Report on the visit to the Poarta Albă penitentiary and the units Valu lui Traian and Moşneni
On 3, 4 and 5 July 2001, the representatives of APADOR-CH visited the penitentiary in Poarta Albă and its units in Valu lui Traian and Moşneni.
Generalities
As of the date of the visit there were 2,924 detainees in the penitentiary and its two units. In Poarta Albă there were 2,413 detainees (for 2,213 installed beds), 355 in Valu lui Traian (420 beds) and 156 in Moşneni (428 beds). A number of 2,216 detainees had final convictions, 422 were in pre-trial custody, 274 sentenced in the first instance and 12 convicted for petty offences. There were 287 young detainees (most of whom, that is, around 230, were in Valu lui Traian), there were 22 minors and 53 women. In the main unit there were mostly detainees who did not have a final conviction or do not fit the requirements to work, while Valu lui Traian and Moşneni are labour facilities. The total number of officers is 460, out of whom around 350 work in the operative units.
1.1 Discussion with the penitentiary officials
Since some of the penitentiary buildings (the barracks of sections I, III, VIII and IX) are old, being built in 1949, the penitentiary officials requested their technical review to establish whether their current status is threatening the safety of detainees.
During the summer time, around 600 – 700 detainees are used for work every day, especially in agriculture, based on permanent contracts and as daily workers. Off-season, they are mostly used for land management works, especially digging irrigation ditches. The penitentiary has a farm, where they grow fodder and vegetables on around 100 hectares, The animal farm has about 850 pigs, 300 sheep, 50 cattle and 1,000 poultry. The farm ensures the full quantity of vegetables and partially the meat quantity.
The non-governmental organisations performing various activities in the penitentiary include: the foundation “Stânca Veacurilor” (on Wednesdays and Saturdays representatives of the foundation have religious education activities and sometimes they provide material aid to poor detainees or those who are not visited by their families); the foundation “România de Mâine”, an organisation of the law students from the “Spiru Haret” University in Constanţa (the students make weekly visits having an interest in the penitentiary law issues); the Humanitarian Service for Penitentiaries (religious education and aid for detainees).
The sanctioning of the violations of the internal rules follow the “incident report” procedures and detainees who are subject to such procedures are heard by the disciplinary commission irrespective to the seriousness of the violation or the foreseen punishment. There are around 300 detainees included in the “dangerous” category. Most of them are those on whom there are “data” that they would have the intent to escape, to assault the guards etc. The same goes for those who were declared “wanted” by the police. The representatives of APADOR-CH reiterated their opinion that including the detainees in such category should be based on an accurate documentation of the circumstances resulting in such a decision. A simple note on the penitentiary file – by the police or whomever, usually undated, under an illegible signature – is completely insufficient for automatically including a detainee in the “dangerous detainees” category (with all the consequences of such a decision). The penitentiary officials should be relieved y the threat that if such a detainee provokes a “special event”, the sanctions will be drastic for the supervising officer up to the commanding officer (director). Based on their own observation of the behaviour of detainees, the penitentiary officials should decide – of course, in full accountability, yet without constraints such as mentioned above – whether a detainee is categorised as “dangerous” or not. The penitentiary officials mentioned that the detention regime of the “dangerous” detainees is almost identical to that of the regular detainees (except for a higher frequency of searches and extra security measures during the transfer to other penitentiaries or hospital commitment). The situation of the “dangerous” detainees is reviewed on a monthly basis; the status of the detainees under “restrictive regime” is reviewed at every fifth of their terms in prison and, provided that the measure was not revoked, at the next moment established to that purpose.
Another problem faced by the penitentiary is the relatively high number of cases when the Medgidia Court decides to postpone the parole of the detainees proposed by the penitentiary commission. According to the data provided by the penitentiary officials, the average rate of the court accepting the penitentiary’s proposals is 97% at the level of the General Police Directorate, and around 88% for Poarta Albă. This creates dissatisfaction among the detainees, especially when they did not have any disciplinary problems, they were used for work or even for guarding other detainees. The representatives of the association agree that a higher acceptance of the penitentiaries’ proposals would stimulate the detainees to have a good behaviour during their terms in prison. On the other hand, it is obvious that the penitentiary officials, the parole commissions and the prosecutor in charge of carrying out of punishments are aware to a greater extent that the courts of the detainees who had during their terms in office a behaviour justifying or not the parole.
Of course, this case is also due, in the opinion of APADOR-CH, to deficiencies of the penal law allowing for instance that the repeated offence also counts for parole once it was taken into account for individualising the punishment enforced by the court.
The detainees from the Poarta Albă penitentiary were also consulted on the possibility to receive money from their families rather than parcels. Such money should be used to buy mostly food and cigarettes. There are data that many of the detainees opt for this system. APADOR-CH considers that it has several advantages making it recommendable: the families of detainees would not have to spend money to go the penitentiary to bring parcels, the possibility of introducing forbidden objects or products, such as alcohol or drugs, in the penitentiary through parcels. The association would like to suggest that where there are still detainees insisting on the parcel option, this should be allowed as an alternative to the receipt of money.
This penitentiary is enforcing the initiative of the General Police Directorate (which is welcomed by the association) to identify every month the detainees with serious medical or social problems and propose them for pardon. Two or three such cases are solved every month in the penitentiary.
Food ward
The lunch menu was: no diet – bean soup with pork head and cabbage stew with pork lard, meat and head; diet – piglet soup and cabbage stew with meat. The food looked rather good. The food for no diet also had meat sub-products and the diet food also had meat (there were 48 detainees with tuberculosis and 31 with diabetes and hepatitis having diet food). The morning menu was potato stew with pork lard and head, and the dinner would have been tea and milk (for diet) and tea with lard (no diet). For the three meals were used 97 kilos of meat, 127 kilos of pork head and 167 kilos of lard.
Although two years ago repairs were made on the food ward, the walls of the kitchen were dank. During the summertime, especially when irrigation works are performed in the area there are problems almost daily with the water supply. The dishwasher had 2 old waterspouts where all the dishes were washed.
Detention facilities
Section V, semi-open. Almost all detainees here are used for work. After work, the detainees have their doors unlocked and may stay in the exercise yard.
In room 10 there were 42 detainees in 46 beds. At the time of the visit, the detainees were out for work. The work programme is from Monday to Friday, from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. (they do not work on Sundays, and on Saturdays only when requested by the beneficiaries). Detainees receive newspapers on a daily basis and they have a TV set they can watch until 10 p.m. The lavatory – a separate room – has 2 standing water closets and a concrete waterspout with 3 taps. At the time of the visit in that room there were bags and buckets with garbage that had not been cleaned out for a long time and made the air irrespirable.
Room 9 – 34 detainees and 35 beds – was designated to the detainees who did not go out for work. At the time of the visit the detainees were out for exercise (the exercise takes between half an hour and one hour every day, including Saturdays and Sundays). There was a TV set in room. The lavatory was identical with the one in room 10, only that it was clean.
In the exercise yard the representatives of the association talked with the following detainees:
The medical cabinet arranged for section V serves sections I, III, V, VI and the minors. The health care is provided by two general practitioners and two nurses. The penitentiary has 2 medical cabinets for detainees and one for officers. The head doctor is in charge of the latter cabinet. At the time of the visit, the orthodontist was on holiday and the representatives of the associations were told that the emergency cases were treated in Constanţa. In the cabinet from section V circa 80 detainees are seen every day (within a 12 hour daily programme). The most frequent diseases are the dermatological, digestive and locomotor diseases. At the date of the visit 10 detainees with syphilis were treated there (all of them had caught the disease outside the penitentiary system). The doctor estimated that there were around 30 detainees with psychiatric problems in the sections he was in charge with. The detainees committed in civilian hospitals have usually one hand in cuffs (except for old and very sick detainees). In the hospital from Palazu two rooms were arranged for detainees, yet due to the overcrowding of civilian patients, they cannot be used solely for detainees. The representatives of APADOR-CH also insisted that handcuffing the sick detainees infringes on the international norms in the field (UN and the Council of Europe) and is an excessive measure since the sick detainees are permanently escorted by two unlisted officers. A study, initiated by the General Police Directorate, was undergoing in the penitentiary for assessing the risk of HIV infection (including only male detainees between 14 and 80 who had been in the penitentiary system for more than 6 months). The physicians and educators explained to the detainees the reason of the tests, that they are confidential and that they may be made only following their expressed agreement (noted in the forms designed for this operation). Until the date of the visit, 74 detainees had been included in the study.
Section IV. In room 18, destined for quarantine, there were 24 detainees in 21 beds. Detainees had a TV set and a radio and tape recorder operated by batteries, all brought from home. The lavatory was identical as those from the other rooms previously visited.
In room 14, for stationary detainees, there were 31 detainees and 27 beds. Detainees were dissatisfied with the detention regime, especially with the food quality and the fact that they could not have a weekly bath (according to their statements, they had not had a bath in three weeks).
Detainee Ali Samir, sentenced to 3 years in prison for pimping, out of which he had carried one and a half years, is practically blind (he had the retina to one eye detached and cataract on the other eye). He had been in this condition for 8 or 9 months, his status had not improved and his punishment was not interrupted to be treated outside the penitentiary system. The test performed by the Forensic Medical Institute on 16 January 2001 showed that this is “an case that is incapable of being treated or cured by surgery”. A new test was performed and they were waiting for the results. The detainee also requested to be transferred to the Dej penitentiary hospital and his request was denied.
Daniel Matei, sentenced to 3 years for theft, out of which he had carried out 10 months, was brought from the Bucharest-Jilava penitentiary hospital, although his 4 minor children are under the care of his in-laws in a village close to Bucharest (his wife is also in prison, carrying out a 6-year sentence). Matei requested to be transferred to one of the penitentiaries in or near Bucharest.
Ali Caieredin complained that in August 1999 he had been punished to 10 days of isolation and that before carrying out this punishment he had been kept also in isolation and in chains for another 10 days.
Ali Altîi also complained that this March he had been punished to isolation because he “had pulled out a knife”, which he denied, and that he had been chained. The detainee affirmed that he had not been heard by the disciplinary commission.
There was a TV set in the room and the detainees who had phone cards are entitled to one phone call a month.
The medical cabinet in section IV services sections II, IV and women. Every day circa 40 – 50 detainees are examined here.
The section bathroom has 15 showers, 9 of which did not have a grate and there was a lot of water on the floor. A similar shower room is in section V and the detainees from the sections without their own bathroom have their bath in a common hall, much larger.
Section II (“maximum security”). In room 1, for those refusing the food, there were two detainees, both of whom started the hunger strike for “legal” reasons – one was protesting against the severity of his final sentence and the other requested the revocation of pre-trial custody. The lavatory had a standing water closet, separated from the rest of the room by a 1.5 m high wall, and a sink.
Room 3, for restrictive regime, had 4 beds and 2 detainees. Florin Mihai had been there since 23 November 2000 and had a year of restrictive regime to carry out. After the first fifth of the punishment, his situation was reviewed and the decision was for him to remain in restrictive regime. Before that, Florin Mihai had been punished to 10 days of isolation in chains. The same one-year punishment, starting with 23 October 2000, had been applied to Mentemir Beiruc for attempted escape. Similarly, he had been punished before that to 10 days of isolation and he was hold in chains. The two are taken out for exercise every day for about one hour, one hour and a half. The situation of Mentemir Beiruc, who has to carry out a 20-month sentence, out of which he had carried out 15 months, had been recently discussed by the parole commission and his status was postponed. The educators organise every day the “difficult” programme with the two of them, aiming mostly at civic and family education themes.
In room 16 there were 8 detainees, from various categories, and 6 beds. Although it was very hot, the room was permanently closed and the air was almost irrespirable. The detainees complained that the food was bad, that the water was cut all the time during the day and it was running for no more than 2 – 3 hours during the night, and that they took a shower only once every 2 – 3 weeks. The penitentiary officials mentioned that the water was cut due to some malfunctions occurring in the Basarabi area. There was a TV set and a radio in the room and the lavatory had a standing water closet, separated from the rest of the room by a 1.5 m high, and a sink. Sorin Gavrilov complained that although he had a life sentence he was kept in this penitentiary that does not have that profile. He insistently requested to be moved either to Bucharest-Rahova or to Craiova (his family is in Brăila). The subsequent discussions with the penitentiary officials showed that Gavrilov was there because he still had an outstanding legal issue under the jurisdiction of the Poarta Albă penitentiary. He also requested to be returned his battery operated radio that had been stored in the warehouse.
Detainee Igor Mihailov, a Russian citizen, complained that he is kept in the section, as a dangerous detainee, while all the other foreign detainees are in other sections (he also mentioned that while in the Bucharest-Rahova penitentiary he had been punished for cursing the officers). He also complained about the quality of the food, mentioning that he had received rotten potatoes for breakfast.
In room 15 there were 4 minor detainees in 2 beds. The minors complained that they had been removed from their rooms and they had been brought here – two of them for over two months and the others for over a month – without being told what for. The officers said that the minors had been “isolated from the community” because they had had repeated conflicts with their roommates and they were gambling. A day before, one of the minors, Mustafa Samir (16), had swallowed a nail and no one from the medical cabinet had seen him. Due to the living conditions (the minors were sleeping two in a bed), the representatives of APADOR-CH estimated that the detention regime was equivalent to the disciplinary isolation, even if the mattresses, which were looking awful, were not removed from the rooms.
Detainee Aristotel Sencovici was in severe isolation (room 13). He was a detainee sentenced to 25 years in prison for murder, who had been recently transferred from the Bucharest-Rahova penitentiary. He believed that his transfer was an error and chose to stay alone in a room until his situation is clarified.
In the other severe isolation room (room 12), there were 5 detainees in 2 beds. The beds were made of concrete and the mattresses and the linen was removed between 5 a.m. and 10 p.m., and during the night since they do not have enough room they take turns in the beds. Four out of the five detainees were young men – Nicolae Şorcănea, Marius Stanciu, Daniel Grigore and Ionel Enache – who were punished by 10 days of severe isolation for refusing to go out for work from the Valu lui Traian unit. The same as in other cases, the representatives of APADOR-CH considered that the refusal to work should be sanctioned only if it causes material and significant consequences, for instance when this would compromise a contract between the penitentiary and beneficiaries. Moreover, the sanctions should be individualised on a case by case basis depending on the concrete circumstances of the violation, its consequences, the detainee’s previous behaviour etc. It is clear that such requirements were not taken into account in the case of the four young men, who were all punished by 10 days of isolation, which was admitted both by the heads of the penitentiary and the Valu lui Traian unit.
The same punishment, 10 days of isolation, was also applied to Ion Voinea for stealing a few things from his roommates.
None of the 5 detainees punished to isolation had been heard by the disciplinary commission. The lavatory had also a standing water closet, separated from the rest of the room by a 1.5 m high wall, and a sink.
In room 8 there were 7 detainees in 4 beds. The officers’ explanation was that the detainees had gone out from isolation 3 – 4 days ago and would be assigned to other sections. Besides overcrowding, the representatives of the association retained the case of detainee Trifan Baurda. The detainee, who seemed to have certain psychiatric problems, had been chained since 27 June. He was very dissatisfied with the officers’ treatment (he had also complained, according to him, to the Military Prosecutor’s Office) and insistently requested to be moved from this penitentiary (“anywhere, as long as it’s not here”). He also complained that he suffered from tuberculosis, that he spat blood and he did not receive the adequate treatment. The detainees complained that they had lice and that they were doing nothing all day long.
The section has 3 exercise yards and are 6m by 2 m each.
The socio-educational department has 8 staff – a psychologist, while the others had either legal or teaching backgrounds. The department’s main focus aims at adapting the detainees to the penitentiary conditions (during the quarantine period), counselling them and diminishing their dissatisfaction and aggressiveness. The opinion of the APADOR-CH representatives was that the department heads should be consulted to a greater extent on the disciplinary measures taken against the detainees. The educators and psychologist are involved in the study on the risk of HIV infection and the one, also initiated by the General Police Directorate, on the self-mutilation cases of detainees recorded between January – June 2001. They organise alphabetisation courses with the minors (20 minors), civic education courses (“good citizenship education”) and are taken out systematically for sports activities. There are classes for 1st – 8th grades and professional training courses (24 detainees, as osier knitters, 30 as vegetable farmers and 28 as locksmiths and welders). The women are included in the “Difficult” programme, mostly aiming at family education and counselling. The women are also included in the sanitary education and participate to various contests, such as cooking. Pop and folk music shows had been organised in the penitentiary with outside bands, including the band of the Army’s Club from Constanţa.
Section IX, for women, had 3 rooms and the fourth one would be commissioned in the near future. In room 2, 12 female detainees occupied 8 beds (the overcrowding was only a couple of days old). The detainees complained of lack of activity and asked to be left out for a longer period (the daily exercise programme is around one hour) and to be allowed to make more than one phone call a month. They said that they are not allowed to have knitting needles or crochets, which is allowed in other penitentiaries. They receive books from the library and they may watch TV from 12 to 7 p.m. and from 8 to 10 p.m. The room had a lavatory made up of a standing water closet, a sink and a shower. In the other room that was visited (43 female detainees and 38 beds), the detainees also complained of lack of activity, of the low quality of food, that the letters (both sent and received) are kept for a long time, without any reason, in the visit ward, that the staff does not treat them attentively and solicitously and they asked to be left out for a longer period. The staff said that the exercise programme had been cut down in the last two weeks due to a series of incidents occurred among the detainees, and that as soon as the fourth room will be opened the length of the daily exercise to be increased again. The water is cut almost daily and in the last two months the detainees had not had dental care. There are also problems with the visits, the detainees being dissatisfied by the fact that they have to wear their prison uniform and that the Turks are forced to speak only Romanian. The female detainees also requested to stop having cooked meals in the morning the same as for the detainees going to work. Detainee Asan Ghiulham complained that she had been punished to the suspension of certain rights because she was in hunger strike and Omer Turchian that she had been sentenced to 10 months in prison for an unpaid fine of ROL 1.4 million. Detainee Nizan Cidem had swallowed a spoon handle three days before the visit of APADOR-CH. The young women was very scared of the consequences of her gesture. She went to the doctor (in a hospital), where she was practically kicked out. The representatives of the association requested the medical staff to explain to her that usually she should wait for the elimination of the foreign body (which could take months) and that surgery is performed only if a “painful and swollen abdomen” is ascertained. Detainee Elena Buţă complained that she had not been informed of her mother’s death (who was buried on 1 July 2001). Several detainees complained of the brutal treatment and offensive language used by one of the supervisors (Doina Cojan). All detainees complained that in the only day with hot water they can only do their laundry if they give up to the daily exercise (thus they have to do their laundry with cold water). The lavatory had two water closets, a sink and a shower.
Section VII – minors and youth. In room 1 there were 8 persons in 12 beds. The room had no TV and the detainees were not able to watch the one in the club, which was broken. There were no rummy or chess games. The daily exercise takes around 2 hours and the detainees are allowed to play football (at the time they did not have a ball) and organise other sports contests. They have to wear their prison uniforms for visits. The minors also declared that they have hot showers about once a month.
The penitentiary’s common shower room has 18 showers (out of which, two did not have grates). Showers are taken by 30 people shifts.
The visit unit allows around 15 visits in the same time (7 “normal” visits and 8 “at the table”). As the room for receiving parcels is currently organised, the detainees can hardly see the officers receiving the parcels from visitors.
2. Valu lui Traian Unit
2.1 Discussion with the unit commanding officer
The unit had been opened three months before the visit on the site of old military barracks and currently can accommodate 450 detainees. This is a labour unit (with semi-open regime). It is foreseen that (within 4 years, according to the commanding officer of the Poarta Albă penitentiary) the unit would have capacity of 800 – 900 seats and would become the main unit of the Poarta Albă penitentiary. At the date of the visit, out of the 8 pavilions (barrack-like) foreseen to be commissioned as detention facilities, 4 were finalised (in two of them there were young detainees and in another one, the adult detainees, first offenders separated from repeated offenders, and in the last one the detainees with no guard). Out of the 355 detainees, circa 200 – 230 were young men. The unit has around 100 staff (out of which 90 work in the operative department).
The health care is provided by a doctor from the “main” penitentiary, who is also in charge of the Moşneni unit, and two nurses. The representatives of APADOR-CH met a young man with a really big abscess on a tooth, which had been untreated in any way for days because the penitentiary orthodontist was on holiday (in such a case, the detainees should have obviously taken to a cabinet in Constanţa).
On the day of the visit, around 300 detainees were taken out for work (about 80 detainees are “stationary” detainees since they are unable to work, either for medical reasons or because they are considered “dangerous”; some of them are used for the works performed in the unit’s yard). In the farming season they work mostly in vineyards and orchards and outside this season they would work in land management works, for Romtelecom (digging ditches) or in the Constanţa port. Three out of the four detainees in isolation from the “main” penitentiary had come from Valu lui Traian. On the day of the visit, other 7 detainees were punished to 10 days of isolation for the same reason. The association considers that from this point of view, especially taking into account the arguments mentioned in the section on the “main” penitentiary unit, in the Valu lui Traian unit there is a problem that should be treated by the penitentiary and unit heads with all the due consideration.
The unit has an educator and a technical unlisted officer. They organise civic education programmes with groups of 10 detainees. During the week-ends they organise sports contests (there is already a football court and within a month they will finalise a sports centre). The unit has only one TV set, which is used by turns in all the detention areas. Although there are detainees who could get radios and tape recorders from home, an order of the General Police Directorate bans such devices unless they are operated by batteries. APADOR-CH considers that the General Police Directorate should give up to this order, which is several years old, as the argument that this measure is aimed at saving power is almost hilarious.
There is a public phone, that can be used by the detainees who have phone cards once a month and when special cases occur.
At the time of the visit, a representative of the foundation “Stânca Veacurilor” was in the penitentiary. This foundation has religious education programmes and every now and then donates medicines and clothes to the poorest detainees.
The visit section is well organised (a large hall with tables, the room for receiving parcels allows the detainees to see the content of the parcel taken over by the non-listed officer from his visitor etc).
Although the detainees receive 200 g of soap and 150 g of detergent every month, they do not get razor blades, toothpaste and toilet paper because, according to the officers, they are not in the norms. The representatives of the association noticed that this is at least a misunderstanding at the level of penitentiaries since such products are distributed to detainees, as they “are in the norms”, as it happens in the Tulcea penitentiary, as a recent example, and in others they are not.
The unit needs to get 7 or 8 vehicles for the transport of officers and detainees, 1 draining machine, 1 truck for transporting foodstuffs and washing and pressing machines for the linen.
The food ward is new, with all the necessary equipment (also new). The only equipment needed is a couple of 50 kilo potato peeling machines (the existing ones are too small). What is extremely positive is that the dining hall has 400 seats and is self-service. According to the officers, there are no problems with the running water in the Valu lui Traian unit. That day’s menu was: breakfast – bean stew with meat; lunch – potato soup with potherbs and cabbage with meat; dinner – tea and lard. They used 24 kilos of meat, 29 kilos of lard and 10 kilos of pork head.
In section 1, for young detainees, they were in their rooms since on the day of the visit of the APADOR-CH representatives was one of the few when they were not working. The daily work programme is from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. When they are in the unit, the detainees have the doors to their rooms open and may go to each of the room or to the lavatory. The lavatory consists of a separate room with two separate compartments, one with 5 cabins with standing water closets and 2 urinators, and in the other one, a room with 10 showers and 8 sinks with mirrors. The detainees have hot water showers one a week and they can wash up with cold water daily after work.
On 7 October 1999, Iulian Neagu was retained by the Constanţa police, since he was caught in the act while committing a crime. The next day, a warrant was issued on his name, and Neagu admitted the crime from the beginning. In the following week, the police officers asked him to admit another deed (assault), which had an unidentified author. Since he had constantly refused, around 15 October Neagu was beaten badly by 2 police officers from Constanţa – lieutenants Lupa and Ionică. He was rolled up until his shoulders in a rug (brought by the police officers from another office) and was beaten for more than an hour with a baseball bat, fist and foot kicked. During the “line-up” he was forced to point while he was photographed a person that he had never seen (and who said that he had never seen Iulian Neagu). Although he asked to see a doctor after he had been beaten this has not happened (Iulian Neagu stayed in the police lockup for about 2 months). Neagu recalls that Victor Dumitru (co-author of the deed he admitted, currently detained in the Poarta Albă penitentiary) also knew about the fact that he had been beaten. In early June Iulian Neagu complained to the Military Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman Office.
This unit had been dismantled a few years before 1989 and was reopened in 1991, as a labour unit in a semi-open regime. On the day of the visit, all the 156 detainees were out for work (they were working on a contract basis for private farming associations). Outside the farming season, when they do not have where to work, they turn into “stationary detainees”, also in semi-open regime. The detainees here have all final sentences, for non-violent deeds, with terms in prison up to 10 years and with less than one year from being released. Out of them, 31 detainees are in no guard regime, some of them being used for guarding the unit and the others for guarding the other detainees. There are 45 staff, out of whom 40 in the operative department.
The buildings and land are owned by the “Munca” can factory in Ovidiu. Due to its debts, its patrimony is now being recovered by the Bank Asset Recovery Agency. Although the Poarta Albă penitentiary and the unit officials would like to make some investments (improving the detention and administrative facilities, a cereal storage facility, which is almost finalised), the factory was against that, unjustifiably – in the opinion of the association - and categorically.
When working, the detainees are guarded by unarmed guards, and after work (the working programme is from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and on Saturdays usually until 1 p.m.), the detainees have the doors to their rooms open and may go to the exercise yard or play football until the evening call, at 7:30 p.m..
There is a public phone that can be used by detainees once a month and when special problems occur.
The Moşneni unit also faces the same problem with the Medgidia court rejecting a relatively high number of parole proposals. This is even more difficult to appreciate here, where virtually every detainee work day in day out and have a good behaviour according to their officers.
The unit has a small van and bigger van, yet they would need a 4x4 vehicle (“Aro”) for “emergency interventions”.
The animal farm has 174 pigs, 7 cattle and 2 horses. In the unit yard they grow vegetables and herbs.
The health care is provided by two nurses working in shifts and one of the doctors from the “main” penitentiary unit, who comes every Friday or for special cases. The unit has a good co-operation relationship with the hospital in Mangalia.
The educator officer organises legal counselling and alphabetisation programmes with the detainees (there were 3 illiterates), as well as sports contests (football, table tennis). The detainees have the right to 4 “table visits” and 4 parcels every month.
The cases of punishing detainees for violating the internal rules are extremely rare, around one every year. There are virtually no cases when a detainee refuses to go out for work. The explanation given by the head of unit, which was plausible for the representatives of APADOR-CH, was that, taking into account the conditions - semi-freedom, low stress due to permanently active programme – the detainees do not want to be removed from Moşneni.
The food ward building was old, yet clean and well maintained (it was whitewashed every two weeks). There are no problems with the running water. The lunch menu was bean soup with herbs and pork sub-products stew. The food was cooked in rudimentary yet hygienic conditions, in old cauldrons, with liquid fuel and some of the detainees with whom the representatives of the association talked said that they were rather satisfied with the food quality (as well as the general detention and labour conditions). The breakfast menu was vegetable hotchpotch and the dinner menu would be tea and marmalade. They used 31 kilos of pork sub-products and 15 kilos of lard.
The unit has a laundry room where everything is washed manually. APADOR-CH considers that the logistical department of the General Police Directorate should decide that the dismantled equipment from the modernised kitchens and laundries from other penitentiaries should be sent to the Moşneni unit (see also the report on the APADOR-CH visit to the Tulcea penitentiary of 6 July 2001).
The bathroom was looking somehow worse: The plumbing and showers (26) were very rusty, the walls were peeling off and damp, the floor had holes and insufficient wooden grates. Obviously, the renovation of the bathroom should be a priority.
The medical cabinet has the necessary medicines (the nurse on duty said that they would need a sterilisation equipment).
Around 10 – 20 detainees are seen every day (the most frequent affections are the flue and cold). Around 2 – 3 medical exemptions are given every week and once every 3 months the detainees get the periodical check-up. In more serious cases, the first aid is provided in the cabinet than the detainees are transported to the hospital in Mangalia. In the civilian hospitals, the detainees are never handcuffed (they are only escorted by non-listed officers).
In room 1 there were 34 detainees and 46 beds. There was one TV and one radio-tape recorder. They receive newspapers on a daily basis. The detainees have a shower usually on Sunday morning and they can wash up with cold water every day after work.
Room 2 had 66 beds and 21 detainees. The rooms are heated between 1 November and 1 May , with wood stoves (some of the present detainees said that the rooms had been warm last winter); Room 1 had one stove and the other room two stoves. The lavatories of each room have 3 standing water closets and a metallic waterspout with one tap (the lavatory of room 1 was dirty).
The unit’s club has a hall for cultural, educational and religious activities and another one with a table for table tennis (there used to be another room with a table), which can be used by detainees after work.
4. Conclusions
Manuela Ştefănescu
Valerian Stan