Raport asupra vizitei la penitenciarul Codlea

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. On March 9, 2001, the representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Codlea penitentiary in the county of Brasov.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The penitentiary, covering the county of Brasov, is in place since 1953, on the site of a former salami factory. After December 1989 significant improvements have been implemented, from the initial cellular system (very small detention rooms) to relatively acceptable accommodation facilities. The number of installed beds, exceeding by circa 40% the design capacity (870 as to 640), varies between 6 and 24 in a room. The lavatories from each room have a shower, with hot water three days a week plus a day for the common bath.

The penitentiary has a 10 hectare farming land, and other 20 hectares (cultivated solely with fodder) being leased. In the form they breed 800 pigs, 1,000 chickens and 100 cattle, covering all the needs for meat, cheese, eggs and milk.

Finding jobs for detainees is more difficult in Codlea than in other penitentiaries. Since this is not a farming area, the penitentiary’s leadership is always looking for contracts with beneficiaries interested in working with detainees. In the visit’s day, only 77 detainees out of the total 1,103 were out for work (15 for outside beneficiaries, 22 in the farm and 40 inside the penitentiary). The penitentiary has contracts with a hose manufacturing company, with the Mercedes representative office (subassembly recapping) and a construction company, yet they only provide a very small number of jobs. Periodically, the detainees clean the cities of Codlea and Brasov.

The penitentiary has two public phones for the detainees. They may also use a third phone in the administrative are of the penitentiary. Although the access to phone calls is based on the heavy procedure established by the General Directorate of Penitentiaries (individual written application – with the detainee’s personal information as well as the phone number and name of the person to be called – submitted to the leadership, followed by an appointment), the leadership of the Codlea penitentiary established that every detainee can make two phone calls a month, unlike most of the other visited penitentiaries, where that right was limited to one call a month.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of the total 1,103 detainees, 25 are minors, 194 are young people (aged between 18-21) and 21 are women. The remaining 863 are adult men. A number of 288 persons are in police custody, 22 serve a term in prison for petty offences and 793 have final penal convictions. The penitentiary does not have a semi-open ward, it only has an unguarded room for detainees.

Around 140 staff work directly with the detainees, which means a ratio of one guard for 8 detainees, much above the European standards yet also above the ratio reported by the General Directorate of Penitentiaries (one guard for 6 detainees).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For officer, an unlisted officer and the priest work in the socio-cultural department. Among them one is a psychologist and one lady is a sociologist, both focusing on the work with the minors and youth from the penitentiary. All the programmes and projects unfolded with partners from outside the penitentiary system are co-ordinated by this department. Unfortunately, in December 2000 the General Directorate of Penitentiaries decided that the organisations having such projects must renew their collaboration protocols, which meant in fact the temporary interruption of those activities. The effects have been obviously negative both for the detainees, staying in their rooms for 23 hours out of 24 (except for the few ones who are out for work) and for the officers (the staff of the socio-cultural department is insufficient for the high number of detainees and the guard staff must deal with the tensions occurring in the rooms due to the very lack of activity).

APADOR-CH considers that, due to the low number of non-governmental organisations interested in working with detainees, the General Directorate of Penitentiaries should encourage them rather than imposing bureaucratic obstacles. The Association reminds that the conclusions and recommendations of the UN Special Reporteur against torture, who visited Romania in April 1999, included the access of the non-governmental organisations in penitentiaries.

APADOR-CH mentioned in the report of the visit of its representatives in the Ploiesti penitentiary of this February the existence of an order of January 10, 2001, of the Head Chaplain from the General Directorate of Penitentiaries regarding the obligation of the orthodox priest from every penitentiary to assist to the discussions with the representatives of other cults and the ban for the latter ones to distribute small gifts to detainees (usually envelopes, paper, pens etc.) based on the fear of proselytism. The Association has already brought constitutional and ethical arguments against such a measure.

The Association demands the General Directorate of Penitentiaries to allow the free access in the penitentiaries to all the non-governmental organisations, proving that the measures taken since 1991 for aligning to the European standards and ensuring the transparency of the activities in the penitentiary system are not an accident.

The Humanitarian Service for Penitentiaries organised qualification courses for brick/faience/mosaic layers (14 detainees) and cooks (4 detainees), providing the trainers and the necessary materials. At the date of the visit made by the representatives of APADOR-CH, the training courses were over and there was only a remote possibility for organising a new qualification course, probably in constructions and rubber processing. It is not clear whether the Humanitarian Service for Penitentiaries still has access to penitentiaries and the new qualification course will be organised by them.

A number 14 detainees, who have already been selected, are to be transferred to the Aiud penitentiary for a qualification course for stokers, which it seems that was initiated by the General Directorate of Penitentiaries.

The Christian Baptist Church no 1 from Brasov organised in Codlea the programme entitled “The Good News” combining the religious education and aid, mostly by sponsoring a publication where most of the articles were written by officers and detainees (100 copies were sent to the penitentiary). From December 2000, this programme has been suspended.

The representatives of “Jehovah’s Witnesses” were coming to the penitentiary every one or two weeks. From December 2000 they have been denied access to the penitentiary.

The Adventist Church from Codlea and the Adventist Church from Brasov also had programmes with detainees. They have been halted in December 2000.

The Pro Democra]ia Association – the Brasov branch – had been organised special programmes for the minors committed in Codlea for two years (1998 – 2000). In this case it seems that the programmes were stopped due to the fact that the funds provided by the European Union were exhausted. However, the Pro Democra]ia Association brought to the penitentiary students from the Psychology Faculty who have been denied access since December 2000 to this detention facility.

In the Codlea penitentiary there is a school (1^st to 8^th grades), attended by around 40 detainees, mostly youth and minors.

The staff of the socio-cultural department make efforts to cope with the needs of over one thousand detainees. A remarkable success was mounting a playlet with minors acting in it. This was not dramatherapy but mounting classic texts, with the penitentiary psychologist being the “director” of the playlet. The 18-20 minors involved are highly interested in this programme, proving that any action outside the patter of boring “conferences” has a beneficial impact.

Another meritorious initiative is the meetings between the parents of the minors committed to this penitentiary with the penitentiary staff and the detained children. The penitentiary psychologist, directly involved in this action, drew a series of concrete conclusions, which have resulted, among others, in the direct contact with the parents whenever upon their request.

The only occasion when the detainees from Codlea were taken out of the penitentiary for a cultural-educational activity was back in 1999. Since then no such actions have been organised. It should also be mentioned that such initiatives are approved by the General Directorate of Penitentiaries, which, in the opinion of APADOR-CH, is a discouragement to local initiatives and a bureaucratic obstacle to establishing a relationship between the detainees and the community, which is instrumental for their reintegration in the society following their release.

The action plan of the socio-cultural department in Codlea also includes the establishment of the “visitors’ committee”, following the recommendation of the General Directorate of Penitentiaries. The Directorate had this idea more than three years ago yet it failed since it was a purely formal initiative. Inviting representatives of the authorities – including the police and prosecutor’s office, hence institutions directly involved in the penal process – to impartially appraise the detention conditions and the problems of detainees would have been a totally inefficient endeavour. According to the explanations given by the staff of the socio-cultural department of the Codlea penitentiary, this time they envisage including in this committee regular persons rather than local personalities, which, anyway, “would not have time for such a thing”. Provided that such visitors’ committees will be really independent APADOR-CH can only support this initiative. Nevertheless, the representatives of APADOR-CH opposed to the idea of including in this committee persons who worked in this penitentiary and are now retired. It is obvious that such persons could never express any critique towards the system. APADOR-CH fears that the establishment of a purely formal visitors’ committee could lead to the elimination of the non-government organisations currently monitoring the penitentiary system.

The deputy director of the prison stated that absolutely all the detainees with incident reports are heard by the officer in charge of disciplinary matters and then by the disciplinary commission, irrespective to the nature of the deed and the seriousness of the sanction. However, the three persons being held in the isolation ward on the day of the visit declared that they had not been brought in front of any commission. The officer in charge of disciplinary matters conceded that the detainees were right, trying to argue that the three admitted the deeds for which they had been accused, so that “there was no point in being heard by the commission”. APADOR-CH mentions the fact the procedure established by an order issued by the General Directorate of Penitentiaries makes no distinction between the detainees having admitted their guilt and those contesting the truthfulness of the incident reports. Moreover, the idea of a fair “trial”, be it within the current limits of the penitentiary system, supposes the use of all appeal procedures at the disposal of detainees (the officer in charge of disciplinary matters, the disciplinary commission, the penitentiary director/commanding officer and, finally, the prosecutor in charge of the concerned penitentiary).

The representatives of APADOR-CH noticed that in penitentiary, the same as in other penitentiaries, the detainees can be punished for “impolite attitude” towards officers and other official persons, going to the isolation penalty. (For details, see the section on “dangerous detainees and isolation ward”). The Association reiterates its disapproval to the uncivilised behaviour of certain detainees. On the other hand, sanctioning any word uttered or gesture made by a detainee under permanent stress (due to his sentence, overcrowding, other detention conditions, inactivity etc.) may have extremely negative effects on the relationships between him and the penitentiary staff. In the opinion of APADOR-CH, the officers and unlisted officers from the penitentiary system should be more tolerant to the outbursts of detainees, provided they are strictly verbal. The Association reminds that the draft law on harmonising some provisions of the penal Code with Recommendation 1123/1997 of the Council of Europe, which has already been passed by the Chamber of Deputies and is currently on the Senate’s agenda, abrogates the verbal outrage (article 239 paragraph 1) and eliminates the prison penalty for insult (article 205).

The representatives of APADOR-CH were assured that in the Codlea penitentiary no chains are used for immobilising certain detainees considered dangerous, as seen during the visit made earlier this year to the Ploiesti penitentiary. It should be noted that the order of the former Justice Minister (of March 24, 2000) stipulates that “with the director’s approval”.... “handcuffs or chains may be used” (emphasis added). In other words in the Ploiesti penitentiary (see this year’s APADOR-CH report) the director “approved” the use of both immobilisation means, violating the –debatable as it is – issued by the former Minister.

The representatives of the Association found out that following the escape from Codlea of Florin Com\naru, a.k.a. Bostoac\, in late 1999, the General Directorate of Penitentiaries sanctioned the commanding officers of the penitentiary from that period either by cutting some financial benefits or by demoting them, prior to the courts to rule over the case. Following the application of the sanctions, it was found out that the guards from the working point where the convict escaped from, “excused” him in exchange of money and gifts. The respective unlisted officers were discharged and sentenced in court. APADOR-CH considers that sanctioning the commanding officers can only be justified by the persistence of a rigid mentality specific to the military system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A high mark for the Codlea penitentiary is the fact that cooked meals are provided every day of the week, Saturdays and Sundays included, unlike other penitentiaries where the weekend food is cold. Another good initiative is that the meat (or rather lard with a little bit of meat) is served separately, so that, in theory, every detainee should receive his or her ration. In most penitentiaries the meat, meat products and lard are incorporated in the dishes and become almost impossible to identify.

In Codlea, on the day of the visit, they took out of the storage facility 86.650 kilos of pork, 2.5 kilos of poultry, 17.320 kilos of pork sub-products and 37 kilos of lard. The daily menu included the following: for breakfast : biscuits, tea, bread – for the general menu; biscuits, tea, bread, cheese, lard and eggs – for diet; for lunch: potato soup and cabbage and meat (rather lard) – for the general menu, and vegetable soup and potato stew – for diet; for dinner: boiled rice and fried lard – for the general menu, and plain boiled rice – for diet.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two general practitioners and four military nurses (out of which one is in maternity leave) plus a civilian nurse provide the medical care 24 hours a day, out of which 3 hours a day from the doctors’ programme (8 a.m. – 9 a.m., 1 p.m. – 2 p.m., and 6 p.m. –7 p.m.) are reserved for prison staff. APADOR-CH reminds that, according to some written clarifications received from the General Directorate of Penitentiaries, the doctors and nurses in penitentiaries should provide specialised health care only in emergency situations or for the annual compulsory check. This measures – welcomed by the Association – is not applied in any penitentiary. APADOR-CH insists on the arguments invoked in the last few years: the detainees fully depend on the penitentiary doctors, while the prison staff may see after the working hours a significant number of doctors, from family doctors to specialists from private clinics or emergency rooms; it is obvious that in the 5-6 hours reserved by the doctors to the detainees, no serious consultations can be performed (in less than 10 minutes, and in some cases less than 5 minutes, by detainee no complete and competent consultation can be made); in some penitentiaries, the doctors also consult the family members of staff further reducing the time allotted to the detainees.

In the Codlea penitentiary, the doctor declared that there are recorded around 40 detainees with psychic diseases, out of which minimum 4 or 5 should be in a specialised institution rather than a penitentiary. The most frequent conditions of detainees are cardio-vasculary, digestive, dermatological and diabetic.

The infirmary is too small: there are in total three rooms, out of which one with two detainees suffering from active tuberculosis, one with three detainees with chicken pox, and the third one with three aged detainees, with various diseases. The infirmary is planned to be extended. A design was performed and funds were requested two years ago yet no concrete results have been achieved. APADOR-CH requests the General Directorate of Penitentiaries to grant the necessary funds for renovating the infirmary.

It was not clear in what conditions the HIV test is made. The understanding of the representatives of the Association is that this test is made is following the examination of the results of the RBW test (for syphilis) there are “suspicions”, rather than telling the concerned detainees what is all about and obtaining their agreement in written for taking the HIV test. The Association insists on the right of detainees to knowingly agree for the HIV test.

Detainee Ioan Colesiu (aged 68) had, besides many other diseases, an eczema on all the body surface. Although he had been using the ointments prescribed by the doctor for about six weeks, he complained that no improvement had been noticed. The penitentiary doctor said that in such cases, the treatment might last even as long as six month. The representatives of the Association suggested the penitentiary’s commanding officers that Ioan Colesiu should also be examined by a dermatologist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ward for “dangerous detainees” consists of three specially arranged rooms (with two rows of bars at the doors and windows), out of which only two were occupied. Detainee Francisc Bencsa was alone in room 58, upon the expressed request of the investigators; he was accused or armed robbery on a bank in Belgium. The detainee has a television set in the room, he receives newspapers and correspondence, has not made any problems to the penitentiary staff and did not complain of anything.

A special situation is related to the two detainees in room 58. Ovidiu Gheorghe Baciu and Ionu] Voican were sentenced in the first instance to life sentence for murder. Although every person must be considered innocent until the ruling of a final court decision, the penitentiary director and the deputy director in charge of guard and treatment decided to move them from the “common” ward to the ward for “dangerous detainees”. Until the ruling of the sentence, the two had stayed in a regular room and had had no conflicts either with the officers or the other detainees. The representatives of APADOR-CH consider that including those detainees in the category of “dangerous detainees” should be made only based on their behaviour in the penitentiary rather than the nature of their deed or their penal sanction. Baciu and Voican are involved in the same lawsuit. The former says he is innocent and that the deed was committed by Voican, which the latter admits. It is easy to understand the constant tension between the two, alone in a room, as well as their wish to be moved in the common ward. However, the penitentiary leadership is not willing to meet their demand. Moreover, on their penitentiary files, the deputy director in charge of guard and treatment mentioned “escape attempt”, which is not supported by any evidence. Finally, he conceded that he based his allegations only on the information, most likely verbal, since there is no written report or note in the files, from SIPA (the intelligence service of the Justice Ministry).

The representatives of APADOR-CH saw in other penitentiaries files bearing such mentions (or “attack on officers”, or just “dangerous”), some originating from SIPA, others from the police, which were not supported by written justifications. In some cases, the mentions were made in pencil with an indecipherable signature or even unsigned. Such a categorisation of detainees has effects on the entire detention period, since such detainees are not taken outside for work, are subject to a more severe surveillance, and may be constantly rejected by the parole commissions. Although the Association agrees that there are dangerous detainees, in its opinion, the classification in this category must be made based on concrete evidence, included in their penitentiary files, of course, while protecting the information sources.

The situation of detainee Baciu raises another problem. He was punished to 10 days in the isolation ward upon the written request of the head prosecutor mentioning that Baciu “had an inadequate behaviour that disturbed the order and solemnity of the hearing” in court. It should be noted that it is not the judge complained about the detainee’s behaviour and that the incident report was prepared by the surveillance officers four days after the receipt of the letter from the Prosecutor’s Office. Detainee Baciu made three statements where he claimed that he had not disturbed the meeting and that he had only pleaded his cause. The procedure of punishing the detainees for violations of the internal regulations of penitentiaries is based on the incident report prepared by a penitentiary staff rather than an imperative request made by a person from outside the system, be it a head prosecutor.

The isolation room accomodated three detainees, each with ten days of isolation, who, as mentioned above, declared that they had not been heard by the disciplinary commission, which was conceded by the officers yet “justified” by the fact that all three admitted their guilt. Only that the detainees claimed that the committed violation – sexual perversions – occurred with the consent of the “victim”, who was also “paid for his services”. The punishment was applied only based on the statement of the detainee claiming he was assaulted. Moreover, the heads of the three detainees had been shaven and the detainees had not been examined by the doctor when placed in the isolation room. The medical examination is compulsory in such situations, since the carry out, delay or annulment of the punishment depends on the doctor’s opinion.

According to the opinion of the penitentiary staff, since the coarsening of the isolation conditions (the mattresses and bed sheets are removed at 5 a.m. and brought back at 10 p.m.; the “beds” are made of stone; smoking is allowed only during the daily exercise; there is no television set or radio etc.) the number of serious violations of the regulations has been diminished. APADOR-CH requests the General Directorate of Penitentiaries that at least the mattresses to be left in the isolation rooms, since sitting on cold stone could have negative effects on the health of punished detainees.

Near the isolation ward there is the restrictive regime room. On the day of the visit, there was no detainee with such punishment. The room was occupied by three detainees – one punished for a petty offence and two transferred from other penitentiaries for judiciary matters – who requested to be separated from the others.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In room 31 (minors) there were 14 detainees in 12 beds. The minors benefit from exercise on a daily basis for 30-60 minute and can play football (the penitentiary has two playing fields outside the prison walls, which raises problems related to guarding the detainees). The minors were excited by the fact that they are used for short plays or playlets, at the initiative of the penitentiary psychologist. They complained about the poor quality of food, especially the main lunch course, which does not usually contain meat. Some minors did not even touch on the cabbage served on the day of the visit.

In room 32 there were 15 in 15 beds. Most of the detainees have bed linen brought from home. In room 7 there were 7 persons in 6 beds. The detainees had check and gin-rummy games, papers and readings books. In room 38, 19 detainees shared 15 beds.

Each room had a lavatory consisting of a water closet, sink and hot water shower (for three days a week). In the women ward, in excess of this programme, the detainees may have hot water on request. In this ward, the representatives of the Association met a 18 years old young woman – Cristina Maria Diplas – who had 30 fine tickets in 2000 written by the police officers from police station III (Tractorul) in Brasov. According to her statement, the young woman – who ran away from home – was hanging around in the Brasov railway station and in the nearby bazaar together with other young people in the same situation. Obviously, she did not have the money to pay the fines (the amounts varied between ROL 100,000 and ROL 1,200,000), she did not know that she may appeal in court against them or that she could have asked the court that, instead of term in prison, to provide community service. In a similar situation, yet with fewer tickets written by police officers from the same police station III, is detainee Mihaela Ciurar, aged 19. The representatives of APADOR-CH consider that this young woman’s problems cannot be solved by an exaggerated number of fines, which she was unable to pay, or by a term in prison. The police officers should contact the families of these young women and try to find a solution.

Detainee Victoria Ben]a has to carry out 60 days of prison for petty offences following the same failure of paying fines. The woman has ulcer, eczema on both feet and she cannot see well. Although the law must be enforced, of course, in such cases, the courts could show mercy. The prison punishment for not paying fines, which are many times given to easily, cannot have beneficial effects on the concerned persons, and for the state is nothing but another expense.

The ward of detainees with no guard means only a room where 41 detainees shared 46 beds. Although they are classified as “no guard”, the detainees are not entitled to leave the room whenever they want, and when they leave for work, they are accompanied by armed guards. They still have some minor advantages (lavatory with two showers, daily hot water, and more relaxed programme) and a different status, since they are used for supervising the other detainees.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The penitentiary has three exercise yards (one of which is for the exclusive use of the “dangerous detainees”), which are spacious yet lack anything that could allow the detainees to do something else than just walk. The representatives of APADOR-CH suggested the installation of basketball hoops, handball goals, or fitness equipment. In addition to the exercise yards, there are the above mentioned football grounds.

The “visit” ward is spacious, with 7 booths with phones for the dangerous detainees and around 20 seats on desks with no parting windowpanes. The rooms for meetings with lawyers is rather small (`a table, two chairs and a bench can fit in it), yet is ensures the confidentiality of discussions, with the guards left outside.

The mail is distributed on a daily basis, and the parcels are picked twice a week. The representatives of the Association were assured that in the warm season the parcels are picked up almost on a daily basis to avoid the food alteration.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the Codlea penitentiary is also overcrowded, the detention conditions are better than in other penitentiaries visited by APADOR-CH;

Two of the measures taken in this penitentiary (the right to two phone calls a month and the separate distribution of meat portions) should be generalised provided that the access of detainees to phone calls should be simplified;

APADOR-CH requests the penitentiary leadership to comply with the procedures established for sanctioning the violations of internal regulations irrespective whether the detainees admit their guilt or not. In addition to that, the Association does not consider appropriate the punishment of detainees based on a note from a person outside the system, irrespective to the position of such person;

The Association requests the penitentiary leadership to reconsider the situation of the two life sentenced detainees in the first instance (moved in the ward “dangerous detainees” only on the basis of their sentence; the mention “escape attempt” on their penitentiary filed; the ten days of isolation for detainee Baciu). If it is considered that they need to remain in the ward for “dangerous detainees”, then the reasons should be explained to them;

APADOR-CH considers that the SIPA employees should not have the power to decide on the classification of detainees in one category or another. At most they could propose such a thing, yet only based on clear evidence and written reports (possibly protecting the sources) included in the penitentiary files. The final decision should be exclusively with the leadership of the concerned penitentiary;

The Association requests the General Directorate of Penitentiaries to reconsider the order on the possibility to use chains and to allow the mattresses to be kept in the isolation rooms during the day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------