REPORT on the visit to IPJ Buzau (Buzau County Police Inspectorate)
On 4 February 2000, two APADOR-CH representatives visited the IPJ Buzau lockup.
The county of Buzau has about 500,000 inhabitants and the police forces count approximately 900 police officers, 750 of which work directly with the population (that is, about one police officer for over 730 inhabitants. The inspectorate is provided with 120 vehicles, used both for administrative needs and as patrol cars.
The county has one lockup, at the County Police Inspectorate. A second lockup is being built in Pogoanele, while the one in Ramnicu Sarat is no longer in use because it is in a very poor condition.
The discussion with the Chief Inspector revealed that persons for whom police custody orders are issued are placed at the disposal of police officers, for "preliminary investigations" or in order to be transferred to the Buzau lockup, for a period of time which is not included in the 24 hours for which the order is issued. To put it differently, this period is not regarded as deprivation of liberty, although that is obviously what it is, as long as these persons cannot leave the police station and are kept under police authority. As in all other police inspectorates visited by APADOR-CH, this situation is regarded as normal. The IPJ officials invoke the provisions of art. 16 letter b) of the Law on Police, which entitle police officers to deprive a person of liberty – to "lead it to the police station" – for up to 24 hours besides the 24 hours provided in the case of police custody orders. APADOR-CH wishes to reiterate that the "leading to the police station", instituted by means of the Law on Police, is an unconstitutional form of deprivation of liberty. Art. 23 of the Romanian Constitution provides that the only two legal forms of deprivation of liberty are detention on the basis of a police custody order and arrest on the basis of a pre-trial arrest order. With regard to detention on the basis of a police custody order, APADOR-CH noted that the IPJ Buzau officials do not have the property of these terms, as they maintain that the provisions of the Constitution, of the Penal Procedure Code and of the Law on Police do not regulate the same form of deprivation of liberty, and that consequently there are "three types" of deprivation of liberty (consistent with the three laws).
Similar to other police inspectorates, IPJ Buzau interprets and enforces incorrectly the Law on Police with regard to the category of persons that can be led to the police station. Thus, even persons "sitting on a bench at 1 a.m. in a park" are suspected of having committed an offence. Under these circumstances and if such persons do not have an identity document (although one is not supposed to have it at all times), they will be most probably led to the police station and thus deprived of liberty for at least a few hours. It is obvious that such interpretation of the law is wrong and liable to lead to police abuses. A suspect can only be a person in regard to which there are clear indications that he/she might have committed an illegality, not one labelled as such by a police officer who uses his flair or is prejudiced into thinking that a person who walks in the park at night-time must necessarily be a criminal. The police officials complained that the law provides "no special legal protection" for police officers against the "attacks" of civilians. The APADOR-CH representatives do not share this point of view and can use as a counterexample the special protection provided by the Penal Code to civil servants, by means of the article on outrage. The outrage ("with violence") against a civil servant is punished by prison for up to 12 years; if perpetrated against a police officer, the maximum punishment goes up to 15 years.
2. Discussion with officials from the criminal investigation department
Order no. 901/1999, issued by the Minister of Interior, provides that the lawyers’ talks with their clients must be confidential; still, these discussions are attended by a police officer, if the detainee is known to be aggressive, according to the chief of the Criminal Investigation Department. According to his explanation, the police officer’s presence is necessary in order to prevent the detainees’ attempts to maim themselves. This argument is unacceptable as long as they could maim themselves in their cells as well, especially as the police officer is not there to prevent such attempts. The interviews with the detainees revealed that in many cases the very officers that investigate the case take part in the discussions. APADOR-CH considers that this practice is unacceptable and liable to cancel completely the right to defence and to a fair trial. APADOR-CH considers that the lawyers-client meetings should be supervised visually, but that the police officer should not be able to listen in. The easiest solution would be for the police officer to wait outside the room where the meeting takes place and to watch the detainee through the open door or through a peephole.
The lists of ex officio lawyers are available only to the officers in charge of criminal investigations and to the police officer on duty. No such list is available in the lockup, for the detainees to be able to check it (as the Criminal Investigation Department with the General Police Inspectorate specified, by means of letter 10.482/14.04.99 to APADOR-CH).
Medical assistance is ensured by a doctor and a medical assistant. The doctor looks after both detainees and staff members of the county and municipal police, while the medical assistant looks exclusively after the lockup. The County Police Inspectorate has a free job opening for a doctor for about one year.
According to the IPJ officials, the detainees are allowed to send mail and are provided with a post card every month. Those who have envelopes are also allowed