REPORT on the visit to the Targu Jiu penitentiary
On 16 March 2000, two APADOR-CH representatives visited the Targu Jiu penitentiary, county of Gorj.
At the time of this visit, the penitentiary held the physical test of the interview for several job openings as guards for non-commissioned officers. According to the penitentiary manager, the high competition – 18 applicants for each position – is due to the attractive wages: 3 million lei per month after taxes.
The Targu Jiu penitentiary covers the county of Gorj and has a capacity of 500 places. On the day of the visit, the penitentiary accommodated 1230 detainees in 875 beds, that is, the overcrowding amounted to246%. The composition of the detainee population was as follows: 1050 whose final sentences had been pronounced, 104 sentenced by the first instance court, 5 petty offenders: 90 detainees were youth (18 to 21 years of age), 10 minors and 21 women. The penitentiary took over a former ammunition warehouse in the municipality of Pogojeni that they are currently fitting out, where up to 200 detainees will be transferred, probably on summer.
Medical assistance is ensured by two general practitioners, a dentist and five medical assistants (a medical assistant is in the penitentiary round the clock outside duty hours, on Saturdays and Sundays). On Fridays, the dentist provides separate medical care to the military staff and to their families. Outside duty hours, the military staff benefits from medical assistance granted by family doctors at the medical practice of a foundation from Targu Jiu, the foundation "Omenia", where the two general practitioners also work. One of the penitentiary doctors also looks after the staff of the County Court. APADOR-CH considers that the services the doctors have to deliver while on duty – medical assistance granted to the over 1200 detainees, to the military staff and to their families (the dentist) and to the County Court staff – are excessive and liable to impair on the quality of the medical act. DGP should monitor the observance of the order issued in the summer of 1999, that the penitentiary staff should resort to the penitentiary doctors only in emergency cases and for the periodical medical check-ups. The doctors’ huge workload – 100-120 examinations and treatments administered every day – is an issue to be solved as soon as possible, by means of observing the above mentioned order.
The penitentiary applies the procedure of the "incident report". The commission that analyses the infringements and decides on the punishments is made of the deputy director for treatment and guard and two representatives of the cultural-educational department (one of them checks the circumstances under which the infringement was committed, the other acts as secretary of the commission). As opposed to the Jilava-Bucharest penitentiary that the APADOR-CH representatives also visited recently, all detainees charged with violations of internal regulations are heard, regardless of the punishment, not just in cases where the suggested punishment is isolation. DGP must clarify these differences of procedure and step in order to enforce a unitary procedure, similar to the one applied in Targu Jiu.
With regard to the detainees that are disrespectful with the guards, APADOR-CH remarked that even the slightest mistakes are excessively punished. The detainees can even be prosecuted for this kind of attitude. Four detainees were in this situation at the time of this visit. An example of excessive punishment is provided by Marian Damian. Passing by a wheelbarrow with vegetables in the penitentiary yard, the detainee took a cabbage. A non-commissioned officer stepped in and asked him to put the cabbage back. As Damian refused, the non-commissioned officer went to him and tried to pull the cabbage out of his hands; the detainee pushed him. Damian was punished with 10 days in isolation, three months of restrictive regime, and the court sentenced him to 5 years and a half for outrage and robbery (!!). Even the penitentiary management, that had sued Damian, thought that the solution of this case was hilarious. APADOR-CH reiterates that it is unusual to punish the detainees so severely for this kind of misdemeanours. When it comes to sanctioning a detainee for having insulted an officer or a non-commissioned officer, the law is enforced very strictly, as opposed to law violation by means of which these people’s health or dignity is prejudiced. Detainees are expected to strictly follow the rules, although the law is often violated with respect to their detention conditions. Although each detainee should have his/her own bed, often they sleep in twos and threes (in Targu Jiu included). Although the detainees should enjoy a civilised degree of hygiene, their rooms are often full of lice, mice and bugs. The food should also meet some standards, and in many cases it does not. There are penitentiaries where scores of detainees accommodated in the same room have to share one toilet. Recent estimations made on the occasion of the visit to the Bucharest Penitentiary Hospital proved that almost half of the detainees are healthy when admitted to penitentiaries and leave sick. No one so far has been held accountable for this situation. Still, no one seems willing to understand that the violation of detainees’ rights – and, in particular, their awareness that their rights are being violated and that they are thus subjected to degrading and inhuman treatments – can upset the detainees and even make them behave disrespectfully, sometimes crossing the bounds of the regulations.
Written mail is free and uncensored. There are two pay phones for the detainees (the third is used exclusively by the staff) that they can use after a prior application to the commander. The only restriction of the number of phone calls they can make is related to technical issues. Both APADOR-CH and the penitentiary management believe that the detainees’ written application should be given up; a list with the detainees that want to make phone calls (that would no longer contain useless specifications such as: phone number, name of the persons to be contacted, purpose of the call, etc.) would suffice.
The penitentiary has an animal farm (pigs and cattle) and a vegetable garden. The meat production covers the penitentiary’s demands and is also available on the market for other penitentiaries. The penitentiary does not have any debts; they cover about one third of the expenses from their own income. At the time of this visit, 43% of the detainees worked (in 8 work points). According to the deputy commander in charge of the guards, even detainees with higher sentences are allowed to work. The argument – that APADOR-CH entirely agrees with – is that it is hard for the detainees to bear a detention regime that makes them stay in their rooms almost round the clock, usually doing nothing.
The cultural-educational department is staffed by 3 officers and 4 non-commissioned officers (the chief of this department is a history teacher). The penitentiary employment plan does not include a psychologist. The penitentiary has a good working relationship with the courts that examines the applications for release on parole. Similarly, the penitentiary works well with the university "Constantin Brancusi", and with the foundation "Omenia" (social assistants trained in the university have undergone training stages in the penitentiary). The penitentiary also used to co-operate with the popular university "Victor Damaica" that used to train qualified seamstresses (the graduation diploma used to be issued by the university). The folk music group of the municipal House of Culture organised shows in the penitentiary for the detainees. So far, there has been almost no concern regarding the participation of detainees in cultural and educational activities outside the penitentiary. The penitentiary officials admitted that such activities are important and promised to organise such activities in the near future. The room chiefs ("representatives") are elected by the detainees from a list of five suggestions made by the management. APADOR-CH believes that this system should be given up, especially as most detainees are convinced that room chiefs are informers.
According to the penitentiary officials, the lawyers go to the penitentiary to talk to the detainees they defend; there is also a room fitted out for this purpose. The penitentiary does not allow the criminal investigation bodies to question the detainees unless their lawyers are present.
Although there have been cases when detainees brought from police lockups exhibited marks of violence, it was rather unclear for the APADOR-CH representatives how the Targu Jiu penitentiary deals with such situations. Eventually, the prevailing opinion seemed to be that these detainees should not be admitted and those who accompany them should bring them back when they are cured, following an appropriate medical treatment. During the visit to the medical office, the doctor said that the detainees with slight problems are admitted and that all their afflictions are written down in their medical file, while those who exhibit obvious marks of violence are sent back. APADOR-CH reiterates that the detainees should be admitted unconditionally, examined immediately and that the findings of these examinations recorded in a report. The detainees should be asked to give statements on the circumstances in which their injuries were inflicted; if there are indications that they have been victims of the abusive treatment of the authorities, the Military Prosecutor’s Office should be notified immediately. If the detainees that exhibit marks of violence allegedly inflicted by police officer are not admitted to the penitentiary, such deeds will remain undiscovered and unpunished (usually, such traces disappear in time).
The necessary equipment (a quite modern chair) does exist. The penitentiary employs a dentist and a dental technician who can also provide paid services to the detainees. 15 to 20 detainees are examined and treated daily. The only problem occurs on Friday, when the dentist must look exclusively after the staff. APADOR-CH urges the penitentiary to observe the regulation issued by DGP, namely that officers and non-commissioned officers should resort to their family doctors.
2.2 The visiting area
This area is fitted out to allow simultaneously 5 discussions round the table and one in a very small and uncomfortable cabin. The two pay phones for detainees are also placed there.
2.3.The detainees’ club
The 10 minors detained in the penitentiary attended a session of therapy by means of theatre. Their interest in this kind of activity was obvious. The club has a library where the detainees can lend books on weekdays; on weekends, the librarian goes to the sections and offers the available books.
2.4. The shower room
Fitted out two years before, the shower room is in a good state, with tiled floors and walls and no sign of dampness. The laundry room is used almost exclusively for the detainees (the staff only wash their protection equipment there). The penitentiary has its own thermal plant, so that the problem of hot water is solved satisfactorily.
2.5. The kitchen area
On the day of this visit, the menu consisted of rice with meat for breakfast, pork soup and beans with bacon for lunch; tea, biscuits, marmalade and margarine for dinner. The penitentiary had used 36 kg. Meat, 56 kg. bacon and 36 kg. Meat by-products. Lunched looked good and was consistent. The hygiene was satisfactory in the kitchen. The detainees do not supervise the preparation of food. The APADOR-CH representatives told the penitentiary officials that this system is useful, especially in order to avoid the detainees’ suspicions regarding the quantities of foodstuffs and how the system works in some of the penitentiaries visited by APADOR-CH. The commander’s deputies found this practice useful and said they would soon start to use it themselves.
2.6. The medical office
According to the doctor’s account, the penitentiary’s supply of medicines is satisfactory. The medicine received by the detainees from outside the penitentiary are managed by the medical staff; otherwise, the detainees might use them to get high (for instance, painkillers mixed with caffeine). The detainees with acute diseases are administered medicines for three days, those with sub-acute diseases, once every 10 days, those with chronic diseases get medicines once a month. The most frequent are lung, skin and digestive diseases. Nine TB patients, previously treated at the Bucharest penitentiary hospital, and 21 with stabilised TB are placed under strict medical control. 31 detainees have serious mental problems and should be transferred to Jilava, but this is impossible, especially because there are no places available.
The sick room: In Room 16 there were 6 patients and 6 beds. Gheorghe Moisiuc had suffered a serious labour accident, with multiple fractures. While in detention, he underwent surgery, which failed to solve his medical problems. Although the local forensic laboratory recommended a suspension of the punishment for treatment outside the penitentiary system, the Targu Jiu court postponed judging the detainee's application. The deputy commander for guards promised that he would take the necessary steps for Gheorghe Moisiuc's application to be solved. In Room 17 (7 patients and 7 beds) was accommodated Alexandru Popescu. His state of health was very poor; even the medical staff was very worried about it (stroke, paresis, he could not speak and could hardly remember his name). Although he had undergone two medical examinations recommending a suspension of the punishment, his application was denied by the Targu Jiu Court and by the Craiova Court of Appeal. The penitentiary management committed to promote the legal actions necessary to solve the detainee's case (eventually, a request for a pardon). The patients are taken out for walks daily for about 30-40 minutes.
2.7 The rooms
Room 26, young multi-offenders: 27 persons were sleeping in 18 beds. The detainees were taken out for walks every day, Monday through Friday, for half an hour up to an hour; on Saturdays and Sundays, they clean and tidy up their cell. Twice a week, they take part in activities organised at the club (meant especially to give them basic information related to the legislation). The room was provided with a television and a radio set. The lavatory consisted of a toilet and a sink with two taps. The room had been fumigated a month and a half before.
In Room 28 - detainees who do not go to work - there were 42 beds and 68 persons; the room had been even more crowded during the previous summer, when it accommodated 80 detainees. Some rooms in the penitentiary - Room 28 included - have been fitted out with satisfactory tiled lavatories (in this case, 2-3 toilet cabins, and 3 sinks). The daily walk lasts for one hour, during which time they may take part in sports activities. The room is provided with a television set; the detainees can play chess, cards and backgammon. They said that the food and the medical assistance were both good.
The women section: in Room 10 there were 10 beds and 4 detainees who were working as kitchen staff at the time of this visit. The room was provided with a TV set, and the lavatory consisted of a toilet hole, a shower and a sink. In Room 8 there were 9 persons and 10 beds. The freshly renovated lavatory consisted of a toilet hole, a shower and a sink. The detainees go out for walks every day (Monday through Friday) for half an hour up to one hour. The room is provided with a TV set and the detainees receive newspapers and books. They said the food was good.
Room 14 - minors. The minors had returned from the club; the room accommodated 10 persons and had 12 beds. It was provided with a TV set and a radio. The minors complained that ex officio lawyers do not defend them. "It's as if we had no lawyers at all to represent us", they said. Most of them actually did not know that they had been represented by a lawyer in court.
Room 30 - restrictive regime. 3 detainees were accommodated in a small, unhealthy room, with 4 tiered beds. While in the rest of the penitentiary the detention conditions were satisfactory, in the "restrictive regime" room, as well as in the next two rooms - 31 and 34 - the detention conditions were very low. On the one hand, accommodation left a lot to be desired: little space, bad lighting and airing, provided through a small window (0.5x0.5 metres, covered by thick bars and a wire net), lice, the toilet situated in the room. On the other hand, the attitude of the staff is unacceptable. Besides the half hour they spend outdoors, the detainees are kept confined in the room ever since they have been brought here, months before. They have not even been allowed to watch television (not only on Christmas Eve re New Year's Eve). They are not allowed to receive parcels or even cigarettes. The detainees Viorel Papuc and Aurel Durca have been sentenced for an escape, the third, Elvis Dogaru, was under trial for the same crime. The three have also been punished with one year of restrictive regime. Moreover, they have been punished with isolation. Papuc spent 10 days in isolation, handcuffed to the bed. Durca spent 10 days in isolation and one month in the sick room tied to the bed, and Dogariu, twice 10 days in isolation, handcuffed even when he was going to the toilet. Ten days before, 2 litres of wine made of the marmalade received from the kitchen were found in their room. Since then, the non-commissioned officers forced them to take the mattresses off their beds morning and evening, supposedly because they wanted to conduct searches. The small space and the weight of mattresses supposed an effort amounting actually to a physical punishment. The detainees insisted to be transferred to any other penitentiary. The deputy commander in charge of guarding the detainees committed himself to propose that the restrictive regime be discontinued until the penitentiary can provide acceptable detention conditions for the detainees punished by restrictive regime and to support this proposal. He was of the opinion that such conditions would be attainable if DGP established one or two penitentiaries with special sections for detainees punished with restrictive regime.
Room 31, isolation: The room is quite similar with Room 10 in terms of detention conditions; actually, the two rooms are identical in shape. The room had 2 beds and accommodated 2 detainees, punished with 10 days each. The detainees did not even have a broom and a dustpan to clean the room. George Miclescu had been punished because, when he was in the yard, he had thrown a bottle that someone else had thrown at him and had broken a windowpane at the medical office. He had a very serious form of varicose ulcer at one leg and had got no treatment for two days, since he had been confined here.
Room 34, detainee who do not work: 21 inmates shared 15 beds. The overcrowding and the precarious hygiene make detention in this room unbearable. The lavatory was very damp and consisted of a toilet and a sink. The detainees were taken out for walks daily, Monday through Thursday, only in the morning, for about half on hour. The do not take part in any sports or cultural activities. They have no TV set in the room. The APADOR-CH representatives noted that in many cases the reasons for which the detainees are labelled as dangerous are disputable to say the least. For instance, Constantin Varzaru, who was serving a 7-year and a half sentence for theft, was regarded as dangerous because he had escaped… 32 years before. Marian Damian, already mentioned above, sentenced to 5 years and a half for having committed "robbery" (he had stolen a cabbage from a non-commissioned officer), was also confined in this room. Gheorghe Cristian has sworn at a non-commissioned officer; for this deed, he was punished with 10 days of severe isolation, prosecuted for outrage and, as if that had not been enough, labelled as a dangerous detainee. Marian Opritescu and George Gabriel Sarbu had climbed on the roof of the Targu Jiu penitentiary to protest against the inhuman detention conditions (3-4 detainees sharing a bed, in rooms that had only two toilets for about 100 detainees, etc.). They were punished twice with 10 days of isolation and transferred to the section of dangerous detainees. In August 1999, George Gabriel Sarbu was chained for three days at the Barcea penitentiary, where he had been transferred for a short while, although chaining was strictly forbidden. Gheorghe Ene was labelled dangerous because he had deserted from the army 16 years before. Samir Daniel Bascrecea complained that he had lost over 10 kg. in the penitentiary system because of a stomach problem he got in penitentiary. He asked to be examined by dr. Malaescu, who refused to do so and shouted at him "Get out of here!"
Theoretically, Room 33 also accommodates dangerous detainees. However, the conditions of detention are superior to those in Room 34 and the detainees are considered less dangerous than the others are. 16 detainees shared 15 beds. The room is provided with a sink and has a toilet, separated from the rest of the room by a partition wall. Water condenses on the iron beams and drops on the detainees. As they are scheduled to go out in the open in the mornings (for half an hour), when the temperatures a down, the detainees asked that their walking schedule be pushed later into the day. They asked to go out together with Room 34 for an hour (adding up the time of the two rooms) in order to play football. The APADOR-CH representatives found the initiative worthwhile and suggest to the penitentiary management to grant them permission to do so. The detainees go to the club for discussions on topics of their choice and to play chess. Alexandru Paun’s wife and child are detained in the same penitentiary. He asked the non-commissioned officers to show more understanding – "the high ranking chiefs did help me" – and let him write more to his family.
Constantin Panduru (who had a final sentence of 3 years and 10 months for a theft attempt) complained about the food, in particular about the diet menu, especially as the meat had been rotten several days before. He also said he had been punished with isolation although he was innocent and that he wanted to be transferred to Craiova or Turnu Severin.
Constantin Mihai had got a final sentence of 4 years in prison for theft. He had surgery of the thorax on 22 February 1999 at the "Victor Babes" polyclinic hospital. After release from hospital, on 4 March, he was arrested by the Gorj County Police. As he had no identity papers on him, the police used his medical documents for identification and these documents were lost. The Gorj Police sent him for an appraisal at the Jilava penitentiary hospital, for 4 days. While he was there, in December 1999, Constantin Mihai had made a written application to the Victor Babes Polyclinic hospital, asking for copies of his medical documents. The detainee was trying to prove that he was entitled to a suspension of his sentence for medical reasons. The application was handed to the hospital commander on 17 December 1999. APADOR-CH found it in the detainee’s file. It had not been sent by Colonel Apavaloaie, commander of the hospital, because the latter had written on the application "Postponed until the detainees takes the wire out". Meanwhile, the detainee had taken out the wire that he had apparently introduced under his skin of his own accord, was transferred to the Targu Jiu penitentiary, but his application had still not been sent. The APADOR-CH representatives consider that the initiative of the hospital commander was illegal. The Targu Jiu penitentiary management committed themselves to take all necessary measures to allow the detainee to get his medical documents.
Conclusions:
- The APADOR-CH representatives appreciate the concern of the penitentiary management, who try to ensure better detention conditions. Their efforts to get the material and financial means the penitentiary needs are mirrored by the fairly good detention conditions, especially in comparison with what the association’s representatives have found in other penitentiaries.
- The most serious problem discovered by the APADOR-CH representatives, who ask that it be solved as soon as possible, regards the detention conditions and treatment (bordering on inhuman and degrading treatment) applied to the detainees punished with isolation, restrictive regime and those regarded as dangerous In particular those in Room 34). The association asks to be informed on the measures taken by the penitentiary in this respect. The criteria based on which the detainees are labelled as dangerous should be reviewed at the Targu Jiu [penitentiary. In the opinion of APADOR-CH, a detainee who escaped 32 years before or another, who deserted from the army 16 years before, do not deserve to be regarded as dangerous.
- The doctors should be released of any duties except that of tending to the detainees. It is hardly possible to examine and treat 100-120 detainees every day in these conditions without lowering the quality of the medical act.
- APADOR-CH asks again the DGP management to review the procedure according to which the detainees who are not polite with the staff are severely punished. APADOR-CH does not advocate thus for lack of firmness and does not encourage insubordination and violations of internal regulations. The association merely asks that this behaviour be judged in context: the low intellectual and cultural level of the detainees and especially the very harsh detention conditions, that represent sometimes gross violations even of the norms established by the Romanian legislation and penitentiary regulations.
Manuela
Stefanescu
Valerian Stan