Report on the visit to the Giurgiu Penitentiary

 

Two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Giurgiu Penitentiary on March 18^th, 2004.

The visit was mainly aimed at assessing prison conditions in the juvenile section and check allegations made by detainees in letters addressed to the Association regarding detention conditions in Section III C (dangerous detainees, restrictive regime, confinement).

1. General aspects. The discussion with the prison management

Ever since the latest visit paid here by APADOR-CH (March 14^th, 2002), another detention unit had been built and put to use, while a fourth unit was almost ready (the prison management estimated that this was going to happen in May). The club (a complex including a theatre hall, canteens, etc) and the workshop area were not yet completed. The administration building was also in repairs. Without the club, the penitentiary lacked the necessary space for educational and cultural activities. Each section had a special room it used as a club, but they were small, accommodating no more than 15-20 people at a time.

At the moment of the visit, Giurgiu Penitentiary accommodated 1368 detainees, of which 1332 men (41 on pre-trial detention, 51 sentenced by first instance courts and 1229 with final sentences) and 36 women (3 on pre-trial detention, 3 sentenced by first instance courts and 28 with final sentences). The total surface of the detention areas was 3128 sq m, which, according to CPT recommendations (4 sq m of vital space per detainee), meant a 175% occupation rate. The criteria of segregation were generally observed, the men’s sections including even separate rooms for non-smokers. The women’s sections were more crowded, which was why segregation criteria were not so strictly observed. The management said that the problem was going to be solved by the opening of the fourth detention block, planned to host the whole women’s section. Detainees were accommodated in rooms of 2 and 6. Of the 1368 detainees, 12 were juveniles (2 girls and 10 boys).

Only 94 detainees went to work, 22 outside the penitentiary, 23 at the farming unit (G.A.Z.) and 49 inside the prison, at various chores. From the discussion with the director of the penitentiary it resulted that what prevented more detainees to work was basically the poor economic situation in the county. Also, the penitentiary did not have its own farming land, but only 5 hectares of land taken over from a former Navy Base at the beginning of 2003. The existing land was used for growing vegetables during summer. Plots inside the penitentiary were also used for agriculture (greenhouses were being built at the date of the visit on a bare field in the administrative area). Without a proper farm, the penitentiary was obliged to buy all the food (except for the meat, produced at the Pelendava Penitentiary) at very high costs. Another budgetary chapter with high expenditures was heating, the system being based on liquid fuel, as there was no chance for the penitentiary to be connected to the gas network (the city of Giurgiu itself was not connected to the national gas pipeline). For all these reasons, the Giurgiu Penitentiary was permanently in debts (which totaled about 3 billion lei at the moment of the visit) and had problems in its relations with suppliers.

Detainees considered to be dangerous and those sanctioned by confinement or “restrictive regime” were taken to a special area (section III C). Confinement was used to sanction destruction of rooms' equipment and, sometimes, violence against other detainees. After January 1^st, 2004, one or two inmates contested the decisions of the Discipline Board, but courts maintained the sanctions. Sanctioned detainees were always heard by the Discipline Board. On the day of the visit, there was no detainee on restrictive regime and only one was serving 10 days of strict confinement. The incident reports for 2003 provided by the prison administration indicated that 269 incidents had been reported during the previous year. In general, the punishments consisted of reprimands and  suspension of the right to receive visits or/and parcels; confinement (simple or strict) was generally applied in cases of violence, self-mutilation, possession of prohibited items, destruction. In 2004, the sanction of restrictive regime was applied to 4 detainees (3 months each) for burning with the cigarette, raping and cutting another detainee. Another method, considered to be efficient in some cases, was to organize collective debates on certain cases of misconduct and “demythologize” their authors.

In order to ensure the right to correspondence, 3 mail boxes had been installed in the penitentiary while a mobile mailbox serviced Section III and detainees who were unable to walk. The mail boxes were emptied by a post clerk, to make sure that confidentiality was observed. However, detainees who only had access to the mobile mail box expressed doubts regarding the confidentiality of their correspondence, arguing that mail could be very easily extracted from the respective box.

All detainees (on preventive arrest, juveniles, women) had to wear prison uniforms whenever they left their rooms. The staff explained that during repair works in the penitentiary detainees in plain clothes might have been taken for workers, and therefore the measure prevented possible escapes.

In what concerned the staff, Giurgiu Penitentiary lacked the personnel needed to cover the fourth shift. The cultural-educational department had 3 educators (of which one psychologist) and a priest. The number was obviously insufficient for so many detainees. The medical department was also dramatically understaffed with the 2 GPs and one dentist. Another position for a GP was unoccupied because the lack of candidates for the position. What is worse, one of the doctors had been on motherhood leave for 2 years, meaning that in fact there was only one GP to provide medical care for the whole penitentiary. For a while, this situation was solved by the DGP by sending a doctor from the Bucureşti-Jilava Penitentiary and one from Rahova to see patients in Giurgiu on a weekly basis. The solution was soon abandoned since it proved inefficient and did not solve the overall problem of medical assistance. In what concerned nurses, all 12 positions were occupied but three of the nurses had been on motherhood leave for 2 years. Neither was the cooperation with Giurgiu County Hospital very good, as the institution refused to take in detainees. According to the management, the longest stay of a detainee in the County Hospital was of one day. This attitude was not explained by financial reasons, since the Health Insurance Agency CASAOPSNAJ paid the hospital with regularity. Every time the penitentiary sent detainees to the Giurgiu Hospital, they were sent to penitentiary hospitals in Bucureşti-Jilava or Rahova, depending on their problems.

2. The visit to the penitentiary

2.1.  The kitchen area

The food storage was clean, well ventilated and all products were within the expiration date. The meat was kept in a new, modern frigorific room, in appropriate conditions. The kitchen (where food was prepared for both detainees and staff) was in good condition and had ventilation, but the steam had produced mould on the ceiling.

On the day of the visit, the breakfast menu included tea, bread, biscuits, margarine and marmalade. Bean soup and bacon followed by gravy were being prepared for lunch and rice and meat for dinner. The quantity of meat taken from the store room was of 92 kilos of pork, 2.9 kilos of beef (for diabetes patients and Moslems), 54 kilos of fat and 30 kilos of pork products. The representatives of the Association could note that the food smelled and looked good, the only problem being the ratio between meat and other meat products in second course dishes. Although the documents showed that the ratio should have been of 3/1, the food seemed to contain more low quality products than meat.

2.2.  Section I A

Room no. 121 accommodated 9 women in 6 beds. As the women’s section was improvised in Section I, women detainees were overcrowded. The room with 6 bunk beds had about 15 sq m, meaning that it had a 240% occupation rate (at 4 sq m of vital space per detainee, as recommended by the CPT). The room had its own toilet and lavatory, including a shower. The detainees complained that the penitentiary did not provide or allow them to get from home chlorine, needed for the continual disinfection of the toilet, given the fact that some of them suffered from venereal disease. The staff had refused their request on grounds that the toxic chemical could be used for voluntary intoxication. The detainees contended the explanation, arguing that they were allowed to receive from home other chemicals like detergent. Hot water ran once a week for about 35-40 minutes, which was not nearly enough for 9 persons to take a bath. Even when there were fewer detainees in the room, the shower was anyway shared with women from the double rooms, which did not have their own lavatory. For personal hygiene, detainees are allowed to heat water with thermo-electric plungers. At the moment of the visit, the women were heating up water in a plastic bottle cut into half. The daily open-air exercise took place in a separate yard, for 35-45 minutes.

The detainees complained they had to wear prison uniforms everywhere, even when they received the visit of their underage children. Another problem was that "table visits" (detainees and their visitors are sitting at a normal table during the visit) were not permitted, which was also bad for the children. Visits were short, of about 20-25 minutes, which was not enough to maintain a good relationship with the family, and especially with young children.

Detainees also complained that they were handcuffed when taken before the court, even if they were only on pre-trail detention.

The room had a TV set, brought by one of the inmates, which could only receive the national channels Romania 1 and 2. The detainees received “Adevarul” and “Independentul” dailies every other day, for about two hours. They were allowed to borrow books from the limited offer of the library. The library did not have any kind of legal books, not even a copy of the Civil Code or the Family Law, which detainees considered necessary. Medical care was also considered extremely poor. In what concerned the activities they were able to have inside the room, the women said that knitting tools were forbidden, no mater what material they were made of. Knitting was only allowed in a special room, under supervision.

Although they had asked for photocopies of their records, the detainees were denied the copies for lack of resources. They could only get photocopies if they brought their own paper.

Room no. 129 (similar to 121) accommodated 2 juveniles serving final sentences. The room had a TV set brought by one of them. Because they had a TV set in their room, the juveniles were not taken to the club. They did not take part in any educational activities or courses, even though one of them was illiterate. They were obliged to wear the prison uniform during the visits and were handcuffed to each other when taken before the court. Once a month, they each received a disposable razor, a bar of soap, shaving cream, toothpaste and toilet paper. The daily open air exercise took 45 minutes, and there was fitness equipment in the yard. There were no organized sport activities.

Room no. 130 (similar to the other two) hosted other two juveniles with final sentences. Because they had no TV set in the room, they were taken to the club every day from 14 to 17, to watch TV. They had not taken part in any cultural or educational activity either. They had to wear uniforms during the visits (but were allowed to wear plain clothes inside). Juvenile I.F. (15) had been photographed and information about him had been published without his permission while in police custody in Alexandria, a violation of the Beijing Rules for the administration of juvenile justice.

2.3.  Section III C

The section accommodated “high risk detainees”, detainees on strict confinement and restrictive regime, as well as those serving life sentences (accommodated temporarily, during trials in Giurgiu County or in the area). The section had exercise yards built as cages on top of the building, which made any type of sport activities impossible. Detainees were taken out in groups of 5 or 6, handcuffed.

On the day of the visit, the section accommodated 57 detainees. Part of the 34 “dangerous” detainees (15-20 persons) had been transferred to Giurgiu during the last year, from Bucureşti-Jilava and Rahova Penitentiaries following alleged attempts of rioting in those prisons.

From the discussion with the prison administration, it turned out that the “dangerous” category included detainees who had committed repeated disciplinary offences, those who had been sentenced for serious crimes (homicide, for instance), those who served long terms in prison (life or 25 years) as well as those who were violent towards the other inmates or the staff. The director pointed out that detainees who were recorded as “dangerous” by the police or other prisons were not considered as such without the appropriate research.

The representatives of APADOR-CH could note that the Giurgiu Penitentiary used chains as means of restraint. The prison administration explained that the measure was stipulated by Order no. 383 of 10.10.2003 issued by the General Director of the DGP, approving the “Methodology norms on high risk detainees”. According to the Order, “detainees in that category shall be restrained by safe means during transportation to courts, hospitals, clinics or other places outside the detention unit. In courts, chains shall also be used when taking the detainee from the arrest chamber and the secured space in the court room, as well as during the trial itself, after informing the judge. If the judge decides to unchain the detainee, it shall be done so. The same procedure shall be used when taking detainees to other institutions or bodies”. According to the prison management, after issuing the Order, the DGP bought and distributed to penitentiaries – including the one in Giurgiu – chains for restraining detainees. They are made of metal and sensibly thinner than the “classic” ones. There are two types of chains: one is used to tie the detainee by the waist to the vehicle and the other one is used to tie the legs together and to the handcuffs.

The representatives of APADOR-CH expressed their total disapproval with the use of chains to restrain detainees. The measure is completely exaggerated and unacceptable. It means, basically, that a detainee under such strict escort (as the same Order provides) is also handcuffed, has the legs chained between them and to the handcuffs. The newly introduced practice is an unacceptable backslide compared to the way the system has evolved so far (the chains had been totally prohibited three years ago). It violates both the European Standard Rules for Prisons (Rule 39) and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of Detainees (Rule 33), the latter being even cited in the Exposition of the Methodology. Besides, the Methodology never mentions chains, only “safe means of restraint” (which, in international norms, mean “handcuffs, straight jackets and others”, by no means chains, which are explicitly prohibited).

Room no. 442 (2 bunk beds) accommodated detainees Bobi Victor Garcea and Ilie Marian Laurenţiu Petre. Like all other rooms in Section III C, room 442 was very cramped (the room had an equally narrow vestibule and a very small space between the room and the window; there were barred metallic frames separating these areas from the room itself; in this particular case, the frames were not locked). The room itself had about 4.5 sq m, sensibly smaller than the surface recommended by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (4 sq m per detainee). Although recently built, these cells were not appropriate because the squat-toilet and the sink were not separated in any way from the room. Since some of the window bars were permanently locked, detainees had to put up with the smell of urine and feces. More than that, they had to eat in the proximity of the toilet, without the minimum hygienic conditions. Detainees had no intimacy while meeting their basic physiological needs. Because two months before detainee Iulian Ştefănescu, a seriously disturbed person who, according to the management, had thus attempted to commit suicide) destroyed the neon lamp in the room, it was decided that the light should be taken out of the main part of the room and moved into the narrow vestibule of the room. As a consequence, detainees were deprived of artificial light inside their rooms and forced to stand in the vestibule whenever they wanted to read, write or do anything that required light. The situation was even worse for detainees in rooms where the metallic frame was locked. The measure seemed illogical since in most rooms the bars were unlocked and detainees could destroy, if they wanted to, the lamps in the vestibule (or try to electrocute themselves to death there). The representatives of APADOR-CH considered that having the toilet inside the room and being deprived of artificial light inside rooms was tantamount to inhuman and degrading treatment. Detainee Garcea was listed as “dangerous” because in the winter of 2000 he had allegedly been “non-cooperative” at the Slobozia Penitentiary and in the spring of 2001 he had allegedly beaten another inmate at Bucureşti-Jilava. Garcea had been brought to Giurgiu in 2003 and listed as “dangerous” only four months later. He explained the representatives of APADOR-CH that the decision was prompted exclusively by his refusal to cut his hair (he refused because he kept it very clean, without breaking the personal or collective hygiene rules). Garcea also complained of having been beaten by non-commissioned officer Chiorsava in February 2004. Detainee Petre, transferred to Giurgiu on February 10^th, 2004, did not know why he was among “dangerous” detainees (he suspected it was due to self-mutilation). Checking the detainee’s personal record, the representatives of APADOR-CH found out that he had been listed as “dangerous” because another inmate had told the staff that Petre had confessed he planned to escape while out to work. The record did not contain any other credible proof for this accusation. The two detainees said that food was generally good. They had a bath once a week and were allowed to place phone calls four times a month. Because they were not allowed to bring TV sets from home, they watched television for two hours a week, when they were taken, by turns, to the section’s club. They received no newspapers, but were allowed to borrow books from the library.

Room 440 hosted detainee Iulian Ştefănescu (the room was identical with 442 and also contained 2 bunk beds). The representatives of APADOR-CH found Ştefănescu lying down, both hands cuffed to the lower bed. The staff explained that the measure was necessary because, due to his psychiatric condition, the detainee had violent manifestations (destruction of goods and repeated self-aggression). The electric wires had been taken out, on the vestibule, after the same Ştefănescu had destroyed the neon light in his room. The representatives of the Association tried to speak to Ştefănescu, but he was completely incoherent, incomprehensible and unable to recall anything (he seemed to have been heavily sedated). The detainee’s personal record indicated that he had “memory troubles and an anti-social, impulsive personality”. He had been treated at the psychiatric ward of the Bucureşti-Jilava Penitentiary Hospital in March and August 2003, and in January-February 2004, but each time released and sent back to the prison “to be kept under observation” (although the prison did not have a single psychiatrist). Ştefănescu had harmed himself repeatedly. According to the staff, one time he had cut his abdomen open and had stuck a cap inside the wound to prevent his bowels from spilling out. The detainee was serving a 6 years prison term (he had stolen two birds from somebody’s yard and, when caught in the act, had hit the owner). The representatives of APADOR-CH were under the impression that Ştefănescu had a serious mental condition and he did not belong in a penitentiary, rather, in a psychiatric hospital. The penitentiary had even requested the interruption of the penalty’s execution for medical reasons. But even if Iulian Ştefănescu’s condition required his restraining, APADOR-CH considered the methods of restraining completely unacceptable. Handcuffs were totally inappropriate and could have been replaced by elastic bands, more fit for the condition of the detainee. The representatives of the Association also found it unacceptable that Iulian Ştefănescu should be kept together with dangerous detainees, instead of being taken to the infirmary ward, under medical care.

Room no. 431 hosted detainee Iulian Fentzel. The room had two bunk beds and was similar to the previous two (at the moment of the visit, the room was very cold). Fentzel had been kept with the “dangerous” and alone in his cell (and during outdoor exercise) for about 10 months. Besides the daily exercise, 45 minutes a day from Monday to Sunday, and the two hours per week when he was taken to the club to watch TV, the detainee had no other activity whatsoever. He said that he had been placed under this regime because he taught the other detainees their rights and where to complain in case of abuse. His record showed that the detainee had been transferred from Jilava, and the transfer note mentioned that he had been “one of the leaders of the 1997 riot and, at the same time, prone to initiate disobedience and indiscipline among inmates”. This was the only document in the penitentiary record that might have justified Iulian Fentzel’s detainment among the “dangerous”, although there were no minutes officially listing him as dangerous. The detainee’s understanding of legal matters was much better than the other inmates’ and he admitted that, whenever he could, he told detainees about their rights and what to do when those rights were infringed. The representatives of APADOR-CH considered that, on the one hand, the accusations brought by the Jilava Penitentiary were not justified (Fentzel was never sentenced for “leading the 1997 riots”) and on the other hand, the fact that he taught inmates their legal rights and how to defend them (including by complaints lodged with governmental and non-governmental institutions) could not be regarded as instigation to indiscipline and disobedience. As a consequence, his listing as “dangerous” and his isolation from the other inmates for such a long time was unjustified and completely excessive. Fentzel was one of the detainees who had their window bars locked, which prevented the room from being ventilated, even when the detainee was using the toilet. The detainee was taken to court handcuffed, his legs chained between them and tied to the handcuffs. Restrained like that, the detainee fell and was thrown against the walls of the van at any sudden brake or tight curve. He was also indignant at the fact that the guards asked him to roll down his socks in order to place the chains on his bare ankles. There were cases, he said, when detainees thus chained and handcuffed were compelled to carry the parcels they received from home almost on their knees. Fentzel had lodged a complaint with the Military Prosecutor’s Office for having been beaten by the intervention squad on December 14^th, 2003. 

Room no. 422 was used for strict confinement sanctions. It contained two metallic beds with wooden planks and - at the moment of the visit - without mattresses or sheets (they were taken out from wake up till lights out). The squat-toilet and sink were inside the room, without being separated from the rest of the room, and the window could not be opened because the bars were permanently locked. The room was very cold. Detainee Cristian Florin Bojan, the only detainee in the room, was serving a 10 day confinement sanction for possession of a knife. He was taken for the daily open air exercise from Monday to Sunday, for 45 minutes. He did not receive newspapers and was not allowed to make phone calls (but did receive his mail). Bojan said that the food was generally good.

Room no. 418 (2 beds) hosted detainees George Adrian Dane and Zamfir Haimana. As in the other cases, the toilet and sink were in the room. There was a TV set brought by detainees from home. Detainees were allowed to make four phone-calls a month. The daily exercise lasted for 45-60 minutes. Besides the outdoor program, detainees had no other activity. Dane said that he had been transferred from Bucureşti-Jilava on February 1^st, 2003 only because he had “defended his rights” and that he had been listed as “dangerous” without any justification. He complained that in September 2003, the intervention squad were aggressive towards him and trampled upon him. On March 17^th, 2004, he had an incident with the same intervention squad, who pushed him against a door for protesting against their offensive language and asking them to “treat him like a human being”. Zamfir Haimana was at Giurgiu temporarily for judicial proceedings. At Poarta Alba, where he had been brought from, he had been listed as “dangerous” after being framed into having written a suicide note. Detainees were allowed to wear their own clothes only inside the rooms, and had to wear the prison uniform anywhere else. They would have liked to be allowed to watch TV after 22.30 (due to the lack of activity, they had difficulties in falling asleep).

Room no. 416 also hosted two detainees, Ştefan Răducanu and Alexandru Vasile. The former was very unhappy with the way the staff treated him – he had been beaten by “the masked lot”, offended, and the infirmary failed to treat him accordingly. He said he had kidney problems (”urinated blood”) and that on November 2003 he had swallowed a spoon and had received no treatment whatsoever. The detainee had many marks of self-aggression (among other things, he had cut off parts of his ear lobes) and to the representatives of APADOR-CH it was clear that he suffered from a mental disorder. Răducanu said that, unlike Giurgiu, at the Tulcea Penitentiary and the Bucureşti-Jilava Penitentiary Hospital he had been very well treated. He insistently asked to be transferred to any other prison. Alexandru Vasile also complained of a kidney condition, of urinating blood, without getting treatment. The detainee also knew he had TBC and complained of being kept in the section with other detainees who could be contaminated. The representatives of APADOR-CH inquired at the infirmary and were told that Vasile did not have TBC but chronic tobacco bronchitis. Detainees were taken out every day for about 45 minutes, handcuffed. They had a bath every week.

Room no. 458 hosted detainee Viorel Cucu. The room had 2 beds and looked just like the others, toilet and all (the window could not be opened here either, because the bars were permanently locked). The detainee had been kept with “the dangerous” for about 8 month following numerous incident reports, without being formally listed in that category. He had been transferred from the Bucureşti-Jilava Penitentiary where he had had 14 or 15 incident reports. Cucu said that at Jilava he had been treated with hostility for being “troublesome, just because he defended his rights and complained whenever they were infringed upon”. The management of the penitentiary explained that he was not officially listed as “dangerous” because they wanted to “give him another chance” so that he “does not bear the stigma of having been listed as dangerous in his record”. The representatives of the Association considered this a totally unnatural situation, because, even though he was not “stigmatized” as “dangerous”, Cucu had been suffering for 8 months the consequences of being among dangerous detainees: isolation, going to court and to outdoor exercise in chains and handcuffs, etc. Of the 8 months spent with “the dangerous”, Cucu had been kept alone for 7, although he had no disciplinary misconduct for 6 months in a row. A few months prior to the visit, the detainee was told that if he bought equipment for the section's gym, detainees would be allowed to use it. Since the detainee was better off, his family bought the 1200 USD fitness equipment. But the gym was used only by the staff, which prompted the detainee to ask his equipment back. Although a member of the management stated that the gym was also used by detainees, the fact was not confirmed in any of the discussions with inmates in the section. Cucu also complained about the bad food and the lack of any cultural or educational activity. He also said that on March 9^th and 16^th, the governor prevented his cousins to visit him, which seemed unusual to the representatives of the Association. Normally, detainees decide for themselves whom thy want to see or not, within the number of visits they are legally entitled to. He was allowed to make 4 phone calls per month and had a weekly bath. Cucu complained that his underwear was only washed once in two or three weeks. He also claimed that, in one case, he sent his personal underwear to the laundry and never got them back.

3. Conclusion

1. APADOR-CH asks that the DGP should change its decision regarding the use of chains to restrain detainees. The renewed use of chains is a most regrettable backslide for the whole Romanian penitentiary system. The Association grounds its request on the fact that the use of chains is categorically prohibited by both the European penitentiary norms and by the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Detainees. Once the DGP takes back the chains it has distributed, it should also include in the “Methodological norms on high risk detainees” the mention that chains are not part of the “safe means of restraint”.

2. APADOR-CH considers that the management of the Giurgiu Penitentiary is preoccupied to ensure the right of detainees to be fed and accommodated and to receive mail, visits and parcels. Because it does not have its own farming unit, the prison has difficulties in getting supplies, because except for the meat (which comes from Pelendava Penitentiary) all the other products must be bought. The DGP should therefore support the penitentiary in covering all its debts towards food suppliers. It is also necessary that the DGP allocate resources to complete the works on the new detention unit.

3. APADOR-CH considers that the management uses excessive procedures for detainees considered to be “dangerous”, generating serious tension among detainees. It is obviously exaggerated to list among “the dangerous” and treat as such detainees who ask for their rights to be observed and - when they are not – complain to governmental or non-governmental institutions, by virtue of their constitutional right to petition. The Association considers that the more educated detainees who teach their mates how to defend their rights fall into the same category. The position of certain members of the staff, including the prison Governor, who regard such detainees as “instigators”, is totally mistaken and unproductive, creating permanent tensions between the staff and detainees. The Association requires the management of the penitentiary to take the necessary steps so that Section III C – an utter “disciplinary” section – is turned to normal in the sense of the above.

4. In what concerns living conditions in Section III C, the Association believes that some changes are necessary, including the refurbishing of room, so that detainees who are not sanctioned with confinement or restrictive regime may be properly accommodated and treated. The extremely narrow spaces, the toilet inside the room, the impossibility to open the windows and ventilate the room, the lack of artificial light are, in the opinion of the Association, indicators of inhuman and degrading treatment.

5. APADOR-CH believes that the management of the penitentiary should analyze the complaints of detainees in Section III C and take the necessary steps to remedy the situation. The lack of activity also represents a serious problem in this Section, where there is no educator. The lack of cultural and education activities was pointed out by all detainees who talked to the representatives of the Association. The lack of proper space for such activities should be compensated by the efforts of educators. In that respect, the education department needs more staff, the 3 existing educators being obviously insufficient for the 1400 detainees.

6. APADOR-CH considers that the lack of any activity in the case of juveniles is extremely serious. Juveniles, especially the illiterate ones, should go to classes.

7. The problem of insufficient medical staff must be solved as quickly as possible.

8. In order to help women detainees to maintain good relations with their children, they should be allowed to have "table visits" with their family and to wear their own clothes during visits.

9. APADOR-CH asks again the head of the DGP to intervene in order to stop the violence of penitentiary intervention squads against detainees.

 

 Diana Călinescu                                                                                   Valerian Stan