jilava Penitentiary Hospital was a discriminating practice and asks the ANP to put an end to it.

In what concerned HIV/hepatitis prevention programs, the penitentiary was able to provide methadone substitution treatment for former drug users, but none of them applied for the program. In 2012, a single detainee accessed the program, which ended with her voluntarily dropping out.

5. The therapeutic community

The Târgşor Penitentiary also had a therapeutic community for former drug addicts (such communities also functioned at Rahova and Jilava penitentiaries). A therapeutic community was a treatment program with a residential structure, based on the impact of community life and on the support of the group. Therapeutic communities have a family-like hierarchy.

The therapeutic community at Târgşor included 12 women, all former injectable heroin addicts. They shared a generous space, including a large and clean bedroom with a lavatory, a room used as a workshop and an office where they met the psychologist or other specialists. Aside from food (the community did not have a kitchen) the women in the community are self-sufficient. To be admitted in the community, detainees had to be categorized in the semi-open regime and to have at most three years left to serve.

The representatives of APADOR-CH talked to the members of the program and noted they were all very happy to be part of the community. They considered themselves cured, free from addiction and were optimistic about staying away from drugs after release.

The Association commends the fact that the ANP launched such programs for the rehabilitation of former drug users and recommends that they should be extended.

6. Work for detainees

Compared to the previous visit, the number of working detainees was decreasing – a situation that the prison management blamed on the general context of the labor market. At the time of the visit, 88 detainees (of whom 8 males) worked at two in-house locations (the animal farm), at one textile workshop, for an external beneficiary (23 women) and in various in-house services.

Three or four detainees went to work every day outside the penitentiary, without escort, taking the cow herd to the pasture. The detainees did not receive any money (they could not use them on the field, anyway), nor their mobile phones. The prison management said they had not requested them.

The facility planned to take part in a tender to acquire some of the spaces of a former textile factory located in the yard of the penitentiary (it belonged to the former Multiproduct Company, that used to employ detainees). The plan was to restore the textile company and provide work for about 50 detainees.

7. Food, the canteen, in-house shops

On the day of the visit, the lunch menu included bean soup, pork on cabbage (about 20 kilos of pork and bones), sprinkled with fresh dill from the garden of the facility. Detainees who were on diet received potato soup and meat pilaf. For dinner, the menu included rice milk (with fresh milk from the cows kept at the farm)

Detainees said that in summer time they often received fresh salads and the prison management showed that vegetable preserves and pickles were prepared for the winter, from the same source. The representatives of APADOR-CH appreciate that this detail has a good influence on the detainees’ health.

The kitchen was in a well-maintained building (whitewashed walls, stainless steel sinks, hot running water around the clock) which however did not have an efficient ventilation system. That is why windows had to stay open and since windows were on the two opposite sides of the building, they produced a powerful air draft. The lavatory used by the 14 detainees who worked at the kitchen could have been cleaner.

The penitentiary had a canteen seating 100. Detainees ate here in shifts (except the maximum security prisoners), separated by section and detention regime. APADOR-CH asks the prison management to analyze the possibility of serving dinner, too, at the canteen as well as allowing maximum security prisoners to have their meals there.

The food storage contained bags of rice and pasta a few containers of fresh milk from farm.

Besides the prison food and the parcels brought by their families during the visits, detainees could purchase food from the two in-house shops, as long as they had money. The representatives of APADOR-CH visited one of the shops. It was provided with all the products that can usually be found a local grocer’s (processed meat, cheese, preserves, fruit and vegetables, juice, coffee, cigarettes) at prices slightly higher than a hypermarket. Detainees complained especially about the high prices of Cristim pre-cooked food, cakes and coffee. An “Amandina” chocolate cake cost 4.5 lei, a package of Jacobs coffee – 16 lei, one of Amaroy coffee – 25 lei, a kilo of apples – 5.8 lei, a kilo of tomatoes – 4.8 lei, a box of Axion washing cream – 4 lei, an Always pad – 0.7 lei, a portion of Cristim grilled meat – 11 lei and a portion of roasted wings – 7.5 lei.

8. Contacts with the outside

Pay phones and mail boxes were located on the corridors of the sections and in the exercise yards. They were accessible at all times and no one kept evidence of the addressees (a record of incoming mail was, however, kept). Functional info-kiosks were also located on each section.

The facility had rooms equipped for family visits, a special room for young visiting children and a matrimonial room.

Several detainees complained that visits to the community and meetings with other detained members of the family were no longer organized, as they used to be before the new management was put in place (over a year before).

9. The liaison judge

The liaison judge was not at the facility at the time of the visit. Several detainees complained that they notified him about some inconvenient aspects of prison life and claimed they never received an answer.

10. The visit to the rooms, discussions with the detainees.

Section E 4 – closed regime

In Room 41, 17 women occupied 16 beds in a space measuring 5 by 6 meters. The two detainees who shared a bed were related – mother and daughter-in-law – and they claimed they were the ones who asked to be placed together. The lavatory had two sinks, a toilet and a shower. Hot water was provided twice a week, for a few hours, and detainees said there was enough time for all of them to shower. Detainees said they attended school every day, that food was “pretty good” and that they were content with the sanitary items distributed every month by the penitentiary.

The maximum security section had two rooms for detainees who asked for protection and the rest of the rooms for high-risk detainees. All had access to exercise yards, shared according to a timetable. In one of the rooms for detainees under protection, 3 women shared 4 beds. One of them complained about the high prices at the in-house shops but she praised the fact that she often attended classes and various other activities, despite the fact that she was on preventive arrest.

Open regime section

The mother and child section consisted of two rooms with kitchen and bathroom. It had access to an exercise yard used only by mothers and their children.

The visited room was spacious and well kept, with carpeted floor, beds and children’s beds, changing tables and toys. Two detainees were held here: one had a boy of almost one year, about to be sent home to the detainee’s family, and one who had just arrived, with a two weeks old daughter (detainees who had not lost their parental rights were allowed to keep their children until the age of 12 months). Both women had given birth at the University Hospital in Bucharest and said they had been very well taken care of. The children were enlisted with a family doctor. On the day of the visit, the mother and daughter had been seen by the doctor and had received a receipt for formula, because breast milk was insufficient.

The room also had a smaller kitchen equipped with a fridge and a microwave, for the use of the mothers. Mothers had permanent access to the larger, separate kitchen and to the bathroom, which equipped with a washing machine, three bath tubs and special furniture for children.

The rooms, bathrooms and kitchens for the “mother and child regime had panic buttons. The prison management said that all rooms at the facility had such alert systems, but detainees in the other rooms said they did not work.

Room 4/section E1, open regime – 17 detainees in 16 beds

Three detainees here shared two beds placed next to each other. Detainees complained about the quality of the food, the insufficient sanitary materials (5 sanitary pads per month, one roll of toilet paper, two bars of soap), the high prices at in-house shops and the fact that they could not go to work. APADOR-CH reiterates its request addressed to the prison management to identify new work opportunities for detainees. Also, detainees complained about the interruption of electricity between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. and about the fact that they were seen by the doctor only once a month.

Room 32/ section E3, preventive arrest – 16 detainees in 14 beds, in a 39 sq m room

Detainees claimed that for a few months in 2012 there had been 19 of them sharing 14 beds. Among the room-mates, there was a woman seven month pregnant who complained that the gynecologist had refused to give her an ultrasound and that she had requested a series of personal objects from the store room (such as a duvet), but her request was denied because an ANP order prohibited duvets and other items that could serve as vehicles for hidden objects to be introduced in penitentiaries. Another detainee complained that she did not receive her personal belongings and that when she went to ask for them, the supervisor insulted her.

In the same room, other detainees said that for each thing they requested they had to fill a form, but there were not enough forms available. Some of them said that although their requests had been approved, the things they asked for were still unsolved.

An ethnic Hungarian detainee said that she had required legal books and crosswords in Hungarian and her request was denied.

Detainees also complained that they could not receive copies of their own records because they had no money to pay for photocopies, that they received their medicines with difficulty and that they were taken to the medical office only once a month. They also said that rats came into their room at night, from the courtyard – and indicated the yard in front of their window, sprinkled with food scrap. The prison management said that rats came exactly because detainees threw food scraps outside and that pest control campaigns took place regularly. The same detainees complained that they did not have written regulations in their room or access to the info-kiosks.

The prison management denied all their complaints, saying that detainees were often recalcitrant and broke the windows themselves, that overcrowding was due to the fact that some spaces were being whitewashed. After that, there were going to be fewer women to each room and each would have her own bed.

The bathroom door glass was broken in Room 32 – since December 2012, inmates said – and replaced by a black plastic foil.

The confinement room

At the time of the visit, a detainee occupied the confinement room. She had been there for nine days. The room was relatively clean but very cold, because there were no glass sheets on the window. The detainee showed signs of a mental condition and had lost count of the days she had spent in there. She knew however that she was going to be let out the next day. The prison management said that she had been sanctioned by 10 days of confinement for a fight with her room mates. At the time of the visit, two glass sheets had been brought on the corridor and were going to be installed at the window of the confinement room.

Conclusions and recommendations:

· APADOR-CH asks for steps to be taken to reduce overcrowding and to allow detainees to maintain their relations with their families and the local community. The Association considers that at least two other penitentiaries for women should be created to cover the regions of Transylvania and Moldova . The Association asks the prison management to allow and encourage detainees to go on outings in the community;

· ANP must urgently solve the problem of medical care at Târgşor, so that detainees are able to access these services on a weekly basis, as it happens in other penitentiaries;

· APADOR-CH asks the minister of justice to annul the order prohibiting detainees to receive parcels from their families by mail.

Other findings/recommendations have been included in the report.

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu

Dollores Benezic

 

https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png 0 0 Rasista https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png Rasista2013-11-07 00:00:002015-05-08 20:12:17Report on the visit to the Târgşor Penitentiary for Women

Report on the visit to the Arad Penitentiary

07/11/2013/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

Report on the visit to the Arad Penitentiary

 

On November 7, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the central unit of the Arad Penitentiary. It was the first time the Association visited this facility.

 

1. General considerations

 

The central unit of the penitentiary was a new complex of buildings, started in 1994 and fully completed in 2011. The first detention building was inaugurated in 1998. The unit was located near an industrial area of the city and had a generous property allowing for many exercise yards and sports fields, both for detainees and for the staff.

 

The Arad Penitentiary was categorized a high-security facility, where most detainees served their sentences under the closed and maximum security regimes. The Arad Penitentiary also had an external section holding detainees under the open and semi-open regimes, as well as persons on preventive arrest who had been put on trial and therefore transferred out of police custody.

 

The Arad Penitentiary also had a downtown unit, in an old building where the women’s section held 145 detainees at the time of the visit. This section was not visited by the representatives of the Association.

 

The prison farm was still functional, raising cows and pigs for meat. It had its own slaughter house, where some repairs had been made but still more capital works were necessary. The investment was not justified, given the costs and the distance from the farm to the slaughter house. Detainees worked a 4.5 hectares vegetable garden and the crops were used to prepare the prison food.

 

The penitentiary obtained substantial revenue, that was used to make various purchases. In 2012, the facility acquired a 40 places bus to transport detainees; in 2013, it acquired a 16 place bus for detainees and in 2014, it planned to purchase a 22 place bus, for the same purpose. Following these investments, the penitentiary would have covered its necessities for transportation. The same source paid for a video surveillance system (covering the whole facility, even the kitchen area). For the future, the prison management planned to purchase a mini security system with centralized lock-up for the control room and for the kitchen area. Some of the revenues were used for current repairs. Future revenues were planned to cover the building of a new external section, on the penitentiary grounds, comprising 9,000 square meters of production sections – but no detention spaces.

 

2. Population, detention conditions, personnel

 

The central unit of the Arad Penitentiary held only male detainees, most of them serving under the closed and maximum security regimes.

 

At the time of the visit, the total prison population numbered 996 detainees, of whom 851 men and 145 women. Male detainees were categorized as follows: 120 – maximum security, 637 – closed regime, 30 – open regime, 1 – semi-open regime. The remaining 20 men were still under observation/in quarantine, while 43 were on preventive arrest. The 145 women held at the external section were categorized as follows: 10 – maximum security, 36 – closed regime,            25 – open regime, 57 – semi-open regime, 5 under observation/in quarantine and 12 on preventive arrest. At the time of the visit, the facility also held two minors, one convicted by the first instance court and the second on preventive arrest. The central unit held 821 detainees and the external section 175.

 

The total detention space at Arad Penitentiary was 5,560.5 sq m, meaning an average of 4.04 sq m per detainee; that meant there was no overcrowding at the central unit. The capacity of the facility was 1,422 and the average population was around 1,000 detainees. The Association noted that the external section was overcrowded: the women section provided 2.92 sq m of space per detainee, while the male section provided 2.66 sq m.

 

Detention conditions differed from one room to another. The general impression was that in some places sanitization and pest control would have been necessary. Most spaces were renovated and clean, but there were also rooms, like E.6.21, where persons on preventive arrest complained of bedbugs and where walls had not been painted in a long while. Natural light and ventilation were generally satisfactory and hot water was provided twice a week. The representatives of APADOR-CH noted that detainees went to the showers four at a time, without any separation system, so their right to privacy was infringed. Another problem was the advanced state of decay of the mattresses. The Association recommends that separating curtains be installed in the showers and that all worn-out mattresses be urgently replaced.

 

The number of employees was 479, although the personnel scheme had 531 positions. Most of the staff, 340, worked for the security and penitentiary regime department (which had 355 positions), 14 worked for the medical department (on 23 existing positions) and 25 worked for the social and educational department (which had 35 positions). The priest position was frozen following budget restrictions, so a contract was signed with the Orthodox Metropolitanate for a part time job, paid from the facility’s own revenues. APADOR-CH points out that the orthodox religious service offered by the prison may be considered as discriminating by followers of other faiths, such as Catholic, Greek-Catholic and other officially acknowledged denominations, who could not benefit from religious services paid by penitentiary.

 

3. Medical care

 

The Arad Penitentiary had two offices for general practice and a dental office, all appropriately equipped, and 14 medical workers, of whom 13 were employed by the facility. The 14th person was a dentist who worked on contract. The employees were two doctors and 12 nurses. The GPs saw an average of 80-100 patients per day, of whom 10 were emergency cases. The number of daily consultations is too high for the number of doctors, so we recommend hiring more doctors in order to cover the medical needs of detainees. Detainees who talked to the representatives of APADOR-CH said that in general they had no complaints about health care, except the fact that dental treatments didn’t always solve the existing problems. The governor said that he had approved the request of a detainee to be treated by his personal dentist, who had come to the facility for that purpose, and another detainee who had an implant had been allowed to go and see his dentist for a check-up.

 

According to the doctors, the most frequent health problems were chronic illnesses (especially digestive ones), followed by mental conditions (about 130 detainees had been diagnosed with psychiatric conditions and other 100 had undiagnosed disorders). The medical staff said that one patient developed schizophrenia during detention and, upon release, the doctors worked with the family to have him transferred directly to a Neuro-Psychic Rehabilitation Center. APADOR-CH asks for all detainees who appear to have mental troubles to be examined by specialists, who should decide for each individual case what is the best course of treatment, whether it requires medication and when the patient should be examined again.

 

The medical office distributed free condoms, but they were not placed in visible, accessible places – detainees had to ask the doctor for one, when they needed. There was one place at the library where condoms were placed for anyone to take, but at the time of the visit there were none left. The Association asks the penitentiary to install a condom box near the medical office, so that any detainee could pick a condom without surveillance or recording. The doctors said that there were no drug-related medical problems because cannabis and ethno-botanic were the main drug used in the area and they did not create serious health problems. In 2012, a detainee died of a myocardial infarction and in 2013 a 90 years old man died of respiratory arrest.

 

The medical staff said there were no problems with the delivery/deduction of medication from the Colibaşi Hospital and that the Arad County Hospital cooperated well with the facility, never refusing to admit detainees and sending the ambulance whenever emergencies arose.

 

4. Food for detainees

 

The Arad Penitentiary had a kitchen that serviced both the central unit and the Arad police custody facility. The only problem there was the mould and damp ceiling. Otherwise, the rooms, storage areas and kitchenware were clean and well maintained.

 

The lunch menu on the day of the visit consisted of potato soup and meat stew for diet, or cabbage soup and baked beans with sausage for the rest of the prison population. The sausages were portioned so that each detainee could receive a piece. A special menu, including peasant soup and vegetable stew, was prepared for diabetes patients. For dinner, the menu included Transylvanian stew pork scraps or potato stew and milk pasta for diet.

 

Most detainees had their meals in their room, although each section had a space where meals could be served and which was currently used to store food before serving and dirty dishes, or in some cases was turned into a small club for detainees. APADOR-CH suggests that canteens should be organized in the respective spaces, so that meals could be served there, alternately with club activities.

 

5. The activity of the psycho-social assistance and education department, other activities

 

The social and educational department employed 25 people, of whom 6 psychologists. The number of psychologist was remarkable, especially as all detainees interviewed said they either had been tested by psychologists or had taken part in the programs they ran.

 

The department ran a drug prevention campaign entitled “Flight becomes fall when drugs break your wings” (in cooperation with CEPCA and the Arad School Inspectorate) during which detainees were able to share their experiences as drug users with high-school students. Another activity was the participation of 10 male detainees to a theatre project, The Adams Family, staged at the Multi Art Theatre Festival in 2013.

 

Sport activities were permanent, trying to include as many detainees as possible. The penitentiary had four gyms with fitness equipment, 6 tennis halls and two playfields. An in-house football championship had been organized, with the participation of 205 detainees.

 

A second qualification course for plant farmers was completed, as part of the SOP HRD project “Consolidating the functional capacity of integrated social services for detainees and former addicts for labor market reinsertion by developing innovative tools and work methods and formative programs”. Of the 14 detainees registered, 13 completed the course and one was declared unable to follow.

 

The facility organized instruction activities, run by teachers from Avram Iancu School and from Iuliu Moldovan Technological High-School. 100 detainees were registered for the classes: 25 for primary school, 40 for gymnasium and 35 for high-school. One detainee had completed his second years at Vasile Goldiş Western University.

 

The central unit of the Arad Penitentiary had a very well endowed library, counting 12,392 books, of which 2,123 at the external section, and was regularly used by 184 detainees. The unit also had a paining studio where art classes took place, including drawing, painting, and traditional crafts. All 4 buildings had rooms properly equipped for educational activities, including a club for minors, containing specific educational materials for teenagers.

 

Exercise yards, 15 in all, were generous in size. Two basketball/football fields were also available. The 7 exercise yards for maximum security detainees were located on top of the buildings and appropriately equipped, including with payphones. But since they were not covered, they could not be used in bad weather.

 

APADOR-CH considers that installing covers above the maximum security exercise yards, which can be done with minimal costs, would allow them to be used on rainy days or in snow as well.

 

6. Work for detainees

 

The Arad Penitentiary had work contracts with 12 companies. At the time of the visit, 408 of the 996 detainees worked and 270 of them received payment for their services. The employment rate was high compared to other facilities.

 

130 detainees worked inside the facility: 104 for services at the central unit, 25 for services at the external section, 5 at the farm, one as a help to another detainee, 4 as guards and 3 at the garage. Most of the detainees who received salaries (139) worked on contract for a shoe company, sewing parts of the products together. They worked in their rooms, at the central unit.

 

7. Other aspects

 

The Arad Penitentiary managed the Training and Qualification Center for Employees of the Penitentiary System, a 3040 sq m building located near downtown Arad, in former Palace of Justice. The Training Center was equipped with all necessary conditions for the preparation and re-qualification of the personnel: conference hall, classrooms, library, gyms, teacher’s lounge, medical office, offices for trainers, 23 accommodation rooms for course attendants with a total of 95 beds, common lavatories and shower rooms, kitchen, canteen, food storage rooms.

 

The Centre was closed because no courses were taking place, but the maintenance costs for the building were covered by the penitentiary’s own resources. APADOR-CH supports the proposal of the prison management that a separate budget line should be allocated for the maintenance of the building, covering all the required expenditure for the Center, even if the management is attributed to the Arad facility. APADOR-CH also suggests that the prison management should take into account the possibility of partially using that space to accommodate detainees under the open and semi-open regimes.

 

Conclusions and recommendations

 

Following their visit, the representatives of APADOR-CH recommend:

 

·        Reducing overcrowding at the external section by reorganizing spaces used for other purposes;

·        Passing all detainees who seem mentally disturbed through a psychiatric examination for diagnosis and treatment;

·        Partial covering of all exercise yards, so they can be used during rain or snow as well.

 

Other conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

 

Nicoleta Popescu                                                       Cristinel Buzatu

https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/finantare-raport-penitenciare.jpg 106 615 Rasista https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png Rasista2013-11-07 00:00:002014-08-08 15:06:19Report on the visit to the Arad Penitentiary

Report on the visit at the Timişoara Penitentiary

06/11/2013/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

On November 6, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Timişoara Penitentiary. The previous visit had taken place on May 17, 2007.

1. General considerations, population, personnel

At the time of the visit, the penitentiary held a total number of 1,175 detainees, all male, of whom 6 young detainees and 4 minors. The facility was organized in 10 sections, by detention regime, as follows: open (318), semi-open (756), preventive arrest (80) and observation/quarantine (21).

From data provided by the prison management, it turned out that the institution had about 2,792 sq m used exclusively as detention space, resulting in 2.4 sq m of personal space per detainee. APADOR-CH criticizes the excessive overcrowding at Timişoara Penitentiary and asks the prison management and the National Administration of Penitentiaries (ANP) to urgently find solutions so that each detainee is provided with at least 4 sq m of personal space, as recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatments or Punishments (CPT).

The whole structure of Building no. 1, where 136 persons were held under the open and semi-open regime, was severely damaged – a technical study showed. For that reason, the prison management had asked for the building to be demolished and rebuilt, but the ANP had only approved capital repairs, without however allotting the necessary budget.

According to the governor, a project was approved for a new visitation sector to be built in 2014. Also, at the time of the visit, one of the office buildings was being extended, to be partially used for education activities for detainees. Between 2011 and 2012, the kitchen area had been renovated.

There were 384 positions for the staff at the Timişoara Penitentiary, but only 316 were occupied  (82.29%). 222 of the employees worked in the operative department, 18 in the social and educational department and only 12 in the medical department (of whom one doctor was on maternal leave, leaving two doctors and 9 nurses to cover medical care). The medical department was the most understaffed, with 66.66% occupancy rate.

Among the problems enumerated by the governor were the insufficient infrastructure and the syncopes in medical supplies.

2. Work for detainees

At the time of the visit, from the total population of 1,175, 156 detainees performed paid work for various beneficiaries, 237 provided in-house services and 7 worked as volunteers. 97 of them worked outside the facility. The total number of detainees who were employed was 400, representing 34% of the total prison population.

The Penitentiary collaborated with private individuals and companies. It had contracts for works such as: sanitation, cleaning, constructions, digging, interior decorations, gardening, logging, planting, burr removing, assembling electrical switches, sewing shoe soles, archiving.

3. Social and educational activities

The department employed 18 persons, on the 29 existing positions, leaving 11 vacancies. The domains covered were education and psycho-social assistance. The education personnel included 8 educators, a chief of service, a security agent (who was also a sports monitor), two technical agents (who fixed TV sets, radios, etc), while the psycho-social assistance personnel included a deputy director for social reinsertion, a chief psychologist, a psychologist, three social workers, as well as a orthodox priest who worked on a contract. The position for a priest was frozen because of budget restrictions, so a service contract was signed with the Timişoara Metropolitanate, paid by the penitentiary from its own revenues. The Association points out that the orthodox service offered by the penitentiary may be considered discriminatory for detainees like Catholics, Greek-Catholics and other officially acknowledged denominations, who could not benefit from religious services. Moreover, APADOR-CH considers that the Timişoara Penitentiary had more urgent needs to spend money on, like hiring a psychiatrist.

At the time of the visit, none of the four minors held at the facility was enlisted for school. According to the representative of the social and educational department, the minors had literacy classes and painting lessons.

The facility was involved in a European project in partnership with the Botoşani and Satu-Mare Penitentiaries, to qualify 800 detainees for a series of trades:

·         Construction finishing works;

·         Animal farming;

·         Thermopane windows, plastic confections;

·         Joinery industries.

 

All graduates of the qualification course signed a contract pledging at least 80% attendance. After release, a private HR company attempted to find jobs for these detainees. During the first 6 months, they were not allowed to refuse more than 3 work offers, or they became liable to pay the value of the course. The project was ongoing, so the results were not available at the time of the visit.

4. Medical care

The medical office employed two GPs (but only one actually came to work, while a second was in maternal leave), a dentist, seven nurses, a pharmacy assistant and a hygiene assistant.

About 60 detainees were examined every day – too much for one doctor. The most common health problems were chronic conditions, followed by cardio-vascular and digestive diseases (gastritis, hepatitis – of which 50% chronic hepatitis). A quarter of the detainees were under evidence for mental conditions and 5% received psychiatric treatment. The medical staff appreciated that about 30% of the detainees suffered from mental conditions. APADOR-CH asks for all detainees suspected of mental problems to be examined by specialists who should decide if medication is necessary, what other course of treatment should be taken for each separate case and how frequent psychiatric follow-ups should be.

The dental office was well equipped and detainees could receive emergency dental treatment.

No sexual abuses were reported in 2013 and one single death took place, caused by a heart attack. In 2012, one case of sexual molestation was reported, as well as one death, caused by cancer.

Condoms were distributed at the medical office and in the matrimonial room. APADOR-CH asks that condoms should be distributed in places accessible to all detainees (corridors, exercise yards), without recording or surveillance. It is the cheapest and most efficient method to prevent HIV and STDs contamination.

Methadone and disposable syringes were not available for drug users. According to the medical staff, there had been no cases of withdrawal.

Between March and May 2013, medication supplies suffered interruptions. The situation was also mentioned by detainees, who complained about the penury of drugs. They were also unhappy about the dental service.

5. The kitchen area

According to the governor, the kitchen was renovated in 2011-2012.

At the time of the visit, the meals were just being prepared. At 11.30 a.m., the staff was making lunch, dinner and tea for the following morning. It was hard to understand why dinner, which was served at 5 p.m., was being cooked at 11 a.m., and so much the less the next day’s tea. The representatives of the Association consider that preparing food so much earlier was not justified, especially as there were no conditions to keep food fresh for a longer period of time.

Lunch consisted of potato sup, baked beans with pork or beef with cabbage salad for diet. For dinner, the menu included cabbage with pork scraps and milk porridge. Working detainees received 600 grams of bread per day, the others 500 g. The representatives of APADOR-CH could not see how the 600 g bread loafs were sectioned to 500 grams. At the time of the visit, after the distribution of the bread, the storage room was left with about 100 extra bread loafs. The cook said that they were for unexpected arrivals or packed snacks, but the representatives of APADOR-CH considers that such a large number of unexpected detainee movements to justify so much extra bread is hardly probable.

The kitchen area was generally clean but the floor was cracked. The food and the bread looked decent. The kitchen had one employee, aided by 18 detainees.

Many of the detainees who talked to the representatives of APADOR-CH complained about the quality of the food, mentioning the tasteless dishes, the lack of diversity, the menu consisting chiefly of beans and cabbage and its low calory content.

6. Contact with the outside

Detainees could use the phone for 30 minutes per day, to make a maximum of 6 calls. There were 26 CONTEL pay phones and 2 ROMTELECOM pay phones, located on the corridors and in exercise yards. The phones seen by the representatives of the Association had no booths to ensure the confidentiality of conversations. Also, one room had 4 pay phones in a crowded space, so that conversations were bound to be disturbed by other people, as confirmed by detainees. APADOR-CH recommends for phone booths to be installed, in order to ensure the right to privacy of conversations.

The three info-kiosks in the facility allowed detainees to check their court terms, their money credit, their legal situation, the sanctions, rewards and parole hearings.

Two mailboxes were located in the facility: one inside F.3 exercise yard, for detainees in sections E.5, E.6, E.7, E.8, the other on the outer wall of F.1 exercise yard, between the access to the E1, E2, E3 and E4 building and the E8 and E9 building. Envelopes and stamps were distributed by section chiefs, who were provided with the material by the staff of the visitation section and had to sign for receipt.

The visitation sector was undersized. It had 8 places for open visits and 7 places for separated visits. The prison management had filed a request to build a new visitation sector, where parcels could also be received and distributed. The sector was under video surveillance and visitors had to pass through a metal detector gate. An x-ray scanner – out of order at the time of the visit – was also available to check visitors and their luggage.

7. The visit to the detention rooms

During the visit, the representatives of the Association noted that the exercise yards were small and had no covered parts where detainees could take shelter from sun or rain. APADOR-CH recommends that open spaces should be partly covered, so they can provide protection from rain or scorching sun.

Exercise yards and other common spaces were under video surveillance. Some areas were provided with gym equipment.

A well furnished in-house shop provided detainees with various goods, at similar prices with outside markets.

Most detainees complained about the quality of the laundry service, preferring to do their own laundry, in their rooms. The facility had only two washing machines, one of which was out of order. The only bed linen accepted was white, a rule that caused discontentment among inmates. They also complained about the limited hot water schedule – one hour and a half per day – and about the dirty and inappropriate mattresses. Indeed, the heating unit of the penitentiary was old and the mattresses were extremely worn out.

From discussions with detainees, the representatives of APADOR-CH noted a general nervousness among the prison population. Detainees complained about their relation with the staff and showed reserve in filing complaints against them, for fear of possible retaliation. APADOR-CH recommends that alleged abuse by prison staff should be looked into; such suspicions can seriously undermine the relation between the prison population and the staff.

Most rooms were insalubrious, with damp walls, overcrowded and foul smelling. For instance, room E 6.3 held 32 detainees in 33 beds on less than 50 sq m and with one shower at hand.

In some of the rooms, detainees complained of bed bugs and other parasites. The representatives of APADOR-CH could see for themselves the bite marks on their bodies.

Also, some of the detainees complained about the abusive behavior of the staff. One inmate complained about a violent incident caused by the intervention squad – and had confirmation from room mates. But he did not file an official complaint, saying he was afraid of reprisals.

The four minors detained at the Timişoara Penitentiary were under preventive arrest and were held in room E 9.18. The room was in a relatively good state, but mattresses were old, dirty and in an advanced state of decay. Minors said that drawing was their only organized activity. According to the prison staff, they also attended literacy courses. Minors could stay in the exercise yard every day between 2 and 4 p.m. but said they did not want to go out, which was at least strange, given the lack of activities.

The representatives of APADOR-CH also talked to S.R. – a former drug user. He revealed himself as an addict as soon as he was taken into custody. In police custody, he was prescribed Diazepam, which made him drowsy and made his joints ache. Due to these secondary effects, after one week SR asked for a replacement of treatment. His request was granted after a psychiatric examination. The detainee said he enjoyed the full support of the psychologist of the penitentiary.

Conclusions:

Following the visit to Timişoara Penitentiary, APADOR-CH makes the following recommendations:

·        The prison management and the ANP should find urgent solutions so that each detainee should be granted the minimum 4 sq meters of personal space recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatments or Punishments (CPT);

·        Financial resources should be allocated for capital repairs in Building no. 1;

·        A general pest control operation should take place at the facility in order to eliminate bed-bugs;

 

Other findings/recommendations have been included in the report.

 

Cristinel Buzatu                                                        Nicoleta Popescu

https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png 0 0 Rasista https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png Rasista2013-11-06 00:00:002016-09-23 10:45:46Report on the visit at the Timişoara Penitentiary

Report on the visit to the Târgu Ocna Reeducation Center

04/10/2013/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

On October 4, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Târgu Ocna Reeducation Center. The previous visit of the Association had taken place on February 5, 2004.

General considerations

Since 2009, the Reeducation Center (hence RC) had been separated from the Târgu Ocna Military School and relocated in the vicinity, in a former prison that was renovated for the purpose.

At the time of the visit, 73 male minors were held at the facility. The director said that minors were sent here by court order and they could stay until they turned 18. Most minors were released before they came of age; the established procedure was to gather a committee, once a year (usually at the end of the school year), with the authority to analyze the case of each minor and to decide if release before 18 was recommended. The committee – made up of teachers of the respective minor, a representative of the security agents and the director – also met three months before release to decide the release conditions. The committee had the power to propose either a quicker release, either a postponement of the release until further analysis. This year, the committee postponed by 6 months the release for two of the minors. In one case, the postponement was decided in order to allow the minor to finish the school year. The decisions regarding the time of release date took into account behavior and school results.

Like nine years ago, the facility still examined each case in the absence of the minors in cause, a practice the Association had criticized before. After a decision was taken, it was merely communicated to the minor. APADOR-CH asks the management of Târgu Ocna RC to allow minors to be part of the proceedings and to be heard by the committee that analyzes their case.

Reeducation Centers did not work with liaison judges, like penitentiaries. Any complaint minors had, they could only take them to the director. He was the person that represented both the interests of the minors and those of the employees. Another option was to go to court to contest the decision of the committee, but this was not easy for a minor. There was no independent authority to which minors could go and complain if they felt their rights and interests were overlooked. The new Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code were expected to correct this error and introduce liaison judges in reeducation centers as well.

The director said that most minors remained at the RC for an average of two years and there were no repeated offenders among them, but that he knew cases when some of them ended up later in penitentiaries for minors and youth. They came from the lowest social and familial backgrounds and were very rarely visited during their stay at the RC, which made their social reinsertion after release even more difficult. The director admitted that distance also played a role, minors coming from the eastern part of the country, with poverty making it hard for families to reach them on a regular basis. This way, their connections with the family were lost and, in many cases, when minors left the center the managers needed to contact specialized NGOs to support their reinsertion (provide them with accommodation for a modest amount of money). Institutions proved powerless in coping with the real needs these children had after release. RCs did not keep in touch with the released minors.

The director gave the representatives of the Association to understand that, as a general rule, minors still had their hair cut short upon their arrival at the RC. He argued that they arrived in an unkempt state and as street children they needed to learn hygiene and discipline. The Association pointed out that having one’s hair cut was considered degrading treatment and asked for the practice to be abandoned. The children should have a haircut only if it is medically necessary.

For misdemeanors, minors were sanctioned by reprimands, deduction of credit points, and even confinement for 10 days (several minors had been sanctioned this way over the last year for hitting their mates or for gradual acts of indiscipline). Minors also received incentives – credit points or praise in front of the other children. During confinement, minors were still allowed to go to school.

Security agents wore their uniforms inside the RC and plain clothes when they accompanied the minors outside.

After the Găeşti RC was closed, minors there were transferred to Târgu Ocna, so the total population of the center increased to 113 (the highest ever). The director said that the average number of minors held here was 80-90.

The center had its own barber’s shop and a laundry center, where the clothes and bed linen were washed.

Food

Food was provided by the National School for Penitentiary Staff. The RC did not have a kitchen, but did have a canteen, where the cook aided by five minors served the food. The minors took monthly shifts at the kitchen. The kitchen staff had passed all necessary medical tests. The center had no budget for food. It was the school that provided about 4 lei/day worth of food for each minor at the RC.

The center had a greenhouse for vegetables, half of which were used for the food of the minors and half were sold to the staff, for money used to buy school and workshop materials.

Although the center had plenty of land, it didn’t keep any animals. The director admitted that keeping animals would have had therapeutic effect on minors, but the facility did not meet the legal requirements for animal farming.

The representatives of the Association visited the canteen at lunch time. The menu consisted of vegetable soup and cabbage with a meatball. Minors at the canteen said that they had cheese, ham, egg and biscuits for breakfast and that each of them received half a bread loaf for every meal. The canteen, supervised by video cameras, was clean and well kept.

 

The social and educational department

This year, the RC had organized three summer camps. The institution had enough vehicles to transport minors and enough money for fuel. Every month, the facility organized 2-3 outings, painting sessions or other activities in the community of Târgu Ocna, where minors were received with benevolence. The staff said that minors were allowed to take part in these activities only if they behaved well. The facility provided the clothes for these outings from donations from foreign NGOs. The representatives of the Association commend the openness of the management for all types of cooperation with external partners. The Association points out that for a better social reinsertion of the minors, they need to take contact with the community. If those who don’t behave well are deprived of the opportunities their mates have, they may become angry and revolted.

The walls of the center were decorated with paper quilling arrangements, which were also offered for sale during various events in the community.

The center had a basketball field, a soccer field and a ping-pong table.

The curriculum included education for health, the alphabet of the good citizen, education for family life, healthy lifestyle and literacy. A minor  who managed to complete a program and received the qualification “very well” received 25 points of credit.

The RC had a library – a room containing an impressive number of books that minors were allowed to borrow and take to their rooms. The librarian said that minors borrowed mostly religious books or school reading and that he had created a program for them, promoting reading. Since some of them could not read, the librarian read to them aloud and encouraged other children to form reading circles and read to the others.

 

Târgu Ocna RC also had a very large festivities hall, with a spacious auditorium, with chairs, a set of drums and an audio system. It was the venue for the opening of the school year, birthday parties and parties where minors at the center invited children from the community.

A TV studio was used to prepare closed circuit programs on past and present activities at the RC and successes of the minors.

The computer room had 11 computers bought with PHARE money.

A workshop for pottery and painting was also available and the objects crafted by the minors in the course of time had been exhibited at the Olăneşti public library. The representatives of APADOR-CH talked to the four minors who were at the workshop at the time of the visit. They complained that when their parents gave them money, it went through the administration and each time part of it was retained, without any explanation. The minors confirmed that they had various activities throughout the day and were not locked in their rooms. Asked whether they were ever mistreated, physically or verbally, by the agents, the minors answered with reservation, saying that only “bad” children were punished. It was not their case, obviously, since they were allowed to spend time at the workshop.

Minors who asked for help or who were in trouble received counseling at the psychological office of the facility.

 

School

School classes were held by four tenured teachers and a substitute. Primary school classes were taught to two groups, of 8, respectively 7 minors. The minimum number of students in a class was four. In this special education system, elementary school courses (literacy) were completed in one school year and then students were promoted into the 5th grade as soon as the second year. There were two 5th grade classes, with 13 students each; one 6th grade class, with 10 students; one 7th grade class, with 12 students; and one 8th grade class, with 5 students. For high school, 3 students went to the technology high-school nearby (one in the 9th grade and two in the 10th grade). Four minors who, according tot heir age, should have been in high-school, remained at the RC as assisting students to classes reflecting their real level of knowledge (assessed by the RC). The school director was very firm when he said that all minors needed to be assessed at the RC because the formal level of education did not match their knowledge; he offered the example of 5th grade children who were in fact illiterate.

The representative of the teachers said that all minors at the facility were attending school. The teachers were employed by the Ministry of Education. Some of them were paid per hour, as special education teachers. Classes had between 4 and 12 students (in accordance with legal provisions regarding special education). The graduation diploma did not mention that school was completed in a reeducation center.

Those who refused to go to school lost other privileges, such as outings. The director said that this sanction determined them to resume classes, eventually.

Those who arrived at the RC after school began could not be enlisted for the respective school year, but the management found a solution so that such minors were not left out. They were allowed to assist to classes, without being assessed or receiving grades. This was a fortunate solution, because it enabled them to keep in touch with school. As a reward, those who assisted to classes were given credits, and for each 30 credit points they received a reward report (praise in front of the other students). After several such reports, they could be proposed for early release.

The classes were clean and well equipped, with enough desks and chairs in each room. The facility planned a new 3,700 sq m building for a school that would observe the standards of the Ministry of Education.

The RC director said that by accessing European funding, the facility was able to send most of the teachers and staff to professional training and exchanges abroad.

Classes took place between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. On the day of the visit, there were no classes because a tenure examination had been organized on the premises.

The RC had a separate budget line to purchase school textbooks and other materials; the director said the students had all the learning materials they needed.

 

The medical department

The RC had a medical office but no doctor. The medical staff consisted of 5 nurses who worked in shifts to ensure a 24/7 presence.

The nurse on duty on the day of the visit said that the most frequent health problems were skin conditions and recurring colds. There had been some cases of scabies, caught during transfer, but the disease was currently held under control. A single child suffered from hepatitis and was under treatment for it. The minors were tested for hepatitis at the Târgu Ocna Penitentiary Hospital. The records also showed two patients who required a diet. One HIV infected minor formerly held at the RC had been transferred to the Jilava Penitentiary.

A quarantine room was improvised whenever the situation required; otherwise, there was no space especially designed for isolation.

There was no psychiatrist working at the RC. The minors were generally checked by a specialist before being brought to Târgu Ocna, or they could see a psychiatrist at the Rahova Penitentiary Hospital. The nurse said that some of the minors did show signs of mental disturbance and that the center should have hired a psychiatrist.

The nurse said that they were well provided with medicine and that the doctor saw an average of 20 patients per day. Condoms were no longer distributed at the RC – formerly, they used to be placed in boxes, on each section, to be used freely.

APADOR-CH decries the fact that no doctor is employed at the RC and asks for the situation to be urgently remedied. Also, as the nurse pointed out, minors with psychiatric problems should be identified and treated accordingly, including by employing a specialized doctor at the center.

 

The visit at the facility

Târgu Ocna RC had two detention sections for the minors with the administrative sector just outside them; a separate building for the school; and a building accommodating workshops for various activities. From the point of view of detention conditions, this facility was an example. Everything was clean and very well kept. The two detention sections had about 395 square meters and a maximum capacity of 98 persons, so that the 4 sq m standard was observed. Given that minors spent much of their time outside their rooms, that they frequently went outside the facility, they all went to school and were involved in a series of extracurricular activities, it may be said that conditions did facilitate the objective of the RC: the reeducation and social reinsertion of the minors.

At the time of the visit, the center employed 32 officers and agents for security (on the 34 existing positions), 5 medical staff (7 positions available), 35 officers and agents of the social and educational department (of 41) and 7 teaching staff (out of 10).

The visit to the rooms

Both detention sections were on the ground floor, and in fact the whole facility consisted of one-level buildings.

The representatives of APADOR-CH visited a few rooms of each section.

In section 2, room E2.5, measuring 71 sq m, was furnished with 18 bunk beds and accommodated 14 minors. Like in every other room, each minor had his own wardrobe. The walls, beds, mattresses, floor were all clean and well kept; conditions here were among the best in the country. The director said that many infrastructure investments had been done with the help of donations from foreign partners. Minors said hot water was provided three times a week, for one hour, and cold water was provided around the clock. The lavatory had a sink, a Turkish toilet cabin and a shower. All the minors in that room attended school and spent the rest of the day in various other activities – educational or recreational. They were not locked in their rooms after dinner and lights out hour was 11 p.m.

Room E2.4 of the same section shared the same excellent conditions. But minors here complained about the quality of the food, although they confirmed that they did receive fresh vegetables from the greenhouse of the facility. For breakfast, apart from the biscuits, margarine and tea they also received an egg every day. The room measured 47 sq m and accommodated 8 minors in 12 beds. Two of the minors said they were sanctioned by confinement several times for fighting their mates. Several said that they were beaten by the agents for minor misdemeanors, such as merely arguing with each other or making noise in their room in the evening. The minors described in detail how they were taken to the yard, handcuffed to a metal fence and beaten with clubs. One of them said that, after the incident, he asked to be taken to the forensic doctor to obtain a certificate but was not allowed to. He also said he was repeatedly denied release. The same boy said that one time he was beaten at the medical office for breaking a window, but the agents told the nurse not to mention it in the records. The minors said that such incidents also happened on the corridors, where the video cameras recorded every move and could support their statements. It was said that the aggressive behavior started a year ago, when a new agent transferred to the RC from Miercurea Ciuc Penitentiary, who usually took the night shift. The minors said the director was informed about the incidents – since he was the only one they could complain to – but that he tolerated the behavior of his employees and, even worse, took part in it, offending and threatening the minors.

Room E2.1 accommodated 8 minors in 8 beds. They all confirmed the aggressive behavior of the new agent who worked in the night shift. One of the boys said he stayed in confinement for 10 days, without going to school. Minors said they were beaten in group by the agents, and that three months earlier it happened right in front of the director.  They described the objects used for the beating in detail: multilayer plumbing pipes covered in tape in order not to leave marks on the body. The minors explained how they tried to report the incidents to the ANP but had their letters torn apart by the agents.

Here, the sink was inside the room. A separate door led to the toilet. The occupants said hot running water was provided three times a week, for one hour. One of the minors said he worked in ditch clearing and corn picking. The minors confirmed that they were provided with vegetables from the greenhouse and that the money brought by selling the remaining vegetables was spent for dishwashing detergents. Some of the children had skin rashes and said they were caused by the mattresses (in this room, mattresses were older). They complained about the quality of the food and said in general they were fed vegetable soup, little meat on the main course and one egg for breakfast. The room was clean, well maintained and naturally lit. The bed clothes were changed once a week and washed at the in-house cleaning center. The TV set in the room was out of order. All minors said they attended school.

The lavatories in the rooms in section 1 only had a sink and toilet cabin, and showers were in a separate room. The shower room was clean, with new tile floor and walls and ten showers. It was planned to build a shower room for section 2 as well, and give up the showers in each room.

In section one, the representatives of the Association visited room E1.5, measuring about 27 sq m and accommodating 7 minors in 8 beds – some of them double bunks. The minors complained about the taste and content of their food. They confirmed what their mates at the workshop had said – that about 15 lei were retained every time their families sent them money. Aside from school, they had activities on the sports fields and in clubs, they were not locked in their room during the day; doors were locked only at night. One of the minors had a visible skin rash and said he had received treatment for his condition at the medical office. The lavatory included a sink and a toilet, both clean and disinfected. Another minor said that 5 months earlier, he was beaten by the night shift agent because he had a fight with a colleague. The system was the same one mentioned by minors in section 2: handcuffed in the yard and hit with a plumbing pipe covered in tape. Moreover, as an extra punishment his credit was reduced and he had to spend 10 days in confinement, without being able to attend school every day. Everybody confirmed that the night shift agent was violent with “the worst” of the minors. They had complained to the director, but no steps were taken. They also said that they rarely received sanitary products, which did not last them enough. The minors said that a year earlier one of the children tried to hang himself. After the incident, all minors were lined up in the yard and the boy was reprimanded in front of them for his suicide attempt. Later, at the psychological office, this statement was denied by the staff and the director. They said there was no suicide attempt at the center, either the year before or in previous years.

Regarding the 15 lei retained from the minors’ money, the director said the sum was indeed retained, but only once, and was used for the formalities required to get an ID card.


Minors at work, correspondence, other rights

Minors over 16 took part in various cleaning activities for the community – an easy work for which they were paid. The Târgu Ocna RC had even had a contract with the town hall for works such as ditch clearing. The salaries went to their personal accounts at the RC, with 50% for the center and 50% for the minors. Part of their share was given to the minors to spend and part was kept for the time of release. For each two hours of in-house work, minors received 1 point of credit.

The center also had an in-house shop, where prices were similar to shops in the community.

The mail box was located in the courtyard, where minors could access it with no restrictions.

The confinement room measured about 15 sq m and had 4 beds (2 double bunks). At the time of the visit, it was unoccupied. The room had a clean lavatory, including a shower. A window opened into the corridor, so the occupants of the room could be kept under observation at all times. Usually, minors were sent to confinement one at a time.

One pay phone was located in each section, locked in a wooden box. Every day, after lunch, minors had a scheduled phone time. They could talk for as long as they wanted or as long as their phone cards lasted. Minors could not check how much credit they had on the cards – no such system was installed on the phones and there were no info-kiosks at the center. The only way to check was at the financial department.

The visitation sector was in a separate building, outside the detention space. Visits were always open and there was no limit to the number of visitors a minor could receive. The room was under video surveillance, and so was the visitor’s waiting room. The parcels brought by the visitors were inspected in their and the receiver’s presence.

 

Conclusions and recommendations:

– The representatives of APADOR-CH ask the management of Târgu Ocna Rc and the ANP to check the very serious accusations made by minors at the center against the new agent who works mainly in the night shift and his alleged beatings and take urgent steps to prevent such violence once and for all.

– The Association asks for the enforcement of the laws prohibiting confinement as a sanction for minors. Confinement from the group would only be acceptable if the minors in cause still attended school every day, participated in all other activities, and were isolated only during the night.

–  The Association recommends that a doctor should be employed by the center with celerity.

– APADOR-CH asks the management of the center to give special attention to minors with mental conditions, providing correct diagnosis and treatment and employing a psychiatrist to examine the occupants of the center as often as necessary.

Other conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

 

Dollores Benezic                                                                                  Doina-Adelina Boboşatu

https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/finantare-raport-penitenciare.jpg 106 615 Rasista https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png Rasista2013-10-04 00:00:002014-10-15 07:18:53Report on the visit to the Târgu Ocna Reeducation Center

Report in the visit to the Penitentiary for Minors and Youth in Bacău

03/10/2013/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

 

On October 3, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Bacău Penitentiary.

 

1. General considerations

 

Although the facility was earmarked as a Penitentiary for Minors and Youth three years ago, at the time of the visit it held minors, young detainees, adults (of both sexes) and persons on preventive arrest from the counties of Bacău and Neamţ.

 

The total number of detainees at the time of the visit was 862, of whom 56 minors (9 female and the rest male), 326 young men (18-21 years), 247 adult males (55 serving under open regime, and 192 on preventive arrest) and 233 adult females (55 under open regime, 106 under semi-open regime, 45 under closed regime, 5 under maximum security regime and 22 on preventive arrest).

 

The distribution of space by section was the following: Section 1 – 951 sq m and 312 detainees (3 sq m/person); Section 2 – 750 sq m and 245 detainees (3 sq m /person); Section 3 – 169 sq m and 46 detainees (3.6 sq m/person); Section 4 – 270 sq m and 71 detainees (3.8 sq m/person); Section 5 – 303 sq m and102 detainees (2.9 sq m/person); and Section 6 – 303 sq m and 78 detainees (3.8 sq m/person). The occupation rate in each of the 6 section was around 125%, with each detainee having about 3 sq m of personal space, compared to the 4 sq m standard recommended by the CPT (the Committee for the Prevention of Torture). But since many rooms had triple bunks, the feeling of stifling lack of space was sometimes overwhelming.

 

Because the facility was an agglomeration of buildings with little space in between them, some of the sections failed to observe the legal provisions regarding detention regimes. At the open and semi-open sections for minors and young detainees for instance, the doors of the rooms remained mostly locked, instead of unlocked as they were supposed to. The prison management said that the structure and organization of the buildings did not allow for a clear separation between the different categories of detainees. In fact, most detainees at the Bacău Penitentiary were held in conditions similar to the closed regime, irrespective of how they were categorized.

 

The lack of space was very obvious in the exercise yards. They were narrow and crammed in between the buildings, only a little larger than rooms, partially covered with tin and containing nothing but a pay phone.

 

The prison management did not foresee any possibility to expand the yards, although in the proximity of the penitentiary an old military base reamined unused. The governor claimed that the ANP took some steps to take the base under administration, but to no effect. On medium term, the prison management planned to rehabilitate Sections 1 and 2 (for young detainees and persons on preventive arrest), with the support of the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism (the so-called Norwegian Financial Mechanism). The project was in the pre-feasibility study phase. The new section – which would probably require the demolition of the two old ones – was planned as a modern facility for the open and semi-open detention regimes.

At the time of the visit, Sections 1 and 2 were having their windows re-installed, after being removed for the summer (most of them being broken by detainees, the prison management said).

 

60 detainees went to work, mostly for in-house services. Eight female detainees were hired by the city hall to help maintain green urban spaces and 10 male detainees worked at the prison farm. The farm included a vegetable garden providing raw material for prison food and kept 400 pigs.

 

At the time of the visit, the penitentiary didn’t have a liaison judge because the former judge had ended his mandate and the newly appointed one had started his with a medical leave. The governor had asked for a temporary replacement. APADOR-CH considers that the absence of the judge could have a negative impact on the way the rights of detainees were guaranteed.

 

The visit made by APADOR-CH came two weeks after the penitentiary priest was arrested after being caught smuggling mobile phone for detainees. The governor pointed out that a riot attempt took place after the incident. Adult detainees in whose rooms the mobile phones were found instigated the minors on the floor below to riot. The governor claimed that adult were the main beneficiaries of the priest’s phone trafficking, therefore the instigation was a vindictive move. Even if the riots died out, the prison management made some changes after the incident, moving some detainees from their rooms, so that the adults were no longer able to send messages to minors and young detainees.

 

The facility did not have an intervention squad. Each shift had a group of five agents trained for special interventions. The so-called “masked” guards were not seen on the premises during the visit.

 

The Bacău Penitentiary was staffed by 210 officers and security agents (on 220 existing positions); 12 officers and agents at the social and educational department (on 22 existing positions); 2 doctors (on 5 positions) and 7 nurses (out of 12).

 

The prison management considered that the main problems of the facility were lack of space, lack of funds and lack of specialized staff for the social and educational department – given the fact that it held the most vulnerable categories: minors, young detainees and women.

 

 

2. The visit to the penitentiary

 

2.1. Food for detainees

 

The kitchen area was in good state: clean, with freshly painted walls, well kept food recipients – and smelled of parsley, which was being cut for the soup, in the room next door. 17 female detainees worked here. The lavatories, the storage rooms, the fridges and the other auxiliary spaces were all acceptably clean.

 

Lunch had just been poured into plastic cans to be taken to the rooms. First course: potato and noodle soup; second course – potato stew with meat. The meat was in the stew, not served by portion, as in other penitentiaries, to make sure it was distributed to every detainee. According to the kitchen chiefs, cheese pie was on the menu for dinner. Each detainee received a bagged loaf of white bread per day.

 

Because of the overcrowding, none of the sections had a canteen and detainees had to eat in their rooms. This was an inconvenient, especially in the case of minors.

 

Detainees added their own food – brought in by their families or bought at the in-house shop – to penitentiary meals. The kiosk sold a variety of products at supermarket prices. Detainees complained, however, that prices were too high.

 

 

2.2. The medical office

 

Only two doctors were employed by the penitentiary, although there were five positions available. Only 7 nurses were employed – instead of 12, as provided by the personnel scheme. Nurses worked in shifts, to ensure 24/7 presence at the facility. The two female doctors, who were present at the time of the visit, worked full time. Every week, a dentist came to penitentiary to check and treat detainees. .

 

One of the doctors ranked the most frequent health problems occurring at the facility and said that mental conditions came first. 33 detainees were diagnosed with mental illnesses and received treatment, but the doctor said many others required a psychiatric assessment.

 

Heart conditions were the second most frequent ailments and digestive problems came third, she said. However, many detainees suffered from skin conditions – which the doctor blamed on poor hygiene and lack of education, especially in the case of minors and young detainees who arrived at the facility without even the most elementary notion of personal hygiene.

 

Even if this was the case, in many of the rooms visited by the Association detainees complained about bedbugs and the representatives of APADOR-CH could witness how they “hunted” the bugs on the walls of the cell. The governor said that disinfestations had proven useless, because the bugs kept coming in, brought by transiting detainees, in their luggage.

 

Doctors claimed that they saw about 200 detainees everyday. A set of medical tests was taken by all new arrivals at the penitentiary – often turning positive results for hepatitis B or C.

 

Asked whether condoms were distributed to prevent STDs – because the facility held two HIV positive detainees and 20 hepatitis patients – one of the doctors said that homosexual relations among detainees were not encouraged. Such an attitude is unacceptable from a doctor. The medical staff, if anyone, should be pushing for prevention. The governor admitted that homosexual intercourse happened anyway and that condoms would be useful, but unfortunately there were no funds available for them.

 

The doctors said they were supplied with medicines for the usual needs, but many detainees complained that they did not get their treatment and that, in general, they did not receive much attention at the medical office.

 

Six detainees were held at the infirmary. One of them had difficulty moving and required a cane – another inmate helped him get around. The infirmary room was neat, with freshly pained walls and single beds. Detainees said conditions and food here were good. The lavatory was relatively clean – a separate room with two sinks and mirrors, a shower and a Turkish toilet cabin (a problem for the detainee who used the cane)

 

 

2.3. Detention sections

 

The different floors of Section 1 held young detainees under open regime, detainees on preventive arrest and closed and maximum security detainees. Room 21 – semi-open regime – held 15 detainees in 20 beds (triple bunks). The room looked appalling, with damp walls and traces of former plumbing problems. But new windows had just been put in place and the governor said the room was going to be painted as soon as all the windows were installed. The lavatory had two Turkish toilet cabins, two sinks and a shower cabin. Detainees here had hot running water around the clock – a technical error, the governor said, because the water circuits inside the building were not entirely known. The explanation for this situation was amusing: the plumber was a former detainee who was released and now there was no one to replace him. In other sections, hot water was provided only three times a week, for one or two hours in the evenings.

 

Detainees held under the maximum security regime complained that they were not taken out of their rooms for any activities. One detainee said that since July he had not taken part in any activity at all and that the only “courses” he had followed were “one about the ozone layer and one about Ceauşescu”. Another detainee complained that he could never see the psychologist in the two years he had been held at the penitentiary.

 

Room 24 (24.50 sq m), for persons on preventive arrest, held 8 detainees in 12 beds. They all complained about the bad food and the lack of variation – always potatoes. A detainee who had been there for 9 months said he was only allowed to receive one visit, in a separated cabin, just because he could not take part in social and educational activities. He thought that the sanction was unjust because the penitentiary gave him no chance to gather points and credits from his participation in educational programs.

 

Section 2 held detainees on preventive arrest, in transit and under open regime. Room 23 (quarantine) held 14 detainees in 18 beds. Some of them complained that they were not allowed to bring vitamins from home, although the prison food was very poor. They complained about the lack of social and educational activities. Those on preventive arrest complained that they could not receive open visits. They received visitors only in separated cabins, despite the fact that the state of preventive arrest could last for long periods of time. The representatives of the Association met a man who had been on preventive arrest for two years.

 

In this building, hot running water was provided only twice a week. However, the rooms and lavatories looked cleaner – detainees said they had painted their walls themselves and some rooms indicated that their occupants took interest in organizing and maintaining the place. 

 

In room 34 (33 sq m, semi-open regime), holding 10 detainees in 18 beds, the walls were recently painted and the general aspect was neat. Detainees were unhappy with the food and the lack of vitamins – one detainee wanted to receive an apple with every meal, like in London, where he had been held for four months, while another wanted to work and complained that the doctor declared him unable for work because he was insulin-dependent, despite the fact that, as a free man, he used to work, diabetes and all.

 

Male minors were held in Section 3. Rooms were tidy and walls were freshly painted, or even decorated with landscapes and different characters. Beds were neatly made and the minors followed a military discipline. Each time someone came into the room, the occupants had to line up and wait to be “inspected”. Most of them were rather tense, even when they were left only with the representatives of APADOR-CH. In room 6, four minors were held under the closed regime. They said they had social and educational activities every day, but none of them went to school, for various reasons. The same situation could be found in other rooms where minors were held under semi-open regime or on preventive arrest. Many said they had filed a request to go to school but were not included in any class. Most of them had barely graduated grades 3-5.

 

According to the chief of the social and educational department, minor detainees who ended up in a prison in the middle of the school year could not continue their studies because the school record did not accompany them. However, some of the minors had been at this facility for more than one year and were still not in school. The prison management said that either they could not prove that they had attended any school year at all or they had already passed the level of schooling provided by the penitentiary.

 

 

The confinement room

 

For minor misdemeanors, minors received various sanctions, from the prohibition to receive a parcel to “confinement from the community”. Both the prison management and the minors avoided to name this type of sanction “confinement”, because confinement is prohibited by the law in the case of minors. However, it was used and, judging by the look of the confinement rooms, it could be categorized as degrading and inhuman treatment.

 

The three confinement rooms on the ground floor of the building were small, dirty, with no natural light or airing, barely spacious enough for two bunk beds. A Turkish toilet was hidden in lateral niche. Two of the rooms were occupied at the time of the visit. Room 39 held one young man in a visible state of overexcitement. He said he was glad to be by himself (he said he had asked to be moved in there) because he did not get along well with any other inmate. The room was cold because it had no windows, just a small grid covering the small opening above the beds. The young man served his sentence under the maximum security regime. Room 38, as miserable as the former, held two young detainees who were not enlisted for any school courses, and one of them claimed he had never attended school in his life.

 

Female detainees were held in Sections 4, 5 and 6 – all in the same building, the newest of the facility.

 

The rooms were clean but most of them overcrowded. In room 34 (open regime) 12 female detainees shared 12 beds; in room 45 (open regime), 17 female detainees shared 17 beds. In this building, the doors of rooms from the open and semi-open regimes were left unlocked, but detainees preferred to stay in their beds because it was too cold. They complained that the ones who slept in the upper bunk (they had triple bunks) happened to fall from the bed and injure themselves. They also said that the hot water schedule from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. did not allow all of them to shower. The women’s section had a hairdresser’s shop, where one of the detainees provided service for the others. The ground floor was for the open regime section. Seven of the women detained here were at work in town and other 20 worked at the kitchen.

 

Room 44, for open regime, held 9 female minors in 10 beds. Although some of them had been at the penitentiary for over one year and a half, they had never been included in a literacy class. Most of them had finished elementary school but were still unable to read and write. They said they had filed applications to attend school but to no result. Their room seemed to be the only one in the women’s section to be in a derelict state – dirty walls, broken lavatory doors, a foul smell from the toilet, cold. Mattresses and bed clothes were equally filthy. In fact, all detainees at the facility complained about the bad state of the mattresses.

 

In Section 5, for semi-open regime, adult detainees complained about the bad food and the lack of social and educational activities. Most of them said they had completed a course for commercial workers, and that was about it. Detainees received personal hygiene products once every three months and said those who were not supported by their families /other visitors had to rely on the help of their inmates.

 

Detainees also complained that they were not allowed to receive personal items such as blankets or window curtains to decorate their rooms. The governor explained that such items were expressly prohibited by an order of the ANP (no. 2714/2008).

 

At the time of the visit, the heating system of the penitentiary was not in function, although the temperature was very low and rooms were cold. The governor strived to get donations to buy blankets for the cold season, because there were no funds for bed clothes. Under such circumstances, detainees asked to bring their own covers from home, but the regulations prohibited it.

 

Section 6 held detainees on preventive arrest and under the maximum security and closed regimes. The four detainees in room 601, maximum security, said they were not visited by anyone, had no money to buy anything, and the personal hygiene products provided by the penitentiary were often insufficient. APADOR-CH asks the prison management to ensure that at least detainees who did not have any visitors were provided with the necessary sanitary materials.

 

2.4 Correspondence, contacts with the outside

 

All sections had payphones on the corridors, provided by two different telecommunications operators. Detainees had personal phone cards which indicated the credit each time they were introduced into the phone. The existing Info-kiosks were no longer functional.

 

Each building had a mailbox. The prison management gave assurances that no evidence of sent mail was kept – only of the in-coming correspondence.

 

The visitation sector had two rooms with separators (five cabins in each room) for the adult detainees. Minors received open visits, in a large room with tables and benches. A minor could be visited by two adults and three minors at a time, 8 times per month. Their visits could last for 3 hours. Other categories of detainees were allowed 2 hour long visits, 2-4 times per month, depending on detention regime and the credit points they had obtained.

 

 

2.5. The social and educational department

 

The department was understaffed, given the number and type of detainees. The service was provided by three educators (of the 9 existing positions), one psychologist (out of 5), no social worker (out of 5) and agents filling the place for educators, based on what was called “daily appointment” (meaning that they were detached on a daily basis to supervise the various social or educational activities on the schedule).

 

School classes for detainees at the Bacău Penitentiary were taught by 15 teachers detached here by the School Inspectorate. At the time of the visit, the representatives of APADOR-CH could not see any on-going classes. The prison management claimed that courses for grades I-IV and V-VIII were held, but the representatives of the Association were left with the impression that the classrooms they visited were not used very often. The school also had a gym and a sports teacher. The gym was not being used either at the time of the visit. According to the chief of the department, 100 students were enlisted in grades I-VIII and in “Second Chance” programs for those over school age. The number of students was too small compared to the total number of minors and young detainees at the facility.

 

The chief of the department said that the female minors who complained of not being able to go to school were in fact too few to create a new class – since the law required a minimum of eight students. Moreover, those who had already completed their elementary education could not be enlisted for secondary school because the penitentiary organized secondary education only for male students.

 

The representatives of APADOR-CH could not understand exactly if this was a local decision or was based on a legal provision, because with a benevolent interpretation of the law on special education one could organize classes even with less than eight students in penitentiaries and other detention facilities for minors. Also, the fact that some minors were not accompanied by their school records when they arrived at the penitentiary was not a good enough reason not to include them in school activities. They could at least be allowed to assist until their situation was clarified.

 

This penitentiary was in charge with minor female detainees from all over the country (9 detainees), therefore the issue of their being able to attend school required urgent improvement. The governor said that the small number of educators and the weak activity in the social and educational department were due to an old personnel scheme – not yet adapted to the new profile of the penitentiary, which was now a facility for minors and youth. The chief of the social and educational department said that she was running many activities with detainees: civic education, health education (with a component of sex education but mainly focused on elementary hygiene), the universe of knowledge, etc.

 

The carpentry workshop at the penitentiary was also out of work, because there was no carpenter to instruct the students.

 

Two activity clubs functioned at the Bacău Penitentiary. One of them, in the women’s section, organized a course for commercial workers. At the library, three female detainees wrapped some Christmas cards they had made themselves. The detainees said they often did paper quilling, a recreational craft, and the results of the activity could be seen on the walls of the club. Gym equipment lay unused, for lack of space – the governor said, in the main room of the club. The club in the men’s section was organized in a former shower room and still had tiles on the floor and walls, as well as visible water pipes. No activities took place in any of the clubs at the time of the visit.

 

 

3. Conclusions and recommendations

 

APADOR-CH appreciated the efforts of the new management to ensure the functioning of the facility despite budget constraints; the improvements in the rooms indicated a certain progress. However, the penitentiary was overcrowded and hygiene sometimes precarious. The insufficient involvement of minors and young detainees in school activities and educational programs remained a major problem. These detainees spent too much time in their room or in exercise yards with no occupation and no chance to learn to do something useful.

 

The Association asks the prison management to pay special attention to the following aspects, which could improve the current situation:

 

1. To involve a larger number of minors and young detainees in a permanent form of education throughout their detention, by interpreting the law in their favor. Other facilities have succeeded to bring minors with no school records into class by making a summary assessment of their education level (for instance Târgu Ocna) and a professional exchange program with that penitentiary could be useful;

2. To improve conditions in confinement rooms by installing windows and cleaning the place;

3. To repeatedly sanitize the rooms in order to get rid of bedbugs;

4. To intensify efforts for the appointment of an interim liaison judge to fill for the one on medical leave;

5. To diversify and improve the quality of food, about which all detainees complained, saying it was tasteless and it lacked vitamins

6. To distribute condoms to detainees in order to prevent the spreading o disease that was already present at the facility – HIV, hepatitis.

 

        

APADOR-CH asks the management of the ANP to support the penitentiary for:

 

1. Reducing/eliminating overcrowding by any possible means: investments for the expansion of the penitentiary, using abandoned military barracks in Bacău or in Neamţ county as detention buildings;

2. Improving the capacity of the social and educational department by attracting expert psychologists and educators into the system, to work with the minors and young detainees.

3. Reconsidering Order no. 2714/2008 that prohibits bringing bedclothes to detention facilities, as long as the state cannot provide a minimum of decent bed clothing for detainees.

 

 

Dollores Benezic                                                                                    Doina-Adelina Boboşatu

 

https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png 0 0 Rasista https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png Rasista2013-10-03 00:00:002015-07-14 07:34:55Report in the visit to the Penitentiary for Minors and Youth in Bacău

Report on the visit to the Gherla Penitentiary

24/09/2013/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

On September 24, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Gherla Penitentiary and its external section located in the city of Cluj. The previous visit to the facility took place in 2006. The most important finding of that visit was that it was absolutely necessary to rehabilitate Unit 3 and to fix the heating system. While the latter problem was remedied in 2007, Unit 3 was left in the same deplorable state. The prison management said that no funds had been provided for repairs and were not expected to be in the near future. A project for a new unit with 250-300 detention places was however under assessment.

 

1. General considerations

 

Gherla Penitentiary was a coordinating facility for all detention units under the jurisdiction of the Cluj Court of Appeal – the Baia-Mare and Bistriţa Penitentiaries and the Dej Penitentiary Hospital. The facility held all categories of detainees, of all ages, both male and female. Adult male detainees were held in the main unit, while female detainees and minors were held in the external section, in Cluj.

 

The governor said that the facility had earned a reputation as a very safe detention unit, mainly because no one had escaped from it. The Gherla Penitentiary was equipped with video surveillance systems on the corridors. Footage was stocked for 3 months, in case some incidents needed to be reviewed (such as special interventions by the agents or violent conflicts among detainees). The facility had a 30-strong permanent intervention squad (“masked” squad). At the time of the visit, the penitentiary had learned about the decision of the National Administration of Penitentiaries (ANP) regarding the obligation to equip the masked agents with number plates   and was planning to implement it. Although no signal scrambling system had been put into place, the facility did not face the problem of mobile phones smuggled in to detainees because the very thick walls disrupted the signal. As a result, detainees were unable to use mobile phone, even if they had them. The facility had no video or audio alert system, so that detainees had to knock at the door every time they required the presence of a supervisor.

 

2. Population, detention spaces, equipment, personnel

 

On the day of the visit, the total prison population was 1,017 detainees, of whom 839 male, held at the main unit, and 178 at the external section (female and minors). By detention regime, most of the detainees served their sentences under the closed regime – 545; 161 were on preventive arrest; 114 under maximum security regime; 77 under semi-open regime, mostly women; and 99 under the open regime. The remaining 21 detainees had not been categorized yet. Of the total population, 856 detainees had a definitive sentence.

 

The Gherla unit had a generous piece of land (about 6 hectares) with three detention units, an administrative building, the kitchen building and a food storehouse, an orthodox church and a furniture factory. Only Units 1 and 3 were used as detention spaces, while Unit 2 accommodated the school and other social and educational activities.

 

Unit 1, the central one, was a 150 years old building and held most of the detainees in Gherla, more precisely males held under the closed regime, maximum security and preventive arrest. The unit also accommodated the observation/quarantine section, the medical office and the infirmary. About 850 persons shared a detention space of less than 2,400 square meters – under 3 sq meters per detainee – which meant that the unit was overcrowded. There were two types of rooms, small ones (10-15 sq m) and larger ones (40-55 sq m), all equipped with a sink and toilet. Shower rooms were outside, where detainees were taken twice a week. The building had a ground floor and three upper floors, each divided in two sections: A and B. Each floor had two canteens, one for each section. Almost all detainees had their meals there (except those under quarantine, those who were ill and those considered as high-risk detainees).

 

Unit 3 was a historical monument built in the 16th century. It had three stories (ground floor and two upper floors) and was in an advanced state of decay. It held the 59 male detainees under open regime. The 19 rooms were all equally small, of about 9 sq meters, partly occupied by a small storage, leaving only about 8 sq m of usable space. Most of the rooms had 4 beds. The lavatories – a toilet and a sink – were on the corridor, one on each floor. The only shower room was on the ground floor. All sanitary installations were insalubrious. However, since most men held here were working, the prison management made an exception regarding the hot water schedule, so they were able to take a shower every night.

 

The Gherla facility had several large exercise yards, equipped for various sports: ping-pong, basketball, soccer, fitness. The clerk’s office, the visitation and matrimonial rooms were clean and well kept. The bathrooms of the two matrimonial rooms were under renovation at the time of the visit.

 

The external section was in the building of the Palace of Justice in Cluj-Napoca, where the First Instance Court, the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal were also located. The section held female detainees (all detention regimes) and minors (male and female). Detention rooms were located in a 4-storey building and measured from about 8 sq m to 30 sq m. The total surface of the rooms at the external section was about 500 sq m. Here, too, overcrowding was obvious. Female detainees could take a hot water shower three times a week. The exercise yards were small and had no equipment whatsoever, so detainees could no nothing but take a few steps. The clerk’s office, search room and visitation rooms were clean and correctly equipped.

 

Both the Gherla and the Cluj facilities had payphones, mail boxes and info-kiosks in accessible locations for detainees. In the central hall of Unit 1, the most circulated, a screen displayed the addresses and contact numbers of several human rights organizations and of the People’s Attorney (Ombudsman)

 

Both natural lighting and airing were satisfactory in all sections. Detainees said that appropriate heating was provided in wintertime and that during the summer heat waves the metallic doors were taken out (leaving only the bars) even in the maximum security and closed regime sections, in order to reduce the discomfort caused by high temperatures as much as possible.

 

The staff who worked directly with detainees amounted to 393 employees, 350 of whom worked at the security and penitentiary regime department. The social and educational department counted 23 employees – 12 educators, 4 social workers, 2 psychologists, 3 sport trainers, one orthodox priest and a technical worker. The medical office employed three doctors (one working at the external section in Cluj) and 16 nurses (of whom 3 worked in Cluj, as well). The Association points out that the social/educational and medical departments were severely understaffed.

 

3. Work for detainees

 

Throughout 2013, the average number of detainees who went to work was around 400. In august, there were 425 detainees employed, of whom 230 were paid (contracts for services, in general shoe stitching and street cleaning), 32 worked at the farm and 160 at in-house service jobs. At the time of the visit, 42 of the working detainees were women. Only two male detainees who served under the open regime went to work without escort. The ratio of working detainees at Gherla (about 40%) was very high compared to the penitentiary system average. The governor said that he struggled to find work for as many detainees as possible for two reasons: to increase the revenues of the facility and to keep the prison population content and calm, less prone to create discipline and security problems.

 

4. Social and educational activities

 

The activity of the social and educational department took place in Unit 2, a building in good state and appropriately equipped. The building accommodated the school, a library of 8,500 books, activity clubs, workshops and a closed circuit television studio.

 

At the time of the visit, 75 detainees were enlisted for grades I-IX. Classes were held by 16 teachers, employed by the School Inspectorate. None of the minors attended school. The representatives of the department said that minors spent very little time at the facility, because only the minors on preventive arrest were brought here. For them, only literacy classes were available. 23 women were included in an alternative type of education – “The Second Chance” program – providing elementary school level knowledge.

 

The penitentiary had workshops and provided qualification courses for carpenters, building workers, farm workers, haircutter and leather worker. About 20% of the detainees had obtained a qualification or were in the process of obtaining one. Only detainees who had less than three years left to serve could apply for the courses. APADOR-CH considers that this condition should be eliminated in order to increase the chances for detainees to find work while in prison.

 

Besides the 16 teachers hired by the School Inspectorate, the activity of the department was supported by 23 employees of the penitentiary – 12 educators, 5 social workers, 3 sports trainers, 2 psychologists, one technical worker and an orthodox priest. Although the total number of employees of the department was not small, especially when compared with other facilities, it must be said the personnel specialized in psychology was insufficient. Only two psychologists at a population of over 1,000 detainees was extremely little, especially since the facility held minors and women, but also men under the maximum security regime, considered as detainees posing a  high risk for the safety of the penitentiary.

 

The orthodox priest held mass at the chapel of the penitentiary (a historical building), but also worked with detainees, including by taking them on outings. Twice a week, the chapel was also used by a Greek-Catholic priest. Representatives of other religious denominations or organizations, such as “Oastea Domnului” (Army of the Lord) organized activities with detainees.

 

5. Medical care

 

Three GPs and 16 nurses were hired by the penitentiary. One of the doctors and three nurses worked at the external section, in Cluj. The penitentiary also had a contract with a dentist. The doctor on duty at the time of the visit said that there was a shortage of medical staff (sometimes a doctor had to see more than 100 detainees per day) and that the budget allotted for the purchase of medicines was only sufficient for chronic patients. The same doctor said that the most frequent health problems among detainees were cardio-vascular diseases and mental conditions (at least one detainee in 10 had such a problem), which were a serious issue in the absence of specialized treatment. The effects of financial penury upon the medical act were partly compensated by a very good co-operation with the civilian hospitals, the doctor said, and by the fact that the penitentiary had its own high-performance ambulance vehicle (a donation from “The Army of the Lord”), which proved very useful in cases of emergency.

 

As prevention measures against HIV/hepatitis, the medical office used rapid testing (no positive results over the last period), but had ceased to distribute condoms for more than two years, since the donating NGOs stopped being financed by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. APADOR-CH takes note with regret that what once was a model of good practice in HIV prevention – the wide scale distribution of condoms at Gherla Penitentiary – has ceased to be applied and reminds that preventing HIV is much cheaper than treating it.  At the time of the visit, condoms were only provided for matrimonial visits and for a few detainees who requested them, and that was possible only thanks to the voluntary contributions of the medical staff.

 

6. Food

 

The kitchen area was appropriately organized and equipped (with locker rooms, hot water showers and a toilet for the 17 detainees who worked here), kitchenware was in relatively good condition, but the air was unbreathable. The ventilation system could not cope with the quantity of steam produced, so that walls were damp and full of mould. The Gherla kitchen prepared the food for the penitentiary, the external section in Cluj and the custody facility of the Cluj County Police Inspectorate.

On the day of the visit, the lunch menu included bean soup with meat and cabbage stew. The food looked good. According to the kitchen chief, most raw products came from the farm (including the meat). Each detainee received 400 g of bread per day. Those who went to work received 600 g and diabetes patients received supplements consisting of apples and/or cheese.

 

Most detainees in Unit 1 ate at the canteens organized on each floor and section. The representatives of APADOR-CH visited one of the canteens during lunch and noted that the stainless steel cutlery was clean and in good state and the atmosphere was calm. All detainees said that the bean soup was good, although it contained little meat.

 

The food storage of the penitentiary kept all the food produced at the farm as well as donations (at the time of the visit, it contained dozens of fruit yogurts that were going to be distributed as a supplement to diabetes patients). The storage was clean, well organized and contained an impressive quantity of vegetables and preserves (pickles) of good quality.

 

Detainees could also receive food from their families or buy it from the in-house shop. They were allowed to receive 10 kilos of food and 6 kilos of fruit and fresh vegetables at a time, as well as water or juice. The in-house shop was well provided, including with fresh products, and prices were reasonable (although sanitary items were slightly more expensive than at local shops).

 

 

7. The visit to the rooms, discussions with the detainees

 

At the central venue of the Gherla Penitentiary, the representatives of the Association visited rooms from both detention units and talked to detainees held under the maximum security regime (including high-risk detainees), closed and open regime.

 

Unit 1, section 6 – maximum security – held 119 male detainees on the day of the visit, of whom 13 were considered as posing “high risk” to the safety of detention. The same section accommodated the offices of the intervention squad (30 “masked” agents). They were present, in their balaclavas and helmets, each time the high-risk doors were opened. Two of these rooms, 10B and 11B, measured about 15 sq m and had each six beds and 4 occupants. The detainees had praise for the way they were treated, for the prison schedule including one hour of exercise or sports every day, two hot showers per week, the possibility to see the doctor every week and TV program until midnight. But they complained about the filthy toilets and the quality of the food. A former drug user, who was transferred here upon his request and hoped to be released in a month, said that he had chosen to come to Gherla because no drugs or mobile phones came in, so he was protected from temptations and his chances to be released increased. The former drug user was not on the patient list of the psychologists. APADOR-CH recommends that former drug addicts should be included in psychological counseling programs.

 

Room 15B held 15 detainees under the maximum security regime. The 45 sq m room had 20 beds and, even though not all of them were occupied, the room was still overcrowded. The mattresses were extremely worn out and dirty, real sources of infection. Detainees here also complained about the unhygienic lavatories.

 

In Section 2 – closed regime – the 14 detainees in room 13A complained about the lack of space. They had a room of about 40 sq m with 24 beds. APADOR-CH considers that the complaints of these detainees regarding the high level of overcrowding were fully justified.

 

Unit 3 held 59 male detainees under open regime. The building was so shaky it was a wonder it didn’t just crush. At the time of the visit, most detainees here were at work, at the farm. The representatives of APADOR-CH could however speak to two detainees who were in their rooms. They were satisfied that the detention regime was observed and they were not locked in their rooms, that they could go to work and that they were well treated by the staff. But they complained that the rooms (very small, as shown in chapter 2 of this report) were so crowded that they could not breathe during the night. They also complained about the insufficient and insalubrious toilets and showers.

 

At the external section in Cluj, the representatives of APADOR-CH talked to women in all sections and to a few minors.

 

At the time of the visit, the Cluj section held 11 minors, nine of them male (of whom two were in transit and seven on preventive arrest) and two female, held under the open regime.

 

Room 4 of the boys’ section measured about 15 sq m and had four beds and three occupants. They said they went out for exercise one hour every day but did not attend school. They complained about the bad food and said they never received eggs or anything consistent for breakfast, just the usual jam and bread and tea. Room 6, of approximately the same size, was rather well kept, with freshly painted walls and a tiled floor. The two minors held here told the representatives of the Association that they had hot running water three times a week and were allowed to speak on the phone for 20 minutes every day. They complained about the high prices of the products sold by the in-house shop. The rooms of the minors had each their own functional and reasonably clean lavatory.

 

The two female minors were held in the same room as two young female detainees, also categorized under the open regime. The room measured about 18 sq m, had two double bunk beds, dirty walls and old mattresses. The detainees said they were provided hot running water three times a week and cold water around the clock. The lavatory was separated from the room by a door and included a sink, a Turkish toilet and a shower, all functional. The minors said they could go out for exercise only twice a day (although they were under the open regime and should have been allowed to go to the yard as often as they wanted). The restriction was introduced because on the way to the yard they had to cross different sections, holding detainees under different regimes. APADOR-CH points out that this is a violation of the open regime regulations and asks for the situation to be clarified.

 

One of the rooms under the open regime held 12 female detainees in 12 beds (triple bunks) on a surface of about 20 sq m. The room had no windows, so it was lit by an electric bulb. Also, there was no natural ventilation. In the absence of a storage space or a fridge, detainees kept their food on a makeshift shelf. They complained about the lack of space, the bad food, the cold in wintertime and the fact that they were not getting permissions to see their families and kids. Many of the women held here went to work in the night shift – in street-cleaning jobs. They were glad they had work, because for each two nights of work they had a day deducted from their prison term.

 

In room 16, the confinement room of the maximum security section, a young woman was held alone. The room measuring about 8 sq m had two double bunk beds with old, moldy mattresses and dirty walls. The lavatory was not separated by either door or curtain from the rest of the room, so the stench of the Turkish toilet persisted in the room. The detainee had covered the hole of the toilet with a plastic bottle in the hope that it would reduce the smell. She said that she had chosen to be by herself because she could not get along with the other detainees, most of whom had mental problems and made cohabitation difficult. She had no TV set in the room, so she passed her time reading and writing. Another woman was in confinement, in room 14, but not because she had asked to but because she was sanctioned after trying to hurt herself.

 

In one of the exercise yards of the external section in Cluj, the representatives of the Association met three female detainees considered as high risk detainees. All three of them showed clear signs of mental problems. They were almost incoherent, failing to answer simple questions (like what they had for lunch, when it was about 5 p.m.), they bore visible marks of self-mutilation and they rapidly changed moods from deep despair to unjustified joy. APADOR-CH considers that the three women require urgent psychiatric examination and treatment and appreciates that it was their mental state that led them to the situation of serving their sentence in the maximum security – high-risk regime.

 

 

Conclusions and recommendations:

 

  1. The Gherla Penitentiary is overcrowded, both at the main unit and at the external section in Cluj, while certain unused spaces it owns could be organized as detention spaces. It also has the available land to build extra detention buildings. Therefore, APADOR-CH asks the prison management to refurbish the existing spaces and the ANP to provide the necessary funding for new buildings.

 

  1. The Association considers that detention conditions in Unit 3, holding male detainees under the open regime, are inhuman and degrading. The detainees lack vital space and suffered from the unsanitary conditions and the insufficient number of lavatories. APADOR-CH asks that this building should no longer be used as a detention space and that the persons held here should be immediately relocated. The building, a historical monument in the basements of which political detainees were tortured, should be restored and used as a tourist attraction.

 

  1. APADOR-CH points out again to the problem of mental conditions in the penitentiary system and asks the ANP to take steps to employ or contract psychiatrists.

 

Other conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

 

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu                                                    Doina-Adelina Boboşatu

https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png 0 0 Rasista https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png Rasista2013-09-24 00:00:002014-05-09 08:36:55Report on the visit to the Gherla Penitentiary

Report on the visit to the Târgu Mureş Penitentiary for Minors and Youth (PMT)

23/09/2013/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

On September 23, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Târgu Mureş Penitentiary.

 

General observations, detention space, personnel

In 2009, the Târgu Mureş Penitentiary was re-organized from a closed regime adult detention unit into a center holding mostly male minor and young detainees. However, the penitentiary was also used for transit, therefore not excluding female detainees, who were held here pending trial, for very short periods of time. Also, the external section held adult males who helped with the farm works and with the animals.

The building was very old – since 1884 – therefore detention condition did not observe the current standards and so much less the standards for minors. At the time of the visit, there were 461 detainees (including the external section), while de capacity of the prison was of only 234 places (at a legal standard of 4 sq m / detainee), meaning that the facility held twice the number of persons it was supposed to. From the data provided by the prison management, the facility had about 858 sq m exclusively for detention, which equaled 1.85 sq m per detainee. If the high number of beds that limited free space was also taken into account, it turned out that at Târgu Mureş Penitentiary each detainee had only the surface of his own bed as personal space. APADOR-CH points out to the excessive overcrowding at the Târgu Mureş Penitentiary and asks the prison management and the National Administration of Penitentiaries (ANP) to find urgent solution to provide each detainee with the 4 sq m of space recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and of Inhuman or Degrading treatment and Punishment (CPT).

The Penitentiary had one detention building and one administrative building. Only the latter had undergone renovation, so that offices and the staff canteen were very well kept. By contrast, the detention building was in disrepair. There were no canteens, so the minors and young men had to serve their meals in the rooms, often on their beds, because some of the rooms had only a table for two for 13-14 detainees.

The prison management said that detainees came from 13 different counties and that distance prevented some of their families to visit on a regular basis, especially since they were from poor families who could not afford the cost of transportation plus that of bringing food for the detainee. The governor said that only a third of the detainees received regular visits, making family and social reinsertion more difficult for remainder of the minors and young men.

The governor also said that it was difficult to work with detainees for their social reinsertion because they were uneducated, most of them not knowing how to keep themselves clean. Behavior problems made them destroy the little furniture and equipment they had in their rooms and the lack of resources made it impossible to replace them.

The staff coming in direct contact with the detainees numbered 125 persons for security, 7 or medical care (two doctors and 5 nurses) and 15 for social and educational activities. The prison management said that even the number of security agents was too small, making it difficult to maintain order. However, the norm recommended by the CPT is at most five detainees per operative agent, and at Târgu Mureş Penitentiary, at the time of the visit, one agent dealt with no more than 3 or 4 detainees. The Association could not see the problem here. Understaffing was real in what concerned the number of medical, social and educational personnel. The prison management and the existing workers admitted the need for extra staff. The only reason for not employing more people was lack of funding.

The governor said that only one death had happened that year: a young detainee had committed suicide by hanging himself. Asked whether the Joint Committee of the Health and Justice Ministries gathered, as provided by the law, to investigate this death, the governor said that never had such a committee come to the penitentiary and that they were unaware it even existed. The death had been investigated by the prosecutor’s office, with the standard procedures.

The penitentiary did not have a special intervention squad (masked squad) but it did have the gear for special force interventions (batons, tonfas, teargas – no firearms). Restraint equipment consisted of metal and plastic handcuffs; chains were used for high risk detainees in special cases (previous escape attempts, for instance), the prison management said.

There was no visual or sound alert system – detainees had to simply knock at the door. The surveillance cameras were only installed on the corridors of the detention sections.

 

The kitchen area

The lunch menu for the day of the visit included noodle soup and beans with bacon; the dinner menu – potato salad. The kitchen staff said that each minor received 100 grams of meat per day and one egg for breakfast once every few days, but there was no ratio of fresh fruit or vegetables.

For Muslim detainees, pork was replaced with beef and chicken soup had been prepared for diabetes patients. They also received a supplement consisting of cheese, bread and one apple.

The penitentiary did not have any canteens so meals were served in the rooms. The Association considers this to be degrading treatment and asks the prison management to find a solution to establish a proper space for serving meals.

The kitchen area was relatively clean. The ventilation system worked, but it was very old and even with the windows open the air was extremely humid and the kitchen floor was wet. The kitchen staff suggested that the working conditions were actually damaging to their health. The damp air and walls in kitchen blocks are a quasi-general problem in Romanian penitentiaries, therefore the ANP should find a solution to improve this situation, for instance by replacing the old ventilation systems.

 

The medical ward

The medical office and infirmary were at the ground floor of the detention building, in section 1.

The staff counted one GP, one dentist, four nurses and a pharmacy assistant. One of the nurses was always present during the night.

The representatives of the Association discussed with the GP who was at the office during their visit. He said that the medical staff was insufficient; he also said that most medical problems occurred because the minors and youth had difficulty adapting to the custodial regime. In the case of young detainees, most medical problems came from inappropriate food (he admitted that the minors received a better diet). The stress caused by detention led to a series of violent exchanges or self-mutilation cases.

The doctor said that 70 detainees had been diagnosed with mental conditions and were under treatment, but in fact there were more detainees who would have required mental care. Because of this situation, the penitentiary had contacted a psychiatrist who came to the facility on a regular basis for consultations and treatment. APADOR-CH notifies the prison management that all detainees thought to suffer from mental conditions must be diagnosed and treated in consequence and that shortage of funds cannot be a reason for them to be deprived of treatment.

The prison did not run a program for former drug users. According to the doctors, detainees were transferred here only after addictions were treated. 23 detainees had declared themselves former drug users – 11 minors and 9 young men. Some of them were also taken into evidence as mental patients and were following treatment.

Some of the mentally disturbed detainees were held in the “psychiatric observation” room, where 11 persons were accommodated in 15 triple bunk beds. The room measured about 24 square meters. The patients confirmed that they were under medication (tranquilizers). Only one of them said that he was seeing a psychologist. They also said that their only activity is going out to the exercise yard. The TV in the room was switched off at 10 p.m.

Condoms were only distributed in the matrimonial room and the prison management said they stopped distributing them freely since 2010, when specialized NGOs had stopped donating condoms to the penitentiary. The Association asks both the ANP and the prison management to introduce a special budget expense chapter for condoms, which are cheaper than treating STDs.

 

 

Social and education department

PMT Târgu Mureş employed 15 people for social and educational activities, although the personnel scheme had 19 positions for that department. One of the 15 employees was on maternity leave, so only 14 were actually on the job at the time of the visit. By profession, they were 4 psychologists 9 educators, one orthodox priest and the director (with administrative attributions).

The staff said that recreational activities (including a camp) were organized in cooperation with a non-governmental organization. The activities followed a monthly calendar, with three outings, for which detainees took turns. Because the facility did not have enough vehicles and budget, detainees had to walk to their outings, which limited the number of participants and the destinations, for reasons of safety.

A candle manufacturing workshop and information sessions on the risks of HIV infection were also run by an NGO that worked with the penitentiary on a regular basis.

Outings also included the Târgu Mureş cinema and the zoo, with which the penitentiary cooperated very well.

The facility had a gym where detainees from all detention regimes (including maximum security) were taken in groups of 12, by rotation.

Among the most frequent qualification courses at the Târgu Mureş Penitentiary were those for carpentry, masonry, food industry, hairdressing. 14 detainees had just graduated the hairdressing course and were about to pass their exam.

In section 4 there was totally empty room that the prison management said was used as an activities club. The representatives of APADOR-CH cannot see how such a room could be used for any activity. Another room in section 5, furnished with a few desks, was destined to the same purpose.

The facility had a library endowed with a large number of books. It was kept locked and could be reached only after crossing three other rooms: the educators’ room, the room where committees gather and the computer hall (also used for psychological counseling). No wonder that detainees only borrowed 15 books per month – according to the library staff.

 

The school

The school of the penitentiary functioned in only two rooms, providing courses for grades 1-9. At the time of the visit, 89 students were enrolled for the new school year. Classes were scheduled to start on September 30, although school had already started elsewhere, in communities. The prison management explained that classrooms needed to be cleaned and prepared after accommodating training courses during the summer. For lack of space, high-school classes were held separately, in a club room in section 5. The classrooms accommodated two grades at a time (1st and 2nd grades together, 3rd and 4th and so on).

For the new school year, the schedule only included courses for grades 1-9 despite the fact that some of the students who had graduated the 9th grade wanted to continue to study for the 10th. The director of the department said that there had not been enough requests to organize 10th grade courses. The condition was that a class should have at most 12 but minimum 8 students. APADOR-CH points out that such a condition deprived detainees from their right to education; special education, as organized at PMT Târgu Mureş, allows for a class to have less than 8 students if the situation arises. Nor is lack of space a reason to refuse to organize courses. The Association asks the prison management to make it a priority to find spaces and organize school classes as requested.

For each school year, a detainee got 30 days deducted from the prison term. The prison staff found that this reward system was discouraging, because deductions were much more generous for detainees who worked, especially for minors (one day deducted for one day of work).

Asked by the Association whether they took into consideration allowing minor detainees to take up classes at community schools, as provided by the law, the director of the department said there had been nor requests in that respect. The Association asks the prison management to inform minors on this legal option.

 

 

The visit to the detention area

At the time of the visit, the penitentiary held 461 detainees, all male, of whom 58 minors, 312 young detainees and 91 adults.

The detention sector was organized into six sections, as follows:

Section 1: closed regime – young detainees and adults; a spare room was saved here for female detainees in transit.

Section 2: closed and semi-open regime – minors

Section 3: semi-open regime – young detainees

Section 4: maximum security regime, high risk detainees and preventive arrest for young detainees and adults

Section 5: semi-open regime – young detainees

Section 6: the farm – adults under the open regime

The 461 detainees were distributed by regime as follows: 85 on preventive arrest; 66 under open regime; 250 under semi-open regime; 45 under closed regime; 12 under the maximum security regime. Three detainees had not been yet categorized, being in the observation/quarantine period.

The lavatories in each room had no showers, only toilets and sinks. Each section had a shower room where detainees were taken to have their bath.

In section 5, a room contained several fridges where detainees could keep the food they received or bought from the penitentiary shop.

 

The visit to the rooms

One detainee in the “psychiatric observation” room asked to talk to the representatives of the Association. He was 21 and had been categorized into the semi-open regime. He complained that at PMT Târgu Mureş he had been filed several incident reports, especially because one agent “terrorized” him and provoked him to cause trouble. The young man said he had injured himself several times in protest, (cutting his arms – the signs were visible), swallowed spoons and tried to hang himself five times. He said he had submitted several complaints to the prison management and to the liaison judge, but none of them had received an answer. He considered that all the letters he had sent outside the prison had been opened at the request of the same agent who treated him inappropriately. He also said he had been hit by that agent on several occasions, even on the corridor, and that images were recorded and could be checked. The Association asks the prison management to identify the agent mentioned by the young man in cause and to check whether his very serious accusations were true, especially since evidence could easily be found in the surveillance videos. Also, the Association asks that mental patients receive, besides psychiatric treatment and psychological counseling, special attention, so as to prevent suicide attempts.

At the maximum security section, section 4, the representatives of APADOR-CH visited one of the rooms. At the time of the visit, it was occupied by four young detainees who shared six beds (two triple bunks) in the 8 square meters piece. The glass panes of the windows had been removed at their request, but were going to be placed back in because the weather was starting to chill. The young men said that they were not taken to any activities other than the daily exercise time and that food was bad. In order to observe the 4 square meter space standard set by the CPT, the Association recommends that this room should keep only two beds and at most two detainees.

The confinement room was in the same section. A room with two beds, large enough to hold more than two detainees, was unoccupied at the time of the visit. The room was insalubrious, cold and with very bad mattresses. The prison staff said that minors were not sanctioned by confinement.

In section 2, where minors served their sentences under the semi-open and closed regimes, the air was stuffy. The representatives of the Association visited Room no. 3 (minors under semi-open regime), which was overcrowded: 21 beds (triple bunks) for 14 minors in a space of about 30 square meters. The detainees said that although they were held under the semi-open regime, doors were locked during lunch time (1 p.m.) and from 5 p.m. till the next morning. Neither minimum standards nor detention regime conditions were observed. Each detainee had about 2 square meters of space if not less, given the high number of empty beds in the room. The Association recommends for the third triple bunk to be taken out and points out that no more than 7-8 people should be held in the room, in order to fall within the 4 sq m/detainee standard. According to the regulations for the semi-open regime, doors should remain open throughout the day, so an urgent solution must be sought to that end. The minors said that they had been taking part in the candle-making workshop every Friday for the previous few months, they were taken to the exercise yard every day and those with no incident reports were also taken to the cinema and football games.

A room from the closed regime section was also visited. The air inside was very stuffy. The room measured about 20 sq m and its five occupants shared 9 beds (triple bunks). The minors said they were satisfied with the food, but that they had no activity except going out for they daily exercise. The mattresses were old and in bad shape, like in the rest of the facility.

The penitentiary had four exercise yards of about 100 sq m on the first floor, all covered in metal wire net. They were not equipped for any type of activity.

The Târgu Mureş Penitentiary also held detainees categorized as high-risk, accommodated in section 4. The representatives of the Association visited one of their rooms. Five young detainees were held in a room of about 18 sq m, with 15 beds (triple bunks). Not all beds had mattresses and those that did had very old, bumpy and dirty ones. Detainees said they were satisfied with the food and that they were allowed to call their families every day if they had enough credit on their phone cards. They complained however about the lack of activity. APADOR-CH asks the prison management to include detainees held under more severe detention regimes in various activities as much as possible, in order to ease their social reinsertion.

 

Visitation, correspondence, work, other rights

Minors had the right to be visited twice a week, for three hours, by two adults and two minors at a time. The visits were open. The parcels they received were opened in front of the families. They could contain at most 10 kilos of food, 6 kilos of fresh fruit and vegetable, 20 liters of water or juice. The prison management said that most children came from broken families and only 30% of them received visitors.

The facility had its own laundry, where bed linen and clothes were washed every two weeks.

The matrimonial room was clean and appropriately equipped; condoms were provided.

PMT Târgu Mureş had an orthodox church on the premises, but the governor said that it was also used by priests and pastors of other denominations, who came here at the request of the detainees (mostly catholic and reformed).

Detainees worked both at the farm and inside the facility, in maintenance and kitchen related activities. But they were also employed in the community – cleaning the city parks, or working at the municipal greenhouses. The penitentiary also ran two assembly lines for electric cable reels and for cardboard boxes. At the time of the visit, 102 of the 461 detainees worked (about 22% of the prison population). 52 were paid for their work (14 worked within the facility, 32 in the community and 6 at the farm). Work at the facility employed 12 young detainees and 2 adults, work in the community 22 young detainees and 10 adults. All farm workers were adults. The remaining 50 workers were not paid but received other compensations, like the deduction of days from their prison term (these were 33 young detainees, 2 minors and 15 adults).

The mail box was located on the ground floor of the detention building and detainees had access to it every day, to mail their own letters.

Each section had a payphone. The cost of phone calls was paid by detainees. The facility also had three info-kiosks, in sections 3, 4 and 5, which could be accessed only by detainees held in the respective section. The prison management said that info-kiosks were planned to be installed in sections 1 and 2 as well.

The representatives of the Association visited the penitentiary shop. The shop assistant said he had been working there for two months and no committee had visited the place to check on the prices. Each detainee was allowed to spend at most 400 lei per week in the shop. Prices were largely similar to those in the community, except for personal hygiene and sanitary products, which cost almost double. There were no fresh vegetable or fruit available at the time of the visit, but the shop assistant said that the request system functioned well and any such products could be brought in if detainees requested them. The Association recommends that prices at the in-house shop be carefully verified, so that products are no more expensive than outside the penitentiary – especially when it comes to items of utmost importance such as personal hygiene products.

Conclusions and recommendations:

  • APADOR-CH criticizes the excessively high level of overcrowding PMT Târgu Mureş and the use of triple bunk beds. The Association asks the prison management to identify other spaces that could be used for detention and to eliminate the upper layer of beds, especially since in many rooms they were not even occupied.
  • The Association recommends that special attention should be given to all detainees with mental problems, so they are appropriately diagnosed and treated.
  • APADOR-CH asks the prison management to fill all the vacancies at both the medical sector and the social and educational sector with qualified professionals.

Other conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu                                          Doina-Adelina Boboşatu

https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png 0 0 Rasista https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png Rasista2013-09-23 00:00:002014-07-07 11:08:42Report on the visit to the Târgu Mureş Penitentiary for Minors and Youth (PMT)

Drug users in pre-trial detention, a human rights issue, Report 2012

09/09/2013/in Penitenciare, Speciale /by Rasista

 

This report is the result of documentation and analysis of information and opinions available on applying pre-trial detention in the case of drug users. The research was conducted within the project “Drug users in pre-trial detention – a human rights issue”, funded by Open Society Institute and implemented by the Romanian Harm Reduction Network, together with the Association for the Defence of Human Rights – Helsinki Committee as main partner, along with the General Inspectorate of Romanian Police and the National Administration of Penitentiaries, as institutional partners.

The project goal is to raise decision makers awareness on the benefits of reducing the use of pre-trial detention for drug users in Romania based on the assumption that, at least some cases, therapeutic measures are more useful than incarceration and on the finding that the alternative to imprisonment are rarely applied in cases of drug users.
The report includes a review of the main provisions concerning the application of preventive arrest measure to drug users, drug users’ views and expert opinions on procedures and the effects of judicial provisions concerning drug users in pre-trial detention. Based on data analysed, a set of conclusions and recommendations was developed, representing proposals to improve the current legislation, procedures and practices related to the application of pre-trial detention to drug users.

The first chapter contains background information and a legal framework analysis of the provisions regulating PTD and on the application of criminal sentences for drug offences.
The second chapter includes comments on statistical data and on the benefits and costs of applying PTD to drug users, the Romanian anti-drug legislation and related topics. In rendering expert opinions we aimed to cover all institutions or functions that occur around a person remanded in custody referring to drug users. Thus, using unstructured interviews, we documented opinions of judges, prosecutors, police, lawyers and doctors with regards to pre-trial detention.
The third chapter presents drug users’ perspective on pre-trial detention from a very personal point of view: their direct experience. This section contains information about detention conditions, the relationship between investigators and investigations, possible abuses and violations of procedures alleged by the interviewees. Thus, in several interviews, discussions focused on abuses from police and prosecutors, mainly residing in psychological pressure using article 16 of law 143/2000, threatening and insults, treatment deprivation, blocking access to evidence, using withdrawal as a tool in order to get a declaration. We are aware that these allegations coming from the people we interviewed concerning their own experience in pre-trial detention are hard to prove and some of them might be pure fiction. However, given the frequency of such remarks during the interviews but also in separate discussions with drug users accessing harm reduction services, we decided to take this opportunity to draw public attention on these potential abuses against people who use drugs. Our goal is not to make justice to people, who pretend having been victims of institutional abuse during pre-trial detention, but to draw attention on the existence of such practices and to contribute to diminishing them.
The fourth chapter contains an analysis of ECHR jurisprudence on violations of Article 5 (the right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This chapter is intended to provide examples of European jurisprudence on the application of pre-trial detention and the reasons behind decisions and solutions offered by the ECHR.
The last section contains conclusions and recommendations developed based on the analysis of the entire volume of information collected and it ends with proposals to be submitted to decision makers attention in order to improve the current legislation and practices regarding the application of preventive arrest measures.

As representatives of civil society, we believe that our mandate is to draw the attention of state authorities and public opinion over some facts or circumstances which, in our opinion, represent voluntary of involuntary human rights violations and to require the authorities to analyze the information submitted and take appropriate measures in order to improve the current procedures and practices in applying pre-trial detention to drug users.

 

Read full report PDF

 

https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/drug-user-report.jpg 337 652 Rasista https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png Rasista2013-09-09 12:17:222020-08-05 15:03:45Drug users in pre-trial detention, a human rights issue, Report 2012

Report on the visit to the Mărgineni Penitentiary

28/08/2013/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

On August 28, 2013, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Mărgineni Penitentiary in the commune I.L. Caragiale, Dâmboviţa county. The previous visit had taken place on March 29, 2006.

 

1. General considerations

 

At the time of the visit the all male prison population of this maximum security facility was 922, of whom 22 young detainees and 4 minors in transit. Of the total population, 240 detainees were on preventive arrest and 12 had not been categorized yet. 180 detainees served under the maximum security regime; 444 under the closed regime; 20 under the semi-open regime; and 26 detainees – who worked at the farm – under open regime.

 

The legal detention capacity of the facility in all three buildings was 2,547 sq m – that is 636 places at a standard of 4 sq m per detainee. However, the number of beds was 1,172, meaning that each detainee had only 2.80 sq m of personal space. Compared to the previous visit, in 2006, when the facility held over 1,200 detainees, the prison population was smaller, but compared to the detention capacity, overcrowding remained critical. According to the data provided by the prison management on the day of the visit, the occupation index was well above 100%.

 

The problem of the fresh water supply, also noted during the previous visits in 2002 and 2006, remained unsolved, although investments had been made for the rehabilitation of the water network: pumps and pipes were replaced in the water system of the facility, which was then connected to the public water network of the Caragiale commune. However, according to the prison management, the public network functioned with interruptions, especially during summer. Currently, the penitentiary had two sources of water – a deep well, which could not provide a constant quantity of water as to cover the needs of the facility; and the public network, with its limitations. As a result, detainees had running water three times a day, for one or two hours. The boilers of the facility provided hot water for showers once a week.

 

The precariousness of running water maintained a precarious level of hygiene and generated nervousness and dissatisfaction among detainees, especially in rooms of more than 20 people who had to share one lavatory.

 

The staff totaled 346 employees of whom 247 worked in the operative sector (20 were part of the intervention squad). The facility had 65 vacancies, including for the function of governor, who was replaced by an interim director. According to the liaison judge, the facility had had no less than 8 governors in seven years, the current manager having served on an interim basis for 2 years.

 

Compared with the previous visit, when the representatives of APADOR-CH found 600 detainees employed in furniture making for MULTIPRODUCT Government Business Enterprise (GBE), only 20 detainees were employed at the time of the visit, making wooden doors and manual book binding. The closing, in 2010, of the MULTIPRODUCT GBE was regretted by both the prison staff and by detainees who had worked there. The building of the former furniture factory – owned by the Authority for State Assets Recovery (AVAS) – situated on the premises of the penitentiary, was in advanced state of decay.

 

20 detainees worked for in-house services and other 26 at the farm, which included a 4 ha vegetable garden next to the penitentiary. The facility did not have any other contracts with companies to bring in revenues, only the occasional private orders of furniture for the workshop.

 

 

2. The visit to the penitentiary

 

The facility had three detention buildings, two of which were in an advanced state of decay and required urgent capital repairs. Building no. 1, which was in the best shape, had 4 detention sections, holding detainees under closed regime and maximum security regime. Building no. 2 held detainees on preventive arrest and Building no. 3 held those who worked at the farm, under open regime. They were both in very poor state. By comparison, the administrative building of the penitentiary looked very well.

 

 

2.1. The kitchen area

 

At the time of the visit, lunch was just being served. In the kitchen, the representatives of he Association could find only one detainee who was peeling potatoes and the empty stainless steel containers. The menu was not on display and an inspection of the food showed that the initial menu had been modified (because the zucchini had not been available). The meal consisted of bean soup with meat and potato stew, while the dinner menu announced vegetable stew and milk rice. The kitchen was badly kept, due to chronic lack of cleaning materials and also because no investments had been made here over the last years. Three out of four washing liquid and detergent boxes were empty, the cement floor was cracked in several places and slimy with grease, a foul odor persisted – later it turned out that it came from the toilet used by detainees (in the kitchen area), where the stench was unbearable. The potato peeling machine and the vegetable chopper were rusty, in a state of decay that should have long put them out of use, and so was the cast iron pot used to fry meat or melt lard. The detainees’ cloakroom room was also filthy – the shelf where the rice for dinner was kept crawled with cockroaches. The prison management explained that the kitchen was in such a precarious state because there was no money to buy detergents and because the visit took place right after the meal.

 

 

Some of the detainees who talked to the representatives of APADOR-CH complained about the quality of the food. Indeed, some of the containers returned to the kitchen full, indicating that the food had been refused. In the rooms, detainees had their own food on the tables. The only items that looked and smelled good were the bread loafs brought from a bakery who worked on contract for the facility. Thee governor said that, given the budget restrictions, it took a great deal of effort to provide the necessary daily food for the detainees.

 

 

2.2. Detention rooms. Building no. 2

 

The 240 detainees on preventive arrest were held in Building no. 2, a building that had not seen any improvements over the last years, on grounds that it had been earmarked for capital repairs. According to the law, once the building was included in the capital repairs plan, no investment was allowed. However, the funding for reconditioning was not available yet and the life conditions for persons held under preventive arrest had become unacceptable.

 

In room 58, for instance, measuring no more than 20 sq m, there were 21 men in 21 beds (triple bunks). The walls were dirty and detainees complained that bedbugs had nested under the limestone crust on the wall and they could no longer get rid of them. The prison management claimed that several disinfestations were attempted, to no result. The lavatory was in decay, with damp walls, dripping pipes and a single Turkish toilet. Since running water – detainees said – was available only three times a day, for one hour at a time, they had to fill a 60 liter plastic barrel with water and scoop it with a mug to flush the toilet, or for any other needs. Next to the toilet, another water-filled barrel was used as a cooler. A melon and a few bags of food floated in it. Drying clothes hung on lines – detainees said they washed their clothes and bed linen themselves, in tubs, as well as they could.

 

Aside from the lack of water, detainees also complained about the bad food, the penury of medication, the fact that, although they were only under arrest and had to be given the benefit of the doubt, they were treated like maximum security prisoners, being allowed only “two hours of air” – that was one outing to the exercise yard per day. The exercise yard had no roof, therefore no protection against scorching sun, rain or snow. Detainees said they were taken to so-called social and educational activities once a month, but they were only asked to cross some answers on quiz forms, from which they learned nothing, only to check another activity on the list.

 

Although each detainee had his own bed at the time of the visit, they said there had been days when they were 24 in the room and had to share. There were also situations when old detainees could not climb in the uppermost bunks and preferred to share a lower bed with someone else.

 

The problem of medication was critical, according to detainees. They said that the doctor never provided the necessary drugs on the spot and when they made a request to buy the drugs, the approval took a long time.

 

The window of the room had been taken off its hinges in spring, but detainees complained that the weather had started to chill at night. The windows were usually put back in place in September in all the rooms, detainees said. The prison management said that windows were taken out at the request of detainees, to allow a better airing of the rooms.

 

Detainees also signaled that they had not received soap or toilet paper in three months and did not recall to have received any detergent to clean their rooms the whole year.

 

Several pay phones connected to a private communication network were installed on the corridor of the section. Detainees could use them if they had a card, but they complained that the fee was too high: for the 40 minutes they were entitled to per day they would have to pay 50 RON. Phones had no booths, so any conversation could be overheard by other inmates or by the guards.

 

 

2.3 Building no. 1, section 4 – maximum security

 

The section for high risk detainees was better maintained and rooms were smaller, with fewer beds. There were rooms with 7-8 beds and rooms with 2-3 beds. Although hygiene conditions were better, the lack of water made it necessary to use the same improvisations in order to keep the lavatories functional.

 

The phones installed on the corridor were of the same type as in Building no. 2. The only pay phone where one could have some confidentiality was the one in the exercise yard of the maximum security section. The yard had an elongated shape, with no equipment other than a bench and a transparent plastic shade. No alert system was available, so a detainee who needed something had to knock at the door. Detainees were handcuffed each time they were taken out of the room (including for visits), except when they went to the exercise yard, and were accompanied by masked agents.

 

The masked agents were constantly present in the section and the representatives of APADOR-CH took note during their visit that the prison management had not learned about the ANP order to identify each masked agent with a id number placed on the uniform and therefore had not followed it. The id number was marked only on the helmet, but more often than not intervention squads did not wear their helmets, only the masks. APADOR-CH asks the ANP to check whether all penitentiaries followed its decision about giving up the masks and about the obligation to mark id numbers on the uniform, in full view.

 

 

The case of Alexandru Valentin Toboşaru

 

The representatives of the Association talked to detainee Alexandru Valentin Toboşaru, who said that on August 8, 2013, his room mate A.C.N. hammered a nail into his head. This led to an intervention of the masked squad, who acted in full force. Later, the same detainee threatened he would cut his throat using a shard of mirror. During the intervention, one of the agents stepped on Al. Toboşaru’s wrist and hit him several times on the back. The medical records show that, as a result of this incident, Al. Toboşaru suffered a contusion on his left hand and had to wear a removable splint. The detainee asked for a forensic certificate to prove the injuries, but on the day of the visit the document could not be found in his record file. According to the detainee and his room-mate, A.C.N, the incident was not recorded on camera by the penitentiary staff – which raised suspicions on the actions of the intervention squad. On august 14, 2013, the squad made another intervention. This time, Al. Toboşaru was pushed down to the floor and suffered a contusion on his right knee, which was fixed with a removable splint. The intervention was filmed. At the time of the visit, Al. Toboşaru wore an elastic bandage on his knee and leaned on a crutch when he walked. The medical record indicated that in 2010 the detainee had sprained his right knee and had been repeatedly examined by orthopedists since.

 

The incidents involving Al. Toboşaru happened in the context of a quarrel with other inmates and his outrage that penitentiary staff did not do anything to stop the conflicts. It would be indeed hard to expect from a psychologist overseeing 900 detainees to be able to manage the specific outbursts of the prison environment – especially in a place where a large number of detainees had antisocial behavior.

 

On this background of existing conflict, APADOR-CH considers it necessary for the representatives of the penitentiary to find alternative solutions to end conflicts among detainees, using force only as a last resort. The Association recommends that all interventions of the masked squad should be filmed, in order to be able to analyze later whether they were justified and whether the actions of the members of the squad were correct.

 

 

 

2.4. Medical care

 

Medical care was provided by a single doctor and 5 nurses, plus a pharmacy assistant, a dental technician and an administrative assistant. When the doctor was on leave, as it happened at the time of the visit, he was replaced by a coordinating nurse.

 

The nurse said that detainees were taken to the Târgovişte Clinic for exams. But since the clinic did not offer consultations on every specialty, sometimes they had to be sent to penitentiary hospitals or to nearer civilian hospitals. Both the nurse and the governor pointed out that some clinic doctors refused to see detainees because some of them had made complaints or even sued medical staff in the past. This was why scheduling a detainee for a medical exam at the clinic took so long, they explained.

 

Given the overwhelming ratio between the number of detainees and medical staff, the number of exams scheduled daily was very high – an average of 166 per working day. That meant 2-3 minutes spent with each patient, a speed at which the quality of the medical service was bound to suffer. APADOR-CH asks for urgent steps to be taken to provide appropriate medical care.

 

The infirmary had seven beds for detainees who required to be kept under watch and two isolated rooms for those with contagious disease. The nurse said no HIV or hepatitis tests had been taken over the last years and no condoms were distributed to detainees, despite the fact that, on the previous day, a detainee had been sexually molested and had been taken to the Forensic Institute for an exam and a forensic certificate.

 

APADOR-CH asks that condoms are provided to detainees throughout detention, by distributing them with no registration or formality, either directly to the rooms or at the medical office. It is the simplest and cheapest method to prevent sexually transmitted disease.

 

 

2.5.    Cultural and educational activities

 

The department employed 13 people (including an orthodox priest), of whom one psychologist, one social worker, six educators and four agents. The prison management admitted that one psychologist could not handle the large prison population and that many detainees never met the psychologist during their whole stay at the penitentiary.

 

The usual education programs of the ANP were theoretically under progress here, too, but in practice most detainees were not included in any program at all. The governor said that professional training programs could not be run with maximum security detainees because they did not qualify as detainees pending release, as required by the law. Persons under preventive arrest were not eligible for qualification courses either, since they had not been sentenced or categorized yet. Asked what they did all day, detainees on preventive arrest said they did nothing except take their meals, go to the exercise yard or clean their room. One of them said they had never seen the priest, either.

 

In Building no. 1, an activity club was organized in two rooms, one for various programs and one with a ping-pong table. During the visit by APADOR-CH, the club was opened and it looked like it had not been used in a long time. The governor admitted that the ping-pong table had been installed two weeks earlier, but he was unsure how to use it because a championship among detainees could not be organized while maximum security detainees were not allowed to interact with detainees in other rooms.

 

The prison management said that no new staff had been hired since 2009 and that there were many vacancies in the social educational department, as well as in other departments. The governor offered two reasons why the positions remained vacant: some were blocked at national level by a Government Emergency Ordinance, others were not attractive enough for the graduates of police or guards schools.

 

APADOR-CH considers that failing to involve detainees in educative or cultural activities was a drawback for their social reinsertion after release and, more seriously, added to the negative state of mind and dark atmosphere among detainees. Moreover, some rooms did not even have a TV set or any other information source. The Association recommends that educational programs and occupations for detainees should be diversified.

 

 

2.6 The liaison judge

 

The liaison judge was at his third mandate at the Mărgineni Penitentiary – where he had been working for a total of 7 years. He complained about the penury of office supplies – also noted by the governor. He said he heard many detainees every day – 4,300 hearings only in 2012 – and that he was informed about any incident in the penitentiary, especially if it involved an intervention of the “masked” squad. According to the governor, the squad recorded their interventions with a video camera, and the videos can be watched at the request of the liaison judge. However, several detainees complained that the judge failed to answer them when they pointed out to certain problems. It was true, they had only complained in verbally, not in writing.

 

 

2.7. The carpentry workshop

 

20 detainees worked at the penitentiary workshop. They made wooden doors, sculpted chess figures or bound books for the University of Bucharest. The atmosphere in the workshop was the most relaxed in the whole facility.

 

The prison management said it was becoming more difficult to find detainees whose sentences and categorization allowed them to take part in service activities and actual jobs. Most of those held at Mărgineni were convicted for crimes such as drug traffic, human traffic or organized crime, which were incompatible with a permission to work at the penitentiary.

 

 

2.8. The shop

 

The in house shop was very well stocked with all products, including fresh fruit and vegetables, and had prices similar to supermarkets. In most rooms, detainees had food and products bought here on the tables, even if some of them complained that prices were high.

 

 

3. Conclusions and recommendations

 

The poor detention conditions, lack of water, bad food, overcrowding and lack of activity created a visible state of nervousness among detainees at this penitentiary.

 

APADOR-CH recommends:

 

  • Solving water supply problems;
  • Speeding up the funding of capital repairs at Building 2;
  • Sanitizing the kitchen or, as an alternative solution, outsourcing the service (by contracting a catering company). Thus, the prison management would no longer have to manage the purchase of raw materials and preparation of food, dismissing suspicions about the quantity and quality of the ingredients used for cooking (especially the meat).

 

Other conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

 

Nicoleta Popescu                                                       Dollores Benezic

https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png 0 0 Rasista https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png Rasista2013-08-28 00:00:002022-10-05 10:26:50Report on the visit to the Mărgineni Penitentiary

Raport asupra vizitei în Penitenciarul Rahova- Bucureşti

17/07/2013/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

Sorry, this entry is only available in Română. 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 17 iulie 2013 două reprezentante APADOR-CH au vizitat Penitenciarul Rahova- Bucureşti. Vizita a avut ca obiectiv întâlnirea deţinutului Ninel Viorel Onţică al cărui caz este în atenţia organizaţiei de mai mulţi ani deoarece pe timpul detenţiei a fost de mai multe ori privat de tratamentul cu metadonă (substitut legal care îi era furnizat chiar de o instituţie a statului, Centrul de Asistenţă Integrată în Adicţii – CAIA – Obregia, din subordinea Agenţiei Naţionale Antidrog). Un alt aspect pe care s-a concentrat vizita au fost condiţiile de în care sunt deţinuţi minorii. Raportul conţine şi informaţii actualizate referitoare la penitenciar.

Cazul Ninel Viorel Onţică

Reprezentantele asociației au discutat cu Ninel Viorel Onțică care se plânge că nu primește tratament adecvat afecțiunii de care suferă, şi anume dependență de opiacee. Ninel Onțică, fost consumator de heroină, se afla în tratament substitutiv cu metadonă de ani buni (tratament acordat inclusiv în interiorul sistemului penitenciar, mai exact la penitenciarul Giurgiu ) când la începutul lunii aprilie a.c. s-a prezentat la arestul central al DGPMB pentru a executa un rest de pedeapsă. În mod abuziv responsabilii arestului i-au întrerupt tratamentul, acordat la vremea respectivă de Agenția Națională Antidrog prin CAIA Obregia. Ninel Onțică a rămas în arestul poliției aproximativ trei luni până când au fost lămurite anumite asptecte juridice referitoare la perioada de timp rămasă de executat. În toată această perioadă, s-a simțit rău și a făcut numeroase demersuri pentru a i se administra metadona (Raportul APADOR-CH cu privire la perioada în care Onțică a fost privat de tratament în arestul poliției poate fi consultat aici http://www.apador.org/show_report_nf.php?id=283 ). Pe data de 28 iunie el a fost transferat la Penitenciarul Rahova de unde, deoarece Onțică a declarat că este dependent de opiacee, a fost trimis la Penitenciarul-Spital Rahova. Pe 1 iulie penitenciarul-spital l-a transferat înapoi cu recomandarea administrării unor calmante dar și a continuării tratamentului substitutiv cu metadonă, recomandare care nu specifica și doza care trebuie administrată. Din cauza acestei omisiuni, asistenta medicală de la cabinetul penitenciarului l-a trimis înapoi la penitenciarul-spital. În fișa medicală a lui Ninel Onțică se consemnează un nou consult la data de 2 iulie în urma căruia recomandarea medicală este doar administrarea de calmante, nu și continuarea tratamentului substitutiv. La Penitenciarul Rahova lui Onțică i-au fost administrate calmantele dar pentru că în continuare susţinea că nu se simte bine, a fost trimis încă de două ori la penitenciarul-spital. Pe data de 5 iulie a.c. medicul neurolog i-a prescris calmante mai puternice iar pe 16 iulie i-a menținut prescrierea și a notat în fișă că nu se poate institui tratament cu metadonă deoarece au trecut mai mult de 3 luni de la întreruprea administrării.

APADOR-CH atrage atenția că tratamentul substitutiv este în mod explicit prevăzut în Ordinul Ministrului Justiţiei nr. 1216/2006 privind modalitatea de derulare a programelor integrate de asistenţă medicală, psihologică şi socială pentru persoanele aflate în stare privativă de libertate, consumatoare de droguri şi că neacordarea asistenței medicale adecvate în detenție intră sub incidența Art. 3 din Convenția Europeană a Drepturilor Omului și Libertăților Fundamentale.

Minorii

La data vizitei minorii (19, toți băieți, toți arestați preventiv) erau cazați în Secția 1 care g ăzduiește și minori și tineri. Secția are instalate 48 de paturi în 12 camere din care 3 sunt destinate deținuților minori iar restul tinerilor. Una din camerele pentru minori vizitată de reprezentantele APADOR-CH avea aproximativ 20 mp şi opt paturi instalate, numai şase dintre acestea fiind ocupate. Este evident că nici secţia pentru minori şi tineri a Penitenciarului Rahova nu face excepţie de la situaţia frecventă a supraaglomerării. Asociaţia recomandă ca în camere să rămână instalat un număr corespunzător de paturi astfel încât să se respecte standardul de 4 mp per deţinut şi să se evite condamnările în lanţ ale României de către CEDO pentru nivelul inacceptabil al supraaglomerării din penitenciare.

Camerele sunt în stare relativ bună și sunt suficient aerisite și luminate natural. Fiecare cameră are grup sanitar propriu constând în WC turcesc și un duș. Apă caldă se furnizează de două ori pe săptămână. Secția este în imediata apropiere a cabinetului medical, are un club propriu și acces la o curte de plimbare mică, de aproximativ 20 de mp. Pe hol sunt amplasate și cutia poștală și telefoanele, pentru o convorbire fiecăruia dintre minori fiindu-i alocate maxim 20 de minute (evident, doar dacă dispun de resurse financiare). Doi educatori sunt prezenți zilnic în secție și desfășoară activități pe parcursul dimineții iar periodic minorii sunt consiliați de un psiholog (în momentul vizitei acesta se afla în secție). Nu sunt disponibile niciun fel de cursuri școlare deși unii minori stau aici și câteva luni de zile. APADOR-CH sugerează organizarea unor cursuri intensive de alfabetizare (de 3 luni) iar dacă acest lucru nu este posibil, atunci includerea unor activităţi similare în programele clubului. Ieșirea la aer se face după prânz timp de aproximativ o oră. Minorii cu care au discutat reprezentantele APADOR-CH s-au declarat mulțumiți de condițiile de deținere. Unul dintre băieți suferă de o afecțiune psihică evidentă pentru oricine. Responsabilii secției au afirmat că tulburările lui de comportament (agresiuni, distrugeri) sunt frecvente deși se află sub tratament medicamentos și este consultat periodic de un medic psihiatru la Penitenciarul-Spital Jilava.

Asociația recomandă evaluarea psihiatrică a tuturor deţinuţilor minori, identificarea celor cu tulburări serioase (în afara stressului inerent privării de libertate ca atare) şi acordarea tratamentului adecvat pentru fiecare caz.

Aspecte generale despre penitenciar

Penitenciarul Rahova are rol coordonator pentru zona București. O mare parte dintre deținuți sunt aici doar în tranzit. Mai mult de jumătate dintre deţinuţi erau arestaţi preventiv la momentul vizitei. Sunt cazaţi numai bărbaţi, iar minorii sunt ţinuţi aici numai provizoriu până îşi rezolvă afacerile judiciare. La data vizitei numărul total de deţinuţi era de 1654, din care 1575 majori, 60 tineri şi 19 minori. Penitenciarul este împărţit pe şapte secţii cu următoarele regimuri de detenţie: maximă siguranţă (8 deţinuţi), închis (359 deţinuţi), semideschis (126 deţinuţi), deschis (135 deţinuţi, o parte la ferma Bragadiru), arest preventiv (926 deţinuţi) şi neincluşi (179 deţinuţi).

În penitenciarul Rahova este prezentă tot timpul o echipă de intervenţii (mascaţi) folosită, conform conducerii penitenciarului, ca forţă de descurajare. Echipamentul mascaţilor este prevăzut cu un număr de identificare pe caschete, dar numai pe spate, ceea ce face aproape imposibilă identificarea membrilor grupei de intervenţie de către deţinuţii împotriva cărora se recurge la forţă. Ca mijloace speciale de imobilizare penitenciarul foloseşte cătuşe din plastic, legarea mâinilor la spate sau, în cazuri mai rare (o dată, de două ori pe an) lanţuri sau centură de imobilizare.

Conducerea penitenciarului a afirmat că în ultimul an au avut loc doar două incidente grave: un deces (sinucidere) şi un caz de automutilare.

Reprezentantele asociaţiei au mers şi la izolatorul penitenciarului care după ultima vizită a CPT a fost reamenajat astfel încât să corespundă standardelor. Camera era curată, neocupată la momentul vizitei, avea instalate patru paturi şi o suprafată de aproximativ 20 mp.

Vizita în camere

Reprezentantele APADOR-CH au vizitat secţia pentru arestaţi preventiv. Una dintre camere avea aproximativ 18 mp şi 10 paturi instalate, toate ocupate la momentul vizitei (majoritatea camerelor penitenciarului Rahova au aceeaşi dimeniune şi acelaşi număr de paturi instalate). Fiecărui deţinut îi revin mai puţin de 2 mp spaţiu personal ceea ce indică un grad foarte mare de supraaglomerare (recomandarea CPT pentru România este de minim 4mp/ deţinut). Sistemul de alarmare este unul primitiv (se bate în uşă), iar deţinuţii s-au plâns de preţurile foarte mari de la magazinul penitnciarului. Ei au afirmat că apă rece au în permanenţă şi apă caldă de două ori pe săptămână, câte o oră. Activităţile pe care au spus că le desfăşoară erau cele de la clubul socio-educativ şi ieşirile la curţile de plimbare.

La secţia de maximă siguranţă în una dintre camere erau amplasate patru paturi, toate ocupate, într-o suprafaţă de aproximativ 15 mp. În cameră era televizor iar deţinuţii au spus că au ca activităţi ieşirile zilnice la curtea de plimbare şi cele de la clubul de forţă. Uneori dau teste de cunoştinţe generale şi participă la evenimente organizate în penitenciar. Şi aici deţinuţii s-au plâns de preţurile mari de la maganizul din penitenciar. Au mai spus că sunt încătuşaţi tot timpul când sunt transportaţi în afara penitenciarului, spre exemplu la instanţă şi că ei călătoresc într-un compartiment special al maşinii, separat de deţinuţii încadraţi la alte regimuri. S-au plâns că pe timpul iernii este frig în cameră.

În curţile de plimbare ale penitenciarului Rahova, pe langă dimensiunile foarte mici, de aproximativ 25 mp, singura activitate ce poate fi desfăşurată este mersul în cerc. Curţile sunt acoperite cu plase metalice. Conducerea penitenciarului a motivat existenţa plaselor prin necesitatea de a evita eventuale evadări întrucât zidul delimitator al penitenciarului este situat foarte aproape de curţi.

Asistența medicală

Penitanciarul Rahova are cabinet medical general şi câte unul pentru fiecare secţie. Personalul este alcătuit din doi medici generalişti, un stomatolog şi 14 asistenţi (dintre care un asistent de farmacie şi un asistent dentar). La momentul vizitei ambii medici erau prezenţi la cabinetul medical general. Unul dintre ei a spus că cele mai frecvente afecţiuni cu care sunt în evidenţă şi sub tratament deţinuţii sunt diabetul, bolile cariovasculare şi afecţiunile psihice; aproximativ 90 de persoane erau înregistrate cu astfel de probleme medicale. Tratament cu metadonă primeau numai doi deţinuţi, iar programul de schimb de seringi fusese închis deoarece nu existau cereri. Urgențele medicale sunt transferate la Penitenciarul-Spital unde fie sunt internate fie orientate către spitale civile.

Blocul alimentar, magazinul

Pentru masa de prânz se pregătea ciorbă de legume şi ghiveci de legume cu carne de porc (fără a fi porţionată). Pentru musulmani carnea de porc era înlocuită cu carne de vită. Pentru bolnavi meniul consta în ciorbă şi piure de cartofi cu carne de vită. Deţinuţii diagnosticaţi cu diabet primeau ca supliment salam sau brânză.

24 de deţinuţi lucrează la blocul alimentar, iar ca recompensă li se scade din pedeapsă şi primesc vizite fără separator. Încăperea unde se pregătea mâncarea era insuficient aerisită, se adunase foarte mult abur de aceea şi podeaua era umedă şi murdară.

Magazinul din incinta penitenciarului este bine aprovizionat cu alimente şi produse pentru igienă dar preţurile produselor sunt în general mai mari decât la magazinele din comunitate.

Activităţi socio-educative – munca de ținuților

La sectorul socio-educativ penitenciarul are angajaţi trei psihologi, un asistent social, un preot ortodox, doi monitori sportivi şi unsprezece educatori.

Penitenciarul desfăşoară programul educaţional „Şcoala a doua şansă” pe care o frecventează numai deţinuţii condamnaţi definitiv.

În curtea penitenciarului este şi un teren de fotbal, separat de curţile de plimbare unde deţinuţii desfăşoară activităţi sportive.

313 deţinuţi sunt încadraţi în muncă la penitenciarul Rahova, 289 în interiorul penitenciarului și 24 la ferma Bragadiru. Pentru munca depusă în penitenciar deţinuţilor li se scade din pedeapsă, iar cei care lucrează la fermă primesc şi bani.

Comunitatea terapeutică

În incinta penitenciarului, în secţia 7 se desfăşoară activităţi de reintegrare socială cu foşti consumatori de droguri în cadrul unui program finanţat de guvernul norvegian. Comunitatea are o capacitate maximă de 24 de locuri, 23 dintre acestea fiind ocupate la momentul vizitei reprezentantelor APADOR-CH în penitenciar. Personalul angajat a explicat că există anumite condiţii pentru admiterea în centru: să fie deţinuţi în regimul semideschis sau deschis, rezultatul la testare să fie negativ pentru consumul de droguri, să mai aibă cel mult 18 luni până la liberare. Au prioritate pentru includerea în comunitatea terapeutică cei fără antecedente penale. Deţinuţi din alte penitenciare pot fi de asemenea admişi. În centru se fac şi testări HIV sau pentru hepatită cu teste provenite de la cabinetul medical al penitenciarului. La momentul vizitei doi dintre cei aflaţi în centru erau diagnosticaţi cu hepatită şi urmau tratament cu interferon.

Concluzii:

1. APADOR-CH a cerut deja Direcţiei Sanitare din MAI să reglementeze – potrtivit legii – administrarea substitutelor de droguri tuturor celor aflaţi în aresturile poliţiei, înregistraţi oficial ca beneficiari ai tratamentelor cu metadonă. Însă până la finalizarea deciziei, asociaţia solicită ANP ca orice deţinut  dependent de droguri transferat din arest în custodia sa  să fie supus unui examen medical complet, de specialitate, care să stabilească fără dubii că întreruperea forţată a tratamentului cu metadonă a avut ca rezultat eliminarea totală a adicţiei.

2. Penitenciarul Rahova este în continuare unul dintre cele mai supraaglomerate din ţară. APADOR-CH solicită deopotrivă ANP şi conducerii penitenciarului să abordeze cu prioritate această problemă şi să amenajeze spaţii de deţinere cu respectarea standardului de 4 mp/deţinut. Asocia ția solicită și măsuri pentru îmbunătățirea spațiilor pentru plimbare. Eventuala mutare a curţilor de plimbare în zone mai sigure sau cel puţin dotarea celor existente cu echipamente ce ar permite exerciţiul fizic ar avea efect benefic asupra stării psihice şi fizice a deţinuţilor.

3. Este necesară examinarea psihică periodică a deţinuţillor minori precum şi individualizarea tratamentelor. În plus, APADOR-CH sugerează găsirea unei soluţii pentru şcolarizarea deţinuţilor minori (cursuri intensive de alfabetizare sau adaptarea corespunzătoare a programelor de la club).

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu
Doina-Adelina Boboşatu

Raspunsul ANP in acest caz

https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png 0 0 Rasista https://apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/apador-logo-tmp-300x159.png Rasista2013-07-17 00:00:002014-03-25 12:33:14Raport asupra vizitei în Penitenciarul Rahova- Bucureşti
Page 5 of 12«‹34567›»

Ultimele postări pe blog



Abonare Newsletter:

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

Contactați-ne la
e-mail: office@apador.org

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

© Copyright - APADOR-CH - Enfold Theme by Kriesi
Scroll to top
Utilizăm cookie-uri pentru ca site-ul să funcționeze optim. Continuând navigarea vă exprimați acordul pentru folosirea cookie-urilor. OKNoPrivacy policy