Report on the Visit to Poarta Albă Penitentiary
On December 2rd, 2003, two representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Poarta Albă Penitentiary. This particular penitentiary interested the representatives of APADOR-CH because of deficiencies noted during the previous visit, in July 2001, and following letters from detainees who complained of abuse from the staff.
- General aspects
According to information provided by the penitentiary management, on 30.11.2003, Poarta Albă Penitentiary hosted 1966 detainees, in a total detention area of 7307.58 square metres, which means that every detainee has about 3.71 sq m of living space, a figure that comes close to the minimum European standards of 4 sq m/detainee.
Of the 1966 detainees, 10 were juveniles (5 of them with final prison sentences, 3 with first instance sentences and 2 arrested on remand) and 23 women (14 of them with final prison sentences, 4 with first instance sentences and 5 arrested).
Of the 1966 detainees, 1811 had final sentences (1216 served terms of less than 10 years and 595 had convictions for more than 10 years), 82 had first instance sentences and 73 were arrested on remand.
623 of the detainees went to work: 236 worked for the prison camp and 387 had paid jobs (as farm workers, or at the Metallic Works and Nets, overseen by the Multi-product Administration of the DGP - part of the penitentiary). Juveniles and women were not used for work. In 2003, the DGP asked the management at Poarta Albă to suggest certain productive activities which could employ detainees here, and the penitentiary suggested the manufacturing of parts for Thermopane-like windows. A problem raised by the penitentiary was the restriction of using substance addicts at work. Detainees are placed under that category according to their own statements, not following any medical test. While in the penitentiary, some of them expressed their wish to go to work, but they were not allowed to because they had declared themselves “substance abusers” during the investigation (in some cases, such statements are given following the “advice” of other inmates, not because of any real drug use).
For the women’s section, the penitentiary had bought 6 sewing machines and asked that qualified women should be transferred to Poarta Albă, in order to create a tailoring workshop. The management of the penitentiary were trying to find buyers for the prospective production of the workshop.
Unlike in 2001, detainees of different ethnic origin were allowed to use their mother tongue during visits.
At Poarta Albă, there were about 200 detainees considered to be “dangerous”. They were not put up in separate rooms. The only special measures against them were to enhance security during transfers and to restrict them from work outside the penitentiary. The cases of those who have been labelled as “dangerous” following misbehaviour in the penitentiary were analysed on a monthly basis and, according to the detainee’s behaviour, they are removed from the category.
Section I of the penitentiary was under reconstruction, and the works were going to be stalled during winter. Section II had undergone capital repairs, section VIII current repairs, sections IV and V had been assessed for consolidation works and section III had been put out of use in the most part, and only one building was still functioning. Poarta Albă Penitentiary was included in the Legal System Reform Strategy 2003-2007 for the modernization of detention spaces. The medium term investment plan also included the building of a water filtering station, because the Environmental Inspection had issued a warning regarding the sewage system of the penitentiary.
- The visit to the penitentiary
2.1. The kitchen area
Although a new ventilation system had been installed, it seemed to be insufficient for the needs of the kitchen area, because some of the rooms were full of mould (the meat store room, for instance, and one of the walls in the kitchen itself).
On the day of the visit, there was potato stew for breakfast. At lunch, the menu included potato soup and beans with meat (the representatives of APADOR-CH noted that the “meat” in the dish was mainly fat). For diet, lunch consisted of pork and vegetable soup, potatoes and pasta, and pilaf (rice and meat). For the Moslem, the pork was replaced by mutton. Dinner consisted of tea and biscuits, while detainees on diet were going to have milk and diabetes’ patients received French fried potatoes as well. Each detainee also received 20 grams of fat in the evening.
The fridge also contained 5-7 kilos of cheese which were not to be found anywhere in the menu that day. The representatives of the penitentiary explained that the cheese was going to be given to the diabetics, for dinner.
The quantity of meet taken out of the larder for the day’s menu was 84.4 kilos of pork, 37.4 kilos of mutton, 43.6 kilos of pork products, and 30.5 kilos of salted fat.
2.2 The detention area
In Section III, room no. 9 for restrictive regime hosted only one detainee, M.G. He had gone through 5 months of the one year restrictive regime sentence after an attempt to escape from prison. Currently, he was under criminal investigation for attempted escape and had been heard by a prosecutor, inside the penitentiary. The room had four metallic beds with concrete “mattresses”. The Turkish toilet seat was separated from the rest of the room by a one metre high wall. Water was not running in the WC, only at the cold water tape of the sink. Heating came from a stove shared with the next room. Only one side of the stove was inside the room, which is why the room was rather cold. The detainee was shaved by the penitentiary’s barber, who came to see him upon request. On the day of the visit, the detainee had refused to be taken out for a walk (because of the weather). When he was taken out, he was always handcuffed and accompanied by the intervention team. The open air programme usually took around 1 hour, when it did not coincide with that of the isolated detainees. In that case, it only lasted for half an hour.
In room no. 6, for restrictive regime, there was only one detainee, O.L.D., who had been punished by 2 months of restrictive regime for repeated incident reports and another 8 months for “defying gaze” and possession of prohibited items. The detainee had complained about the latter measure, which was going to be heard by the Medgidia Court on December 9th, 2003. The detainee complained that on October 23rd, 2003, while he was lying in bed, with two handcuffs on each wrist, a non-commissioned officer came into the room and jumped on his left arm, which had a metal rod implanted since youth. As the rod detached itself from the bone, the detainee was taken on November 12th, 2003, to the Constanţa Military Hospital, and from there to Rahova Penitentiary Hospital, where he was operated on November 20th, 2003. The room had two superposed metallic beds with concrete “mattresses” and one metallic bed with a normal mattress, nailed to the floor. The detainee informed the representatives of APADOR-CH that the normal bed was there following his repeated protests which had culminated with the destruction of one of the concrete beds, in order to make the prison manager to take his request into account. The detainee was taken out with no handcuffs, in the presence of the intervention team. The open air programme lasted about one hour. The detainee also complained that the heating system (a stove for two rooms) did not warm up the room. The representatives of APADOR-CH were able to note that the side of the stove which was inside the room was almost cold. The WC water was not running.
Section III also included the confinement rooms. The penitentiary staff informed the representatives of APADOR-CH that on the day of the visit there was no detainee in confinement. From the discussions with detainees, it came out that there had been inmates on confinement in the morning of December 2nd, 2003, but they had been taken back to their rooms that day, around 13.00 (that is, during the visit of the APADOR-CH representatives).
Section IV, room no. 5 (measuring about 5.5 x 10.5 metres) hosted 56 long-term detainees in 50 beds. Dividing the surface of the room to the number of detainees, it resulted that the occupation ratio was of one detainee per square metre, way under the minimum density required by the CPT, of 1 detainee / 4 sq m. Due to the overcrowding, the air was hardly breathable. There was only one TV set in the room and detainees complained they were not allowed to bring a second, although it could be accommodated (the high number of detainees required a second TV set). Moreover, in the past they had been allowed to have two TV sets. Another complaint from the detainees was that electricity was cut at 23.00 and they could not watch TV although they were not taken out for work and had no other activity during the day. The open air programme lasted 1 to 1 ½ hours every day. The detainees who had enlisted for football also played football games twice or three times a week. Also, detainees were allowed to go to the gym, which had been organized in the open air (and they were going to do it in winter time, also). Detainees had no education or cultural programmes and were not taken to the club. Bath time was once a week. They received one disposable razor each, every three months. The detainees complained about the dreadful state of bed sheets provided by the penitentiary, which was also witnessed by the representatives of APADOR-CH. Detainees said they received a new bed sheet once in every three years. Another problem raised by the inmates was the lack of prescription drugs. I.D.A. complained that, although he suffered from bronchial asthma, silicosis and stomach problems, he did not get the needed medication. The family had to provide him with the drugs, using a prescription from the prison doctor. Detainees complained that for common drugs such as aspirin or paracetamol, the prison did not issue prescriptions and families were unable to provide them.
Detainees informed the representatives of APADOR-CH that one of the room-mates, C.A. was being kept in the room, instead of being taken to hospital, although he was very sick and had daily fits. During the visit, the ailing detainee did not leave the bed. Another detainee, A.V., had been detained at Poarta Albă since 1999 and had requested to be transferred to Arad, (or “somewhere in the area”), because his family lived there. I.M. (serving a 16 years term for manslaughter) complained that, even though he had never been reported for any incident and was distinguished for good behaviour, the Parole Board postponed by one year his request for parole (until February 4th, 2004). A.F., 63, complained that he was rejected four times by the penitentiary’s Parole Board, although he had never had incident reports. The detainees complained that they were not taken before the Parole Board and that they had only started to be taken before the court that judged their requests for parole one month earlier. I.N. complained that he was transferred to Poarta Albă 7 years ago to enrol in a qualification course as a welder and that, although over the last 5 years he had filed about 6-7 requests by the DGP to be transferred to Arad (his family was from Curtici), the request was never granted. Due to the huge distance, the detainee had never been visited by his family at Poarta Albă Penitentiary.
A mailbox had been installed inside Section VI, so that detainees were able to mail their own letters. All in all, 4 such mailboxes had been installed in Poarta Albă Penitentiary. There were also 3 public payphones available: one in Section VI, one in Section IV, and one inside the visitation area. The management of the penitentiary pointed out that phone booths were also considered, so that conversations could take place in all confidentiality. Detainees were entitled to 4 phone calls per month.
Section VII hosted the juveniles. Room no. 2 (quarantine room) hosted 3 juveniles. They were taken out for a walk for 1 ½ to 2 hours every day. There was a TV set in the room, provided by the penitentiary. The TV programmes could be watched daily from 9.00 to 19.00 and from 20.00 to 23.15. On Fridays and Saturdays, the programme was extended to midnight or 1.00. Detainees could only watched the public television channel “Romania 1”. The newspapers received by the juveniles were one week old, since they came from the return stock. Juveniles were obliged to wear penitentiary uniforms during the visits, which lasted an average of 40 minutes. The “room representative” was appointed by the management of the penitentiary. The juveniles had a special quarantine programme of activities.
Room no. 1 hosted 5 juveniles, of which 4 had definitive sentences and one was arrested on remand. The “room representative” had been appointed by the section commander. The juveniles had been provided with a TV set and received old newspapers, just like their mates in room 2. Two of the juvenile with final sentences had been included in a three months vegetable growing course, organized on cooperation with the Agriculture Consultancy Centre in Constanţa (courses took place twice a week, for 3 hours). 32 juveniles and detainees under 21 enlisted for this course, held by a specialist from the Constanţa Centre. 21 of them had finished the course and received certificates of qualification (as vegetable growers). One of the two graduates in room no. 1 appreciated that he would not be able to use what he had learned during the course because he had already forgotten most of the stuff. Juveniles were taken to the staff’s club once a month. Four of the five detainees in room no. 1 had been filmed by TV stations during investigations or had their names published in the local paper without their consent (TV Neptun, “Telegraf” newspaper). Juveniles were allowed to use the payphone to make 4 calls per month. They had a bath once a week.
Of the four educators working at the penitentiary, one worked exclusively with women and juveniles. The respective educator had a legal background. The juveniles were tested to find out their degree of literacy in order enrol them in literacy programmes. Other options for juveniles were the summer sporting activities. Also, gardening courses for juveniles and young detainees, organized together with the Agriculture Consultancy Centre in Constanţa were expected to continue. There was an experimental garden plot inside the prison camp, for the students of this course. There was hardly any cooperation with the Social Reinsertion and Observation Service in Constanţa this year.
2.3 The case of detainee F.F.
The representatives of APADOR-CH had a discussion with detainee F.F., who complained that, on November 4th, 2003, he was beaten by the intervention team in the penitentiary’s courtyard. Following injuries caused by the beating, F.F. was treated for two weeks in Poarta Albă penitentiary hospital. Although he was not completely recovered, he was taken back to his room without any further medical care. The detainee resorted to extreme measures in order to get attention, slashing his forearms with a razor. As a consequence, he was taken to the penitentiary hospital again. But upon return, he was put in a confinement room, although he was not medically fit for such a regime. He was only removed from confinement at the request of a doctor from the penitentiary hospital. Ever since the beating, F.F. was kept in Section III, where restrictive regime and confinement rooms are. The detainee complained that he was given tranquilizers, although he had not been diagnosed with any affliction requiring such a medication. Also, he did not receive the necessary care for his injuries, since his bandages were not regularly changed.
Detainee N.C. was summoned for statement after the November 4th incident. He was the “room representative” of the room from which inmates had witnessed the beating and had started to protest. N.C. complained that he was hit and threatened by members of the staff, because he had not taken care to stop witnesses from protesting.
D.-C.T. is one of the detainees who saw how F.F. was being beaten by the intervention team. He complained that, when questioned about the event, he was threatened that he would get a punishment report. In the end, this did not happen.
The management of the penitentiary claimed that, according to the section commander, F.F. had resisted and fought while being escorted by the intervention team and in the process had hurt himself against the building door.
- Conclusions
APADOR-CH considers that, in general, detention conditions have known a certain improvement as compared with the situation of July 2001. The number of detainees has decreased by 500 since then (although overcrowding still represents a problem for the penitentiary). A positive evolution is the fact that detainees no longer complain about having to wear chains. Unlike the preceding visit by APADOR, when juveniles only had a bath day per month, they are now having a weekly bath (conditions for juveniles have considerably improved over the last two years).
In terms of negative aspects, APADOR-CH noted the following:
- Penitentiary staff still has a habit of hitting detainees; the association considers that it should sound the alarm bells to the DGP on the multiplication of such cases, especially those when “intervention teams” use abusive and totally unjustified force against detainees; APADOR-CH believes that, in order to curb down such practices, the DGP should intervene firmly, as soon as possible;
- Disciplinary punishments are sometimes excessive in report to the committed offence (see the case of detainee O.-L.D., on restrictive regime);
- The quality of food is unsatisfactory, especially with regard to the complete absence of meet in the second course, at lunch;
- Insufficient attention is being paid to the ways detainees occupy their “spare time”, especially for those in long-term detention (TV watching hours should be extended, and several TV sets should be allowed in rooms with a high number of detainees); it is obvious that the social and educational service should get more involved in creating ways for detainees to occupy their time;
- rooms are cold; it is necessary that the penitentiary should solve this problem during wintertime.
Diana-Olivia Călinescu Valerian Stan
