Craiova – APADOR-CH

Posts

Report on the visit to the Craiova Youth Detention Centre

16/04/2014/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

• On March 14, 2014, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Craiova Youth Detention Center. The previous visit to the facility had taken place in October 2004, after the fire that killed three minors and seriously injured other two.

General considerations

With the coming into effect of the new law on enforcement of custodial sentences, Law no. 254/2013, Penitentiaries for Youth and Minors became Detention Centers, institutions where educative measures are enforced on minors who have committed crimes. According to the director of this facility, a Detention Center is an institution where minors are supervised in view of their re-education and it is no longer considered that they are serving a prison sentence. However, the representatives of the Association were left with the impression that the juveniles here were treated just like before and that no investments had been made to improve their daily activity schedule. The director said that reorganization was ongoing and difficulties arose from the fact that the new legislation had no enforcement regulations yet. He said that activities will multiply and improve, although he would not be able to hire new staff and no professional re-qualification was planned for the existing employees. New investments for infrastructure were not foreseen either.

Youth Detention Centers functioned under the open, semi-open and closed regimes. The novelty at this facility was that, as a result of the reorganization, a section for female juveniles was created, soon to bring in all minors females from all the penitentiaries in the country. APADOR-CH commends the fact that a special section was prepared for minor female detainees, but points out to the National Administration of Penitentiaries (henceforward ANP) that transferring all minor women from the penitentiary system to Craiova would make it difficult for them to receive parcels and be visited by their families, an important aspect for their future social reinsertion. It is important for minors to keep in touch with their families, but if they come from poorer environments, traveling all the way to the center could become unaffordable for many parents and relatives.

At the time of the visit, the Center still detained young detainees (18-21) and adults awaiting transfer to penitentiaries. According to the new law, only those who committed their crime while underage will remain at the Center.
The Center serviced the counties of Dolj, Gorj, Mehedinţi, Olt, Giurgiu, Teleorman, Argeş, Vâlcea, Arad, Timiş, Caraş Severin, Ilfov and the capital, Bucharest.

The administrative building of the facility was separated from the two detention buildings. The latter were organized into six sections for minors, youth, adults (male), infirmary and female minors. At the time of the visit, there were 402 persons detained, of whom 169 were still serving a prison sentence (26 minors, 138 youth and 5 adults), while 233 were committed to the Detention Center (59 minors, 143 youth and 31 adults). The director said that these sections were still in the process of reorganization (after the new law) pending the transfer of young detainees and adults to penitentiaries. The legal capacity of the Center was 504 persons, if the 4 sq. m/person standard was taken into account.

The director admitted that the staff employed at the medical and social/educational departments was insufficient for the new task, but claimed prioritizations were made, so that emergencies and the most serious cases received immediate attention. The facility did not have a special intervention squad, just three members of the staff trained to intervene in extreme situations, but unarmed and without wearing masks. Minors and young detainees were not handcuffed when taken to the court.

The video surveillance system consisted of a few cameras located in the yard, covering the outside fences to prevent escape attempts. The management said that the footage was stocked for 30 days and then archived on CDs. They were unable to say exactly for how long the CDs were kept.

At the time of the visit, none of the detainees went to work outside the facility and only a few helped with in-house services. The only revenues supplementing the annual budget provided by the ANP came from renting some real estate owned by the Center.

The visit to the facility

The kitchen

When the representatives of APADOR-CH arrived at the kitchen, it was clear that the area had just been cleaned, the floor scrubbed and the bars of soap in the lavatory used by detainees replaced. The officer on call admitted that “new cleaning materials had just arrived”. The representatives of the Association could only hope that this interest for hygiene was permanent, not merely caused by visitors.

The canteen was large, able to accommodate 150 people. According to the person in charge of the kitchen unit, 138 detainees served their meals here every day, in three series. The 258 detainees under closed regime had their meals in their rooms. Women had a separate canteen in their section.

Unlike in other penitentiaries we visited, the menu of the day was not displayed. The cooks said
“they don’t allow us to display the menu any longer”. It was not clear who took that decision and for what reason.

Bread was kept in a separate room, in good conditions; it was fresh and it smelled good. Every detainee received 600 grams of bread every day, a quarter in the morning, a quarter in the evening and half for lunch.

12 detainees worked at the kitchen – the only ones in the facility that actually did some work – in groups of 4, each covering one day. They had all been medically tested to that purpose. The Center employed 8 cooks, all women, working in two teams, on alternate days, and two agents, also covering alternate days.

The cold room was well stocked with pork and beef, both in carcasses and frozen in portions, by category. The meat was provided by the farm of the Craiova Penitentiary, Pelendava, the management said. The storage room was filled with stocks of eggs (3,000), barrels of cheese, pasta, margarine and marmalade.

Beans soup with pork scraps and pasta with meat and sauce were being prepared for lunch. Unlike the abundance of meat in the cold room, meat in the food looked pretty scarce on that day. The evening menu included vegetable stew with pork scraps and semolina caramel pudding.

For breakfast, detainees had received tea, biscuits, cheese and margarine. One of the cooks said that minors received one egg twice or three times a week and, sometimes, an apple, but this information could not be confirmed by any of the detainees who talked to the representatives of the Association. For diet and Muslim detainees, green bean soup and beef with boiled potatoes were cooked separately.

According to the records, the food supplies used for the day were: 24 kilos of biscuits, 15 kilos of cheese, 900 grams of beef, 24 kilos of pork, 16 kilos of onions, 104 kilos of potatoes.

The kitchen was well ventilated and there was no steam, although it was cooking time. The lavatories for the staff and for detainees were separate, clean and well maintained. The whole kitchen area smelled of disinfectant. The unit also had a patisserie laboratory, but it was not used.

The school

The penitentiary had its own school, a separate unit under the administration of the County School Inspectorate that provided courses for grades 1-11. For high-school grades (9-11), professional qualification courses were provided.

At the time of the visit, no representative of the school was present, so all information about school activities came from the chief of the social and educational department.

For the current school year, there were 11 students in first grade, 10 in the second grade, 6 in the third grade, 8 in the fourth grade, two classes of 17 students for the fifth grade, two classes of 16 students for the sixth grade, two classes of 12 students for the seventh grade one class of 16 students for the eighth grade; in the ninth grade, there were 8 students in the “woodwork” class and 8 in the “mechanics” class, in the tenth grade there were 6 students in the “woodwork” class and 6 in “mechanics” and in the eleventh there were only 8 students learning woodworks. In total, at the time of the visit there were 131 registered students who had promoted the first semester.

The chief of the social/educational department explained that when detainees were brought to the Center after the beginning of the school year, they could only attend classes, without being graded or credited. According to the same source, in the current school year there were only 2-3 students who accepted to attend classes under these conditions but soon lost interest. It is obvious that this system does not work and that the minors need to be stimulated to attend school. That is why APADOR-CH asks the management of the Center to speed up the procedures for obtaining the school records of new arrivals, so they can be officially registered for school; at the same time, even as attendees they could be allowed to receive credits or other benefits such as taking part in outings.

The school occupied two floors of a large, well maintained building, with 8 classes, offices for the teachers and a generous library. The school schedule was 8:00 – 11:45 for the primary grades and 14:00 – 17:00 for gymnasium and high school years.

The chief of the social/educational department said that a class needed to have at least 8 pupils ad at most 12. However, it was appreciated as a positive fact that efforts were made to keep classes with even less than 8 students; in other former Minors and Youth Penitentiaries recently visited by APADOR-CH, the minimum number was just an excuse to deprive the juveniles from their education. However, the Association considers that, in the case of the Craiova Youth Detention Center, a number of 131 students in a population of 402 detainees is a very low figure and recommends that, after reorganization, when only minors are left here, the necessary steps be taken so that all minors go to school. The Association reminds that in Romania education is compulsory up to the 10th grade, and this should also be true for minors in detention centers.

The social/educational department

Apart from school classes, detainees at the center had other three types of activities:
• Educational programs like Life behind Bars, Education for Health, Civic Education, Universe of Knowledge etc.
• Programs for detainees in quarantine – adaptation to detention conditions;
• Education through sport – activities in the gym and on the sports field, under the supervision of the two sport instructors;

At the time of the visit, 6 minors were rehearsing a future performance at the club of the Center. The minors were part of a performing group who sang, recited and played short sketches.

There were no qualification courses going on at the time of the visit. The management had announced a carpentry workshop starting from March 24, with 28 detainees. The previous course had been completed in August 2013, for IT and computer initiation, and it had produced 60 graduates. The management said there had been no co-operation with the County Labor Agency for qualification courses since 2011. The condition for a detainee to register for a qualification course was to have gone at least through primary education and to have at most 9 months until release.

With Austrian funding, the staff of the center had the opportunity of visiting penitentiaries in Austria in 2010 and 2011 and learning about their practices. With their support, three workshops were created at the Craiova Center: a printing house, a cooking/patisserie lab and a wrought-iron smithy, as well as the sports and fitness halls. The workshops had only produced goods for the penitentiary system and, by the time of the visit, they had stopped producing altogether. The management explained that it was difficult to find orders on the local market. However, the Association recommends that the workshops should at least be used for qualification until selling orders can be found.

A psycho-social counseling program was organized with the Drug Prevention, Assessment and Counseling Center in Dolj (CEPCA) for the benefit of former drug-users.

The social/educational department had 26 employees, of whom 21 educators, 2 sports monitors, one psychologist, one social worker and the director. The management said that the staff was insufficient for the Center. The representatives of APADOR-CH consider that the department had enough personnel to organize constant activities that could involve all the minors in a few useful programs every year.

Each educator had to run at least two programs per week, with most programs lasting for at least 12 weekly sessions in groups of maximum 12 detainees. Some of the programs lasted for only 3-4 sessions. Everything seemed well organized so that each detainee could enlist for 2-3 such educational programs each year.

As a reward for their activity, minors accumulated credits that were taken into account by the parole board. For misdemeanors, credits were deduced or detainees were sanctioned by warnings, suspension of the right to shopping, suspension of the parcels or even confinement, from 4 hours to 10 days. There was no dedicated confinement room, but the sanctioned minor was placed alone in a room, although he was allowed to attend classes if he was registered in school. The management said that misdemeanors were mainly age-related, and consisted of bickering with room mates or fighting, but that confinement was rarely used. The representatives of the Association noted that detainees – both minors and young men – spent too much time in their rooms instead of being involved in school or other formative activities, and that violence was amplified by the lack of activity.

The facility had a very large sports field, equipped for football and basketball, as well as generous exercise yards. At the time of the visit, the field was occupied by young men playing football. Detainees had access to the field and exercise yards according to a schedule, by sections.

The facility also had a chapel where an orthodox priest officiated mass. Detainees of other denominations could be visited by priests upon request.

The medical office

The facility had both a medical office and a dental practice. The dentist worked by himself, without an assistant, for 7 hours a day, from 8.00 to 15.00. He said that medical supplies were insufficient, that the Center had ceased its contract with the Health Insurance Agency and now he had to ask the facility for any materials he needed to purchase. The medical instruments he used looked old, degraded and underperforming. The dentist said he generally solved only simple problems like extractions, emergencies, superficial cavities and manual removal of the plaque. Over the last weeks, he had seen two cases of jaw fracture after fights among detainees. The young men who fought were taken for surgery at the Craiova Hospital and were then moved into separate rooms.

The medical office employed a GP and an internist who covered the morning and afternoon shifts. The 24/7 care was provided by nurses. The GP was on call at the time of the visit. The staff included 6 nurses and a pharmacy assistant, but the personnel scheme had other 3 vacant positions for nurses.

The doctor said that 40-70 patients were examined every day. The most frequent problem at the time were respiratory infections (the doctor himself had a cold), a seasonal condition. Otherwise, hepatitis and hypertension were frequent and 90 detainees had been diagnosed with mental conditions, 23 being under treatment prescribed by psychiatrists at the Craiova, Colibaşi or Jilava Penitentiaries. A psychiatrist from the Craiova Penitentiary came to the Center every month to check on the patients.

One of the patients at the infirmary, transferred here for a short period for a court trial, was HIV positive and continued his treatment. The Center did not run a detoxification program for former drug addicts because, the management said, they only arrived here after being treated for addiction at one of the penitentiary hospitals in the country.

Condoms were not freely distributed at the Center. As the matrimonial room was occupied at the time of the visit, it could not be verified if condoms were distributed at least there. The doctor said there was no money to purchase condoms. The medical office chiefs complained that medical supplies were also insufficient and for more complex cases they had to be sent to civilian hospitals. The Association recommends to the management to allot sufficient funds for medication and condoms, given the fact that detainees are minors and young men and treating their health issues should be a priority.

The two infirmary rooms had damp walls; detainees had their meals brought to them. One of the patients was a minor. He was supposed to be in the 10th grade, according to him, but did not go to school because he had no school record.

Contacts with the outside /visitation

The management estimated that 70% of the minors were visited by their families, while the rest either did not have anyone, or had their families working abroad.

Payphones, the mail box and info-kiosks were accessible for all inmates, on the corridors or at the entrance to each section.

Upon release, the usual practice was for the Center to inform the family and, for those who could not afford it, pay the transportation fare home.

Detention rooms had TV sets, some brought in by detainees, other provided by the Center. TV signal was cut off every night at 22.00.

The visitation sector was appropriately set and equipped and parcels could be inspected by both the visitor and the receiving detainee at the same time. A parcel could contain maximum 10 kilos of food, 6 kilos of fresh fruit and vegetables and 20 liters of water/juice. Visits took place around the table, but the separated cabins used by the maximum security detainees were still available. APADOR-CH recommends that separated cabins should be removed as soon as transfers are completed and that tables be placed instead, so that minors can see their families only in open visits.

On the day of the visit, the liaison judge and the clerk were not present at the Center. According to the management, they also worked with other two penitentiaries. During the discussions, detainees were skeptical about the help they could get from the liaison judge and many of them said they didn’t know what he did. Member of the management who talked to the Association could not offer any information about the activity of the judge.

The shop

The in-house shop was by about 30% more expensive than local shops. In general, it was not so well stocked, signaling that it did not have a lot of traffic – probably minors had little money for shopping. There were no fresh fruit or vegetables on sale; the shop manager said those were only brought in upon request and added that a committee regularly checked on the prices, with the last verification just a week before. Shopping was scheduled once a week and detainees could spend at most one minimum wage per month.

Detention spaces

Detention rooms were located in two similar buildings, with two floors each, with 48 rooms for male detainees, 9 for female detainees and 3 for the infirmary. There were two types of rooms: small – at 31 sq. m and large – 78 sq. m. Each building had three sections, one on each level. At the time of the visit, they were only temporarily organized, so there were rooms with more detainees than beds and rooms with a lot of space and just one or two occupants.

Detainees were provided with hot running water twice a week. Each section had a common shower room. Detention building had no alarm system, therefore no matter what problem they had, detainees could only knock at the door until the agents heard them.

Building 1

Section 1 was on the ground floor and held minors under closed and open regime. The rooms were relatively clean, although the lavatories were less than hygienic. Detainees admitted that the management had announced them since morning that inspection was coming to the Center and rooms needed to be clean. Most rooms had improvised electric installations, like TV sets plugged in by un-insulated or socket-less wires. In some rooms, there were more detainees than beds, like in Room 1.11, of 1 sq. m, where 4 detainees shared 3 beds. The management said the situation was only temporary, being caused by the reorganization of the institution, and was going to end with the transfer of all young and adult detainees.

Room 1.3, open regime, 78 sq. m, held 10 minors in 12 beds. The occupants of the room claimed that in the summer of 2013 no less than 18 of them had to share the same 12 beds. The detainees said that doors stayed open from 8.00 to 12.00 and from 14.00 to 17.00 and that hot running water was provided twice a week (on Mondays and Thursdays). Asked how they appreciated their food, detainees said it was acceptable but they didn’t recall receiving any fresh fruit or vegetables since the previous summer. Some of them claimed that the guards had an aggressive attitude, beating and insulting the minors “when they didn’t behave”. In order to comply with the legal detention conditions for the open and semi-open regimes, the Association recommends that the doors of the rooms be left open throughout the day, to allow detainees to move freely on the corridors and to the exercise yards.

Room 1.6, a large room for detainees serving under closed regime, held 11 detainees in 10 beds. The minors complained about the bedbugs that gave them skin rashes, which they claimed were not properly treated. Most detainees showed bite marks on their legs and other visible skin conditions. The walls of the room were dirty, bearing traces of the bedbugs squashed by detainees. The mattresses here and everywhere else in the Center were old, dirty and lumpy, a perfect environment for the insects to flourish. Detainees said this has been the situation for over a year. They also complained that they were not taken to see the doctor and they had never seen the liaison judge. Three of them said they could not attend school because their school records were not available. They went to the gym once a week and spent all the rest of their time in their room, watching TV.

Section 2, located on the first floor, held young detainees under the open and closed regimes. Room 2.4 held 6 detainees in 13 beds. One of them said he had been at the center for one year and had never attended school. None of the occupants of the room knew they could attend classes even if they were not registered and graded. They all claimed they were frequently hit by the guards “if they did something wrong”, but admitted they had never complained about it because they didn’t think anyone would believe them or that the management would actually do anything about it.

Section 3, located on the second floor, held young men under the maximum security regime. Room E 3.4 held one detainee categorized as high risk because he had attempted to escape. The room had 6 beds and measured about 30 sq. m. Only two of the beds had mattresses. The young man said he had no activities other than one hour of daily exercise and watching TV.

Room 3.5 – young detainees under maximum security regime – held 2 detainees in six beds on about 30 sq. m. They complained of bedbugs and said they didn’t receive any chemicals for pest control.

The women’s section was organized on the upper floor and held 8 female minors – 7 under open regime and one under semi-open regime. None of the girls went to school because the management said, no solution was found to keep them separated from the boys during classes. At the time of the visit, three of the detainees were on an educational course with an educator, decorating a club. The management said they intended to purchase bidets for the women’s section, so they can have better hygiene conditions than male detainees. The rooms here were spacious, but mattresses were in equally poor condition.

Building 2

Minors under preventive arrest and adult detainees were held in section 4, on the ground floor of the building. Room 4.4, one of the larger, held 4 detainees in 10 beds. They complained they had bedbugs and scabies (it was not clear if they meant that their skin conditions itched like scabies or they actually believed they suffered from scabies; the medical records did not mention that diagnosis). They said the itching made them scratching the whole time and the medical office only provided them with “cheap medication, of no effect”.

On the second floor, adults on preventive arrest awaited transfer to a penitentiary. Room 6.4 held 10 detainees in 10 beds. They had no social or educational activity, just the daily exercise time and watching TV.

Conclusions and recommendations:

• Given the reorganization of the institution, it cannot be said how the activities of the future Craiova Youth Detention Center are going to look like. It is recommended, however, that this transition period be as short as possible, so that the problems noted in the report as caused by “reorganization” can be fixed.

• APADOR-CH recommends the management to pay more attention to feeding fruit/vegetables to detainees, even in winter time, because they are growing children and need a higher supply of vitamins.

• The Association recommends further efforts to involve all detainees in social and educational activities, in order to reduce the time they spend in front of the TV or in their rooms, where useless fights can start out of sheer boredom.

• APADOR-CH recommends that the ANP should have in mind filling up the personnel scheme in order to make better use of the three workshops that stay under lock while young detainees come of prison without any qualification. It would also be useful to scan the local or national market for contracts for the products made in these workshops.

• A closer co-operation between the management of the Center and that of the school could help stimulate minors to go to school, even if they do not have their school records. Other Youth Detention Centers managed to test the students and assess their level of knowledge, then place them in appropriate classes to attend the lessons even without school records.

• The management should verify the accusations of aggressive behavior made by some minors against the guards.

• Higher preoccupation is required for the sanitary conditions of rooms and beds. This should not be left up to the minors, who clearly do not know enough about personal hygiene. The aim is to eliminate the bedbugs and the skin conditions. The management is under obligation (and not just in this Detention Center) to ensure efficient pest control, perhaps with professional help.

Dollores Benezic Doina-Adelina Boboşatu

Report on the visit to the Craiova Penitentiary

19/12/2012/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

On December 19, 2012, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Craiova Penitentiary. The previous visit had taken place on June 4, 2004 (see the previous report at http://www.apador.org/show_report_nf.php?id=32).

General aspects – population, detention spaces, staff

The Craiova Penitentiary held 1.157 detainees (of whom 105 women), under all existing detention regimes (open regime for those providing services for the prison, semi-open, closed and maximum security regime for the rest of the inmates). Detainees were accommodated in 8 sections, of which one was women only. There were no minors, because Craiova also has a Penitentiary for Minor and Young Detainees. The Craiova penitentiary is the only facility in counties Dolj, Olt and Gorj to have a special section for women and it functions as the coordinating unit for all the facilities in the area: Pelendava, Severin and Târgu Jiu, as well as the Penitentiary for Minor and Young Detainees in Craiova.

Overcrowding was a stringent problem that the prison management was aware of (the penitentiary had 1.317 on 2.626 square meters, twice as many as it should, had it observed international standards). However, the managers claimed that there had been no cases, ever, of detainees having to share a bed. In order to relax the situation, sleeping quarters for 40 persons were organized in the shoe workshop, for detainees working there. The penitentiary had different types of rooms, from those of maximum three beds (for those posing high risk for the safety of detention) to those of 27 or even 45 beds, in the preventive arrest section. The prison management said that works were ongoing at the external section in Işalniţa, where women were going to be transferred in better conditions than in Craiova, creating more space for the men. The section was estimated to be completed in the first quarter of 2013.

The staff of Craiova Penitentiary working directly with the detainees consisted of 353 persons, of whom 289 in the security and detention regime departments (30 were members of the intervention troops, the masked squad), 16 in the medical department and 18 in the social and educational department.

The prison management admitted that masked squads did operate in the prison, but claimed they were only used as a discouragement force and only when detainees needed to be taken outside the facility. However, the representatives of APADOR-CH had the occasion to see masked guards inside the penitentiary during their visit. APADOR-CH reminds the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Cucu v. Romania, pointing out to the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and of Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (CPT) regarding the presence of such intervention squads in prisons. The CPT considers that masked squads create an oppressing atmosphere because their masks make it difficult to identify a suspect in a case of ill treatment. CPT also recommended that members of the special intervention unit should not wear masks under any circumstances.

Medical care

The Craiova Penitentiary had a medical section employing 10 nurses and 6 doctors – 3 GPs, a psychiatrist, a pulmonologist and a dentist. A radiologist was a permanent collaborator of the penitentiary, where a radiology cabinet also exists. The most frequent problems were mental conditions, liver conditions (hepatitis 15-20 cases), syphilis and TB (much less numerous). There were no HIV cases, but nor were there any tests done. Or, in the absence of the test, no one could certainly say whether there were or not any HIV infected detainees. The Association suggests that the penitentiary should inform detainees, after their first medical exam, that they had the possibility of taking an HIV test if they wanted.

Condoms were also distributed at the medical cabinet. The GP said that detainees knew about it and asked for condoms any time they needed. APADOR-CH considers that condoms should be accessible elsewhere, because for some detainees, asking for condoms to a doctor is tantamount to admitting homosexual relations, which are not fully accepted in the penitentiary system. The infirmary also ran a syringe exchange program, but it had not been used for a while because there had been no drug users inside, except for some suspected cases of ethnic botanicals consumption.

The doctor said that the penitentiary provided medical care for detainees but did not always have all necessary medication. In many cases, detainees were taken to town for specialist consults, even to private clinics, if they could afford to pay. The Association asks the National Administration of Penitentiaries (ANP) to solve the crisis of medicine in prisons, for instance by granting a larger budget chapter to drug purchase.

Infirmary had 6 rooms for admitted patients. At the time of the visit, there was one detainee admitted, after having been brutalized a room mate in a fight over a mobile phone. The detainee had a swollen jaw and said that he was well taken care of.

The daily examination norm was of at least 50 detainees, the doctor on duty told APADOR-CH. In 2012, doctors provided 18.000 consultations, the records showed. Each detention section had one day of the week marked for medical exams but, the doctor said, detainees took advantage of the system and asked for extra visits to the infirmary.

Food and the kitchen area

Unlike the previous time APADOR visited, the food at the penitentiary was no longer provided by the in-house farm; detainees, however, considered it acceptable. The preferred item was the fresh bread, baked on the spot. The menu on the day of the visit was tea, biscuits and cheese for breakfast; pork bone soup and potato stew for lunch; cabbage and cracklings (with the regular supplements/variations for the various types of diet. For the day, 34 kilos of meat had been used for the regular diet, of 478 portions, meaning 70 grams of raw meat per detainee (exactly as provided by the regulations).

18 detainees worked in the kitchen area and other 10 at the bakery that had a capacity of 5,000 loafs per day, but only produced a fraction, because the facility was not authorized to sell the surplus. The investment for the bakery was 2 billion lei (old currency) from the budget of the penitentiary. Recent investments had also been made for the frigorific rooms were food was kept. The kitchen was clean.

An encouraging aspect was that the prison staff decided not to mix the pieces of meat into the main course, but to serve them directly on the plates, so that each detainee was sure to receive a relatively equal piece.

The in-house food shop was well stocked at the time of the visit, including fresh fruit and vegetables, as well as meat products that required preparation, like crenwurst. The shop assistant said that detainees needed approval from the prison management to buy certain items, but that pans and immersion heaters, as well as other personal hygiene items, could be obtained without permit. However, only women were allowed to buy plastic tubs, for fear men should use them as recipients to fabricate alcohol. It was unclear why a plastic tub increased the risk of alcohol fabrication, since men were allowed to detain many items that could well serve to the same purpose (mineral water bottles, juice boxes, buckets, etc). The tub discrimination, applied in all Romanian prisons, is quite comical and should cease, because even male detainees may have special needs in terms of personal hygiene or may want to do their laundry.

Social reinsertion activities

The social and educational service of the Craiova Penitentiary has 18 employees (in papers, there were 20, the chief and 19 employees, but two women were on maternal leave at the time of the visit). The personnel scheme included 5 positions for psychologists, but only two were occupied. There were 4 social workers, 2 chiefs of service, 3 educating officers and 8 educating under-officers. The orthodox priest serving the prison was paid by the Craiova Episcopate. In the opinion of the Association, all orthodox priests in penitentiaries should be paid by the church, not by the ANP, as is the case of the other religious denominations accessing prisons, which pay their own representatives.

During the visit, a folk music show was ongoing in the festivity room, and many detainees from the closed regime were attending, with guards and the masked squad watching them.

The social and educational service ran several activities for education, counseling or entertainment, beside school as such. The prison also had a library, rather poorly stocked. The staff said detainees were not encouraged to borrow books, because they were often moved to other prisons, while books were inventory items.

The building hosting the service had been recently renovated and had special rooms for the various activities, including a gym for sporting activities to be used in bad weather.

Work

28 detainees held under the open regime worked outside the penitentiary, at RECON, a constructions company. Other 68-70 detainees worked inside the prison, in the production unit, for a shoe company in Alba. The prison workshop was organized on two floors and included sewing machines and other shoe-making tools, purchased with European funds.

Compared to the previous visit, a good development was the opening of a bakery, making fresh bread for detainees in the prison and for those in the county custody facility. Ten detainees worked at the bakery and other 18 in the kitchen, while several scores provided the other domestic services like distributing food, cleaning, service duty – especially in the high risk and maximum security sectors).

Visits and correspondence

In the visitation sector, there were rooms arranged for both separator visits and open visits. The prison management considered it to be the most modern prison visitation center in the country. There were two rooms for spouse visits and a room for mother and child interaction. The visits could be scheduled both by phone and by e-mail, and each detainee was allowed to receive a 90 minute visit per month. In December, however, as the schedule was busier, the program management allowed only 60 minutes visits, so that more visits could be programmed.

The parcel room had a door viewer and parcels were opened in the presence of detainees and of their visitors. The maximum limits for a parcel were 10 kilos of food, 6 kilos of fresh fruit and vegetables and 20 liters of water/juice. Cooked food that required re-heating was not allowed and big lumps were usually cut through, to check for hidden objects.

Each detainee had a right to spend at most 350 lei and to make 20 minute phone calls each week. The received mail was recorded in a registry – with the name of the sender and receiver.

The liaison judge

The liaison judge had his office in the administrative building of the prison and was assisted by a court clerk. The same clerk also worked for two other penitentiaries in the area. The liaison judge said that most of the complaints coming from detainees were related to the detention regime and to the sanctions they were submitted to by the prison management. In 2012, the records of the liaison judge indicated that 1,200 sanctions were passed in the Craiova Penitentiary. Detainees usually complained about being re-categorized into a more severe regime, but there had been cases where detainees contested their being moved into a more relaxed regime, because they did not want to be transferred from Craiova to Târgu-Jiu, Drobeta-Turnu Severin or Pelendava, as they wanted to remain closer to their families, albeit in a stricter detention regime. Other complaints were against confinement decisions.

The liaison judge said there had been cases of hunger strike, which he described as “so-called hunger strikes”, one of which lasted for as much as 7 days. The judge said that detainees who used this form of protest believed this was the way to make their complaints on detention conditions known to the court. There had also been cases of self-mutilation, by detainees who did not receive all their medication for a treatment. The judge and the doctor explained that, had they received all their treatment at once, they would have sold the drugs. The liaison judge said that he had taken decisions contradicting the prison management and that his opinion had been in general taken into account.

The Craiova Penitentiary did not have an info kiosk system yet, as other prisons did, but detainees had phone cards for their daily phone calls.

The women’s section

The 105 women held at Craiova Penitentiary were accommodated in section 1, in a building with all its windows opening into the inner courtyard, to avoid any contact with male detainees. The women served sentences under all detention regimes: 16 under open regime, 57 under semi-open regime, 14 under closed regime and two under the maximum security regime; 15 were under preventive arrest and one had not yet been categorized. As all the rooms were on the same section, the procedures for the different regimes could hardly be observed. Although women under the open and semi-open regime were usually allowed to keep their rooms open during the day, the cells had to be locked every time other detainees had to be moved from one location to another.

The section had a canteen, which was also used for other activities, such as school classes (grades 1-4) attended by 18 detainees, or carol concerts such as the one offered by one religious denomination right during the visit. The section also had a laundry room, with an automatic machine that detainees were allowed to use. Room no. 2, open regime, had 15 beds on 30 square meters, while the room for semi-open regime had 24 beds on 27 sq m. Room no. 7, for maximum security regime, had 6 beds on about 6 sq. m., and it accommodated two detainees. Room no. 4 (two beds on 4 sq m, used as a quarantine room) held two women, one of whom was 7 months pregnant.

Detainees said they had hot running water three times per day and the detention regime was acceptable. One of the women in the quarantine room complained that she had no way to learn about her rights and asked for several books, some of which were legal texts, while another said she could not get physiotherapy for her scoliosis. In this case, the persons in charge said she could not be treated until she could produce a recommendation from the doctor.

Women had an exercise yard where they also hung their laundry to dry. The mailbox was outside the building, where women could only get under escort. But the prison staff claimed detainees could access the mailbox any time they asked and that it would be impossible to move the mailbox inside the section, because a postal worker needed to empty it and it was not recommended that he would enter a women’s section. The Association considers that the presence of a postal worker in the women’s section, in order to pick up the mail, was not supposed to create any sort of problems and asks the prison management to move the mailbox on the corridor, alongside the pay phones.

Of the 105 women detainees, 21 went to work in a separate space of the shoe workshop.

Detention spaces for male detainees

Male detainees were categorized as follows: 236 under preventive arrest, 164 under maximum security regime, of whom 25 considered GSR (high risk), 559 on closed regime, 13 on semi-open regime, 36 on open regime and 44 not categorized. The rooms 77,64 mp – for 48 beds; 34-38 sq m – for 27 beds; 6 sq m for maximum security rooms – two beds each; and 22-32 sq m – closed regime rooms for 15-21 beds each.

The representatives of APADOR-CH visited the preventive arrest, quarantine, closed regime, maximum security and the GSR (high risk) sections, as well as the confinement area.

The preventive arrest and quarantine section

The section had 5 rooms for preventive arrest and three for quarantine. As in the women’s section, there was a canteen with tables and cutlery, but detainees could choose to take the food to their rooms, if they wanted. There were three exercise yards, one of them with fitness equipment, In Room no. 16 – preventive arrest – there were 48 detainees in 48 beds (on three levels) on about 60 square meters. Overcrowding was obvious. The men on preventive arrest said the food was acceptable, as was the detention regime; they had running water, two hours per day in the exercise yards and sporting activities. They also said that the lavatory with three toilet cabins and four showers was sufficient. The only complaint was that the in-house shop was expensive, especially in the processed meat department.

Closed regime

Males held in closed regime occupied sections 4 and 5 in a horseshoe building. They were accommodated in two types of rooms: larger, 21 beds rooms, measuring 32 square meters and smaller, 15 beds rooms, measuring 22 square meters. The beds were on three levels. Each detainee had a personal space of 1.5 sq m, which indicated a serious level of overcrowding. The lavatories in the rooms were in acceptable state, with two showers and two toilet cabins each. Rooms looked neat and were well warmed up and lit. At the time of the visit, many of the detainees in closed regime were at work. Those present were cleaning the rooms and they said they were satisfied by the detention conditions.

Maximum security regime and high risk detainees

Detainees held under maximum security and high risk regime occupied a semi-circular building with 19 rooms on each floor. The rooms measured about 6 sq m (including the lavatory) and had three beds each.

The representatives of APADOR-CH visited section 6B – maximum security and section 6A – high risk (GSR). Detainees from 6B said they were content with detention conditions. In section 6A, there were 25 detainees categorized as high-risk. APADOR-CH insists that detainees dubbed as “high-risk” must remained in the detention regime selected by the categorization commission of the prison, the only difference being that agents and officers must keep a closer eye on them. It is not normal that a detainee labeled as high-risk should end up automatically in the maximum security section. In one of the rooms, one detainee had been held by himself for 8 days, and complained about it, especially since he had no TV. He said it was very harsh with no one to talk to and waited for the prison management to approve his request to receive a TV set from another inmate who didn’t need his any more. The detainee also complained of lack of activity and of the cold in the room.

Confinement

Confinement rooms were on the last floor, alongside the maximum security section. The outer walls of the floor were made entirely of glass brick, which make it very cold. On the same floor with confinement room was Room no. 101, which looked like an improvisation on a corridor. It had no door, just like the confinement rooms, although the 5 detainees there were held under closed regime, not on confinement. Detainee Constantin Cernea complained that he was not taken to the medical ward as often as he needed, that he had caught a cold for several days because of the low temperature but he didn’t receive the medication he needed. He also said that the nurses offended him. Room no. 101 did not include a lavatory and detainees were taken to the showers only twice a week.

Confinement rooms were small, dark and had no doors, only bars, opening on the corridor lit through the glass brick wall. Room no. 104 held detainee Ion Stan, who showed clear signs of mental illness and of self-mutilation. The man said he had no relatives outside and received no visits. APADOR-CH mentioned his case to the prison management, who explained that the detainee had been sent to psychiatric exams several times and each time he was returned to prison on grounds that his state “had improved”. The Association considers that the detainee was subjected to inhuman treatment and asks the prison management and the ANP to find a solution for him to get proper medical treatment and better detention conditions.

In Room 105 there were two detainees held in confinement. They had been brought in from the maximum security section and said that the conditions were acceptable.

Conclusions and recommendations

1. APADOR-CH asks for urgent steps to be taken in order to reduce overcrowding. In that respect, the Association considers that completing works at the Işalniţa external section would improve the situation to some extent and asks the ANP to provide the necessary resources for opening the section as soon as possible.

2. The Association asks the ANP to take into account the recommendations of the CTP, also approved by the ECHR, regarding the masks won by intervention squads in penitentiaries and to put an end to the practices used in Romanian prisons. The CTP considers that the wearing of masks by these troops is unjustified in any circumstances

3. APADOR-CH asks the prison management to take urgent measured regarding the regime of detainees held in the maximum security and confinement sections, especially those held by themselves in a room. In the opinion of the Association, they are submitted to inhuman treatment.

Other conclusions and recommendations have been included in the report.

Maria-Nicoleta Andreescu Dollores Benezic

Raport asupra vizitei APADOR-CH la Penitenciarul pentru minori si tineri de la Craiova

01/10/2004/in Penitenciare /by Rasista

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

1. Pe data de 1 octombrie 2004, două reprezentante ale APADOR-CH s-au deplasat la penitenciarul pentru minori şi tineri (PMT) de la Craiova pentru a face investigaţii extrajudiciare cu privire la incendiul din camera 36, care s-a produs la 24 septembrie a.c. şi care s-a soldat cu moartea a trei deţinuţi minori şi rănirea gravă a altor doi.

APADOR-CH subliniază de la început că este împotriva pedepselor cu
închisoare aplicate minorilor. Dacă au comis fapte penale grave, ei pot
fi sancţionaţi cu punerea sub (strictă) supraveghere sau, în
cel mai rău caz, cu internarea într-un centru de reeducare. Regimul de
penitenciar, în special în România, unde condiţiile de detenţie
sunt departe de standardele europene iar personalul este şi insuficient
numeric şi nesatisfăcător pregătit profesional, nu poate
avea efecte benefice pentru minorii condamnaţi.

Reprezentantele
asociaţiei au mers la Spitalul Judeţean de Urgenţă Craiova
unde au fost internaţi toţi cei cinci deţinuţi minori,
cu arsuri foarte grave, apoi la PMT, unde au discutat cu conducerea actuală,
cu supraveghetori şi cu al şaselea deţinut minor din camera
respectivă, care a scăpat nevătămat. De asemenea, au văzut
camera în care s-a produs incendiul.

2. Din
coroborarea relatărilor, au rezultat următoarele:

2.1. Pachetul
cu articole de îmbrăcăminte al deţinutului minor Ionuţ
Dumitru Pleşa

Ionuţ
Dumitru Pleşa (născut la 8 ianuarie 1987, decedat la Spitalul judeţean
în urma arsurilor), condamnat la 4 ani închisoare cu executare în PMT, primise
un pachet de la familie, ce conţinea, între altele, o pereche de pantofi
sport şi un trening. Conform procedurii, pachetul a fost depus la magazie,
pe numele deţinutului. Insă, dintr-o eroare – afirmă cadrele
– plutonierul de serviciu la magazie a înregistrat coletul pe numele Florea
în loc de Pleşa. Eroarea s-ar fi datorat ortografierii greu
lizibile a numelui destinatarului de către expeditor. Pare totuşi
ciudat că nu numai primele litere (F şi P) au fost confundate ci
mai multe, rezultând două nume diferite. Conducerea PMT a afirmat că
pachetul se afla în continuare, neatins, în magazie.

In dimineaţa
zilei de vineri 24 septembrie, Ionuţ Dumitru Pleşa s-a prezentat
la magazie pentru a-şi ridica obiectele. Răspunsul magazionerului
a fost “nu ai nici un pachet”. S-a verificat fişa personală
a lui Pleşa din care rezulta că minorul primise o pereche de “adidaşi”
în august, pe care îi ridicase deja. Numai că era vorba de un
pachet anterior şi nu de cel expediat în septembrie. Crezând că
obiectele îi fuseseră furate – reclamaţii de acest gen au existat
şi din partea altor deţinuţi din diverse penitenciare – minorul
s-a plâns unui supraveghetor, care l-ar fi asigurat că “se rezolvă”
până la ora 15.00 – 15.30 după unii, până la ora 19.00, după
alţii. Din motive neclare, Ionuţ Dumitru Pleşa nu a mai avut
răbdare şi s-a decis să protesteze.

2.2. Deţinuţii
minori din camera 36

In afara
lui Pleşa, care era reprezentantul camerei (adică “şeful”),
în camera 36 se mai aflau încă 5 minori:

– Constantin
Viorel Stamatie (născut la 1 septembrie 1987, decedat în Spitalul de
urgenţă din cauza arsurilor). Fusese internat la Centrul de reeducare
Găieşti pentru furt şi apoi transferat la PMT Craiova, pe 9
iunie 2004, pentru un alt proces penal aflat pe rol;

– Szasz
Nika Attila (născut la 1 decembrie 1986). Execută o condamnare de
2 ani şi 6 luni pentru furt. A supravieţuit incidentului, dar la
momentul vizitei era încă în stare gravă;

– Marius
Poienar (născut la 23 martie 1987, decedat în Spitalul de urgenţă
în urma arsurilor);

– Florin
Marin Gălan (născut la 25 iulie 1988). Execută o condamnare
de 3 ani şi 6 luni pentru tâlhărie. Ca şi Szasz, a supravieţuit
incidentului, dar la momentul vizitei era încă în stare gravă;

– Constantin
Lucian Mititelu (născut la 18 aprilie 1987). Fusese condamnat la 5 ani
închisoare pentru omor. A scăpat din incendiu cu vătămări
minore, care nu au necesitat internarea. Totuşi, la momentul vizitei,
era ţinut sub observaţie, în infirmeria PMT.

Dintre
toţi, Stamatie avusese cele mai multe probleme disciplinare. In aproape
6 luni cât a fost internat la Centrul de Re-educare Găieşti, a fost
sancţionat de 5 ori: de 4 ori cu “mustrare în faţa colectivului”,
la care se adaugă 3 zile “izolare de colectiv” (adică
mutare în altă cameră). Motivele sancţionării cu mustrare
au fost: distrugerea unui scaun, deţinerea sumei de 100.000 de lei (deţinuţii
nu au voie să aibă bani asupra lor în timpul privării de libertate;
banii deţinuţilor sunt păstraţi în conturi nominale de
către unitate), fumat şi, în sfârşit, ameninţare cu blocarea
uşii de la camera de detenţie. Sancţionarea cu “izolare
de colectiv” s-a datorat faptului că minorul a blocat uşa
camerei în care era cazat. Prin urmare, atât cadrele din PMT cât şi lucrătorii
SIPA (Serviciul Independent pentru Pază şi Antitero – în fapt mult
discutatul “serviciu secret” al Ministerului de Justiţie) ştiau
că Stamatie practicase deja blocarea uşii camerei ca formă
de protest. Mai mult, după transferarea la PMT, minorul a mai primit
două sancţiuni pentru încălcarea regulamentului. Prima sacţiune
a fost aplicată pentru lovirea şi violarea unui alt deţinut
– fapte extrem de grave pentru care, afirmă comandantul actual al PMT,
ar fi fost sesizat parchetul. Trebuie menţionat că, în discuţia
cu psihologul şi cu asistentul social ai PMT cu privire la Stamatie,
nu s-a pomenit nimic despre viol ci doar de lovire. Ulterior, cei doi au confirmat
şi acuzaţia de viol, dar cu jumătate de gură. Reprezentantele
asociaţiei au rămas cu impresia că acuzaţia deosebit de
gravă ar fi fost o exagerare, menită să-l “înveţe
minte” pe recalcitrant. A doua sancţiune i s-a dat pentru “atitudine
necuviincioasă faţă de şeful de tură” şi
datează din 19 septembrie a.c., deci cu doar 5 zile înainte de incendierea
camerei. APADOR-CH consideră că cel puţin 4 din cele 7 pedepse
(în special ultima) au fost aplicate cu prea mare uşurinţă
de cadrele de la Găieşti şi de la PMT. Este posibil ca Stamatie
să fi fost un deţinut-problemă. Dar tocmai de aceea cadrele
de la Găieşti şi de la PMT ar fi trebuit să găsească
metodele potrivite pentru a-l ajuta pe minor. La PMT, singurul “ajutor”
a venit din partea psihologului care ar fi încercat să-l determine pe
Stamatie “să îşi schimbe atitudinea”. Sancţiunile
repetate, mai ales dacă sunt aplicate pentru fapte mărunte, nu pot
avea decât un efect negativ asupra deţinutului minor. APADOR-CH constată
din nou că numai deţinuţii “buni” (care nu crează
probleme cadrelor) sunt antrenaţi în programele/proiectele educative
din sistemul penitenciar iar cei “răi” rămân în camere
23 de ore din 24, fără nici un fel de activitate. Or, normal este
ca aceştia din urmă să beneficieze de mai multă atenţie.
Chiar şi în proiectele desfăşurate de organizaţii neguvernamentale
în penitenciare participă tot deţinuţii selectaţi de administraţia
penitenciară, pe baza aceloraşi criterii.

In afară
de Stamatie, numai Pleşa a mai fost pedepsit o dată, pentru lovirea
unui alt deţinut. Restul minorilor din camera 36 nu aveau rapoarte de
incident.

In aceste
condiţii, nu este greu de imaginat că Stamatie şi Pleşa
erau “durii” camerei 36.

Mai trebuie
reţinut şi faptul că Pleşa îşi exprimase indignarea
cu privire la pachet cu voce tare, în sala de mese, în timpul prânzului. Sigur
că nimeni nu şi-a imaginat amploarea şi natura protestului
dar se putea încerca prevenirea printr-o verificare promptă, în prezenţa
minorului, a existenţei şi traseului coletului. Până la urmă
este vorba de atitudinea de nepăsare şi dispreţ a cadrelor
faţă de deţinuţi şi de problemele lor, mărunte
doar în aparenţă.

2.3. Incendierea
camerei 36

Vineri
24 septembrie, minorii au revenit în cameră după masa de prânz.
Pleşa era extrem de nervos din cauza incidentului de la magazie şi
a decis să protesteze cât mai “spectaculos” cu putinţă.
Foarte probabil, Stamatie i-a sugerat ideea blocării uşii. Nici
unul din ceilalţi patru minori nu s-a opus ideii, sau nu a îndrăznit
să se opună. In jurul orei 14.30, au scos o placă mare de lemn,
ce servea drept cuier şi au pus-o în dreptul uşii de metal (din
păcate, placa s-a potrivit perfect în cadrul uşii), apoi au scos
uşile de la sala de baie şi de la cambuză (o nişă
în care se ţin obiecte personale) şi le-au proptit tot în uşa
de acces. Au dat saltelele jos de pe paturi şi le-au stivuit în dreptul
ferestrei ce ocupă tot peretele dintre grupul sanitar şi cambuză.
Apoi au tras paturile de metal, consolidând “baricada” din dreptul
uşii de acces. Pentru a atrage atenţia cadrelor, au spart toate
geamurile. Imediat, a venit un supraveghetor, a constatat că uşa
camerei era blocată, i-a întrebat pe minori ce revendicări au iar
aceştia i-au răspuns că nu discută decât cu comandantul
(de fapt, directorul). Conform procedurilor, în astfel de cazuri se anunţă
conducerea, au loc “negocieri” cu deţinuţii iar dacă
nu se ajunge la o înţelegere, cadrele pot interveni în forţă.
Supraveghetorul şi-a anunţat colegii şi superiorii (directorul
PMT nu era în penitenciar, el ajungând acolo pe la ora 15.00, după consumarea
evenimentelor), totul durând – susţine el – “un minut”. Când
a revenit în dreptul camerei 36 a auzit ţipete, deoarece minorii dăduseră
foc saltelelor[1], ceea ce l-a determinat să acţioneze
imediat. Minorul Mititelu a susţinut că tot Stamatie ar fi venit
cu ideea incendierii saltelelor şi că iniţial Pleşa s-ar
fi opus, dar ar fi cedat foarte repede. Reprezentantele asociaţiei consideră
că toţi cei şase au fost de acord şi cu blocarea uşii
şi cu incendierea saltelelor, fiind convinşi că vor putea ţine
incendiul sub control. Altfel nu se explică de ce au dat saltelele jos
de pe paturi şi le-au aşezat la fereastră (dacă intenţia
era doar de blocare cu paturile a uşii camerei) şi nici de ce aveau
sticle cu apă de rezervă.

Din cauza
potrivirii perfecte a plăcii groase de lemn în cadrul uşii, tot
ce au reuşit cadrele a fost să o împingă parţial, creând
un spaţiu îngust în formă de “v” prin care care au reuşit
să iasă toţi cei şase minori. Insă, în acelaşi
timp, s-a produs şi fenomenul de “tiraj”, adică, din cauza
curentului între uşă şi fereastră, focul s-a înteţit
iar flăcările, căldura şi fumul şi-au schimat direcţia
spre interiorul camerei. Fumul gros a invadat coridorul şi a intrat şi
în camerele de detenţie învecinate, stârnind panică printre ceilalţi
deţinuţi. Toţi cei din camera 36 au ieşit pe picioarele
lor.Surprinzător, hainele cu care au fost îmbrăcaţi au rămas
intacte, explicaţia – destul de alambicată – fiind că minorii
au fost arşi de căldura extraordinară şi nu de flăcări.
In plus, au inhalat acel fum gros şi fierbinte degajat de bureţii
de plastic din saltele. Potrivit afirmaţiilor conducerii actuale a PMT,
ei au fost duşi imediat la infirmerie de unde s-a solicitat serviciul
de urgenţă Smurd. Intreaga operaţiune de la prima încercare
de deblocare a uşii până la transportarea la spital a cinci din
cei şase minori[2] din
camera 36 la Spitalul judeţean de Urgenţă ar fi durat 15-20
de minute.

2.4. Urmări

După
ce minorii au ieşit din camera 36, cadrele prezente au decis să
îi scoată în curte pe toţi deţinuţii din secţia respectivă
(în total 8 camere). Nu numai fumul care făcea atmosfera irespirabilă
sau panica deţinuţilor au fost determinante ci şi faptul că
luase foc şi instalaţia electrică din camera incendiată,
ceea ce provocase un scurt circuit pe secţie.

Drept
urmare, toţi deţinuţii din secţie au fost scoşi în
spaţiul de plimbare. Directorul PMT, sosit pe la ora 15.00, a dispus
curăţirea imediată a camerei, repararea instalaţiei electrice
şi reintroducerea deţinuţilor în celelalte camere din secţie.
In consecinţă, uşile, cuierul şi bunurile deţinuţilor
din camera 36 au fost scoase pe coridor. S-au folosit un extinctor, un furtun
racordat la o … chiuvetă (reprezentantele APADOR-CH au putut constata
că la etajul unde s-a produs incendiul nu exista hidrant) şi găleţi
cu apă, după care s-a reparat şi instalaţia electrică.

Din cei
cinci minori afectaţi de incendiu, trei au decedat la Spitalul judeţean
de Urgenţă. Ceilalţi doi erau încă în stare gravă,
la momentul vizitei reprezentantelor APADOR-CH.

Ca
urmare a incidentului, directorul Marinel Candidatu a fost demis. Mai exact,
pus la dispoziţia DGP. Maiorul Fulga, şeful Serviciului Pază,
a fost şi el pus la dispoziţia DGP dar a şi fost trimis la
penitenciarul Pelendava. Cinci cadre din PMT vor compărea în faţa
Consiliului de onoare sau de disciplină (nici măcar cei de la PMT
nu ştiau exact). Fostul locotenent-colonel (până la demilitarizare)
Najap, actualul director temporar, a fost sancţionat cu “mustrare”,
pe linie administrativă.

3. Probleme
identificate de APADOR-CH

3.1. Atmosfera
din PMT Craiova

La data
vizitei reprezentantelor APADOR-CH, tensiunea din PMT Craiova era “palpabilă”,
atât între deţinuţi, cât şi între aceştia şi cadre.
Una din cauze, aparent minoră dar foarte importantă pentru deţinuţi,
este teama de îngrădire a trocului, larg practicat în toate penitenciarele
din România dar şi în închisorile din ţări democratice.
Deţinuţii cumpără şi vând orice, acolo unde pot
avea bani asupra lor, sau schimbă orice pe orice, cum se întâmplă
în România, unde nu au dreptul să aibă bani cash. Singura
problemă este ca aceste operaţiuni să fie ţinute sub control.
Altfel, se ajunge la situaţii de criză (bătăi şi
violenţe între deţinuţi) sau chiar la tragedii (cum s-a întâmplat
la PMT Craiova sau la Penitenciarul Iaşi unde, în vara acestui an, a
fost omorât un tânăr de 23 de ani). Trocul nu poate şi nu
trebuie oprit, cel puţin nu atâta vreme cât administraţia penitenciarelor
nu poate asigura deţinuţilor hrană şi îmbrăcăminte
decente, aparate de radio şi televizoare, lenjerie de pat şi obiecte
sanitare absolut necesare etc.

Cea
mai “valoroasă” marfă de schimb rămâne ţigara.
Indiferent de tendinţe europene/restricţii/recomandări, foarte
mulţi deţinuţi sunt fumători. Din păcate, şi
mulţi deţinuţi minori. Toţi cei şase din camera 36
din PMT erau fumători. Reprezentantele APADOR-CH cred că “adidaşii”
şi treningul din coletul lui Pleşa erau monedă de schimb între
deţinuţi, în principal pentru ţigări. De aici, iritarea
lui Pleşacare nu şi-a putut “onora contractul”. Asociaţia
este de acord cu principiul interzicerii fumatului la deţinuţii
minori, dar situaţia reală arată că se creează în
acest fel două mari pericole: a) pentru sănătatea minorilor,
deoarece în lipsa ţigărilor ajung să “fumeze” orice
(cârpe, rumeguş din parchet sau de la uşi şi ferestre, câlţi
din saltele etc.), lucru mult mai nociv decât tutunul propriu-zis; b) pentru
siguranţa deţinuţilor şi a locului de deţinere, pentru
că se acumulează tensiuni ce se pot manifesta violent, cum s-a şi
întâmplat la PMT Craiova.

3.2. Lipsa
unor preocupări reale în domeniul reeducării

După
cum s-a arătat, deţinuţii “răi” sunt, în genere,
neincluşi în programe/proiecte educative. In plus, acestea sunt, de multe
ori, neinteresante şi neatractive, mai ales pentru minori. Organizaţiile
neguvernamentale care desfăşoară proiecte în penitenciare (terapia
prin teatru, proiect GRADO, este un exemplu foarte bun) nu pot suplini absenţa
unor programe permanente, care să antreneze toţi deţinuţii.
Desigur, resursele umane şi materiale de care dispune administraţia
penitenciară sunt reduse dar chiar şi cele care există nu sunt
folosite integral (săli care rămân goale deşi ar putea fi folosite
pentru diverse acţiuni, program de lucru al celor de la cultural-educativ
până la ora 15.00 – prin urmare, după-amiezele nu se organizează
activităţi – plus pauza de prânz de circa două ore, în care
iarăşi nu se lucrează). APADOR-CH solicită DGP restructurarea
întregului program cultural-educativ în sensul folosirii mai judicioase a
spaţiilor, a timpului liber al deţinuţilor şi, mai ales,
a încurajării unor iniţiative ale cadrelor de specialitate care
să facă activităţile mai atractive pentru toţi deţinuţii,
mai ales pentru minori. Fără îndoială, este absolut necesară
creşterea numărului de angajaţi, cu pregătire de specialitate.

La PMT
Craiova există un singur psiholog şi un singur asistent social pentru
cei peste 330 de deţinuţi (peste o sută de minori, restul tineri
– 18-21 de ani, dar şi peste 21). Organizaţia World Vision care
lucrează cu deţinuţii are şi ea un psiholog şi un
asistent social. Dar, evident, patru oameni nu pot lucra efectiv cu 330 de
minori şi tineri. De menţionat că psihologul angajat nu
colaborează cu WV, cel puţin nu pe activităţi concrete.

Mai trebuie
adăugată şi ineficienţa cadrelor de la pază şi
siguranţă dar şi a angajaţilor SIPA (rebotezat DGPA).
Este lucru ştiut că, în toate penitenciarele (foarte probabil şi
în centrele de reeducare) se lucrează cu “sifoane” (informatori
dintre deţinuţi). Dacă practica trocului a scăpat
de sub control, ajungându-se la violenţe aceasta este vina cadrelor
din penitenciar şi DGPA. De altminteri, APADOR-CH a contestat în mod
repetat însăşi necesitatea existenţei SIPA/DGPA, serviciu (devenit
“direcţie” dar cu exact aceleaşi atribuţii) secret
militarizat, a cărui utilitate rămâne un mister.

3.3. Transferarea
temporară a minorilor în penitenciare

Se mai
pune şi problema transferării temporare în penitenciare a minorilor
cărora li s-a aplicat de către instanţă măsura
educativă a internării într-un centru de reeducare, pe durata
desfăşurării altor procese penale în care sunt implicaţi.
APADOR-CH precizează că transferul se efectuează la penitenciarul
de minori sau adulţi aflat pe raza instanţei de judecată,
iar şederea minorilor poate dura luni de zile. Se întrerupe astfel activitatea
de reeducare din centru (care are regim diferit faţă de penitenciar),
ajungîndu-se chiar la anularea eventualelor progrese ale minorilor. O soluţie
ar fi ca minorii din centrele de reeducare să fie aduşi direct
la instanţe, la data la care au fost citaţi (în prezent, sunt
transferaţi în penitenciarul din raza instanţei pe durata procesului).
Sigur, soluţia presupune eforturi umane şi materiale, dar asociaţia
are convingerea că efectul ar fi benefic pentru minori. O altă soluţie
ar fi strămutarea tuturor proceselor penale cu minori la instanţe
din apropierea centrelor de reeducare. Poate că, la înfiinţarea
viitoarelor tribunale pentru minori se va ţine cont de această posibilitate.

3.4. Eficienţa
SRSS

La fel
de importantă este dezvoltarea Serviciilor pentru Reintegrare Socială
şi Supraveghere (SRSS). In prezent, ele funcţionează doar la
nivel de judeţe şi sunt formate din doi-trei consilieri care, evident,
nu pot face faţă tuturor sarcinilor. Practic, activitatea lor se
rezumă la redactarea rapoartelor solicitate de instanţe şi
supravegherea persoanelor cărora li s-a suspendat executarea în penitenciar
a pedepselor (numai minori şi în număr redus). Implicarea serviciilor
în activităţile de reeducare din centre şi penitenciare este
aproape inexistentă (SRSS Arad este excepţia pozitivă). Dat
fiind că, prin lege, SRSS trebuie să se ocupe şi de deţinuţii
adulţi care le solicită asistenţa pre- şi post-liberare,
APADOR-CH cere Ministerului Justiţiei, în subordinea căruia se află
SRSS, să ia măsuri urgente pentru sporirea numărului de angajaţi
şi pentru asigurarea mijloacelor materiale de care aceştia au nevoie
pentru a-şi face, cu adevărat, datoria. Altfel, sistemul SRSS rămâne
o “bifare pe hârtie” a îndeplinirii cerinţelor standardelor
europene, lipsită de eficienţă.

4.
Probleme concrete cu privire la incendiul din 24 septembrie a.c.

a) Inexistenţa
unor dotări adecvate de prevenire şi stingere a incendiilor la PMT
Craiova

APADOR-CH
consideră inacceptabil faptul că într-un penitenciar în care stau
sute de oameni privaţi de libertate nu există hidranţi şi
furtunuri speciale pe fiecare etaj al spaţiilor de deţinere.
Astfel de echipamente există în şcoli, spitale etc. indiferent
de numărul de etaje al clădirilor respective. Incendiul din camera
36 a fost stins cu un extinctor, un furtun simplu racordat la o chiuvetă
şi găleţi cu apă. Asociaţia cere DGP să analizeze
dotarea cu utilităţi eficiente de stingere a incendiilor a tuturor
penitenciarele. Incidentul de la PMT Craiova a demostrat că dotările
existente sunt insuficiente şi lipsite de eficienţă.

b) Pe
24 septembrie, nu au fost chemaţi pompierii.

Desigur,
instituţii precum penitenciarele nu au obligaţia aceasta, deoarece
se presupune că într-un sistem până de curând militar, există
oameni pregătiţi în caz de incendiu şi, bineînţeles, echipamentele
necesare. Or, s-a dovedit că la PMT nu aceasta era situaţia. Poate
că o intervenţie rapidă a pompierilor, care ar fi acţionat
cu scările din exteriorul clădirii, ar fi limitat – sau evitat –
tragedia. Din dorinţa absolut firească de a salva minorii, cadrele
din penitenciar au forţat uşa de acces şi s-a creat fenomenul
de “tiraj” cu consecinţele cunoscute. În aceeaşi
măsură, cadrele care au intervenit pentru scoaterea minorilor nu
păreau a avea pregătirea necesară pentru a acţiona în
caz de incendiu.

c)
Curăţarea camerei 36

Reprezentantele
APADOR-CH au putut constata la faţa locului că nu s-a procedat
la curăţarea camerei 36 ci la stingerea incendiului, cu mijloacele
precare descrise mai sus. Fumul gros şi foarte nociv invadase şi
coridorul şi camerele de pe secţie, ceea ce a dus la evacuarea deţinuţilor.
In plus, nimeni nu putea pătrunde în camera 36 (singurul care a intrat
câţiva paşi a fost supraveghetorul care a manevrat extinctorul şi
care aproape s-a sufocat), nu se cunoşteau dimensiunile catastrofei şi
ar fi fost, evident, imposibil să se repare instalaţia electrică
(luase foc lampa de neon şi se produsese un scurt circuit datorită
căruia curentul electic era întrerupt pe toată secţia). Chiar
dacă Parchetul ar fi fost chemat imediat, procurorii nu ar fi
putut nici măcar intra în cameră. Singura soluţie era scoaterea
pe coridor a obiectelor care continuau să blocheze uşa de acces,
permiţându-se astfel stingerea focului. De altfel, toate obiectele
(inclusiv îmbrăcămintea pe care o purtau deţinuţii minori)
au fost readuse în camera 36, desigur nu exact pe aceleaşi amplasamente.
Prin urmare, în opinia asociaţiei, acuzaţia de “distrugere
de probe” a fost excesivă. In plus, incidentul a fost reconstituit
pas cu pas, din relatările minorilor supravieţuitori şi ale
cadrelor prezente în acea zi. După ştiinţa asociaţiei,
nu există nici o îndoială cu privire la faptă şi făptaşi.

Fără
îndoială că demiterea directorului şi a ofiţerului
responsabil cu paza şi siguranţa este justificată dar pentru
alte motive, din care multe au fost deja menţionate mai sus.

In
concluzie:

–
Este necesară modificarea Codului penal, în sensul eliminării pedepselor
cu închisoarea pentru minori;

– Trebuie
restructurată şi revizuită întreaga activitate cultural-educativă
din sistemul penitenciar, în primul rând, cea care se adresează minorilor;

– Este
nevoie de o schimbare pe fond a atitudinii cadrelor faţă de deţinuţi.
Orice problemă a deţinuţilor trebuie tratată cu seriozitate,
chiar dacă pare neînsemnată;

– Nu
ar fi deloc binevenită o înăsprire a regimului de detenţie.
Este însă necesar ca administraţia penitenciară să aibă
controlul asupra focarelor de tensiune între deţinuţi;

– Toate
penitenciarele trebuie imediat dotate cu echipamentele necesare unei intervenţii
imediate şi eficiente în stingerea incendiilor. De asemenea, cadrele
din penitenciare trebuie pregătite în mod real în privinţa modului
în care trebuie să acţioneze în momentul producerii unui incendiu.

Manuela
Stefănescu Diana Călinescu

[1] Reconstituirea a demonstrat că o saltea cu burete arde într-un minut
şi 50 de secunde iar temperatura şi fumul degajate sunt insuportabile.
Experimentul a avut loc pe câmp. Camera 36 măsoară cam 24 de m.p.

[2] Constantin Lucian Mititelu a scăpat cu vătămări minore
pentru că s-a întins pe jos, sub unul dintre paturi. Datorită
timpului scurt în care s-a derulat incidentul, fumul şi flăcările
nu s-au întins până la partea inferioară a camerei, astfel încât
nu l-au afectat pe Mititelu. Reprezentantele asociaţiei au putut constata
acest lucru: pereţii camerei erau înnegriţi de fum numai în partea
superioară, culorile iniţiale ale zugrăvelii fiind intacte
până la o înălţime de aproximativ un metru de la sol.

Tag Archive for: Craiova

Posts