Report on the visit to Botoşani Penitentiary
On February 3rd, 2004, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Botoşani Penitentiary.
The main objectives of the visit were: to inspect the conditions in the juvenile section; to investigate the circumstances of juvenile Cristian Alexandru Hulub’s suicide; to verify complaints regarding the conditions of detention formulated by certain detainees in letters addressed to the Association.
1. The discussion with the penitentiary management
On the day of the visit, the penitentiary hosted 1145 detainees, among whom 13 juveniles. There were 1195 beds in a space normally accommodating 510 persons (according to recommendations made by the CPT in its 1999 Report, stating that each detainee should be granted at least 4 sq. m of “living space”). Several months earlier, about 300 detainees were transferred to other prisons because repairs started in one of the living units. The management estimated that the repair works would be finalized before the end of the year. One year before, a new living unit had been inaugurated.
The penitentiary struggled with two older problems: it was still not connected to the natural gas supply line and it was very close to the city’s waste dump. In what concerns the first problem, the DGP (General Direction of Penitentiaries) ensured the penitentiary that it would do its best to find a solution (funds were already assigned for the pre-feasability and feasability studies on the connection to the gas supply line). In what concerns the second problem, the City Hall made the same promise as in the previous years: that the waste dump would be made environment-friendly and moved to another location. New talks with the gas supplier were expected in a week’s time. At the moment of the visit, the penitentiary used light liquid fuel for heating, cooking and hot water.
According to the managers, detainees considered to be dangerous (there were 41 such inmates on the day of the visit) lived together with the others. The only difference in the way they were treated was that they were handcuffed when taken to the court, they were subjected to weekly searches and they were not allowed to work.
2. The visit to the penitentiary
Room no. 5, for juveniles, in the new living unit, hosted 7 detainees in 9 beds (the room had approximately 24 sq. m. Although some of the juveniles here had not received a final sentence, they were not allowed to wear their own clothes. There was a TV set in the room, which the juveniles were allowed to watch between 8.00 AM and 10.00 PM. They were however unhappy for being obliged to watch only the public television channel – Romania 1. The juveniles complained that noncommissioned officer (N.C.O.) Cătălin constantly abused them verbally and physically. They also complained that the food was always bad. The representatives of the Association were able to see for themselves leftover second course servings of “meat and cabbage”, which looked and smelled awfully, and only contained vague traces of meat. The juveniles were allowed to make one phone-call per week and bathe once a week in the shower. The daily open air program lasted from 5-10 minutes to half an hour, from Monday to Sunday. For days, the juveniles had almost no activity at all (during summer, they played football once or twice a month). Their sole activity during the period of the visit was the visits of a teacher from outside the penitentiary, who taught them to read and write, history, how to eat, how to behave, etc (the juveniles considered those activities highly attractive). The juveniles stated that the educators and the psychologist of the penitentiary never conducted any sort of activity with them. They received newspapers only once a week and those were already old. There had been cases when N.C.O. Pintilie handcuffed some of them to their beds as a punishment for minor misbehavior (for playing in the room, for instance). The juveniles also complained that one of their mates had been recently beaten by N.C.O.'s Cheptănaru and Cătălin. The room had a loudspeaker on which, at the moment of the visit, the juveniles were listening to their preferred music, “manele”. There was also an interphone system, very useful when detainees wanted to call in the guards, but making them feel uncomfortable because they feared the guards were listening to what was being discussed in the rooms. The bathroom was separate from the room and included a toilet seat, a sink and a shower. Although the unit had only been inaugurated a year earlier, one of the walls was full of mould, the radiator was cold, and therefore the whole room was rather chilly.
Room no. 6, also for juveniles, and also of about 24 sq. m, accommodated 4 juveniles (9 beds). The room was tidier, cleaner, and the floor was covered in mats (brought by detainees from home). The bathroom was identical with the one in Room no. 5. There was a TV set (brought by one of the juveniles) which was on from 8.00 AM to 10.00 PM, only on the Romania 1 channel. Newspapers came in only once a week and were rather old. On the day of the visit, February 3rd, newspapers were from January 13th. Detainees were allowed to take books from the library any time they wanted. Juveniles in this room, too, complained about the bad food (here, too, the representatives of APADOR-CH were able to see and smell the second course of that day’s lunch). There were new complaints about abusive behavior by N.C.O. Cătălin. Unlike him, who „swore and whipped them with an ox skin belt”, N.C.O.'s Dinu, Petrică and Panait were praised by the juvenile for the way they treated detainees. A teacher came every second day at the penitentiary club and taught the juveniles in Room no. 6 how to read and write, history and civic education. The daily open air walk usually lasted for about half an hour, from Monday to Sunday (when officers Dinu and Petrică were on duty, the juveniles were allowed to stay out longer). Juveniles who had not received final sentences were allowed to wear their own clothes during visits, but had to wear prison uniforms in court. The juveniles were entitled to receive four visits (of 45 minutes each) and four parcels of food per month. They were allowed to make a phone call per week (lasting no more than 10 minutes). Written correspondence was unlimited. The juveniles suspected that, sometimes, letters to the DGP or to human rights organizations might have been seized by the penitentiary staff; they knew that the mail boxes inside the penitentiary were not emptied by the “Posta Româna” National Company workers, but by members of the staff. The room was rather chilly and the radiators were cold. According to the juveniles, the radiators were on between 18.00 and 19.00 and for a few hours before the wake up call. They said they were forced to sleep two or three in a bed, to warm up at night. They had a bath once in two or three weeks. At the infirmary ward, they were treated kindly, but the guards were reluctant to take them there.
Room no. 22 (adults, repeated offenders, serving terms of over 10 years in prison) hosted 9 detainees in 9 beds (the room measured about 24 sq. m). Detainee Petrică Marius was considered among the “dangerous” detainees because he had escaped from Suceava Police custody 14 years before. He resented being included in that category, and explained that after the incident 14 years ago, he had served 10 years in prison without a single incident report. He had been in Botoşani Penitentiary for over 2 years and had not committed the least misdemeanor. But because he was dubbed as “dangerous”, he was handcuffed during visits and was not allowed to work. Detainee Ioan Florin Ursan also contested his placement into the aforementioned category. He said that during a previous prison term, his record was falsely charged at the Tg. Jiu Penitentiary with the mention that he had planned to escape. He never had any incident report either. The daily open air program lasted between 45 and 60 minutes, from Monday to Sunday. The detainees spent the rest of the time in their room, watching TV. During summer, they played football, organizing penitentiary championships. Detainees here also expressed their wish to be able to watch other programs than the public channel Romania 1. They received old newspapers once about every two months. Medical care was appreciated as good and food “so and so”. Detainees in Room 22 did not have any complaints about the staff. However, when the parcels were opened, they were not always able to see what they contained, because the officers on duty closed the shutter of the detainees window. Visits lasted for 45 minutes and phone calls ten minutes, once a week. Detainees were not provided with chlorine for the disinfection of toilets, nor detergent, but received toilet paper, disposable razors, shaving cream (every two months) and laundry soap. The bathroom looked exactly as in the other rooms. Detainees bathed once a week.
Room no. 79, in the old building, where massive repairs were going on, hosted 50 detainees (repeated offenders, with final sentences) in 79 beds (the room measured about 120 sq. m) conditions here were deplorable: mattresses were old and ragged, lighting very poor, the room desolate and the air humid and stale. Detainees complained they had lice, and the representatives of the Association could see the lice for themselves. The food was terrible (the representatives of APADOR-CH saw two second course servings, looking and smelling as bad as the ones mentioned earlier). Detainees also complained about medical care. They could get to the infirmary ward only with great difficulty and the treatment was scarce and inefficient (doctors, detainees said, „only give us Paracetamol and Aspirin no matter what we have”). The worst cases were detainees with dental problems. Mihai Gigica had had a tooth infection for 5 or 6 months. The wish to be able to watch other TV channels than Romania 1 was also expressed in here. The daily open air program lasted for half an hour to one hour.
The restrictive regime room hosted detainee Eugen Pintilie. He was serving 10 months of restrictive regime because around mid-December he had climbed one of the buildings of the penitentiary. His gesture was meant as a protest for a disciplinary punishment he had considered unfair: an inmate had broken a window and he got punished instead because the respective mate was about to be released. Pintilie had been on restrictive regime since January 2004, but he had not been allowed to receive visits for 10 months already (before the restrictive regime, there had been other incidents, less of a threat against penitentiary discipline and safety, such as swallowing a spoon handle). The detainee showed the representatives of APADOR-CH a letter by which his sister asked him when she would be allowed to visit again and told that he didn’t have any idea what to answer. The representatives of the Association told the management that, in their opinion, even if the detainee had earned those successive punishments, it was obviously excessive (and very counterproductive, among others for his social reinsertion) to deny him the right to see his family for such a long period of time. The governor agreed to the reasoning and decided to analyze the situation and take the required steps. The detainee exercised for one hour per day in the open air, seven days a week, but he was always handcuffed. The room was very cold. There were a Turkish toilet seat and a sink, both inside the room. The window could not be opened for airing the room, because the room was separated from the windowed wall by a barred shutter, blocked with a screw.
The confinement room was occupied by detainee Petrică Marcu. He had accumulated a high number of incident reports and was punished by 6 months of restrictive regime. The 10 days of confinement (of which only two were left) were an extra punishment for having beaten detainee Eugen Pintilie, his room mate. Marcu told the representatives of the Association that it was himself who had been, in fact, beaten by Pintilie and officer Lucian Gireadă, the shift supervisor (the detainee had a black and blue left eye, with the inside all reddened). Marcu said that a month earlier, Gireadă had come to his restrictive regime room, handcuffed him to the bed, put a cloth in his mouth and kicked him. (Allegedly, after the incident with Pintilie, Gireadă had denied him a meal or two, and Marcu had yelled at him, in protest). The detainee looked physically abused and seemed to have suffered a psychological trauma. He complained of kidney pains following the alleged beating. The following day, he was supposed to go to the Tg. Ocna Penitentiary Hospital. The infirmary specified that Marcu was going to hospital in order to be placed “under observation for: chronic bronchitis caused by tobacco smoke, chronic toxic and drug-induced hepatitis, chronic back pain”. The medical record of the detainee also contained the following notes: 11.12.2003 – second and third degree burns on dorsal aspect of right hand, self-aggression; 17.12.2003 - voluntary drug intoxication, intended suicide; 19.12.2003 – Botoşani County Clinic: emotionally unstable nuclear personality disorder, neurotic behavior, apparently phenomenal-situational; 21.01.2004 – head and face trauma following aggression (“He was beaten by Pintilie”, the representative of the management and the nurse declared); 22.01.2004 – Oral and Maxilofacial Clinic in Botoşani: contusion on left middle/superior region, temporal excoriation; 23.01.2004 – Botoşani Policlinic, Ophthalmology section – left eye globe contusion, palpebral ecchymosis and subconjunctival hemorrhage. The representatives of the Association pointed out that detainee Marcu represented a very unusual case, firstly because, as the penitentiary representatives maintained, he created problems due to an inclination for misconduct, and secondly due to a possible psychiatric or psychological condition. The representatives of APADOR-CH considered that there was no excuse for the state in which they had found detainee Marcu. They spent more time with him than with any other detainee, yet nothing indicated that his case was unsolvable, that cascading punishments were unavoidable and, most of all, that he needed to be kept in that deplorable physical and psychological condition. The detainee was absolutely coherent in talking to the representatives of the Association, admitting that he had done things he was not supposed to, but also speaking (with bitterness and visible physical suffering) about the inhuman treatment he had been subjected to over the last one or two months (the detainee did not label or accuse, merely answered – with difficulty and visible sadness – to questions). The room was very cold, the radiator was cold. The concrete bed was covered with one blanket, which the detainee had been given because he had complained of severe pain in the kidneys. The Turkish toilet was not separated from the room.
3. The case of juvenile Cristian Alexandru Hulub
During a routine check around 4.50 in the morning (in November 2003), the section guard found Hulub hanged by one of the beds. From the discussions with former room-mates, it turned out that the evening prior to his suicide, Hulub went to bed earlier, before 21.00, and crossed himself before sleep. His suicidal gesture made no noise such as to wake up the other inmates. Nobody could see what Hulub did because in rooms with less than 10 detainees there was no permanent duty service. Hulub’s former room-mates had noticed that he was always sad (he had only arrived for one week from the Suceava police). They said that, from what they understood from Hulub, he was upset about what had happened, about having ended up in prison and having hurt his parents (he didn’t expect them to come looking for him). The prison managers and former room-mates knew that Hulub had sent his parents, shortly before committing suicide, a letter of apology for all the trouble he had caused. A former room-mate also said that Hulub was upset because he had been beaten by juveniles in his room, but he was afraid to report that to the management. The room-mates were never questioned by any prosecutor in connection with the case. In December 2003, the Prosecutor’s Office by the Botoşani Tribunal informed the penitentiary by phone that the case was closed, without having found anyone responsible for the juvenile’s suicide.
Two or three days before Hulub’s suicide, two juveniles suffered from drug intoxication. The management said that they had taken an overdose of Diazepam pills to get stoned (they had allegedly obtained the pills by the “carriage” method). The discussion with the juveniles revealed, however, that, at least in one of the cases (the juvenile who was still in the penitentiary), the pills were a form of protest against the abusive behavior of N.C.O. Claudiu Corman, who had allegedly sworn at him and hit him with his truncheon. The two juveniles were taken to hospital and given stomach lavage.
4. The discussion with detainees who had written to APADOR-CH
Detainee Florea Gheorghe wrote to the Association, on January 20th, 2004, that he was not allowed to make copies of certain documents in his penitentiary file. On January 23rd, 2004, the Association notified the case to the DGP. Following a check-up, the detainee was allowed to make the copies he needed in order to file a petition to the European Court. During the discussion with the representatives of the Association, the detainee specified that his letter contained a misconception and that it was in fact the Botoşani Court which prevented him from photocopying the documents. On the day of the visit, the detainee had not yet received the letter from APADOR-CH, dated January 23rd, informing him that his case had been notified to the DGP.
Detainee Eugen Buliga had notified the Association that, when he and his sister, who was also detained at the Botoşani Penitentiary, were allowed to meet, they lost one visitation round each, although the request was only filed in by one of them. The representatives of the Association presented this case to the management and the governor promised that he would seek a sensible solution (the detainee was informed of the answer).
Adrian Munteanu wrote APADOR-CH on July 4th, 2003. He complained mainly that he did not receive envelopes for his mail, that the room was infested with lice and that the staff abused detainees. During the discussion with Munteanu and the visit to the section where he was detained, his complaints were largely confirmed. Munteanu also complained of having been beaten by N.C.O. Moroşanu. He had lodged a complaint with the Military Prosecutor’s Office but he had withdrawn it after being threatened by Moroşanu (after lodging his complaint, he had received two punishment reports, one of which by Moroşanu). The representatives of the Association informed the management about this detainee’s complaints as well, and asked that detainees’ rights should be adhered to and that punishments against those who point out to deficiencies should be avoided.
5. Conclusions
APADOR-CH notes that in what concerns the accommodation of detainees, the situation in Botoşani Penitentiary has improved after the inauguration of a new living unit. The Association considers that DGP should continue to support further investments planned by the penitentiary, especially the repairs of the old living unit and the connection to the gas supply line.
At the same time, the Association believes that, the management of the penitentiary should consider the following aspects:
- There is a large number of complaints, especially from juveniles, regarding the abusive behavior of certain members of the staff; the most frequently mentioned names were those of noncommissioned officers Cătălin, Claudiu Corman, Pintilie and Cheptănaru; on the contrary, the juveniles praised the behavior of noncommissioned officers Petrică, Dinu şi Panait;
- The very serious situation of detainee Petrică Marcu (chapter 2, the confinement room); the Association does not doubt the fact that, by his character and behavior, the detainee might create problems for the staff; however, the physical, psychological and disciplinary state of the detainee indicate serious deficiencies in the relations between the staff and the detainee and in the treatment he has been subjected to; APADOR-CH asks the DGP to order a check-up of the case and take the necessary steps against those responsible for Petrică’s current state; APADOR-CH considers that violence against detainees occurring in this penitentiary (and in others, as notified over the last months by the Association) should occupy a priority place on the DGP agenda.
- The lack of activity among detainees; the penitentiary should make sure that detainees, and especially juveniles, have activities to fill their time, considering mainly their need for education, entertainment and preparation for social reinsertion; it is absolutely necessary that juveniles benefit from at least one hour per day of open air exercise;
- The food: the Botoşani Penitentiary is among those with the highest number of complaints about the quality of food for detainees;
- Dubbing detainees as “dangerous”; the representatives of the Association were able to see that, like three years ago, that detainees are still placed into that category mainly based on past misconduct, or undocumented information in their records, taking very little into account their good behavior during months or even years inside the Botoşani Penitentiary; relevant case in that respect are those of Petrică Marius Monoranu and Ioan Florin Ursan (chapter 2, room 22); dubbing detainees as “dangerous” without sound reason has bad consequences upon their situation, leading to their discontent and tensions in the relations with the staff;
- Accommodation in the old living unit; until the building is repaired and refurbished, better conditions must be ensured for detainees here;
- Other aspects: with minimal spending (or even at no cost at all) the penitentiary could improve the living standards and treatment of detainees by: connecting the unit to cable TV so that other channels than the Romania 1 may be watched; detainees who do not have a final sentence must be allowed to wear their own clothes at all times, as provided by the European and UN penitentiary regulations; loudspeakers in rooms should provide the preferred kind of music for detainees.
Diana-Olivia Călinescu Valerian Stan
