Uncategorized – APADOR-CH

Solidaritate cu protestul avocaților din oficiu

11/02/2019/in Comunicate, Uncategorized /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.

APADOR-CH susține avocații din oficiu în demersul lor de a cere condiții decente de lucru. Considerăm că în loc de majorarea bugetelor numeroaselor servicii de informaţii de la noi, mult mai util pentru societate ar fi realocarea unor sume din aceste bugete pentru asigurarea unor onorarii decente avocaţilor din oficiu

APADOR-CH îşi exprimă public solidaritatea faţă de protestul avocaţilor din Bucureşti şi din restul ţării cu privire la cuantumul derizoriu al onorariilor avocaţilor din oficiu.

Deşi avocaţilor li se pretinde o prestaţie profesională exemplară, ei îşi desfăşoară activitatea în condiţii de multe ori improprii, fiind lipsiți de înlesnirile necesare pentru exercitarea profesiei (acces liber la dosar, lipsa unor locuri corespunzătoare şi a timpului rezonabil pentru studiul dosarelor), la care se adaugă, în cazul avocaţilor din oficiu, şi un onorariu derizoriu, demotivant.

Spre exemplu, potrivit protocolului încheiat în anul 2008 (și modificat în 2015) între Uniunea Naţională a Barourilor din România (UNBR) şi Ministerul Justiţiei, onorariul avocatului din oficiu pentru asistarea unui suspect sau inculpat în faza judecăţii este de 200 lei şi poate creşte până la 400 lei, dacă în dosar sunt cel puţin 5 suspecţi sau inculpaţi. Cei 200, 300 sau 400 lei sunt plătiţi avocatului din oficiu indiferent de cât durează judecata, judecată care poate dura, în funcţie de complexitatea dosarului, multe luni sau mulţi ani.

Pe lângă faptul că onorariile avocaţilor din oficiu sunt prevăzute în protocolul din 2008 la un nivel scăzut, ele pot fi şi reduse, în mod arbitrar, de către procuror sau judecător, cărora li se conferă dreptul să aprecieze cam cât ar valora munca avocatului în cazul respectiv. Acest sistem, pe lângă prejudiciile materiale vizibile, crează şi o poziţie de inferioritate, în proces, a avocatului din oficiu, care depinde material de bunăvoinţa procurorului sau judecătorului. Din aceste motive, asociaţia solicită eliminarea dreptului organului judiciar de a cenzura onorariul avocatului din oficiu.

APADOR-CH consideră că un factor de mare importanţă pentru creşterea calităţii apărării din oficiu, apărare de care beneficiază persoanele cu o stare materială precară, este stabilirea unor onorarii rezonabile care să asigure un câştig mediu lunar pe măsura importanţei sociale a activităţii pe care o desfăşoară avocaţii din oficiu.

Asociaţia derulează în prezent un proiect care are ca obiect creștarea calităţii apărării în cauzele penale. Activităţile desfăşurate în acest proiect confirmă faptul că o problemă importantă care afectează calitatea apărării din oficiu este tocmai existenţa unor onorarii foarte reduse, demotivante.

APADOR-CH apreciază că, în loc de majorarea bugetelor numeroaselor servicii de informaţii de la noi, mult mai util pentru societate ar fi realocarea unor sume din aceste bugete pentru asigurarea unor onorarii decente avocaţilor din oficiu. Ministerul Justiţiei are un cuvânt de spus în acest sens şi ar fi trebuit să solicite sume suplimentare pentru onorariile avocaţilor din oficiu, atunci când s-a discutat proiectul de buget în Guvern. Nici acum n-ar fi prea târziu, legea bugetului este dezbătută zilele astea în Parlament.

Opinia APADOR-CH cu privire la Protocoalele de cooperare între Serviciul Român de Informaţii și instituțiile din sistemul judiciar

04/04/2018/in Comunicate, Slider, Uncategorized /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.

APADOR-CH consideră benefică însă insuficientă recenta desecretizare a protocolului de cooperare încheiat, în anul 2009, între Serviciul Român de Informaţii (SRI) și Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (PICCJ).

În România persistă încă o tendinţă a autorităţilor publice de a ține secrete documente care, de la bun început, ar trebui să aibă caracter public. În această categorie de documente secretizate în mod excesiv se includ şi protocoalele de colaborare, cooperare etc. dintre diversele instituţii şi autorităţi publice. Procedurile de interacţiune dintre aceste entităţi ar trebui să fie pe deplin transparente, publice, nu doar pentru că aceasta este o cerinţă rezonabilă într-o societate democratică, ci şi pentru că transparenţa are un rol deloc de neglijat pentru prevenirea şi remedierea posibilelor încălcări de lege sau de principii democratice care ar putea exista în reglementările ascunse examenului critic al opiniei publice.

Legislația in domeniul siguranței naționale excelează în conservarea secretomaniei. Astfel:
• Legea privind organizarea şi funcţionarea SRI este îngrijorător de anacronică, iar prevederea din această lege potrivit căreia orice informaţie privind activitatea SRI este secret de stat este un paravan care permite abuzuri. APADOR-CH precizează că a solicitat în mod repetat aducerea la zi (în secolul 21) a legislaţiei privind securitatea naţională;
• Legea privind organizarea şi funcţionarea Consiliului Suprem de Apărare a Ţării (CSAT) permite, prin laxitatea sa, adoptarea de către CSAT de hotărâri cu caracter obligatoriu pentru întreaga societate, dar care au caracter secret, astfel că nu pot fi cunoscute de societate. Din acest motiv, este necesară modificarea legii CSAT, pentru transformarea în excepţie a cazurilor în care hotărârile CSAT sunt secrete (acum, regula este că aceste hotărâri sunt secrete, nu publice).

Cu privire la conținutul protocolului din 2009, recent desecretizat, dintre SRI și PICCJ, APADOR-CH consideră că:

Protocolul conţine prevederi privind constituirea de echipe comune procurori-lucrători SRI (art. 3 lit. g din protocol) şi de planuri comune pentru constatarea, printre altele, de infracţiuni “grave” (art. 17 al. 2 din protocol) ori de planuri comune de acţiune în “cauze complexe”, planuri întocmite pe baza analizei situaţiei operative, deci în raport de speţa concretă (art. 22, art, 25 din protocol). Aceste prevederi justifică presupunerea rezonabilă că lucrătorii SRI au avut acces la conţinutul unor doare penale, cel puţin al dosarelor pentru care au fost instituite respectivele echipe comune şi au fost întocmite planuri comune de acţiune.

În acest context, APADOR-CH reaminteşte faptul că în perioada încheierii protocolului (anul 2009), când era în vigoare vechiul Cod de procedură penală, implicarea SRI într-un dosar penal nu putea depăşi punerea în aplicare a mandatelor de supraveghere tehnică, atât pentru infracţiunile contra securităţii naţionale şi de terorism, cât şi pentru orice alte infracţiuni (de “drept comun”) de o anumită gravitate, pentru care Codul de procedură penală prevedea posibilitatea emiterii unor mandate de supraveghere. O implicare în dosarele penale a SRI care excedea executarea mandatelor de supraveghere excedea şi prevederile vechiului Cod de procedură penală. În măsura în care protocolul din 2009 a prevăzut implicarea SRI peste aceste limite (executarea mandatelor de supraveghere), se poate concluziona că a depăşit prevederile Codului de procedură penală în vigoare la acea dată. Constituirea echipelor comune procurori-lucrători SRI şi a planurilor comune de acţiune parchet-SRI ridică probleme sub aspectul depăşirii limitelor Codului de procedură penală.

În prezent (mai precis, începând cu lună martie 2016), potrivit art. 57 al. 2 teza finală, art. 100 al. 1 şi art. 285 din noul Cod de procedură penală, implicarea SRI în cazul unui dosar penal nu poate fi mai mare decât punerea în aplicare a mandatelor de supraveghere tehnică numai pentru infracţiunile contra securităţii naţionale prevăzute limitativ în titlul X din Codul penal şi pentru infracţiunile de terorism. Deci, nu mai este posibilă implicarea SRI, sub nicio formă pentru infracţiunile “grave”, de drept comun (inclusiv infracţiunile de corupţie sau cele de abuz în serviciu, cu toate derivatele sale), deoarece mandatul de supraveghere tehnică în aceste cazuri se execută de parchet, nu de SRI. O implicare a SRI care excede aceste limite va excede şi actualul Codul de procedură penală.

APADOR-CH precizează că dacă fostele sau actualele prevederi legale păreau său par prea restrictive pentru entităţile implicate în combaterea fenomenului infracţional (de exemplu, lupta împotriva corupţiei) soluţia democratică nu este încheierea de protocoale secrete prin care să se adauge la Codul de procedură penală sau la alte legi, ci iniţierea, în mod transparent, a unor modificări legislative, care să fie supuse dezbaterii publice şi, apoi, aprobării parlamentului.

Având în vedere cele de mai sus:

1. APADOR-CH solicită public Parchetului de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (PICCJ) şi SRI să precizeze dacă protocolul din 2009 a suferit modificări şi/sau completări prin acte adiţionale (posibilitate prevăzută în art. 62 din protocol), iar, în caz afirmativ, să indice care au fost aceste modificări/completări, prin ce acte adiţionale au fost făcute şi să desecretizeze respectivele acte adiţionale.

2. De asemenea, APADOR-CH solicită public clarificarea regimului juridic actual al protocolului, recent desecretizat, dintre PICCJ şi SRI. O soluţie ar putea fi denunţarea expresă, în scris, a acestui protocol de către ambele părţi care l-au încheiat. Dacă este nevoie de o reglementare a interacţiunii parchet-SRI în cazul punerii în aplicare de către SRI a mandatelor de supraveghere tehnică pentru infracţiunile contra securităţii naţionale prevăzute limitativ în titlul X din Codul penal şi pentru infracţiunile de terorism, noul act trebuie să aibă caracter public, nu secret, şi să nu adauge la Codul de procedură penală. Simpla desecretizare a protocolului din 2009, fără denunţarea sa, nu rezolvă problema.

3. APADOR-CH consideră ca necesară desecretizarea a, cel puţin, următoarelor hotărâri CSAT invocate în preambulul protocolului care a fost recent desecretizat, deoarece respectivul protocol s-a bazat şi pe aceste hotărâri CSAT (dacă nu era aşa, ele nu ar fi fost invocate în preambul). Este vorba despre:
– Hotărârea C.S.A.T. nr.1712005 privind combaterea corupţiei, fraudei şi spălării banilor
– Hotărârea C.S.A.T. nr. 0068/2002 prin care Serviciul Român de informaţii a fost desemnat ca autoritate naţională în domeniul realizării interceptărilor şi al relaţiilor cu operatorii de telecomunicaţii
– Hotărârea C.S.A.T. nr. 0023412004 privind cooperarea între Serviciul Român de informaţii şi Ministerul Public pentru îndeplinirea sarcinilor ce le revin în domeniul siguranţei naţionale
– Hotărârea C.S.A.T. nr. 0237 I 2004 pentru aprobarea Protocolului general de cooperare privind activitatea de informaţii pentru securitatea naţională (nota bene – iată că şi CSAT aprobă protocoale, desigur, secrete).

4. Având în vedere informaţiile existente în spaţiul public privind existenţa unui protocol secret încheiat între SRI şi Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, APADOR-CH solicită desecretizarea de urgenţă şi a acestui protocol, precum şi a oricărui alt protocol în care este parte o instanţă de judecată. Existenţa oricărei umbre de îndoială cu privire la independenţa şi imparţialitatea instanţelor de judecată este un element de o gravitate deosebită într-o societate democratică. În cazul unui proces penal, eventualele abuzuri ale parchetului, ale “acuzării”, pot fi cenzurate şi remediate de instanţă de judecată. Dar, dacă şi sistemul instanţelor de judecată a fost “virusat” prin diverse protocoale secrete încheiate cu serviciile de informaţii sau cu alte entităţi, atunci problema chiar va atinge punctul maxim de gravitate. Judecătorul nu trebuie să fie nici colaborator, nici cooperant şi, cu atât mai puţin, un partener al parchetului sau al SRI ori al unei alte entităţi. Tot aşa cum, de exemplu, un arbitru al unui meci (de data aceasta desfăşurat între acuzare şi apărare) nu trebuie să fie nici colaborator, nici cooperant şi nici partener al uneia dintre echipele pe care le arbitrează.

*
* *

APADOR-CH precizează că există în lume sisteme judiciare în care funcționează entități care grosso modo, îmbină activitatea de culegere de informaţii cu cea de anchetă penală, de exemplu FBI în SUA. Diferenţa faţă de protocolul clasificat, recent desecretizat, dintre PICCJ şi SRI este că FBI, ca mixtură de culegere de informaţii şi anchetă penală, a fost înfiinţat şi funcţionează în mod transparent, printr-o lege care nu a fost şi nu este niciodată secretă, pe când, la noi, parchetul şi SRI au vrut să funcţioneze ca un FBI sui generis, adică nu pe baza unei legi, a unui act cu caracter public adoptat de parlament, ci pe baza unor acte ascunse (secrete), inferioare legii.

APADOR-CH consideră că, dacă se doreşte înfiinţarea unei structuri în genul FBI, sistemul nostru democratic presupune, în locul unor decizii şi protocoale secrete, infralegale, existenţa unei dezbateri publice pe această temă, urmând ca ultimul cuvânt să-l aibă parlamentul, sigurul abilitat în mod constituţional să adopte o lege pentru înfiinţarea unei structuri cu astfel de atribuţii.

*
* *
Fiind vorba despre acţiuni în desfăşurare, asociaţia precizează că va interveni cu exprimarea poziţiilor publice pe măsură ce evenimentele vor evolua.

APADOR-CH angajează office assistant

30/03/2018/in Comunicate, Uncategorized /by APADOR-CH

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.

Responsabilitățile postului sunt de secretariat, administrație și din domeniul financiar, precum: preluarea și distribuirea corespondenței, primirea facturilor și păstrarea unei evidente financiare, șamd.

Condiții pentru candidați:

aptitudini de comunicare
bun organizator
cunoștințe de contabilitate primară
bun utilizator de MS Office

Experiența în mediul ONG și cunoașterea limbii engleze (nivel mediu) constituie avantaje.

Candidaţii vor trimite până la data de 16 aprilie 2018 ora 12, la adresa office@apador.org, un Curriculum Vitae şi o scrisoare de intenţie cât se poate de concisă care să cuprindă următoarele:
• Experienţa în activități din domeniul financiar
• Persoane care ar putea da referinţe despre activităţile în domeniu (nume, prenume, adresa de email şi/sau număr de telefon fix/mobil)
• Contacte ale candidatului (telefon mobil, adresă de e-mail, adresă poştală )
• Data de la care ar putea prelua efectiv funcţia este 1 Mai 2018.

După selecţia pe baza CV-ului şi a scrisorii de intenţii, urmează interviurile individuale în zilele de 17 și 18 aprilie a.c. Numai candidații selecționați vor fi contactați pentru interviu.

Ministerul Afacerilor Interne schimbă pe șest ordinul care a permis asediul de la Pungești

23/04/2014/in Slider, Uncategorized /by Rasista

Scrie-i parlamentarului tău să abroge Legea Big Brother

15/04/2014/in Slider, Uncategorized /by Rasista

APADOR-CH a făcut un denunț penal împotriva șefului poliției Piatra Neamț

20/03/2014/in Uncategorized /by Rasista

Transparenţa instituţională – manual pentru organizaţiile neguvernamentale

26/02/2014/in Uncategorized /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.

Deschideti PDF

Report on the visit to the Arad Penitentiary

07/11/2013/in Uncategorized /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.

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 14^th 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

Report on the visit at the Timişoara Penitentiary

06/11/2013/in Uncategorized /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.

Report on the visit at the Timişoara Penitentiary

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