DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Detention and Alternatives: Fundamental Rights Aspects in EU

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Criminal Detention and Alternatives: Fundamental Rights Aspects in EU JUSTICE FRA Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers aspects in EU cross-border rights fundamental and alternatives: Criminal detention Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross- border transfers The report addresses matters related to human dignity (Article 1), the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 4), the right to liberty (Article 6), the right to respect for private and family life (Article 7), and the right to a fair trial (Article 47), falling under Titles I ‘Dignity’, II ‘Freedoms’, and VI ‘Justice’ of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). Photo (cover & inside): © Shutterstock (Zolnierek) More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria Tel. +43 158030-0 – Fax +43 158030-699 Email: [email protected] – fra.europa.eu Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 Paper: 978-92-9491-352-4 10.2811/182993 TK-02-16-903-EN-C PDF: 978-92-9491-351-7 10.2811/244106 TK-02-16-903-EN-N © European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2016 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Luxembourg Printed on process chlorine-free recycled paper (PCF) Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross- border transfers Foreword Mutual recognition – the process of default recognition of decisions and judgments made by, for example, a court in another Member State – hinges greatly on Member States’ mutual trust in each other’s justice systems. Such trust, in turn, is highly dependent on respect for fundamental rights. The three European Union (EU) Framework Decisions at the heart of this study were designed to facilitate mutual recognition between EU Member States when transferring individuals serving prison sentences, persons subject to probation measures and alternative sanctions, and individuals awaiting trial (pursuant to the so-called European Supervision Order). The Framework Decisions instruct Member States to be guided by fundamental rights principles, including by considering alternatives to detention. Moreover, in its EU Justice Agenda for 2020 – entitled ‘Strengthening trust, mobility and growth within the Union’ – the European Commission emphasises the need to promote effective application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The agenda underscores that effective rights protection is crucial for promoting trust in the proper functioning of the European area of justice. It is also in light of this Justice Agenda that this report explores fundamental rights considerations in the application of the three Framework Decisions. Criminal justice systems themselves are inherently linked with fundamental rights. They serve to protect the rights and safety of victims and society as a whole, but also to offer rigorous safeguards to suspects, accused and sentenced persons. This is important both for these individuals themselves and for society as a whole. Beyond principles of humanity, societies benefit from the reintegration of persons who have served time in detention or have otherwise been constrained by the justice system. This also recalls the goal of reducing recidivism. Societal interests include making greater use of alternatives to detention in order to avoid the need to reintegrate persons after periods in detention. This is particularly important at the pre-trial stage, where individuals remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Using detention for serious crimes is certainly appropriate, albeit it may at times be counter-productive. This is particularly important to stress at times when short-term political gains may encourage harsh sentencing. The implementation deadlines for these instruments have passed, and EU Member States have by and large imple- mented them; making it timely for an assessment of how fundamental rights are safeguarded both in law and in practice. This study provides an overview of experiences in Member States, and highlights best practices and short- comings. In so doing, it brings much-needed attention to both the potential and the risks these instruments entail in terms of fundamental rights protection. Michael O’Flaherty Director 3 Country codes Country code EU Member State AT Austria BE Belgium BG Bulgaria CY Cyprus CZ Czech Republic DE Germany DK Denmark EE Estonia EL Greece ES Spain FI Finland FR France HR Croatia HU Hungary IE Ireland IT Italy LT Lithuania LU Luxembourg LV Latvia MT Malta NL Netherlands PL Poland PT Portugal RO Romania SE Sweden SK Slovakia SI Slovenia UK United Kingdom 4 Contents FOREWORD ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 3 ACRONYMS ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND FRA OPINIONS ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 9 INTRODUCTION ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 1 EU INSTRUMENTS: THE FRAMEWORK DECISIONS ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25 1.1. Functioning and implementation of the Framework Decisions ......................................................................... 25 1.2. Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners ..................................................................................................... 28 1.3. Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions .......................................................................... 29 1.4. Framework Decision on the European Supervision Order ................................................................................. 30 1.5. Council of Europe and United Nations building blocks ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 1.6. Gathering experiences and collecting data ......................................................................................................... 32 Conclusion and FRA Opinions ........................................................................................................................................... 34 2 OVERALL GOALS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 2.1. Fundamental rights standards ............................................................................................................................... 38 2.2. Goal of social rehabilitation ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 43 2.3. Fundamental rights refusal grounds ..................................................................................................................... 45 2.4. Visions for improved mutual trust through enhanced monitoring and incentives ........................................ 47 Conclusion and FRA Opinions ............................................................................................................................................ 51 3 DETENTION: EXTENT AND CONCERNS, INCLUDING RADICALISATION ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 53 3.1. Extent of detention .................................................................................................................................................. 54 3.2. Concerns about detention in the EU ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 55 Conclusion and FRA Opinion ............................................................................................................................................. 59 4 ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 4.1. Alternatives to pre-trial detention ........................................................................................................................ 62 4.2. Alternatives to post-trial detention ....................................................................................................................... 67 Conclusion and FRA Opinion ............................................................................................................................................. 69 5 DETENTION AND PEOPLE IN SITUATIONS OF VULNERABILITY ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 71 5.1. Children ...................................................................................................................................................................... 73 5.2. Parents with young children .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Longing to Return and Spaces of Belonging
    TURUN YLIOPISTON JULKAISUJA ANNALES UNIVERSITATIS TURKUENSIS SERIAL B, HUMANIORA, 374 LONGING TO RETURN AND SPACES OF BELONGING. IRAQIS’ NARRATIVES IN HELSINKI AND ROME By Vanja La Vecchia-Mikkola TURUN YLIOPISTO UNIVERSITY OF TURKU Turku 2013 Department of Social Research/Sociology Faculty of Social Sciences University of Turku Turku, Finland Supervised by: Suvi Keskinen Östen Wahlbeck University of Helsinki University of Helsinki Helsinki, Finland Helsinki, Finland Reviewed by: Marja Tiilikainen Marko Juntunen University of Helsinki University of Tampere Helsinki, Finland Helsinki, Finland Opponent: Professor Minoo Alinia Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden ISBN 978-951-29-5594-7 (PDF) ISSN 0082-6987 Acknowledgments First of all, I wish to express my initial appreciation to all the people from Iraq who contributed to this study. I will always remember the time spent with them as enriching and enjoyable experience, not only as a researcher but also as a human being. I am extremely grateful to my two PhD supervisors: Östen Wahlbeck and Suvi Keskinen, who have invested time and efforts in reading and providing feedback to the thesis. Östen, you have been an important mentor for me during these years. Thanks for your support and your patience. Your critical suggestions and valuable insights have been fundamental for this study. Suvi, thanks for your inspiring comments and continuous encouragement. Your help allows me to grow as a research scientist during this amazing journey. I am also deeply indebted to many people who contributed to the different steps of this thesis. I am grateful to both reviewers Marja Tiilikainen and Marko Juntunen, for their time, dedication and valuable comments.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 16 February 2021
    United Nations A/HRC/WG.6/38/EST/1 General Assembly Distr.: General 16 February 2021 Original: English Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Thirty-eighth session 3–14 May 2021 National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21* Estonia * The present document is being issued without formal editing. GE.21-02086(E) A/HRC/WG.6/38/EST/1 I. Introduction1 1. The Estonian Government values the importance of ensuring and promoting human rights as enshrined in international instruments and cooperating in the field of human rights with international organisations and other States. Estonia is committed to fulfilling its reporting obligations to UN treaty bodies and other international organisations. Estonia has issued a standing invitation to the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) provides a good basis for States to review their human rights activities and plan for the future. This third UPR and the mid-term report of 2018 continue the dialogue of the second UPR of 2016. Reporting process2 2. The report gives an overview of legislation, national action plans, policies and practices pertaining to human rights. References are made to recommendations by States in the course of the previous UPR. It has not been possible to address all human rights and fundamental freedoms in detail, and thus the report covers the issues that have deserved particular attention at national or international level in recent years. 3. This report has been compiled under the coordination of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in cooperation with other Ministries that provided an overview of developments in their areas of governance.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights in Estonia Human Rights
    HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA Foundation Estonian Human Rights Centre 2010 [email protected] HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA www.humanrights.ee Annual Report of the Estonian Human Rights Centre 2010 Annual Report of the Estonian Human Rights Centre HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA 2010 Annual Report of the Estonian Human Rights Centre HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA 2010 HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA 2010 Annual Report of the Estonian Human Rights Centre Edited by: Kari Käsper, Marianne Meiorg Translated by: Grete Anton Thanks to: Kristin Rammus, Egert Rünne Published by: Foundation Estonian Human Rights Centre. Copyright: Authors, Foundation Estonian Human Rights Centre, 2011 Designed by: Mihkel Ronk, koosolek.ee Authors of photos (creative commons license, flickr.com): erix!, mknobil, sandman, daily sunny, M.Markus, Magic Madzik, dandeluca, Elsie esq., russelljsmith, takomabibelot, Yortw, dicktay2000, PinkMoose Printed by: Ecoprint ISSN 2228-1045 ISSN 2228-1053 Compiling and publishing of the report supported by Open Estonia Foundation and Estonian Ministry of Culture. Views expressed in the report may not represent those of the Open Estonia Foundation and the Estonian Ministry of Culture. 2 HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA 2010 Table of contents Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment ....7 Epp Lumiste Prohibition of slavery and forced labour ............................................................19 Epp Lumiste Right to Personal Liberty ......................................................................................27 Eve Pilt Right to
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Feedback Collection July 2020
    COVID-19 Feedback Collection July 2020 Infected Isolated / quarantine Dead Prisoner Staff Prisoner Staff Prisoner Staff Slovenia 2 1 28 14 Poland 6 7 59 52 Slovakia 0* 0 6 2 *1 positive tested prisoner has recovered Belgium 14 61* 50** *25 of the 61 are recovered and back at work; **on average 50 per day in quarantine Czech Republic 1* 2** 3 8 * in pre-trial detention prison hospital; ** 11 recovered Israel 0 7* 7 56 *6 all recovered Spain 72* 17** 101 112 2 4 *84 total, 16 already recovered; ** 278 total, 257 already recovered Catalonia 4* 33** *89 recovered; **128 already recovered Sweden 129* ** 20-30 0 *128 recovered fully Italy 132* 192** 1 2 * 2 of them are hospitalized; **184 of them penitentiary police / 8 administrative staff; 11 hospitalised Austria 2* 7** 0 0 *2 already recovered, **7 already recovered, 481 inmates and 91 staff tested negative Norway 0* 1** 69 *9 prisoners have recovered; ** 10 staff members have recovered Netherlands 20* 1 *14 in prisons, of which 11 are recovered, 1 deceased and 1 released from prison; 6 in forensic care of which 5 are recovered Hungary 0 1* 0 1* *1 infected staff member that is in quarantine Finland 0 0* 6 1 *5 already recovered Lithuania 0 0 0 0 Georgia 0 0 0 0 Latvia 0 0 0 0 Luxembourg 1 0 2* 0 *prisoners quarantined upon their arrival are not calculated. Every new detainee stays in isolation for 7 days before being transferred to regular sections. Malta* 0 0 0 0 Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 Romania 0 9 Estonia 0 5 some some Denmark 0* 0 *1 prisoner is recovered Moldova 1 7 9 28 0 0 Croatia *one staff
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the Estonian Government on the Visit to Estonia Carried out By
    CPT/Inf (2011) 15 Report to the Estonian Government on the visit to Estonia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 9 to 18 May 2007 The Estonian Government has requested the publication of this report and of its response. The Government’s response is set out in document CPT/Inf (2011) 16. Strasbourg, 19 April 2011 - 2 - CONTENTS Copy of the letter transmitting the CPT’s report............................................................................4 I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................5 A. Dates of the visit and composition of the delegation ..............................................................5 B. Establishments visited...............................................................................................................6 C. Consultations and co-operation ...............................................................................................7 D. Immediate observation under Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Convention...........................8 II. FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED ................................9 A. Police establishments ................................................................................................................9 1. Preliminary remarks ..........................................................................................................9 2. Ill-treatment .....................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Feedback Collection(1)
    COVID-19 Feedback Collection 16 June 2020 Infected Isolated / quarantine Dead Prisoner Staff Prisoner Staff Prisoner Staff Slovenia 2 1 28 14 Poland 6 7 59 52 Slovakia 0* 0 6 2 *1 positive tested prisoner has recovered Belgium 14 61* 50** *25 of the 61 are recovered and Back at work; **on average 50 per day in quarantine Czech RepuBlic 1* 2** 3 8 * in pre-trial detention prison hospital; ** 11 recovered Israel 0 7* 7 56 *6 all recovered Spain 70* 23** 95 142 2 4 *83 total, 15 already recovered; ** 278 total, 2 already recovered Catalonia 1* 60** *60 already recovered; **32 already recovered, total of 92 Sweden 125* ** 20-30 0 *107 recovered fully Italy 132* 192** 1 2 * 2 of them are hospitalized; **184 of them penitentiary police / 8 administrative staff; 11 hospitalised Austria* 0* 0 0 0 *481 inmates tested negative until now Norway 0* 1** 69 *9 prisoners have recovered; ** 10 staff memBers have recovered Netherlands 20* 1 *14 in prisons, of which 11 are recovered, 1 deceased and 1 released from prison; 6 in forensic care of which 5 are recovered Hungary 0 1* 0 1* *1 infected staff memBer that is in quarantine Finland 0 0* 6 1 *5 already recovered Lithuania 0 0 0 0 Georgia 0 0 0 0 Latvia 0 0 0 0 LuxemBourg 1 0 2* 0 *prisoners quarantined upon their arrival are not calculated. Every new detainee stays in isolation for 7 days Before Being transferred to regular sections. Malta* 0 0 0 0 Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 Romania 0 9 Estonia 0 4 some some Denmark 0* 0 *1 prisoner is recovered Moldova 1 7 9 28 0 0 Croatia *one staff memBer was quarantined immediately after returning from travelling aBroad and has Been on sick-leave since then (never entered a prison), **all newly 0 2* 138** 27 0 0 admitted prisoners are isolated for reasons of precaution France 35 51 127 312 1 1 Portugal 0 7 Ireland 0* 47** 15*** *10 awaiting testing (results) **337 cleared from isolation Have you introduced technology as a replacement for rub down searches.
    [Show full text]
  • Acceptance-Oriented Drug Work
    Akzeptanzorientierte Drogenarbeit/ Acceptance-Oriented Drug Work ISSN 1861-0110 INDRO e.V. ___________________________________________________________________________ Forschungsbericht / Research report Health needs of drug dependent prisoners in four countries (Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland) [Die gesundheitlichen Bedürfnisse drogenabhängiger Inhaftierter in vier Län- dern (Estland, Ungarn, Litauen, Polen)] KATJA THANE a* (Dipl.-Soz.Päd., Dipl.-Krim.) & Heino Stöverb (Prof. Dr. Phil.) a University of Vechta, Germany b University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt am Main, Germany *Corresponding author © INDRO e.V., Bremer Platz 18-20, D-48155 Münster, Germany. Jegliche Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung und Zitation von Textpassagen ausdrücklich gestattet unter Angabe der Originalquelle / verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article‟s original URL: Akzeptanzorientierte Drogenarbeit/Acceptance-Oriented Drug Work 2011;8:23-43, URL: www.indro-online.de/ThaneStoever2011.pdf Abstract The majority of people held in European prisons have severe problems associated with drug use, together with related health and social disadvantages. Those categorised as problematic drug users (PDUs) constitute a substantial proportion of prison populations in Europe. Recent figures indicate that a third to a half of prisoners having illicit drug use experience before imprisonment. Acknowledging the existence of a drug problem within prison walls often remains a taboo for prisoners, staff, management and politicians. Moreover, lack of continuity of care and support throughout the criminal justice system (CJS), from the moment of arrest to release from prison into the community, contributes to failures in reintegration, drives the “revolving door effect”, with drug users routinely caught in the criminal justice system and does not allow for the full implementation of the principle of equivalence of health services in prison comparable to those available in the community.
    [Show full text]
  • FIRST SECTION CASE of JULIN V. ESTONIA (Applications Nos. 16563
    FIRST SECTION CASE OF JULIN v. ESTONIA (Applications nos. 16563/08, 40841/08, 8192/10 and 18656/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 May 2012 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Julin v. Estonia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Nina Vaji ć, President, Peer Lorenzen, Khanlar Hajiyev, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Erik Møse, judges, Oliver Kask, ad hoc judge, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 17 April 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in four applications (nos. 16563/08, 40841/08, 8192/10 and 18656/10) against the Republic of Estonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Estonian national, Mr Vyacheslav Julin (“the applicant”), on 12 March 2008, 30 July 2008, 3 February 2010 and 18 March 2010 respectively. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Sirendi, a lawyer practising in Tartu. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been ill-treated by prison officers and there had been no effective investigation into this ill-treatment, that he had had no access to court in respect of his complaints concerning prison conditions and the actions of prison officers, and that he had been strip-searched in a humiliating manner, and without respect for his private life.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Talk a Reflective Toolkit for Prison Administrators and Staff on Supporting the Child-Parent Relationship
    2018 Child Talk A Reflective Toolkit for Prison Administrators and Staff on Supporting the Child-Parent Relationship Children of Prisoners Europe ________________________________________________________________ 1 Children of Prisoners Europe (COPE) is a pan-European network of non-profit organisations work- ing on behalf of children separated from an imprisoned parent. The network encourages inno- vative perspectives and practices to ensure that children with an imprisoned parent fully enjoy their rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and that action is taken to enable their wellbeing and development. Children of Prisoners Europe is a non-profit organisation registered in France under French Asso- ciation law 1901. SIRET: 437 527 013 00019 December 2018 Copyright © COPE 2018 This toolkit has been produced with the financial support of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme of the European Union. The contents are the sole responsibility of Children of Prisoners Europe and can in no way be taken to re- flect the views of the European Commission. ________________________________________________________________ 2 Contents Contents..........................................................................................................................3 Introduction.....................................................................................................................4 Background.....................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • European Treatment, Transition Management, and Re-Integration of High-Risk Offenders
    56 Schriften zum Strafvollzug, Jugendstrafrecht und zur Kriminologie Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Frieder Dünkel Lehrstuhl für Kriminologie an der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald Band 56 Frieder Dünkel, Jörg Jesse, Ineke Pruin, Moritz von der Wense (Eds.) European Treatment, Transition Management, Transition European Treatment, and Re-Integration of High-Risk Offenders European Treatment, • Transition Management, and Re-Integration of High-Risk Offenders Results of the Final Conference at Rostock-Warnemünde, 3-5 September 2014, and Final Evaluation Report of the Justice-Cooperation-Network (JCN)-Project “European treatment and transition management of high-risk offenders” ■ ISBN 978-3-942865-58-6 ■ ISSN 0949-8354 Dünkel · Jesse · Pruin · von der Wense (Eds.) Dünkel · Jesse Pruin von der Wense Forum Verlag Godesberg Schriften zum Strafvollzug, Jugendstrafrecht und zur Kriminologie Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Frieder Dünkel Lehrstuhl für Kriminologie an der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald Band 56 Frieder Dünkel, Jörg Jesse, Ineke Pruin, Moritz von der Wense (Eds.) European Treatment, Transition Management, and Re-Integration of High-Risk Offenders Results of the F inal C onference at Rostock - W arnemünde, 3 - 5 Sep tember 20 1 4 , and F inal E valuation Rep ort of the Justice- C oop eration- N etw ork ( JC N ) - P roj ect “ E urop ean treatment and transition management of high- risk offenders” The project was funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Commission (JUST/2011/JPEN/AG2943) MG 2016 Forum Verlag Godesberg This publication has been produced with the fnancial support of the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the editors and authors and can in no way be taken to refect the views of the European Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights in Estonia
    HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA TOGETHER WE ARE STRONGER! Sihtasutus Eesti Inimõiguste Keskus [email protected] anneta.humanrights.eewww.inimoigused.ee HUMAN RIGHTS 2014 IN ESTONIA 2015 Annual Report of the Estonian Human Rights Centre Foundation Estonian Human Rights Centre [email protected] www.humanrights.ee 2015 2014 Annual Report of the Estonian Human Rights Centre HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA 2014-2015 Annual Report of the Estonian Human Rights Centre HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA 2014-2015 HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA 2014-2015 Annual Report of the Estonian Human Rights Centre Edited by: Egert Rünne, Kari Käsper Translated by: Grete Anton Published by: Estonian Human Rights Centre. Copyright: Authors, Estonian Human Rights Centre, 2015 Designed by: Mihkel Ronk, koosolek.ee Authors of photos (creative commons license, flickr.com): erix!, mknobil, sandman, daily sunny, M.Markus, Magic Madzik, dandeluca, Elsie esq., russelljsmith, takomabibelot, Yortw, dicktay2000, PinkMoose ISSN 2228-1045 ISSN 2228-1053 Compiling and publishing of the report supported by The Integration and Migration Foundation Our People (MISA), Estonian Ministry of Culture and Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Estonia. Views expressed in the report may not represent those of the The Integration and Migration Foundation Our People (MISA), Estonian Ministry of Culture and Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Estonia. 2 HUMAN RIGHTS IN ESTONIA Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading 2014-2015 treatment and punishment 7 Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of National Responses to Hiv/Aids in Prison Settings in Estonia
    EVALUATION OF NATIONAL RESPONSES TO HIV/AIDS IN PRISON SETTINGS IN ESTONIA Evaluation carried out on behalf of the UNODC Regional project “HIV/AIDS prevention and care among injecting drug users and in prison settings in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania” (December 2007 – March 2008) Prepared by: Prof. Dr. Heino Stöver University of Bremen/Germany Table of Contents Acknowledgment 5 Executive Summary 7 Abbreviations 9 List of Tables 11 List of Charts 11 I. Introduction 13 1 Background of the evaluation 14 1.1 Purpose of consultancy 15 1.2 Specific tasks 15 1.3 Timeframe and expected outputs 15 1.4 Implementation arrangements 15 1.5 Establishments visited 16 II. Background information 17 1 Prison data 17 1.1 Situation in Europe 17 1.2 Situation in Estonia 18 1.3 Prisons visited 20 1.3.1 Findings 21 2 Police work, arrest houses and health care service 22 2.1 Police structure 22 2.2 Arrest houses 23 2.3 Healthcare in police detention 25 3 Probation Service 26 4 Risk behaviour in prisons 27 4.1 Drug use in Estonian prisons 30 4.1.1 Sharing of needles and paraphernalia 33 4.2 Sexual contacts 33 4.3 Tattooing/Piercing 34 5 Infectious diseases in the community and in prisons 34 5.1 HIV/AIDS in Estonian prisons 39 5.1.1 HIV-testing 42 5.1.2 Psychosocial support for PLWHA in prisons 43 5.1.3 Attitudes towards PLWHA 44 5.1.4 HIV/AIDS-preventive services in prisons 45 5.2 Other infectious diseases 45 5.2.1 TB 45 5.2.2 Hepatitis 45 6 Specific issues of most-at-risk-groups within prisons: women, migrants and juveniles 47 7 Migrants/Ethnic Minorities: Russian Speaking Prisoners 48 III.
    [Show full text]