Report on the visit to the Ploieºti penitentiary
The penitentiary was closed in 1977 and reopened in 1993, when it was granted a different status from the other units within the system, that is, a “pre-trial detention facility”, anticipating thus the essential changes provided in the draft law on the regime of the carry out terms in prison. In principle, only the persons held in pre-trial detention should be there, who, after the final conviction should be transferred to another penitentiary for the carry out of their punishment. In reality, around half of the detainees in Ploieºti have final convictions and they cannot be transferred due to the fact that the entire system is overcrowded.
A former army barrack, in the area of the Teleajen refinery, was transferred to the penitentiary, where following the renovation works (most likely this March or April), around one hundred detainees will be accommodated in a semi-open regime. Here they have also built a facility for 40 pigs, which are to be bought. For the time being, the meat for the meals of detainees is brought from the Pelendava penitentiary.
The Ploieºti penitentiary has a 20 ha farming land where they grow potatoes (around a quarter of the necessary potatoes are produced internally) and animal feed.
The designed capacity of the penitentiary is 500 beds. Other 125 beds were installed, totalling 625 beds. As of the visit date, in the Ploieºti penitentiary there were 864 detainees (no women), out of which 30 minors and 83 youth aged between 18 and 21 (including a petty offender). Of the total, 446 detainees were held in pre-trial detention (including those convicted in the first instance), 411 had final convictions and 7 were petty offenders.
Marian Geangu is an “example” of ignorance of the law and of the most elementary means of defence. He got a Lei 400,000 fine based on Law 61/1991, which he claims he paid yet he kept the receipt at home. Although he was summoned at the court in Vãlenii de Munte following the police request to turn the fine in days of prison, Marian Geangu did not go to court, missing thus the possibility to prove that he had paid the fine as well as to request the court to provide community service instead of carrying out 40 days of detention. Only when in the penitentiary, he submitted an application for modifying the sentence yet, until the date of the visit of the representatives of the Association, no reply had come from the court. In any case, the young man finishes his punishment on February 20 this year, and even if his request were approved, it would not serve him much. It should also be mentioned that the young man is not part of the category of those who prefer the prison since they have no home or income sources.
The penitentiary has around 160 officers, out of which over one hundred are operational staff, with a ratio of 8 detainees for an officer, much above the standards in the democratic European countries.
In a penitentiary where half of the detainees are in pre-trial detention, one would expect a heavy presence of lawyers and normal conditions for ensuring the confidentiality of the discussions they have with their clients. None of these applies. Many lawyers are appointed ex officio and they limit to a brief discussion with the clients in the courtroom, only a few minutes before the hearing. The penitentiary has a room of around 6 square metres with a small table and three chairs. The governor said that a warden is present during the entire length of the discussion between the lawyer and his client, leaving the room only upon the expressed request of the former one. The representatives of APADOR-CH affirmed that the rule should be to ensure the confidentiality and the presence of an officer should only be the exception to that rule, and only upon the lawyer’s request.
In opposition with those said by the governor, the officers from the visit ward, where there is the lawyers’ room, said that the surveillance personnel is not present to the discussions and wait outside on the corridor.
APADOR-CH draws the conclusion that either the governor is not familiar with the procedure applied in his own penitentiary, or the staff from the visit ward wanted to mislead the representatives of the Association. Unfortunately, they were not able to check which of the variants was the right one since none of the detainees with whom they talked had been visited by their lawyer in the penitentiary.
A positive aspect is that any time that the investigators want to talk with the detainees, the management of the penitentiary allows that only in the presence of the lawyers. Moreover, the investigators are not able to get a person held in pre-trial detention out of the penitentiary to investigate him some other place (for instance in a police station) and to bring him back in a few hours. The transfer of detainees to the police lockups may be made only based on a written authorisation. Although the governor did not remember a case where they received a detainee from a police lockup with signs of violence, he admitted that many persons in pre-trial detention complained about the brutal treatment applied by the police officers to them.
The representatives of APADOR-CH were informed that the orthodox priest, a penitentiary employee, assists to the services performed by representatives of other cults (Adventist, Evangelist) with the detainees. Although they have encountered this practice before, which they consider unacceptable, in other penitentiaries, the representatives of the Association found out that the General Directorate of Penitentiaries even issued an order (no 1/10.01.2001) instituting the obligation of the orthodox priests to participate to such services and forbidding other cults to distribute directly to the detainees small gifts (including envelopes or ball pens).
APADOR-CH draws the attention of DGP that art. 29 of the Constitution stipulates unequivocally that “the freedom of thought and opinion, as well as the freedom of religious belief cannot be limited in any form” (emphasis added). The fear, utterly ridiculous, of the Orthodox Church of the possible option of a detainee – no matter his reasons – for another religious cult than the majority one led to the issuing of this order, which is considered unconstitutional by the Association. Also unconstitutional is an older order of DGP forbidding the detainees to pass from one religious belief to another during the detention, under the pretext that they are not able to make such a decision freely and responsibly during a punishment with deprivation of freedom. The Association cannot agree with such a measure (equivalent of “good done against one’s will”) since it is a form of limiting of the freedom of religious belief.
The number of detainees working is rather low: 100 work at the city cleaning based on a permanent contract (for around lei 120 million a month, out of which, under the regulations, only 10% are paid to detainees); 20 for “Salub” (a company also dealing with city cleaning) and 25 for “Lucifer” (performing ditches for oil pipes). The cases of punishing the detainees refusing to work (only those with final convictions are bound to work) are rare, especially since the offer exceeds the demand. APADOR-CH insists on renouncing to the punishment of the detainees refusing to work, since no penitentiary in Romania can ensure jobs for all the detainees with final convictions.
The representatives of APADOR-CH where assured that in the Ploieºti penitentiary every detainee is heard by a commission, irrespective to the nature of the offence and the seriousness of the possible sanction. However, the detainee Gheorghe Nicolae, held in a restrictive regime for 6 months (starting with December 11, 2000), who was about to be transferred to the Slobozia penitentiary the very day of the visit made by the representatives of APADOR-CH, stated that he had not been heard by anyone. Upon checking his file, there was no statement from the detainee and no minutes stating that he refused to give a declaration, as stated by the leadership of the penitentiary. The representatives of the Association have doubts regarding the way in which the rule of mandatory hearing is applied for the detainees accused of infringing the Internal regulation, at least in the case of the detainee Gheorghe Nicolae (for details, see below the section on the visit to the cells with restrictive regime).
The Ploieºti penitentiary has three public phones. In principle, starting with 2001, every detainee having a phone card is entitled to two phone calls a month and those working for the penitentiary or are dignified could get an approval for a third phone call a month. The representatives of APADOR-CH insisted again on the idea that, since the correspondence is unlimited and not censored (however, the detainee Daniel Stanciu, accommodated in cell 5 – “dangerous detainees” – complained that he had written two requests for the suspension of the punishment on medical grounds, on October 23, 2000, and January 11, 2001, and that none was sent out from the penitentiary), the phone calls (included in the same category by the Romanian Constitution itself in art. 28) must be subject to the same regime. Although APADOR-CH can agree with some restrictions strictly due to technical difficulties (low number of phones and wardens to accompany the detainees to the phones), it cannot accept the fact that the right to communicate through the phone is a reward for good behaviour.
However, the Association would like to mention a recent measure taken by the penitentiary aimed at simplifying the difficult procedure of approving a phone call. Thus, the written requests sent to the governor were replaced by tables distributed to all the cells. The detainees who got a phone card and want to make a phone call fill in the data and wait for the governor’s approval. Although this procedure eliminates some of the bureaucracy, the representatives of APADOR-CH suggested the penitentiary to eliminate the rubrics “called person” and “called phone number”, as well as the “reason” for which the detainee wants to make the phone call. These suggestions were made in the light of ensuring the secrecy of correspondence, be it written or via the telephone.
3. The visit to the penitentiary
3.1. The food ward
The food ward was commissioned in 1999 and has definitely better conditions then other penitentiaries. However, the windowed walls of the kitchen are already dank.
The daily menu consists in: tea, biscuits and cheese for breakfast; pasta soup and potato and meat dish for lunch (for the prisoners who do not work, with a supplement for the working detainees) and borscht with potatoes or bean soup and mashed potatoes with meat or vegetable hotchpotch with meat (for regimes); cheese pasta for dinner (for all detainees) and milk semolina/rice (for regimes).
The meat quantity used for the day of the visit was 63.108 kilos of meat plus 30.5 kilos of lard.
The representatives of APADOR-CH noticed that the 82 meat portions for regimes (each between 75 and 100 grams) contained a lot of fat, and there was a lot of lard in the cauldrons besides the meat, which was visible, unlike other visited penitentiaries. It should also be mentioned that no detainee complained about the food quality, unlike most of the penitentiaries previously visited by the representatives of the Association. The detainees who came from other penitentiaries said that the food in Ploieºti is much better.
Although there were no complaints about this subject, the representatives of APADOR-CH suggested to set up groups of detainees to assist on a daily basis to the transfer of food products from the storage facilities, their introduction in the cauldrons and the distribution of the cooked food. This could eliminate any possible suspicion from the detainees regarding the quantity and quality of the used food products.
3.2. Medical care
Two general practitioners (one female and one male) and 5 nurses (out of which one in the pharmacy) deal with the detainees and officers, the latter having reserved two hours daily, between 2 and 4 p.m. If one subtracts another hour for the lunch break out of the total 7 working hours daily, what remains is an average of only 4 hours a day reserved to the detainees. The number of consultations for them varies from 50 to 100 a day, which means that the average length of an examination is between 5 minutes and 2 and a half minutes! It is difficult for the representatives of APADOR-CH to believe that in such a short period the detainees can be provided medical services of an equal quality as those provided to free persons, as provided by the international standards in the field. The Association is also unpleasantly surprised by the fact that despite its insistent requests, the penitentiary physicians – in an insufficient number – continue to deal also with the officers and often their families, too. This situation continues although in 1999 DGP assured APADOR-CH that the physicians would deal with the officers only in emergency cases and for the annual medical check-up.
The Ploieºti penitentiary has another health care problem: the penitentiary has no dentistry cabinet and, of course, no dentist. In emergency situations they can address the county hospital but not for regular conditions that should be treated in specialised cabinets or clinics for a fee. The penitentiary has no such funds. Moreover, when the representatives of APADOR-CH notified the leadership of the penitentiary on the case of the detainee Andrei Stan from cell 5 – “dangerous detainees” (he had his left side of the face visibly swollen from a tooth infection and he had been like that for four months), the doctor had an unacceptable reaction: he claimed that 1) such an infection is not an emergency situation; 2) the detainee had not had the infection for 4 months and that the infection was on and off periodically following the treatment with antibiotics; and 3) anyway, the infection should first be treated since no dentist can do anything at that moment. The representatives of the Association asked why – if it was true that the infection disappeared from time to time – they had not taken advantage of the amelioration to take the detainee to see a dentist. Their question was not answered. The same went for the question why in 4 months the doctor had not addressed the General Directorate of Penitentiaries either for asking the necessary amount of money for the detainee’s dentistry treatment, or to ask his transfer – at least temporarily – in another penitentiary that has a dentistry cabinet. None of the explanations given by the head of the prison section – “we have no money, no dentistry cabinet” – can be accepted.
The penitentiary’s infirmary has three rooms. In room 29 (6 persons in 4 beds), the representatives of APADOR-CH found detainee Costin Savu, whom they had seen at the penitentiary’s gate, when he had been brought from the hospital, handcuffed and under the surveillance of three officers (driver included). The detainee is short and very slim, and he can only be fed with liquids (which was also confirmed by his medical papers). The medical certificate says “sub-occlusive syndrome”. “Cancer” whisper his cellmates. Costin Savu had been handcuffed for the whole week he had spent in the county hospital, with the two officers guarding him permanently near his bed placed in a regular hospital room. APADOR-CH reminds DGP the recommendations made by the UN Special Reporter against torture and the delegates of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture following their visit to Romania, regarding giving up to handcuffing the sick detainees. The Association accepts the fact that there could be extremely dangerous detainees for which special security measures are imposed, such as, for instance, installing window bars in a hospital room. The fact that there have been a few cases of escaping from hospitals does not have to result in excessive security measures, such as is, in the opinion of APADOR-CH, handcuffing the detainee Costin Savu during his entire hospitalisation and his transfer to and from the county hospital.
3.3. The socio-educational office
The staff of the socio-educational office is made up of two female officers (one has a university degree in psychology and the other is a graduate from the Law School) and two uncommissioned officers. The penitentiary’s leadership plans to hire two more psychologists. Due to the fact that the turnover of detainees is higher in the Ploieºti penitentiary, the programmes are shorter (three months). For the same reason plus the lack of adequate space there are no alphabetisation courses, although the penitentiary’s records showed at the date of the visit made by the representatives of APADOR-CH around 40 illiterates.
Two of the regular programmes (legal education and civic education) seem to raise the interest of detainees.
A meritorious initiative was the preparation of brief reviews of the books in the library. Some detainees with higher education have read all the books and made short presentations so that every detainee wishing to borrow a book is able to make a knowledgeable choice. Of course, the library is rather poor, yet this is a general problem of the system and is related to the insufficient budget allocated to each penitentiary.
The office has a relatively permanent collaboration with the Humanitarian Service for Penitentiaries (that supported the organisation of four exhibitions of paintings and caricatures made by the detainees between 1999-2000 at the Palace of Culture in Ploieºti), with the Christian Mission for Prisons and representatives of various religious cults.
There is an internal radio station with a daily programme of around 10 hours, broadcasting in general legal and civic education courses and book reviews. Unlike other penitentiaries, the detainees do not participate in any way in this activity. It would be advisable that the detainees of the Ploieºti penitentiary to become involved in such actions either by directly participating in the preparation and/or broadcasting of the shows, or by enabling them to ask questions, dedicate songs etc.
There have been no cultural-educational actions organised with the detainees taken out of the penitentiary (shows in the city, meetings with free persons, visits to museums etc.). In addition to that, there has been no initiative for setting up an experimental probation centre, since the staff of the socio-educational office waits for the establishment of a probation service near the Prahova County Court.
3.4. The visit area
The area is located in a new building, with a booth for dangerous detainees, three desks with no separating glass and, in the next room a table with chairs for the visitors. The right to the visit at the table is granted only to the working detainees or those who are dignified for certain actions. The lawyers’ room is in the same area, as well as the parcel room. There is another room with a plate on the door saying “Mother and child” yet it is used exclusively by … the officer on daily duty.
Room 18 (minors) contained 25 persons in 18 beds. The minors are taken out for an hour every day, unlike the rest of the detainees benefiting from the minimum time provided by the law (30 minutes). The minors did not appear to know the daily programme when they were allowed to watch the TV, or that some food products (such as cheese) were distributed in the evening for the next day’s breakfast. Not to mention their right to defence, including the confidential discussions with their lawyers. It is important to mention the fact that the detainee responsible for the room is an adult detainee, which is a general practice in the penitentiary system, wherever there are wards for minors. APADOR-CH considers that the mere existence of a room head, which applies for the entire penitentiary system, is at least debatable, irrespective to the nomination procedure (“free” elections, yet the result must be confirmed by the leadership of the penitentiary, from three nominations, which also need to be approved by the leadership, made prior to the elections). In the opinion of the Association no detainee should have powers or responsibilities placing him in a superior situation as to his cellmates. The situation of appointing an adult detainee as the head of a room with minors is the more serious. There are serious risks of abuse – sexual abuses included – to the minors in that room. APADOR-CH suggests to DGP to eliminate such practices, especially in the wards for minors, and to transfer the responsibility of supervising them to the staff of the socio-educational office.
The lavatory consists of two sinks in the room, a Turkish WC and a shower (separated from the room).
In room 24 (ages between 18-21), 40 youth shared 24 beds. As in the rest of the penitentiary, the lavatory consisted of a Turkish WC and cold water shower, except for the hot water days in the penitentiary bath (15 shower with no mats). The youth go out for a walk for around 30 minutes a day, except for Sundays, which is reserved for dusting the blankets.
In room 17 (prisoners who do not work) there were 41 detainees in 24 beds. These detainees also spend around 30 minutes a day outside. It should be mentioned that the only walking area in the penitentiary is a courtyard of circa 40 m length and some 3 m wide, with an uneven cement floor, where the detainees can not do anything else but walk. Although there is one basketball goal the officers said that the detainees deflated all the basketballs provided by the penitentiary and they are not allowed to play basketball anymore because the officers found a detainee “up on the goal’s ring”.
In room 5, for “dangerous detainees”, there were 18 detainees for 15 beds. Most of them admitted that they were there either due to their violent behaviour, or for escape attempt. In the case of escaping detainees, the courts decide on imprisonment (from 6 months to 8 years). The representatives of APADOR-CH do not understand why a person is punished twice for the same guilt: first by the court decision and second by transferring the detainee to the “dangerous detainees” ward, with a stricter regime than the other detainees.
The ward of restrictive regime and isolation (four rooms)
Three of the four rooms were occupied. In one of the rooms, the detainee Ilie Bogdan Stancu was “isolated from the collective” since Monday, February 5, that is, for 4 days, waiting for the punishment for the possession of a half-litre brandy bottle. The detainee had admitted everything from the very beginning but the delay of the decision on his punishment was due to the fact that a prison employee was also involved. APADOR-CH considers it is totally unacceptable that a detainee placed in the isolation cell under the pretext of “isolating him from the collective” – a measure that should be interpreted as an isolation from the collective represented by his cellmates rather than all the detainees of a penitentiary – carries out a harsher punishment than the one established for the respective offence, since the days spent in the isolation cell waiting for the decision are not deducted from the established sanction.
In room 30 there were in a restrictive regime the detainees Adrian Badea (8 months of restrictive regime) and Nicolae Gheorghe (6 months of restrictive regime). It should be mentioned that in a restrictive regime (which may go up to 12 months, but the punishment may be repeated), the detainees enjoy only one third of the normal rights, they are not entitled to a TV, radio or cassette player in the room. It should also be mentioned that in the year 2000, following the escape of four detainees from Colibaºi, DGP issued orders making the detention conditions harsher for the detainees labelled as “dangerous”, authorising again the use of chains, or at least this is what the prison staff said. Adrian Badea and Nicolae Gheorghe were permanently with their legs chained to the beds and handcuffed. The handcuffs were removed only when food was brought or they needed to use the toilets. The representatives of APADOR-CH note the fact that on the day of the visit, contrary to the habit of the guards, the chains disappeared from the cell. It is obvious that the penitentiary wanted to hide the fact that they used this immobilisation method. It is most likely that the detainees were “advised” not to mention the chains since both of them said that they know what to “expect” from the wardens following the end of the visit. The representatives of the Association notified the leadership of the fear of the detainees and were assured by the governor and all the officers present at the final discussion that there would be no repercussions.
Adrian Badea, Nicolae Gheorghe, Constantin Eftimie (also in restrictive regime but in room 30), together with a fourth detainee transferred to another penitentiary were in room 5, for “dangerous” detainees. As the warden said, the former two created tensions and even an emerging revolt (on October 11) among the other detainees. On October 13, 2000, the two were taken out of the room to be “isolated form the collective” and they started to cry, instigating the other detainees to revolt. The detainees hit the doors with metal beds and broke some windows. Moreover, Badea and Gheorghe “attempted” to attack the wardens, to which they reacted with force, then they were chained and handcuffed in the isolation cell. The variant of the two detainees is that they were taken out in the corridor and heavily beaten by a numerous group of officers from the “intervention” unit (around 15-16 persons) and that was the reason they started to cry. They said that they had not received any medical assistance. Adrian Badea has a metal plate in his foot, which has made him serious problems for about two years now, and which should be surgically removed. He was hospitalised in the Jilava penitentiary hospital for about two months but he was not operated. “He refused to be operated in Jilava”, claimed the doctor of the Ploieºti penitentiary.
Adrian Badea, who was transferred from the Mîndreºti penitentiary to Ploieºti since his file was on the docket of the court, was notified by DGP that he had to carry out 8 months of restrictive regime in prison, for offences committed in Mîndreºti. He claims that he had not been heard by anyone and that he had not been in front of any commission. The representatives of APADOR-CH were not able to check his statements since the – disputable – practice in the penitentiary system is that the statements of a detainee accused for violating the internal Rules and those of the possible witnesses are kept separately from his penitentiary file and stay with the penitentiary who applied the sanction (in the case of the restrictive regime, one needs the DGP approval). Thus, such statements were not in Adrian Badea’s file in the Ploieºti penitentiary, provided they had ever been taken, since they had been left in Mîndreºti.
Nicolae Gheorghe got 6 months of “restrictive regime” for the incidents of October 11-13, 2000. He also claimed that there had been no hearing. Among the numerous documents presented by the staff there wasn’t any statement made by detainee or any minutes saying that he had refused to make a statement. Finally, somebody recalled that Nicolae Gheorghe only made a verbal statement, but neither was this recorded anywhere.
On December 11, Adrian Badea, Nicolae Gheorghe, Constantin Eftimie and the fourth detainee (transferred) cut their hand veins (in room 31 one can still see blood stains on the cement floor, on the walls, and even on the ceiling). They were taken in a very serious condition to the hospital.
After returning to the penitentiary, the first two were chained and handcuffed again. The representatives of APADOR-CH insisted to see the chains. They are very rudimentary, with very thick links, made on purpose to provoke additional sufferance to the detainees. The Association considers that the use of chains means an inhuman treatment.
The WC, not separated from the rest of the cell, was clogged and the faeces were floating in it.
Conclusions:
Manuela Stefãnescu
Valerian Stan