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

 

 

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

 

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 (1^st and 2^nd grades together, 3^rd and 4^th 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 9^th grade wanted to continue to study for the 10^th. The director of the department said that there had not been enough requests to organize 10^th 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

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