Report on the visit to the Târgşor Penitentiary

 

The representatives of APADOR-CH visited the Târgşor Penitentiary on the 14^th of June, 2004

1. General aspects

The single women-only penitentiary in the country is situated in Târgşorul Nou, Prahova County. The locality is isolated, so the only means of transportation available was the train arriving there once a day, which had a negative impact on the contacts between detainees and their families. The prison management had obtained as donations two mini-buses which were used exclusively for the transportation of detainees’ children after  visitation.

In June, works were expected to start for the demolishment of the old pavilion (two wings had been already closed at the moment of the visit), the building of new detention units and the refurbishment of the former textile factory into detention areas (a new factory had been built on the premises of the penitentiary). The connection to the gas supply system was also planned for this year. At the moment, the penitentiary used light fuel oil for heating and hot water; light fuel was more expensive than methane, which had led to a debt of two billion lei and to a limited hot water program once a week. In order to ensure minimal conditions for personal hygiene, the management allowed detainees to use electric boilers, but only in the factory and the club buildings. The kitchen also provided some hot water. Under such circumstances, it was harder for detainees, especially the ones working in the field, to observe hygiene standards.

The textile factory on the premises of the penitentiary belonged to the “Multiproduct” Administration, part of the DGP. About 200 detainees worked at the factory in lohn system. They were selected following a number of criteria, one of which was, in the opinion of the Association, disproportionate: they had to have graduated at least six grades of school. Of course, the Administration organized six-month mandatory courses for professional tailors. But any detainee who could read and write was theoretically able to go through the courses, while skills were learned by practice. The representatives of the Association questioned the criteria of selection after witnessing the huge difference between the two groups of detainees: women who worked at the factory were clean, well-dressed, wearing hand-bags which held the much sought-after cigarettes, while women who worked in the field were filthy, wearing “protection gear” (most probably reconditioned military uniforms), their skin dark from the sun but also from being part of a certain minority. In this respect, the representatives of APADOR-CH noted the ongoing practice of mentioning the ethnic origin of detainees in their files. A penitentiary file is opened for all women (and men) while in police custody (the very title of the document suggested that any person suspected of a crime must end in a penitentiary, thus completely ignoring the  presumption of innocence). The police agents are also filling in the chapter regarding ethnic origin, by either asking the person in custody about it or according to their own opinion. Although the police have ceased to release statistics on criminality according to ethnic criteria, the respective chapter still exists in the files. APADOR-CH asks for the removal of the chapter. Ethnic origin is irrelevant in a criminal file, while ethnic origin based statistics - even if they are only used for “inside” purposes – may be erroneous, given the fact that persons have the right to declare any chosen ethnic origin during census.

The Târgşor prison management had opened a release centre (actually, a distinct section of the penitentiary) by taking into administration and renovating a former military unit at Movila Vulpii. About 160 detainees and 40 staff had been moved to Movila Vulpii, on a semi-open detention regime (free circulation of detainees inside the unit, low security, special social reinsertion programs, etc). It needs to be mentioned that detainees at Movila Vulpii had at most six months before release and that they had been included in special release programs one year before transfer. The centre was the result of cooperation between the penitentiary management and the Social Reinsertion and Observation (Probation) Service in Prahova. The initiative was excellent, but the role played by each part – the cultural educational department of the penitentiary, counting seven people, the technical non-commissioned officer included, on the one hand, and the probation service counting two counselors for the entire county, on the other hand - remained unclear. To that moment, the probation service had declared itself willing to find jobs for some of the detainees about to be released. It was, of course, a very important initiative, yet totally insufficient, because social reinsertion implied hard work with each detainee, increased contacts with the family and the community, efforts – including financial ones – to make coming back to civilian life less shocking. Otherwise, there was an increased risk of repeated offences. The extremely low number of counselors made it probable that the task of implementing the special programs fell into the hands of the cultural educational department of the penitentiary, which was expected to make reintegration efforts less efficient. APADOR-CH asks the Ministry of Justice to increase the number of staff in Probation Services all across the country, and especially in Prahova County. The absence of such an essential step may confirm the fears that the system created for the social reinsertion of persons who served custodial sentences worked only on paper.

           

2. Detention conditions

2.1.  Numbers of detainees and working conditions

Due to repair and construction works and to the transfer of a large number of detainees to Movila Vulpii, the degree of overcrowding was hard to assess. It was clear, however, that at the moment of the visit each detainee slept in her own bed. The total number of inmates (including those at Movila Vulpii) was of 585, of which 3 juveniles and 36 men (who were kept completely separated from women and had been transferred to Târgşor from Ploieşti in order to do certain works). It must be said that one of the men had escaped on the 13^th of June. As a consequence, all the staff had been placed on permanent alert, even those who did not play any role in catching the escapee. Besides, there was a sense of fear that the DGP could impose restrictions which could undo – as had happened before - the small steps towards a better detention regime. Of the total number of women, 185 were serving long term sentences for homicide (30 of them had aggravating circumstances) and two were serving life, 132 had been sentenced for drug related offences (42 on pre-trial detention, 30 with first instance sentences and 60 with final sentences). It was commendable that long-term detainees and lifers did not have a different regime than the others. There were three main groups of detainees: the ones who worked in the factory (including one of the “lifers”), the ones who worked in agriculture, animal farming and services (about 210 detainees, 140 of whom at a farm unit in Fundulea) and those unable to work (over 100, among whom 32 women over 55). About 20 women of the latter category (including the second “lifer”) took part in a program entitled “Hobby”. This was a workshop organized by a NGO (“Stânca Veacurilor”) to manufacture various textile items from scrap materials (from quilts to clothes). The objects were not sold, but given back to the NGO who decided whom to donate them to (for instance, the Juvenile Re-education Centre in Găeşti got quilts made at Târgşor). The NGO allowed detainees to take part of the clothes, but since the “output” was low, there were not enough clothes for all of them. This generated frustration, especially among mentally unstable detainees who believed there was a “clothes warehouse” somewhere to which they were denied access.

There were 220 members of the staff (including the 40 at Movila Vulpii) to attend to the 585 detainees. This was a very good ratio, but it must not be forgotten that this year, due to the planned construction works, only long term detainees were sent to Târgşor. Since there was no other women-only penitentiary in the country, the number was sure to increase sharply after the works were completed.

2.2.  The kitchen area

The wing containing the kitchen and annex rooms was also going to be rebuilt. The menu was rather modest (the eternal vegetable soup and the equally eternal second course consisting of potatoes or gravy with bacon and a lot of water). The 5 kilos of meat taken from the store room on the day of the visit were used to prepare the 65 diet portions. Unfortunately, there was a single diet menu no matter what the condition was (TBC, diabetes, etc). The penitentiary doctor, who was also responsible for the diet of detainees, blamed the … absence of gas cookers, claiming it was impossible to prepare certain diet dishes “steam-cooked”! Even though detainees did not complain about the quality of food, the representatives of APADOR-CH noticed that many of them skipped the meals altogether. Of course, those were the ones who received food parcels from home or had money in their accounts and were able to buy food at the penitentiary shop. There were rules limiting the amount of money to be spent: detainees who received parcels were allowed to spend the equivalent of a minimum wage, while those who had no contact with their family were allowed to spend twice the minimum wage. APADOR-CH understands the preoccupation of the DGP to avoid discrepancies among detainees and to curb black trade. But it is obvious that as long as the penitentiary system is unable to provide healthy, diversified food, the deficiency can only be compensated by food parcels or – as more and more often is the case – by money sent to the detainees’ accounts.

All detainees were allowed to use the canteen (240 places on each series) for lunch and dinner.

2.3.  Visits, correspondence, phone calls

Table visits (detainees and visitors are sitting at normal tables) took place in a room accommodating 36 people. Another room was used for “regular” visits, during which four detainees talked to their visitors across a one meter wide stone slab, while the “dangerous” received cabin visits (detainees are kept in a closed glass cabin, with no direct contact with the visitor). There was also a “mother and child” room, where detainees were allowed to spend up to two hours with their children under 10 years old. This (or the room for table visits) was also the place where detainees met their attorneys. It was not clear what the procedure was if several mothers received the visit of their children at the same time.

The conditions for receiving and handing on parcels were inappropriate because the window where detainees waited made a right angle with the window where parcels were received and opened, so that visibility was reduced. In order to avoid any suspicion, the two windows should have faced each other.

Mail and mailed parcels were picked up from the post office every day (from Monday to Friday) and promptly distributed. The representatives of APADOR-CH were surprised to see that received mail was being recorded in a book where the name and address of the sender were carefully put down. But since there was no recording of the sent mail (which was collected by a postal worker from the two mail boxes in the penitentiary), it made no sense to keep such evidence for received letters.

Six members of the staff worked in the surveillance area, where parcels arrived and mail was sorted. The two pay phones used by detainees were in the same room and, of course, it was impossible to observe the confidentiality of conversations. Phone calls were always overheard. APADOR-CH reminds that the protection of confidentiality should be applied to both mail and phone calls. Solutions do exist: a) placing phone booths in exercise yards or on the corridors; b) if that solution is technically unsuitable, placing them in a separate room in the visiting area; c) at worst, keeping the supervisor at a distance which made overhearing impossible. At Târgşor, the number of phone calls allowed to each detainee was decided as follows: six phone calls per month for detainees working in services, six phone calls for each of the men detained there and four phone calls per months for the rest. It was not clear why, in a women-only penitentiary, the 36 men enjoyed a preferential regime or why the women who worked in servicing benefited from two extra phone calls per month. It was true, no detainee had complained of not having been allowed to use the phone and the governor often approved extra calls. But while certain detainees had the “official” right to six phone calls, most had to depend on the good will of the management for more than four calls. APADOR-CH suggests that an equal number of phone calls be allowed to all men and women detainees, because phone calls are a right, not a favor or reward.

A positive fact is that the management of the penitentiary placed three free phone cards at the disposal of detainees who could not afford to buy them.

2.4.  Sanctions for the breach of interior regulations

At the Târgşor Penitentiary there were no chains (“means of safe restraint”) and handcuffs were never used. Not even detainees categorized as “dangerous” were handcuffed during transfers to any destination. APADOR-CH points out to the attitude of the prison management, which should be an example for all other penitentiaries in Romania. The Association underlines the fact that one third of the detainees in Târgşor have been convicted for homicide, of which 30 had aggravating circumstances and two served life sentences. Therefore, the nature of the crimes and the degree of risk are the same as in other penitentiaries.

Confinement was never used as a sanction in Târgşor (there were no confinement rooms and the new buildings were provided with confinement spaces only for medical reasons, not as a punishment). If incidents reports were confirmed, sanctions went from warning to reprimand or to the suspension of the right to receive parcels or/and visits for a limited amount of time (usually, for a month). All sanctions, no matter how slight, were only imposed after all legal steps had been taken, including the hearing of the detainee and witnesses. On the day of the visit, there were four detainees categorized as “dangerous” (there had been 13 at the beginning of 2004, but 8 of them had been reassessed by the Discipline Board who reviewed these cases on a monthly basis, while the ninth had been transferred to the Jilava Penitentiary Hospital). Only one of the two “lifers” was among the four “dangerous” detainees who, anyway, were treated differently only during visits (and, of course, were kept a keener eye on). APADOR-CH reiterates its belief that the Discipline Board of each penitentiary should seek the approval of experts outside the prison system for placing detainees into and taking them out of the category of “dangerous”. In the near future, a court will be the one to decide the type of detention (high security, closed, semi-open or open penitentiary regime) for each convicted person. But the penitentiary system will maintain the responsibility of classifying detainees according the degree of risk they posed. Of course, classification is not a sanction. However, APADOR-CH considers that: 1) the approval of outsider experts is absolutely necessary in order to make sure that decisions are objective; 2) the detainee categorized as “dangerous” must be informed, in order to be able to contest the administrative decision, because being placed in that category even for a short period of time has a direct impact over the whole detention and especially over possibility of parole. At the moment, it is unclear if detainees categorized as “dangerous” are allowed to contest the decision before the court. Moreover, there are cases such as Târgşor where “dangerous” detainees are not segregated and are not even aware that they have been included in that category.

2.5.  Medical care

 Three GPs, one dentist and 10 nurses (eight for general practice, one dental nurse and one pharmacist), plus one gynecologist coming in once a week, provided medical care for detainees. One of the GPs and the dentist also attended to members of the staff. The prison management maintained that this happened only in case of emergency, because, otherwise, the staff had their own family doctors, outside the penitentiary system. Doctors, however – surprisingly, they were all present at the moment of the visit and, even more surprisingly, there were no patients waiting to be seen – said that they allocated one hour per day (12.00- 13.00) for members of the staff and other emergencies. The dentist allocated 3 hours per day for the staff. The question of costs for dental care is unclear: the members of the staff, who had their own consultation room but the same dentist as detainees, were supposed to pay (how much?) for the extractions, fillings and especially bridgeworks. For detainees, dental works cost from 500 000 to 2 million ROL. APADOR-CH asks the DGP to clarify the tariffs for penitentiary staff using the system’s dental services.

According to APADOR-CH, it is the medical department in each prison that should decide on what items are necessary for personal hygiene, such as soap, toothbrushes, cotton, toilet paper, detergents, etc. The medical staff answers for the health, food and personal hygiene of detainee, as well as of the hygiene of the detention place. Doctors should also decide the quantity, quality and brand of the items. Of course, the guards should be responsible for distributing them.

The Târgşor Penitentiary also hosted a HIV positive detainee (diagnosed as such before coming to the penitentiary) who worked on a computer in the library. The explanation offered by the staff of the cultural-educational department was surprising: “She cannot work with needles (knitting, sewing, etc), because, you know, if the she cuts her finger…. That is why we had her work on the computer”. Such an explanation indicated that not even the staff had understood what HIV / AIDS meant and how the virus was transmitted”.

In the confusion generated by the construction/demolition preparations which required certain rooms to be closed and detainees moved, the representatives of APADOR-CH found a room in the infirmary section (room 45) occupied by a single detainee, a healthy woman who had the job of keeping the infirmary clean. The second room was occupied by TBC patients in a stationary state. The explanations regarding the temporary moving of patients were mixed up, and it was not clear where those patients were. Or maybe there were no sick detainees.

2.6.  The cultural educational department

Besides activities – still unclear – organized at Movila Vulpii, the cultural-educational department ran programs recommended by the DGP (STRADAV or VAD), focusing on individual counseling, as well as six months reading/writing courses for 14 detainees. Other independent activities were also organized (an exhibition of items manufactured by detainees organized in Ploieşti in December 2003, visits to museums, shows staged by children for detainees, etc). The department had constant cooperation relations with a few NGOs. Besides the abovementioned “Hobby” project ran by “Stânca veacurilor”, there was also a program entitled “Found Again Family” and coordinated by the “Hand in Hand” Foundation (who contacted the children of detainees and convinced them to come to visit, also providing transportation); 20 detainees benefited from the program during 2004. The “Education, Development, Integration” Association in Ploieşti initiated a program to educate Roma women. The Betel Church (Pentecostal) had a project to help former drug and alcohol addicts. The centre for agricultural counseling in Prahova cooperated with the penitentiary for a six-month course in vegetable growing (the first series had included 27 detainees and the second, now close to completion, 26). There was also the prison library containing about 6000 volumes and the club. Detainees were allowed to watch TV according to an acceptable schedule (16.00 – 22.30, and later during weekends).

If the activity of the department as a whole could be considered satisfactory, APADOR-CH must ask the prison management to pay more attention to a group of detainees who were largely ignored: those unable to work due to either mental problems or age. It was true that they were allowed to sit most of the day outside, but this was exactly what they did. They sat and listened to music. The department claimed that several programs had been attempted (drawing for instance) but failed. Efforts must continue, though. Contests and sports games may be organized and plays or short theatre acts may be staged. A poll among detainees could determine exactly what kind of activities would interest them. Those detainees got used to doing nothing and the department did not take steps against this habit, which did not benefit either the group or the general atmosphere in the penitentiary.

A delicate problem for all detainees was that of interpersonal relations (including sexual relations). A few months earlier a central newspaper had published the unsigned statement of a detainee in Târgşor who spoke of cases of sexual harassment and even rape. The prison management also had some indications in that respect, but no complaint had been filed. Moreover, any attempt to discuss the matter with detainees was totally rejected. The representatives of APADOR-CH have no objections to sexual relations between inmates – if they are consensual. But there would be a problem if a detainee was coerced by force or threats to such relations. The Association suggests that the matter should be discussed during individual counseling sessions, attempting an open approach of the problem which may otherwise have serious consequences on the mental state of detainees, even after release.

Also to be noted was the opinion of certain members of the cultural-educational department, according to whom categorizing a detainee as “dangerous” had no negative consequence for her. Experience showed APADOR-CH that such a label accompanied the detainee to all detention places and weighed a lot before the parole board and before the court analyzing the request for parole.

2.7.  Detention rooms

The difference between the new pavilion and the building about to be demolished was substantial. In the former, rooms were built to accommodate 12 bunk beds and wardrobes with 12 cases. On the day of the visit, extra beds had been brought in, even three on top of each other, to host detainees from the closed wing. Even thus, the density seemed tolerable and each detainee had her own bed. Rooms had lavatories with one shower (rarely or never used in the absence of hot water), two sinks and a squat toilet. The representatives of the Association visited rooms no. 29 (16 detainees in 18 beds), no. 34 (6 women on pre-trial detention in 14 beds) and no. 45 (the infirmary), accommodating, as mentioned, a healthy detainee who cleaned the place.

The part of the old pavilion still in function included 9 rooms, of which rooms no. 7 (41 detainees in 40 beds – the only case of overcrowding), no. 10 (29 detainees in 30 beds) and no. 11 (28 detainees, all unable to work, in 33 beds) were also visited. The lavatories were theoretically identical to the new ones, but they were old, in a poor state, leaking and with broken taps.

It was remarkable that in every room there was a file containing copies of official documents, including Emergency Ordinance no. 56/2003 on certain rights of persons in custody and a leaflet containing practical advice on penitentiaries and procedures for filing complaints, etc.

3. Conclusions

- In general, detention conditions in Târgşor are acceptable, given the fact that the expected renovation/demolition works created a special situation. The creation of the Section at Movila Vulpii is a praiseworthy initiative which deserves to be carried on by concrete activities to prepare detainees for life in freedom;

- The Association asks the prison management to be more concerned with the quality of food and a diversified menu, adapted to the sedentary life conditions of most detainees (including the factory workers);

- The Association recommends that detainees unable to work are kept occupied with various activities;

- Granting the right to an equal number of phone calls for all detainees would eliminate suspicions that certain detainees may get preferential treatment;

- APADOR-CH insistently asks that the penitentiary staff cease using the services of doctors and nurses in the penitentiary system, except in cases of emergency. Therefore, the practice of allocating a number of hours from the doctors’ schedule for the treatment of members of the staff, or of designating a doctor to attend exclusively to the staff, must be eliminated. The situation is so much the less understandable if - as happens in Târgşor – none of the penitentiary doctors is an official family doctor for the staff. It means that the staff benefit from medical care from a family doctor outside the penitentiary, as well as from a doctor who should in fact attend to the detainees.

Manuela Ştefănescu                                                                                 Diana Călinescu