Report regarding the visit to the Colibaşi Penitentiary

  

On July 15^th, 2003, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Colibaşi Penitentiary, in Argeş County.

 

1. General aspects

The penitentiary had maintained the previous profile, hosting detainees who served terms of up to ten years, both first time and repeated offenders. Unlike in previous years, when the penitentiary had also hosted detainees from Teleorman County, now it only served the counties of Argeş and Vâlcea (Teleorman County currently used the Giurgiu Penitentiary).

At the moment of the visit, the penitentiary hosted 1133 in 1198 installed beds; but since, “legally”, it should have housed 1037 people (at the calculated density of  one detainee/6 cubic metres), it resulted that the penitentiary was 110% occupied. (The representatives of the Association recommended the management of the penitentiary to calculate the “occupation ratio” by using the criteria of the 1999 Report of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), meaning at least 4,5 sqm/detainee in normal cells and 4 sqm in confinement spaces).

Of the 1133 detainees, 1092 were men and 41 were women. 61 of the total were youngsters and 14 underage (minors were being held in the penitentiary while “legal maters” were being solved, then transferred to the Re-education Centre in Găeşti). 938 of the detainees had definitive sentences, 97 were in custody, 94 were pending appeal and 4 were sentenced to prison for petty offences.

The total number of operative staff was 211 (15 officers and 196 non-commissioned officers), meaning that the ratio between them and the detainees was of approximately 1/6.

There were relatively few options to take detainees out to work. The average number of detainees who had had jobs during the first half of 2003 was 69 (mainly in constructions and agriculture). The representatives of APADOR-CH reminded the management the request made by the CPT in its 1999 Report, to do everything in their power to find work for detainees, and not to regard the current scarcity as inevitable. The management of the penitentiary agreed that the current situation demanded improvement. A possible solution was to have DGP agree that detainees may work for lower wages – the DGP has established these at the level of the minimum wage per economy. The management mentioned that it could find employers who would pay detainees about 14-15 000 lei/hour, which, if allowed by the DGP, would be beneficial for both the penitentiary (money earned from the work of detainees) and the detainees themselves (who would not have to sit for months and years in the same room, without any activity, and could earn money and deduct days from their prison term). According to the prison managers, the “operative” staff could be organised so as to provide proper security for the work squads.

The representatives of the Association found out that several cases of scabies had been recently detected in the penitentiary. The management explained that the disease was spread because among the detainees “there are some who would not wash themselves”.

The farming department had 24,5 hectares of land and an animal farm with 34 cows, 820 pigs and 324 poultry, providing all the meat and 70% of the eggs and cheese for the food of detainees. The penitentiary had a real problem because there were not enough money to buy fodder (they were 50% short for barley and would probably be in the same situation in autumn, when corn has to be bought).

The use of chains had been completely abandoned. For infringements of the ROI (internal regulations), the management applied lighter sentences, seldom using confinement, and that only when the infringements are comitteed with violence.

A positive fact was that, over the last years, the courts in Piteşti had accepted 90% of the parole files submitted by the penitentiary.

According to the management, measures had been taken to ensure the detainees’ full rights to correspondence, as recently ordered by the Government. There were three telephone lines which to be used by detainees twice a months (and in any other special circumstances). It is worth mentioning that for detainees who could not afford it, the penitentiary provided free (“social”) phone cards, within a total spending limit of “a few hundred thousands per month”.

2. The visit to the penitentiary

2.1  The kitchen area

Besides the food for the inmates, the kitchen also prepared food for the Colibaşi Penitentiary Hospital, hosting 250 ailing detainees.

For lunch, on the day of the visit, there was vegetable soup and potato and meat gravy; the same menu was being prepared for the ”common” meal and for the “diet” meal, excepting the quantity of salt, which had been limited by the doctors for those on diet. There had been no difference in the menus for breakfast either – marmalade, biscuits and tea. For dinner, there was pasta and meat for everybody (just that in “diet” they could not replace meat with fat, as they did in the “common” meal). 59 kilos of pork, 200 kilos of pork by-products and 19,5 kilos of fat were used for the day’s meals. The second course at lunch contained almost exclusively fat and pork by-products, which was consistent with the quantities of such products taken from storage, as compared to the quantity of meat. Anyway, the representatives of the Association considered that, in such a situation, both bookkeeping records and medical records should have mentioned that the menu for the second course at lunch was “potato and fat gravy”,  instead of “potato and meat”.

The kitchen was very steamy and hot, because, as it was explained, the airing system was out of order and was going to be fixed “in a couple of days”.

The food products in the storage house had the expiry date labelled on them (and were all fit for consumption), except for a load of “Dobrogea” biscuits. During the visit, the logistics department requested the information from the suppliers and received a fax confirming that the respective biscuits were within validity term. The representatives of the Association insisted however that the purchase documents and expiry date should have been on the food, as in the other cases.

2.2. Detention areas

Cell-room no. 104 hosted 28 women detainees in 30 beds. The detainees were satisfied with the conditions in the penitentiary, and especially with the way they were being treated by the staff. They were taken out for two hours a day (one in the morning and one in the evening) every day of the week, and once a week they had an outdoor program. Hot water ran every day and once a month they were supplied with soap, cotton, toothpaste and toilet paper. The bathroom had 3 Turkish toilets, 3 sinks and 3 shower cabins. The culture and education department organized civic and medical education courses for the women. There was a TV set in the room, a loudspeaker, and daily papers. Women detainees were allowed to have knitting tools from home. They were able make two phone calls per month. Recently, the penitentiary had rented three rooms (about 50 sqm) to a company (SC Favorit Sorinex SRL) which was going to start a textile assembly line (making overalls and car covers) using 10 detainees. The only complaint of the women was that during the visits (including visits from their children) they had to wear their prison uniforms.

The young men from cell-room no. 201 (8 detainees in 8 beds) were in the walking area of Section II. Ilie Onică had wounds all over his body. He had had them for two months, had been admitted into hospital, then released and told that he was cured (the detainee thought otherwise). Detainee Claudiu Bârzache had about the same wounds; the detainees had no idea what were the doctors’ diagnoses, but the representatives of the Association were left under the impression that it could be scabies. The detainees were taken out every day, one hour in the morning and one in the afternoon. They were allowed to make two phone calls per month each. Since they were in custody, the young men are allowed to wear their own clothes, including during visits. Unfortunately, the representatives of APADOR-CH were told that soon, this category of detainees was going to receive a special, robe-like uniform, which would be mandatory, including during visits. They insisted that at least detainees who were not convicted yet should have been allowed to wear civilian clothes, (as a right guaranteed by the UN and European penitentiary norms).

Cell-room no. 202 hosted 34 detainees in custody, first time offenders (there were 48 beds). Detainees appreciated that food was generally good. They had several complaints regarding the quality of the medical act. Adrian Coman had a skin disease which had not cured after his two-week stay in the Colibaşi Penitentiary Hospital (he was released although uncured and received medication to no effect). Lucian Enache had several ailments – “ulcer, kidney problems, tension problems, sinusitis and others” – but the doctors only gave him medication for three of them, explaining that the drug supplies norms did not allow for more. Liviu-Constantin Dumitrică was admitted into the hospital for two weeks, with kidney and bile problems. When released, he was prescribed a treatment which was not provided by the medical unit of the penitentiary. Bogdan Marinete complained that he had been given Fluanxol, a strong psychotropic drug, for his psychic condition, a treatment, he said, “against all legal norms”, which was affecting his memory and judgement while under criminal investigation. Marinete also said that his condition was not treatable in prison conditions (the representatives of APADOR-CH suggested that he asked the court to revoke his warrant for medical reasons). Detainees also mentioned that if there was a night time medical emergency and the only nurse leaved the prison with a patient, there was no one left to deal with a second possible emergency.

Detainees were allowed to make phone calls (twice a month) and received or sent letters unrestrictedly. They would have liked, however, to have more books in the library (there were just a few scores, they said) and to be permitted to watch TV after 22.00 from Monday to Friday (room 202 was, like almost every other room, full of “sitting” detainees, and the permanent lack of activity made it impossible for them to sleep until late at night). The bathroom had 4 Turkish toilets, 6 sinks with mirrors, 3 urinals (which were out of order and leaked) and 4 shower cabins (hot water ran once a week).

Cell-room no. 301 had 48 beds and 50 detainees, (“sitting”, but qualified for work). They were generally satisfied with the prison conditions (food, medical care, behaviour of the staff). They were taken out for walks twice a day (one hour in the morning and one in the evening) from Monday to Sunday and had a hot water shower once a week (the bathroom arrangements were identical with those in room 202). Phone calls were allowed twice a month and under special circumstances. Their biggest problem was lack of activity, because of which time elapsed very slowly and deprivation of liberty was harder to bear.

Section IV was set up in a new, modern building, inaugurated in May 2003. The modern canteen at the ground floor was soon going to be inaugurated, too (while for the one at the first floor, furbishing was expected to take longer).

Cell-room no. 409 was occupied by six underage detainees (in 8 beds). Although they were convicted with definitive sentences, the minors had legal affairs pending in the county. There was a TV set in the room, provided by the penitentiary, and the detainees received daily papers. The daily walk lasted for two hours, from Monday to Sunday. The minors were able to have a hot water shower on Tuesdays (the bathroom had one toilet cabin, 2 sinks with mirrors and 1 shower cabin). The educator (a woman) organized daily activities like backgammon, chess and table tennis competitions, either at the club of the section or on the table in the yard. There were cases when the minors were allowed to use the free phone-cards provided by the penitentiary.

Cell-room no. 414 hosted 12 detainees considered to be dangerous. Mihăiţă Cornel Ion, Petre Ghiocel and Daniel Buzea complained that although they had a good behaviour while in this prison, they were held without any reason among the “dangerous” (Mihăiţă Cornel Ion was kept here although he had not been involved in any king of incident over the last six months). The management of the penitentiary admitted that a reassessment of the situation had to be made soon. The security deputy of the governor was even going to suggest giving up the separation of “dangerous” detainees in special rooms. “Such a separation”, the deputy said, “makes such detainees a source of indiscipline and of deeds endangering the security of the detention place”. From their experience in other penitentiaries, the representatives of the Association agreed with the deputy, and suggested that the management should take into consideration the rule according to which the situation of such detainees has to be reassessed monthly, and modified in case they behave properly. The representatives of APADOR-CH believe that the incident which took place in Colibaşi a few years back, when a few inmates escaped, did not have to lead to excessive security measures, which risked to affect the rights of the detainees and create tensions among them.

“Dangerous” detainees were also taken out twice a day. For one hour they had “sports activities”, without handcuffs, and for half and hour they were taken “for a walk”, in handcuffs. Even if the DGP issued an order in that respect, the representatives of the Association considered that handcuffing “dangerous” detainees during their walk was excessive and prone to create discontentment among detainees, most of them serving short term sentences, for less serious crimes. Daniel Buzea, a detainee who had been described by the police report as “recalcitrant”, was indignant of the “unfair” treatment he was submitted to, given his good behaviour during arrest and in the penitentiary (where he had arrived two weeks earlier).

Detainee Vincenţiu Daniel Şelaru was on “restrictive regime”. He had been placed on 10 months of restrictions after stabbing another detainee and had so far gone through six months  (his situation had been reassessed after three months and it was decided to maintain the restrictions). The detainee complained that he was not allowed to sleep during the day (the management explained that there is a DGP order in that respect). The representatives of APADOR-CH stated again that the “restrictive regime” was an excessively though measure. They also mentioned the notes made by the CPT in its 1999 report on Romania. The document criticized the fact that the restrictive regime was used as a disciplinary punishment (it could be accepted as a necessary measure to maintain the order and security inside the prison). The maximum duration of the measure was also considered excessively high (up to one year). Highly disputable was the fact that the regime included the suspension of the right to receive visits, or that there were no ways of appeal against this measure (the management of the penitentiary said that detainees could however submit contestations against the measure with the general director of the DGP and, subsequently, with the prosecutor, but they failed to indicate which legal provisions allowed for the contestation).

According to the prison staff who talked to the representatives of APADOR-CH, the emotional state of detainee Şelaru had worsened sensibly over the last six months. The representatives of the Association asked the managers of the penitentiary to ensure proper medical care for the detainee.

2.2  The cultural and educational department

The staff was made up of 13 people – 10 officers and 3 non-commissioned officers (among them a psychologist, one social assistant, two sociologists, one priest, one engineer and a legal adviser). The department gave special attention to minors and to detainees with special needs. One of the educators was exclusively in charge of the young detainees. The psychologist ran a special program (entitled “Under the Sign of Change”) meant to modify the detainees’ attitude towards crime. The penitentiary had recently organized shows featuring detainees to mark St. Peter and Paul’s Day. The department also ran, in co-operation with GRADO, a program meant to reduce aggressive behaviour in detainees (18 detainees were taking part in it at the moment of the visit). Members of the Humanitarian Service for Penitentiaries came in every Saturday for civic, religious and sanitary education courses for detainees. A protocol had been signed with the probation service by the Argeş Tribunal in order to create a centre for social reinsertion of former detainees. The centre was going to serve mainly as an intermediary between the penitentiary and other institutions, in order to find solutions for the social reinsertion of detainees who had the weakest chances in that respect. A programme co-ordinated by the penitentiary and the County work placement agency had a similar aim (15 detainees were on a waiting list to be found work after they are released). The programme was entitled “For a Better Life” and was funded by the Centre for Judicial Resources.

There were no cultural activities organized in co-operation with cultural institutions in Piteşti. The representatives of APADOR-CH appreciated that the penitentiary fulfilled the right conditions for that (detainees had the right “profile”, low term sentences in general, there was a sufficient number of educators, etc). Colibaşi Penitentiary, too, had to pay more attention to the “occupational” therapy for detainees, mainly through its cultural department – this being, among others, a constant request of the CTP.

2.4. The medical service

The medical staff consisted of 4 general practitioners, one dentist and 12 nurses (10 for general care, one for hygiene and one pharmacist). The chief doctor cared exclusively for the staff and the three other GP plus the dentist were in charge of detainees only. The doctors worked in two shifts from 7.30 to 19.00. Four of the nurses did 24 hours shifts. An average 70-80 detainees were seen each day by a doctor (consultation plus treatment). Psychic conditions, vascular diseases and TBC were the most frequent ailments. At the moment of the visit, there were about 10 cases of scabies (especially among the young), but the doctors considered this did not represent a major problem. The representatives of the Association considered, on the contrary, that the problem was extremely serious and deserved the utmost attention of the medical staff. They did not share the doctors’ optimism regarding the very low chances that the cases of scabies multiplied. Besides, the explanation that the scabies was caused by some detainees “reluctant to wash themselves” was unacceptable because in such cases – when certain detainees refused to obey hygiene rules, putting in danger not only their own health, but the other inmates’ too – the management and the medical staff would have been under obligation to take firm measures.

At Colibaşi too, doctors were of opinion that the VDRL (lues) test should be taken as immediately after arrest, while in police custody. They brought arguments in favour of the need to detect the disease as soon as possible and to treat it quickly and cheaply.

There were some problems in the relations with the doctors at the Argeş County Hospital, caused by prejudice against detainees, including from the part of the medical staff, which sometimes led to lesser care towards them and their problems. For better co-operation with the County Hospital, there was a project to endow the hospital with a special waiting room provided with toilet, bars and security. Handcuffing detainees during their stay in “civilian” hospitals was the common practice there, too. The representatives of the Association insisted that such a measure was excessive (each detainee was permanently escorted by two non-commissioned officers), degrading, and created a great deal of physical and emotional discomfort for the patients.

2.5. The visits section

There were satisfactory conditions for detainees to receive visits. The spaces allowed for 12 visits to take place at the same time (2 in cabins, 4 normal visits and 6 around the table). The parcel sector allowed detainees to see the contents of the parcels while they were being taken in and examined by the guards. The payphone (one of three) installed in one of the visit rooms had no cabin, therefore allowing the guard to listen to what detainees talked about.

3. Conclusions

Compared with previous visits (in 1997 and 1998), the conditions in Colibaşi Penitentiary were improved.

The absence of overcrowding, the preoccupation of the staff for the detainees’ problems and their living conditions, as well as the duration of the daily walk (two hours, each day of the week) made the detainees generally contented with the conditions and the treatment they received.

APADOR-CH considers that the announced plan of the management to reassess the situation of dangerous detainees is a good starting point to reduce the complaints among detainees. The Association therefore asks the DGP to support the solutions suggested by the management of the penitentiary.

It was for the first time that the representatives found “social” phone cards provided by the penitentiary – another notable initiative, a necessary step in ensuring the detainees’ right to correspondence and facilitating their connection with their families and with society in general.

It is necessary that the detainees’ complaints against the quality of the medical act are given due attention by the medical staff. The observations made by detainees in rooms no. 201 and 202 should be checked, and cases for scabies should be treated as soon as possible, in order to avoid contamination. It is also necessary that the psychic condition of detainee Vincenţiu Daniel Şelaru, who is under restrictive regime, is kept under observation and properly treated. Detainee Bogdan Marinete should also be placed in the attention of the medical staff and of the management, so that he receives proper medication, he is granted his right to a fair trial and, if necessary, he is released for medial reasons.

The Association deems as justified the detainees’ requests to be allowed to receive visits in their own clothes (in the case of detainees in custody, it would even be mandatory, according to European penitentiary norms), or to be allowed to watch TV after 22.00, and therefore asks the management of the penitentiary to analyse these requests attentively.

 

APADOR-CH asks the DGP to:

- reassess the regulations regarding the “restrictive regime”, which the Association, as well as the CPT, considers in most respects excessive and neighbouring inhumane and degrading treatment;

- support the penitentiary in purchasing the needed fodder for winter;

- approve the request of the penitentiary to use detainees for work even if certain employers are not able to pay the minimum wage.

 

 

Diana Călinescu                                                                        Valerian Stan