REPORT on the visit to the Bucuresti-Jilava Penitentiary
On 10 March 2000, two APADOR-CH representatives visited the Bucuresti-Jilava penitentiary.
Bucuresti-Jilava is a transit penitentiary with a capacity of 1530 places (calculated by the norm of 6 cubic metres per detainee). At the time of this visit, there were 2555 beds which accommodated 3373 detainees (1618 whose final sentences had been pronounced, 1745 sentenced by a first instance court or detained on remand, and 10 petty offenders; 57 detainees were minor, 6 were women). 6 inmates had been pronounced life sentences by a first instance court. 460 persons staff the penitentiary, 309 of which work directly with the detainees.
The punishment procedure follows the trend of the "incident report": the person who notices the violation drafts an incident report, without suggesting a punishment; the report is taken over by an officer (in charge of discipline), who submits it, together with his comments and suggestions, to a commission made of the deputy commander in charge of penitentiary treatment, the officer in charge with discipline, the co-ordinator of the training department, the psychologist and a secretary; the commission establishes the punishment that the detainee can challenge before the commander and the prosecutor assigned to the penitentiary. Since the beginning of this year, on the basis of Order no. 2963/15 December 1999 of the Ministry of Justice, it is no longer compulsory to hear the detainee accused of misbehaviour unless he is to be punished by isolation. APADOR-CH believes that this is a step backwards in comparison with the procedure used so far, namely that hearing the detainee was compulsory regardless of the punishment. The association asks that the former procedure be used – with respect to this aspect only – because disciplinary punishments, regardless of how serious they are, are liable to produce important consequences for the detainee’s situation – especially when the applications for release on parole are assessed. Consequently, all detainees should have the right to defend themselves before those who establish disciplinary punishments and who base their decisions solely on the accounts of the staff that draft incident reports. The discussions with the penitentiary management revealed that, even in the case of "very serious" violations, where "the detainee must be isolated from the rest of the inmates immediately", this measure is taken immediately, before checking the information and establishing whether the detainee is guilty. The penitentiary management also said that, if the detainee is found guilty and punished with isolation, the term he spent "isolated from the rest of the detainees" – up to a week – is not deducted from the punishment. The discussion revealed that "isolation from the rest of the detainees" is actually a sui-generis punishment which violates the regulations, in the opinion of APADOR-CH. APADOR-CH considers that in cases of "very serious" violations that impose "isolation from the rest of the detainees" – exclusively in order to prevent violence among detainees – the detainee should simply be moved to another room, among a different group of detainees. Still, if such detainees are isolated, the time passed until the punishments established should be deducted from the punishment.
At the time of this visit, the penitentiary employed 339 detainees, who sanitised the capital city, loaded/unloaded merchandise or repaired various spaces at the headquarters of the Ministry of Justice. The wages paid to detainees working at the Ministry of Justice headquarters are 150% of the minimum wages, while those working in the other two areas get 267% of the minimum wages.
The detainees can make phone calls from the two pay phones in the penitentiary: once a month for those who do not work and twice a month for the others. The APADOR-CH representatives remarked that this difference in treatment is negative and unjust for detainees who do not work, as long as most of them cannot be held accountable for this situation. Phone cards are kept by the detainees, who must apply to the penitentiary governor in order to be allowed to make a phone call. APADOR-CH believes that the opportunity to communicate by phone should not be restricted beyond the technical issues penitentiaries are faced with. Similarly, as long as the privacy of written correspondence is ensured in the penitentiary system, the phone calls made by detainees must no longer be listened to by the guards (a situation the APADOR-CH representatives also noted during the visit to the Bucharest-Jilava penitentiary).
Medical assistance for the detainees is ensured by five general practitioners (one of them was attending a training course), two dentists and nine medical assistants. A general practitioner looks exclusively after the staff. The penitentiary representatives specified that the penitentiary "does not admit" detainees brought by the police who exhibit marks of violence. APADOR-CH considers that this practice is abnormal and asks the penitentiary to examine attentively the detainees who exhibit marks of violence, to write down in their medical file all their findings and to provide immediately the necessary medical assistance. At the same time, if these persons complain that they have been abused by the police officers, the penitentiary should notify immediately the Military Prosecutor’s Office.
The training department is made of 6 trainers – officers -, a psychologist and a non-commissioned officer in charge of technical issues. The APADOR-CH representatives were told that the Orthodox priest attends the detainees’ meetings with representatives of other denominations "to avoid proselytism". APADOR-CH considers that such a situation is inconceivable, especially as it is "regulated" by the provisions of an obsolete piece of legislation dating from 1949, which runs counter to the current constitutional and European norms. Following the same trend, the representatives of other denominations should also attend the visits paid by the Orthodox priest to the penitentiary, in particular to the rooms where their followers are confined.
The room chiefs – "room delegates", as they are currently called – are appointed by the penitentiary management out of the three representatives proposed by the inmates in each room. APADOR-CH considers that the "system" of appointing room chiefs should be given up, in particular when it comes to the adults appointed as room chiefs in the minors’ rooms. The argument that minors are immature and lack legal capacity is invalidated by their very status in the penitentiary, as persons pronounced responsible for their deeds by the judiciary. Moreover, al detainees believe that room chiefs act as informers for the staff. Actually, one of their duties is to inform the staff on what happens in each room.
On the day of the visit, the menu consisted of: tea and biscuits for breakfast; Transylvanian soup, potato stew with meat and meat by-products for lunch; pasta with milk for dinner. 146 kg meat, 146 kg meat by-products and 12 kg lard had been used to prepare the day’s meals. Lunch looked fine, both courses looked consistent, but there was obviously less meat than by-products. Each week, a detainee appointed by the "room delegates" is present when the foodstuffs are taken out of the pantry and prepared. The APADOR-CH representatives had the feeling that this activity is more than just formal and has positive consequences over food quality.
In Room 118 there were 40 minors and 15 beds. The overcrowding – excessive in this case, with almost 3 detainees in each bed – is one of the most serious issues here. The detainees are taken out for walks for one hour daily. They can also play football, go to the club, where they have the opportunity to learn how to read and write and to play various games. The minors receive newspapers daily, have a TV and a radio set in the room. The lavatory consists of seatless toilet (flushed with a bucket, as the water basin is out of order) and two sinks with a single tap. They take showers twice a week; the room is sprayed for bugs every two weeks. The minors complained that ex officio lawyers do not defend them in court, do not look for them at the penitentiary and hardly exchange a word with them in court. Almost all lawyers resume their defence to one sentence, asking the court for mercy, in view of the defendants’ age, and for a sentence as close as possible to the minimum punishment.
In isolation room no. 3 there were 3 detainees and 3 beds, in a very small space. The lavatory consisted of a seatless toilet and a sink; there was no running water at the time of this visit. Florin Nita, a detainee with mental problems, had been sentenced to 10 days in isolation for having sworn at a guard and tried to commit suicide. Nicusor Mihai Radu had also been sentenced to 10 days for verbally abusing the staff and for breaking some window panes. He had been handcuffed to the bed for the whole night. Sabinel Manolescu had also been sentenced to 10 days of isolation for having insulted a non-commissioned officer after the latter had sworn at him. At the end of the visit to the isolation room, the detainees said they feared they were going to be beaten up for their accounts. The APADOR-CH representatives remarked that punishments with isolation for impolite behaviour are a rule at the Bucharest-Jilava penitentiary. APADOR-CH reiterates that this situation is not normal. Some persons, whose education and intellectual capacity is in many cases below the average and who have the feeling they were sentenced for nothing or serve too long a term cannot be asked to be very well-behaved in their relation with the penitentiary staff. The overcrowding – a problem they have to live with for years (two or three sleeping in one bed) – the lice and bugs can only aggravate and frustrate them, hence their tense relations with non-commissioned officers and officers. Moreover, as demonstrated by the case presented above (Sabinel Manolescu), this behaviour is sometimes determined by the staff’s attitude towards the detainees. During this very visit to the penitentiary, APADOR-CH noted that some officers look down on detainees, calling them "bastards", "thieves", etc repeatedly during the several hours of the visit.
In Room 213 there were 78detainees and 45 beds. The detainees said their room had been just as overcrowded for 10 years (the summer before, 100 detainees had been accommodated there, in unbearable conditions). The monthly spraying cannot solve the bug and lice problem. The water is full of tadpoles and the detainees have to filter it through their handkerchiefs to drink it. They are seldom taken out for walks – they had been last taken out four days before, for half an hour. These detainees also complained that the right to defence is a mere formality: the lawyers never go to the penitentiary and cannot talk to them in courts; sometimes they are turned down when they ask to talk to the lawyer in a room adjoining the court hall. The room is provided with three seatless toilets, flushed with a bucket, a trough with three taps and a sink. Vasile Manea complained that he had got no answer to his application to the governor to have his visiting day changed.
Room 211 accommodated Ionel Zamfirache, a detainee sentenced for life by a first instance. He was kept alone in the room because he had been punished with 10 days of isolation for having set fire to a piece of stuffing taken out of the mattress. The detainee sends and receives letters and is taken out for walks daily for one hour. When the APADOR-CH representatives asked to visit the section accommodating dangerous detainees and detainees with life sentences, they learned that, since December 1999, DGP has issued special orders on special guard and watch measures and the circumstances under which such sections can be visited. The DGP order also establishes the there rooms can be unlocked only in the presence of the officer on duty, of the section commander, of the intervention team and of a higher number of non-commissioned officers. The penitentiary representatives could not explain why such tough measures have been ordered. When they finished talking to Ionel Zamfirache, the APADOR-CH representatives saw a high number of penitentiary employees – 12-15 armed guards waiting for them to leave the room. APADOR-CH considers that the measures instituted by DGP are completely out of proportion and liable to make the detainees misunderstand what actually happens when someone enters their room in such conditions.
Room 420: 25 detainees who work were accommodated in 27 beds. They were satisfied with their employment with a company – Helvet Speed – that makes street signs. They work Monday through Friday. When requested, they also work Saturdays and Sundays, but are paid double. The detainees were dissatisfied that they could not go to the library; although a list of detainees who wanted to go to the library was compiled in January, nothing more had been done. The lavatory consists of a toilet and a sink with four taps. The water does not run from 10 p.m. until the next morning.
Petty offenders are accommodated in Room 401, with 9 beds. The detention conditions are much worse than in al the other cells. The staff members that accompanied the APADOR-CH representatives explained that the inmates were dirty and untidy because they were "lowlifes and gypsies". The APADOR-CH could not accept this explanation, as these detainees looked no different from the rest of the inmates. The detainees complained about the lice and bugs, the water full of tadpoles, etc. This was the only room where the mattresses and beds were old and worn out; 5 beds did not even have sheets. The detainees explained that although the room had been sprayed they could not get rid of the lice and bugs because of the old equipment. The toilet was broken and flushed continuously; it was situated in the room, without as much as a partition wall to ensure the privacy of those who use it and to stop the smell; the detainees had placed two blankets around it.
Florentin Verban was imprisoned because the court had turned his community punishment into days in prison, although he had reported to the local authorities in December 1999 (to the Olteni mayor and police chief). On 5 February 2000, he was arrested on the basis of a warrant, without being at least heard by the court that decided to turn his initial punishment into a term in prison. Ovidiu Vasile Archip and Gheorghe Boncea were sentenced to prison for petty offences before Law 82/1999 had come into force. Although in June 1999 they repeatedly asked the Sector 1 Court to turn the sentence into a community punishment, their applications got no answers.
2.3 The shower room of Section 2 has 18 showers. The detainees take showers once a week; each "series" can spend 15 to 20 minutes in the shower room. Because of the insufficient pressure, water sometimes does not run on the second floor.
- Overcrowding is one of the main problems in this penitentiary. APADOR-CH urges the penitentiary management and DGP to find an acceptable solution for this problem, at least for the minor detainees.
- The association considers that the measures taken by the penitentiary management when the detainees are disrespectful with the staff are excessive. DGP should analyse this aspect of the relationship between detainees and military staff and establish more specific, unitary rules that exclude bias and abuse. The APADOR-CH representatives did visit some penitentiaries where the staff was more inclined to understand some detainees' verbal abuses, without encouraging lack of discipline or insubordination. On the contrary, there has been conclusive proof that such approach helped ease the tensions between detainees and staff.
- APADOR-CH urges DGP to review safety measures employed when opening the rooms of dangerous detainees and life sentences, which are too strict, in the association's opinion. Nothing justifies the presence of 15 armed military staff before the room of a detainee, irrespective of his renown and the term in prison he has to serve.
- APADOR-CH urges the penitentiary management to take immediate measures to improve detentions conditions in the petty offenders' cell. At the same time, all legal measures must be taken in order to make the instances that receive applications for community work as an alternative to imprisonment answer these applications.
Manuela
Stefanescu
Valerian Stan