Report on the visit made on October 1st, 2003, to Bucureşti-Rahova Penitentiary Minors Section
During their visit to Bucureşti-Rahova, to check a complaint filed by detainee Bejinaru’s family, the representatives of APADOR-CH also visited the penitentiary’s section for minors.
On the day of the visit, Section no. 1 - Minors hosted 93 detainees. All the minors had “legal issues” pending before courts in Bucureşti, and would be transferred to special centers for minors afterwards.
In one of the two clubs within the section, there were 8 minors (two were at the reading class, 6 were drawing – as part of a permanent program of “artistic education through drawing”). The detainees were supervised by two educators. They seemed interested in their activities and told the representatives of APADOR-CH that programs organized by their club were stimulating and useful. They said that food in the penitentiary was “good enough”, especially when compared with the one in other prisons.
Among other activities, minors took part in: the good-citizenship program, meant to make up for the lack of civic education among detainees (on the week of the visit, the theme they had chosen was “Why we should go to school”); the health education program, in which all minors are enrolled, the INSTAD program, helping newcomers adapt to prison life; the “seven steps” program, trying to trigger changes in delinquent behavior – it comprised 7 groups of 10-12 children, all of them having at least a first instance sentence. About 70 minors were already taking part in the program, consisting of a series of seven meetings meant to encourage self-knowledge. In the end, a personal prevention plan is to be drawn for each of the participants.
Once a week, the minors played football and twice a week they played ping-pong at the club. The daily walk took one to one and a half hours, from Monday to Sunday.
The detainees were allowed to make 4 phone calls per month using their own phone cards. Those who did not have cards were not allowed to borrow from their mates. Representatives of the penitentiary stated that, sometimes, the staff bought cards for those minors who could not afford them.
The payphones were on the corridor, and therefore the staff could overhear the conversations.
In room no. 102, there were 7 minors in 8 beds. They declared themselves interested in activities organized by the Social Educational Department. The health education classed offered them information about, for instance, HIV and AIDS. But although it was very clear they had been taught how AIDS was only transmitted sexually and through direct blood contact, the minors became extremely tense when asked by the representatives of association whether they would agree to have a AIDS patient in their room (one of them said he wouldn’t agree at all, because “AIDS may also be transmitted through the air”). The discussions pointed out that education classes were sometimes not providing enough information.
The penitentiary worked very well with the Probation Service by the Bucureşti Tribunal; representatives of the Service came to the prison and talked to the minors, in order to draw their “pre-sentence reports”, which are used by the judges to decide on individual sentences and the form in which these will be served.
Minors who broke the penitentiary regulations were heard by the disciplinary committee only if the expected punishment was confinement. The representatives of the association stated again their opinion that hearings should take place irrespective of the punishment. Such a practice is necessary in the first place because any disciplinary measure, no matter how severe, has consequences for detainees, including for their parole files, and secondly because hearing the suspected detainee (and witnesses) may clarify the circumstances of a regulation breech (whether it really took place), whether the detainee is really guilty and to what extent, and what is the responsibility of the staff involved in the incident.
The minors were taken out every day, from Monday to Sunday, for about one hour and a half. On Thursdays they were allowed to play soccer for three hours and they went to the club for about three hours per week. Recently, the club offered “anti-drug education” classes. There was a TV set in the room, and the minors were happy to be able to watch it all day long while there were no other activities. There were no cultural or educational activities organized in co-operation with community institutions outside the penitentiary.
The bathroom had a Turkish seat toilet and a washing cabin (a shower and a sink – the second sink had been gone for a week, apparently broken by one of the detainees). Hot water ran once a week, on Tuesdays, and the minors used the bathroom shower. One of the problems requiring a rapid solution was that of razorblades (“BIC” disposable razors), especially for minors who did not receive them from home (they received for free all the other personal hygiene items, except the razors).
The minors expressed their wish to be able to wear civil clothes during the visits.
Room no. 108 hosted 10 detainees in 8 beds (it had been the case for about two weeks).
The minors were generally satisfied with the conditions in the penitentiary (food was better than in other places, social, educational and sporting activities fill up the better part of each day). Minors here were also included in the health education, good citizenship and “seven steps” programs. Twice a week, they had general education classes (geography, history, “curiosities”, etc). They were taken out every day from Monday to Sunday for about one hour and a half, and twice a week they went to the club, where they had access to ping-pong tables. They played football on Thursdays and had a hot bath on Tuesdays. Also on Thursdays, they were taken to the doctor. APADOR-CH suggested to the managers of the penitentiary to think about a way to schedule the bath day sooner after sporting activities, especially the football match. The minors received soap, detergent, toilet paper and toothpaste monthly, but not razors. There was a TV set in the room, brought by one of the detainees, and the minors were allowed to watch TV all day long. On the day of the visit, the newspapers had not arrived, an omission which had also happened two weeks before. Phone calls were limited to 4 per month. There were no problems concerning written mail. After Emergency Ordinance no. 56/20003, regarding certain rights of persons who are serving deprivation of freedom sentences, came into effect, the National Postal Company (“Poşta Română) installed mail boxes inside the penitentiary. Detainees became thus able to post their correspondence personally. The management of the penitentiary said that the measure was going to appease detainees’ fears that their letters could have been opened or stopped by the penitentiary staff.
On Children’s Day, the prison club hosted a special show by groups from the Children’s Palace in Bucureşti, and on Mother’s Day the minors offered traditional March gifts - “mărţişoare” – and a show to women detainees in the penitentiary.
Although their sentences were not final, minors were under obligation to wear the prison uniform during visits and in court.
The “room representative” was appointed by the penitentiary management. The representatives of the association were under the impression that he had no problems in his relations with the roommates (on the contrary, they seemed grateful that the had brought the TV set, and that his family also paid for other repairs in the room). Nevertheless, the representatives of the association considered that, if there had to be such a thing as a “room representative” (an idea which constantly met the disapproval of APADOR-CH), he should at least have been chosen by the other detainees.
The bathroom was identical with the one in room 102, only in better condition and good function.
Conclusions
APADOR-CH considers that the rights of minor detainees are generally observed, and that they enjoy satisfactory detention conditions. The fact that there is no tension among the minors and that they are largely happy with the conditions and with their relations with the staff is a result of the constant preoccupation of the management and of Section 1 staff for this category of detainees.
At the same time, the association considers that:
- until they receive a definitive sentence, minors, too, enjoy the presumption of innocence, therefore it is necessary they should be granted the right (also included in the European and UN penitentiary norms) to wear their own clothes; this is all the more necessary during court sessions and visits, taking into account, among other things, that minors are a special and more vulnerable category of detainees)
- it is necessary that the disciplinary committee should hear all minors under disciplinary procedures, irrespective of the sanctions to be taken against them;
- for hygiene and health reasons, it is necessary to provide the minors, on a monthly basis, with razors; it is also important that they should constantly receive newspapers;
- from the experience of other prisons (but also from the discussions with the minors in this penitentiary) it followed that allowing detainees to borrow phone cards from each other is very unlikely to lead to conflicts or to any breech of internal discipline; therefore the association recommends the management to “liberalize” such borrowings.
From complaints received over the last months and from the discussion with the prison managers, the following ensued:
- the need the penitentiary provides life detainees with TV sets (functioning and receiving more than the two public TV channels); the need is explained by the specific situation of this category of detainees (facing life in prison, many of them having lost any contact with families or anyone in the outside world, etc);
- it is necessary that the DGP should analyze the idea of creating a “legal adviser” position in each penitentiary, with the role of informing and guiding the increasing number of detainees who no not fully understand their own cases or other legal issues arising during detention (for example: extraordinary appeals, with their competences and procedures; institutions entitled to verify detainees’ complaints on abusive behavior of investigation bodies, policemen, prison staff, etc; internal regulations, more numerous and “encoded”, as well as European and UN penitentiary norms; regulations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the European Court of Human Rights – competences, admissibility criteria, or of other governmental or non-governmental bodies for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms etc, etc).
Diana-Olivia Călinescu Valerian Stan
