Report on the visit to the High Security Penitentiary in Craiova

(PMS Craiova)

 

Two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the High Security Penitentiary in Craiova on the 4^th of June, 2004. The previous visit by APADOR-CH to this prison had taken place in 1999.

 

1. General aspects. The discussion with the prison management

At the moment of the visit, the penitentiary hosted 1890 detainees – 1804 men and 86 women, among which one juvenile. According to the type of sentence they were serving, there were 93 inmates on pre-trial detention, 185 serving first-instance sentences and 1612 with final sentences. Of the latter category, 43 were sentenced to life in prison. 90 persons were detained in semi-open regime. The total surface of detention areas was of 3014 m, which amounted to an average occupation rate of 282%, if calculated at 4.5 m² per detainee, as recommended by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

On the day of the visit, 600 detainees were working. Some of them worked outside the penitentiary, either at the GAZ (animal farm unit), in agriculture or constructions. The penitentiary was running a barter deal with the farm unit, thus covering part of the food expenses. For the moment, the penitentiary was unable to cover more workplaces outside the penitentiary, due to the lack of security staff. Inside the penitentiary, detainees worked at the DGP-owned “Multiproduct” shoe factory. A household cleaner production workshop (opened 2 years ago) and a carpentry workshop were also functioning.

57 detainees were classified as “dangerous”. The criteria used were the behavior inside the penitentiary and the nature of their crime. The intention to escape for prison was not necessarily a criterion for entering that category, but recent or attempted escapes were. The Discipline Board deciding which detainees belonged to that category met on a monthly basis. Since the beginning of 2004, four detainees had been taken out of the category. Dangerous detainees were kept separately from the others. During transportation, they were restrained with the new safe means of restraint (considered by APADOR-CH to be chains), they were handcuffed during visits and on the way to the exercise yard. Inside the exercise yard, handcuffs were taken off. In the case of detainee Constantinos Passaris, the safe means of restraint were also used inside the penitentiary, when he was taken out his room, which went against the order of the DGP recommending the use of handcuffs in such situation. The governor explained that the excessive security measure was due to the high degree of risk posed by the detainee, although he acknowledged that Passaris had never created discipline problems or showed any violence towards the staff in Craiova Prison. Dangerous detainees were not taken to work outside the penitentiary but were allowed to work inside.

Both dangerous detainees and detainees serving life sentences were accompanied inside the penitentiary by the 27 members of the intervention team.

The governor estimated that disciplinary problems were dwindling down (on the day of the visit, no detainee was serving confinement or restrictive regime sanctions), while the number of detainees having a disrespectful attitude towards the staff was on the increase. There had been no homicide cases in the penitentiary since 1999 (when two such incidents took place) and the number of self-aggressions also substantially decreased (to mostly 2-3 cases every year). The disciplinary records for the first half of 2004, provided by the governor, showed that 52 detainees were sanctioned for 62 misconducts (disrespectful attitude towards the staff – 20, breech of regulations – 10, hitting another inmate – 9, destruction of property – 8, refusal to go to work – 5, manufacturing and detaining prohibited items - 3, etc). Sanctioning detainees for “disrespectful attitude towards the staff” is a controversial matter. APADOR-CH has always maintained that: a) detainees are under permanent stress following the radical changes in their lives, therefore the staff should show themselves more tolerant to possible verbal abuse; b) it is a matter of “guard’s word vs. detainee’s word”, where the former is almost always considered the credible one; c) any sanction, however light, may influence the whole period of detention. For all these reasons and the fact that “insult” was eliminated from the Criminal Code APADOR-CH asks that the sanction for “disrespectful attitude towards the staff” be eliminated from the Interior Regulation.

At the same time, APADOR-CH insists that the sanction for “refusal to go to work” is also dropped out. The Association has constantly maintained that as long as the penitentiary system is unable to provide work for all detainees who are capable of supporting such an activity, it is unacceptable to sanction (many times by confinement) those who would not – or cannot, although they are theoretically fit – work. Sanctions like that would only be acceptable if the penitentiary was able to offer all detainees a place to work.

In most such cases, the detainees were reprimanded (34) and in two cases they were sanctioned by solitary confinement. On the other hand, there were 395 cases when detainees were rewarded by extra parcels and visits. The detainees had been informed that they were entitled to contest sanctions and, in one case, a detainee had complained to court against a reprimand and won the case. At the moment of the visit, another such case was pending and the court had requested the penitentiary to hand over all documents connected to the incident report. The governor said that during the last years detainees had not reported cases of abuse by the staff or filed such complaints with the Prosecutor’s Office. There had also been no sexual abuse complaints in the penitentiary.

The 43 detainees serving life terms were accommodated in a separate section, in rooms of 1, 2 or at most 3 persons. An educator ran special programs for them, but also had to attend to another section of 50 detainees. Because this particular educator was on vacation at the moment of the visit, the programs for “lifers” had been taken over by another educator who also had in care other 100 detainees.

Room representatives were elected by their mates, but the governor had the last saying in appointing them. Only detainees with no incident reports and a good behavior were eligible as room representatives. Sometimes, they were rewarded for their position, but in case the control found a room in very good state, all detainees in that room were rewarded, not just the representative.

There were 6 pay phones in the penitentiary, on every section (including the one with semi-open status and the women section), so that one phone was used by 3-400 detainees. They were allowed to make 4 phone-calls per month, with one or two extra calls in special situations to be approved by the management. The calls lasted for 10 minutes. The penitentiary asked ROMTELECOM to install phone booths for free (there were no funds for such an investment) but was denied the request. PMS Craiova had no social phone cards for detainees who were moneyless.

Four mail boxes had been installed in the penitentiary. The detainees who had no direct access to a mailbox in their section had to be accompanied by guards to mail their letters. The detainees who could not afford it received enough writing materials to send a letter to their family once a month and, depending on the situation, to correspond with state institutions and NGOs. Those who were in correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights gave their envelopes to a clerk who went to the post-office, paid for the mailing, and brought back the receipt. APADOR-CH appreciated the fact that the penitentiary paid the postal fees for moneyless detainees who wanted to write to ECHR, but the practice of handing one’s mail to a prison clerk was bound to raise suspicions about the confidentiality of correspondence. The governor said that lately there had been no complaints about violations of correspondence.

The personnel scheme of the penitentiary was 97% completed. Just 11 of the 257 existing position were vacant: 4 in the security department, 4 in escort, 1 at the visitation section, 1 in the medical department (a nurse) and two in social reinsertion – the former social-educational department.

As for investments, at the moment of the visit a new control unit was being built and there were plans for the modernization of the infirmary. The central detention unit had been modernized in 2002 and the exterior one in 2001.

2. The visit to the penitentiary

The kitchen area

Generally, the meals were served in the rooms, except for the pre-trial detention and women’s section, where meals were served in canteens. Detainees had new and clean stainless bowls, plates, mugs and cutlery, which were distributed before each meal and were stored in special rooms in each section. The respective rooms were also equipped for dish-washing.

The menu on the day of the visit consisted of: tea, margarine and biscuits, plus an egg for those on diet - for breakfast; bean soup with fried pork scraps, rice and meat (vegetable soup / rice with meat and organs for those on diet; TBC patients had the bean soup) - for lunch; pasta and cheese pudding - for dinner. For the preparation of these meals, 183.1 kilos of carcasses, 29.220 kilos of pork products and 34.36 kilos of pork scraps had been taken from storage.

The ceremony hall/club

The club was hosting elementary school classes for 6 detainees. These classes took place three times a week, for one hour, and two groups benefited from them for a six month period. Only one of the students here, Lăutari Cătălin Florin, had ever had disciplinary problems: in September 2002 he had been placed in strict confinement for 7 days after trying to impersonate somebody else in order to take advantage of an amnesty law.

High security sections

The high security section was organized in the central wing, which also hosted the library, a ping-pong club and a gym. At the moment of the visit, some of the detainees were playing ping-pong, others were body-building and one was talking to the psychologist. Access between these facilities was free. The detainees in the gym said they were using it twice or three times a week. Later during the visit, other detainees said that they were able to use the gym once a month while women said that they would be able to use it some time in the future.

Section IX (restrictive regime, confinement) also included a room for hunger strikers. APADOR-CH considered it unacceptable that the room was placed in the restrictive regime area. Isolating detainees who refuse nourishment can only be justified by the need to place them under strict medical supervision. And in that case, a detainee should be taken to the infirmary, not to restrictive regime, as if s/he were punished. Detainee Băjan Arcadie was occupying the room, after going on hunger strike that morning for not having been transferred to the Deva Penitentiary, although he had a subpoena for the 10^th of June. The chief of section said that the detainee was going to be transferred on the 9^th of June, but the man feared he was going to miss the hearing if he did not make it to Deva in time.

The confinement rooms had about 4 m² each, and access to a lavatory next door. The bunk beds (for 2 persons) had new latex mattresses. The room was aired and lit through the bars in the door because the room had no windows. The fact that the door opened on a circular corridor with walls of glass blocks ensured natural lighting, which was however of rather low intensity. Also, the room could not be properly aired.

Section VIII accommodated detainees serving life sentences. Room 86 hosted 3 detainees. The room measured about 10 m² and had its own lavatory, including a toilet cabin, sink and shower. Cold water was available permanently and hot water on Saturdays, for two hours and a half. Detainees were taken to the club once a month and to outdoor exercise 2 for two hours per day.

The worst problem for detainees serving life was that they were not allowed to work. The management was aware of their wishes and tried to find activities which could be run inside the rooms. This would be a first step to occupy their spare time. But it is absolutely necessary that the management seeks solutions so that detainees imprisoned for life (as well as those serving long terms) took part in daily activities, outside the detention rooms. Lack of activity is, in fact, a second punishment for these detainees, and currently leads to tensions among themselves as well as in relation to the staff.  If there is no possibility to give work to these detainees, APADOR-CH asks the penitentiary administration to increase the number of staff who attend to these categories of inmates (one assistant to 93 detainees is not enough) and to support the development of daily activity programs outside the detention rooms.

Section VII accommodated detainees serving sentences of over 10 years. Room 65 (looking just like room 86) hosted 3 detainees. Neagoe Marian had been classified as “dangerous” since 1998. Checking his penitentiary file, the representatives of APADOR-CH found out that his classification as “dangerous” was due to the nature of his crime (homicide, for which he was sentenced to 25 years in prison) and to an attempted escape (on 16.10.1999 he had climbed the roof of the penitentiary). The last incident report was from 2000. His file included a peculiarity: all minutes of the monthly Discipline Board meetings prior to the order of the DGP regarding dangerous detainees issued in October 2003 were attached to the file. After October 2003, they were completely absent and the staff explained that the minutes had been thereon kept in a special file of the Board. APADOR-CH opined that, no matter where minutes were kept for archive purposes, a copy should have been attached to the detainee’s file to reflect his/her precise situation. Neagoe was taken out for exercise in handcuffs, allowed only cabin visits (the detainee is kept in a booth, without any direct contact with his visitor) and was restrained by safe means (chains) during transportation. Those were only removed after the judge was consulted and gave his/her approval. APADOR-CH reminded that, according to international documents, detainees were supposed to appear before the court only after the restraint means had been removed.

The same room also hosted Paraschiva Alexandru Flavius, a detainee with obvious mental problems. From the detainee’s file, it resulted that Paraschiva had been repeatedly admitted into the Jilava Penitentiary Hospital, held until he stabilized and sent back to prison. The last admission had taken place between 20.02.2004 and 17.03. 2004. Since 21.05.2004, Paraschiva had refused to take his medication. APADOR-CH pointed out that detainees suffering from such conditions had to benefit from proper medical care, including careful supervision and admission into the infirmary ward. Moreover, the members of the staff mentioned that Paraschiva had to be moved from one room to another because the other detainees were unable to cope with him for a long period.

Detainees in room 64 went out for exercising for 1-2 hours every day, alongside detainees from other two rooms. They played football once a week and were taken to the gym, if they wanted, once a month. The weekly bath was on Saturdays, when hot water ran for two hours. There was no TV set in the room, because the one provided by the penitentiary was broken and they had not been able to get one from home.

The exercise yards were placed between the central wing and the exterior wing. Half of them were used by high security detainees and, unlike the others, were covered by fences and surrounded by barbed wire to prevent climbing to the bridges connecting the various wings. All yards were equipped with toilets and cold water showers.

Closed regime sections

Section V was used for quarantine purposes and to host detainees serving sentences under 10 years. Room 37 (quarantine) hosted 15 men in 24 beds. The room measured about 30 m². The quarantine had its own food storage and a separate lavatory with two toilet cabins, two showers and two sinks. Detainees were taken out to exercise for one hour per day and were allowed to watch TV between 8-12 and 14-22.30. One of the detainees, Staicu Vasile, had a psychiatric condition for which he received daily medication. There were two days every week when detainees were allowed to make phone calls, for which they did not need to apply or ask permission. On those days, a guard came to the room and escorted those who wanted to make a phone call. There were personal records of the phones (mentioning the date, phone number and series of the phone card). In exceptional situations (phone calls outside the schedule or over the 4 calls per month limit), detainees asked and received permission verbally. APADOR-CH appreciated this procedure, which was in the spirit of the law (the possibility to make phone calls is a right, not a favor granted by the prison management), helped cut useless red tape and allowed the management to allocate more time to other needs of the detainees.

Section III hosted persons on pre-trial detention as well as detainees who served definitive sentences of under 10 years. At the moment of the visit, inmates on pre-trial detention were having their meal. The canteen had 11 tables of four. All inmates here were wearing civilian clothes. Room 17 (pre-trial detention) had 48 beds and accommodated 45 men. The mattresses were made of latex and were in excellent condition. Only four detainees, who had not wished to eat, were in the room. They said that when they received visitors, they were allowed to wear their civilian clothes, over which they wore a gown. The use of the gown worn over the prison uniform or plain clothes appears to be a generalized practice in the penitentiary system. But a gown is still a uniform which singles out detainees. APADOR-CH insists that during the visits, especially when detainees have children visiting, detainees should be allowed to wear their own clothes. Families, especially young children, must no keep the image of a parent wearing a prison uniform (gown included). Such an image may have a negative impact on their relations and influence the way the detainee’s reinsertion after release.

Room 19 (final sentences) was among those which had not undergone renovation. The 44 detainees here were accommodated in only 33 beds. They had 3 sinks and two toilet cabins in the room and two showers on the corridor. They had a bath every Monday, in groups of 30 detainees. They were taken out for exercise for 2 hours a day. At the moment of the visit, most detainees were outside the room, in the exercise yard. There were only two detainees in the room: Duţu Alexandru, who had had an epileptic crisis during the outdoor exercise, had been taken to the infirmary, given medication, and was now asleep, and Stan Ion, who was keeping an eye on him. Stan Ion was also the one in charge with cleaning the room (although in a rather poor shape, the room was remarkably clean). For this service, Stan was rewarded by recognition reports and table visits.

The medical section and the infirmary ward

They were located in Section II, the infirmary having its own exercise yard.

The penitentiary employed 8 doctors: a dentist (who was on maternal leave and was being replaced by the dentist of the Juvenile penitentiary once a week), three GPs, a radiologist, a pneumologist and the chief doctor, specialized in internal medicine. Of the three GP, two also provided medical care for the staff. The doctors saw about 30-40 detainees and 5-10 members of the staff every day. The psychiatrist saw about 60 detainees per day, including visits in the high security area. The doctors worked between 7.00 and 19.00 while the nurses worked in shifts to ensure permanent service.

The penitentiary had a good cooperation with the Military Hospital in Craiova. During their trip and stay in the military hospital, detainees were handcuffed and guarded by two officers. If the hospital doctor required the handcuffs to be removed, extra security was provided. APADOR-CH considers that handcuffing detainees during their stay in hospital is unacceptable and reminds the harsh criticism formulated in that respect by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The measure of handcuffing ill detainees in unjustified in itself (inmates requiring hospital treatment are generally in a serious condition) and made superfluous by the fact that they are permanently guarded by two non-commissioned officers.

Room 12 (the infirmary) hosted 9 detainees in 12 beds. They did not complain about the way they were treated and were only dissatisfied by the absence of a storage room, which forced them to keep food parcels from home in the warehouse.

 The women’s section

Room 2 (pre-trial detention) accommodated 6 persons in 12 beds. Detainees wore civilian clothes at all times, excepting the visits, when they had to wear a gown over their clothes. The measure was unacceptable, especially since among them there were mothers receiving the visits of their own children. Women received visits in the common system (the detainee and visitor are separated by a wide plank) even if they had young children. table visits were only granted as a reward and the last time they were granted for all women was the 8^th of March. APADOR-CH must point out that mothers of young children should be allowed to receive table visits to be able to maintain a close relation with their children. Women had hot water all the time for personal hygiene reasons, and could do their laundry in the room lavatory. They were allowed to keep needles and knitting tools in the room, excepting scissors. They were taken out for exercise three times a week and were soon going to be allowed in the gym, too.

Room 6 accommodated the only female juvenile in the penitentiary, who was going to be released shortly, after one year in prison. The girl did not seem annoyed by the fact that she spent most of her time alone. She was taken out for exercise for two hours a day and spent one hour daily with the educator.

3. Conclusions

APADOR-CH noted an improvement of the detention conditions compared with the previous visit. Some detention areas had been renovated, activities for detainees had diversified, tensions among detainees and between those and the staff had dwindled down, the number and nature of sanctions for misconduct were reduced.

However, there were still problems to be solved urgently in order to bring the penitentiary system in Romania closer to European standards in the matter:

- Detention spaces were way under the European norms recommended by the CPT (4.5 m² per detainee). Given the recent adoption of the Law on serving custodial sentences, APADOR-CH asks the DGP to strive to observe the accommodation norms thereby provided. Even though overcrowding (the number of detainees/beds) was reduced, it still persisted in terms of a constant overuse of the real accommodation capacity, which is anyway far from European standards in the matter;

- Detainees on hunger strike must be taken to the infirmary, not in rooms from the restrictive section. The main goal in separating them from the group is to keep them under constant medical supervision. Therefore it is only logic that they should be held in infirmaries;

 - It is absolutely necessary that special programs are designed for detainees serving long-term or life sentences, to provide them with daily activities. They should be given as much work as possible, at least inside the penitentiary. The association asks that at least one more educator be appointed to attend the detainees on life sentences;

 - APADOR-CH asks that the practice of making detainees wear gowns over their uniforms or plain clothes be abandoned. On the one hand, the gown is still a uniform that singles out those who wear it and on the other hand, a gown worn over the clothes during summer is uncomfortable and unhygienic. The Association asks that detainees are allowed to wear their own clothes during visits, especially from their families. The prison uniform should only be worn on special occasions;

 - APADOR-CH insists that detainees be no longer handcuffed during their transportation to and stay in hospitals. The number of non-commissioned officers guarding them could be reduced to one if civilian hospitals provided specially equipped rooms for detainees;

 - The Association asks that sanctions for “disrespectful attitude to the staff” be eliminated (or at least reduced to a minimum). In most cases, it all amounts to words uttered by frustrated and stressed detainees. The penitentiary staff must be more tolerant and understanding;

 - APADOR-CH asks again that the system of appointing room representatives be abandoned, irrespective of the method by which they are chosen.

 

Diana Călinescu