DOCSLIB.ORG

USP Florence Administrative Maximum Security (ADX) Inspection Report and USP Florence-High Survey Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USP Florence Administrative Maximum Security (ADX) Inspection Report and USP Florence-High Survey Report USP Florence Administrative Maximum Security (ADX) Inspection Report And USP Florence-High Survey Report USP Florence ADX (photo by Federal Bureau of Prisons) District of Columbia Corrections Information Council October 31, 2018 1 District of Columbia Corrections Information Council Charles Thornton, Board Chair Katharine A. Huffman, Board Member Phylisa Carter, Board Member Calvin Woodland, Jr., Board Member About the District of Columbia Corrections Information Council The District of Columbia Corrections Information Council (CIC) is an independent oversight body mandated by the United States Congress and the Council of the District of Columbia to inspect, monitor, and report on the conditions of confinement in correctional facilities where inmates from the District of Columbia are incarcerated. This includes facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC), and private contractors. The CIC reports its observations and recommendations to the District of Columbia Representative in the United States Congress, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Council of the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, the Director of the BOP, the Director of the DOC, and the community. Although the CIC does not handle individual complaints or provide legal representation or advice, individuals are still encouraged to contact the CIC. Reports, concerns, and general information from incarcerated DC residents and the public is very important to the CIC, and they greatly inform our inspection schedule, recommendations, and reports. However, unless expressly permitted by the individuals or required by law, names and identifying information of inmates, corrections staff not in leadership, and members of the general public will be kept anonymous and confidential. DC Corrections Information Council 2901 14th Street, NW Ground Floor Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 478-9211 Email: [email protected] Website: https://cic.dc.gov/ 2 Executive Summary Dates of Inspection: April 26-27, 2017 Florence ADX Location: Florence, Colorado Distance from DC: 1,682 miles Facility Profile DC Inmates Security Level: Administrative Maximum DC Population: 35 (9.78% of total population) Rated Capacity: 490 Average Age: 45.3 years old Total Population: 427 (87.2% capacity) Average Sentence: 364 months Staff-to-Inmate Ratio: 1.22 : 1 Individuals with Detainers: 6 Findings Incarcerated DC men are Staff stated that 92% of inmates at the disproportionately housed at Florence Florence ADX were designated to the ADX, as they comprised 8.2% of the facility due to discipline issues at other Florence ADX inmate population but BOP facilities. 2.5% of the total federal inmate STAGES is a program unit that operates population. as an alternative to inmates with mental Inmates at Florence ADX spend 22 or illness whom might otherwise be in more hours a day alone in a cell with no Florence ADMAX, as a way to divert meaningful human contact, in what is said inmates from solitary confinement. commonly known as solitary Staff reported that, at times while in four- confinement. point restraints, inmates would be Cunningham v. BOP, a class action lawsuit temporarily unfettered, so that they can filed in June 2012 involving several shower and clean their cells. Staff then Florence ADMAX inmates with mental would place the inmates back in illness against the BOP, resulted in a restraints. settlement between the parties on After the CIC’s onsite recommendation, December 29, 2016. Terms of the Federal Correctional Complex Florence settlement apply to the class of plaintiffs began participating in the CSOSA’s listed as well as the subclass of inmates Quarterly Community Resource Day present and future with mental illness in Video Conference. Florence ADMAX. Half of 24 DC men surveyed reported being incarcerated at Florence ADX for over five years. Three reported being incarcerated at Florence ADX for over 20 years. 3 Recommendations Based on the inspection of Florence ADX, the CIC makes the following recommendations. 1. The facility should monitor that those in general population units in particular, as well as other units, are receiving more hours of out-of-cell time each day. 2. The CIC recommends that those from DC are evaluated for participation in the Step Down and STAGES program, to ensure that there is no disparate treatment in such transfers. 3. An independent qualified mental health professional provide evaluations of inmates’ current levels of functioning. If, in the clinical judgment of this independent evaluator, the inmate requires a higher level of care, the BOP should make arrangements for their transfer to a more appropriate facility. 4. Increased access to psychology services, including increased rounds and documented contact to better ensure access. Ensure adequate mental health staffing and deployment schedules so as to be able to respond to inmate requests within a reasonable period of time. 5. Increase capacity for group programming by converting the former UNICOR space or another such space to group therapy space. Examine alternates to cages as security measures for group programming. 6. Refrain from punishing inmates following acts of self-harm. 7. Screen inmates for traumatic brain injury (TBI) upon their admission to the facility. 8. The facility and agency should evaluate time between requests and receipt of medical and dental care and endeavor to make any necessary improvements. 9. Evaluate inmates, taking into account disability and mobility needs in reference to design limitations of the cells; then take measures to accommodate these needs, including transfer to more appropriate facilities that can accommodate those needs. 10. Use restraints as a last resort, in a limited capacity, if at all, and not as a punitive measure. 11. Mental health staff consider alternatives to security’s use of restraints in instances where signs of potential mental health decompensation are present immediately, rather than the once every 24-hour review. 12. Evaluate wait times for disciplinary hearings, taking into account outliers as well as averages, and it should complete monthly reviews of such times to quickly remedy instances where people are waiting weeks for hearings. 13. The facility and agency review the administrative remedies process and take corrective action to address any circumstances that may circumvent opportunities for review of grievances on the merits. 14. Explore more ways for inmates to participate in out-of-cell programming, including conversion of old UNICOR space to programming space. In addition, facility should explore programming options outside of cages 4 15. Implement more programs like the STAGES Program as alternatives to solitary confinement for those with mental illness; and go further to use similar programs to reduce the use of solitary confinement for all incarcerated persons. 16. View communication less as a privilege to be denied and more as a public safety issue, allowing for more efficient communication with home via mail and video conferencing. 17. The facility and the agency evaluate the reentry programming in the Release Preparation Unit and more broadly offered by Reentry Services Coordinator to identify ways to improve content and delivery. 18. Evaluate the cases of those who are within 24 months of release who could potentially be released straight from Florence ADX in an effort to maximize the amount of potential halfway house time for up to a year, per The Second Chance Act of 2007. 5 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 6 I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7 A. Cunningham v. BOP ..................................................................................................... 8 B. Demographics of DC Population ................................................................................. 9 C. Feedback from DC Population ..................................................................................... 9 II. ADX Units .......................................................................................................................... 10 A. Referral to ADX ........................................................................................................... 10 B. Housing Units ............................................................................................................. 10 C. Cell Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 11 D. Unit Staff ..................................................................................................................... 12 E. Step-Down Program ................................................................................................... 12 F. STAGES ...................................................................................................................... 14 III. Health Services.................................................................................................................. 15 A. Mental Health Care ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Veterans in State and Federal Prison, 2004
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report May 2007, NCJ 217199 Veterans in State and Federal Prison, 2004 By Margaret E. Noonan Percent of prisoners reporting prior military service BJS Statistician continues to decline and Christopher J. Mumola BJS Policy Analyst Percent of prisoners 25% The percentage of veterans among State and Federal Federal prisoners has steadily declined over the past three decades, 20% according to national surveys of prison inmates conducted State by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In 2004,10% of 15% State prisoners reported prior service in the U.S. Armed Forces, down from 12% in 1997 and 20% in 1986. Since 10% BJS began surveying Federal prisoners in 1991, they have 5% shown the same decline over a shorter period. Overall, an estimated 140,000 veterans were held in the Nation’s 0% prisons in 2004, down from 153,100 in 2000. 1986 1991 1997 2004 The majority of veterans in State (54%) and Federal (64%) prison served during a wartime period, but a much lower percentage reported seeing combat duty (20% of State Veterans had shorter criminal records than nonveterans in prisoners, 26% of Federal). Vietnam War-era veterans were State prison, but reported longer prison sentences and the most common wartime veterans in both State (36%) and expected to serve more time in prison than nonveterans. Federal (39%) prison. Veterans of the Iraq-Afghanistan eras Nearly a third of veterans and a quarter of nonveterans comprised 4% of veterans in both State and Federal prison.
    [Show full text]
  • Chalk and Cheese: Australian Vs. Norwegian Prisons
    Chalk and Cheese Australian vs. Norwegian Prisons by Irina Dunn 1Published by Community Justice Coalition 2017 © Community Justice Coalition / Irina Dunn 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted by any person or entity, including internet such as engines or retailers, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying (except under the statutory exceptions provisions of the Australian Copyright Act 1968), recording, scanning or by any information storage and retrieval system without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. The fact that this book is published online does not mean that any part of it can be reproduced without frst obtaining written permission: copyright laws do still apply. Inquiries should be directed to the author. First published by Community Justice Coalition in 2017 PO Box 386 Broadway Sydney NSW 2007 Australia Phone (02) 9283 0123 www.communityjusticecoalition.org National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: Creator: Irina Dunn, author Title: Chalk & Cheese: Australian vs. Norwegian Prisons ISBN: 9780648140405 (ebook) Subjects: Criminal justice, Administrator of --Australia Criminal justice, Administration of --Great Britain Criminal justice, Administration of --Norway Criminal justice, Administration of --Netherlands Criminal justice, Administration of --Cross-Cultural-Studies Cover designed by Nick Freeman Breakout Media Communications Edited by Irina Dunn 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Transform the Harsh Economic Reality of Working Inmates
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 27 Issue 4 Volume 27, Winter 2015, Issue 4 Article 4 Emancipate the FLSA: Transform the Harsh Economic Reality of Working Inmates Patrice A. Fulcher Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EMANCIPATE THE FLSA: TRANSFORM THE HARSH ECONOMIC REALITY OF WORKING INMATES PATRICE A. FULCHER* ABSTRACT Prisoner labor is a booming American industry. The 2.3 million people in the United States of America ("U.S.") behind bars serve as human resources sustaining the Prison Industrial Complex. In a less economically depressed market, perhaps there would be national prison reform campaigns geared toward decreasing the prison population. But in today's economic climate, the increase of U.S. inhabitants sentenced to prison has helped to quench the thirst for cheap, and in many instances, free laborers. Proponents of the use of inmate labor in the U.S. have argued that inmates should not be paid minimum wages because working for free is a part of the punishment for their crime. However, critics maintain that forcing inmates to work for free is the rebirth of chattel slavery. In order to protect the rights of workers, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") in 1938, which in part, established the national minimum wage requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • USA -V- Julian Assange Judgment
    JUDICIARY OF ENGLAND AND WALES District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Vanessa Baraitser In the Westminster Magistrates’ Court Between: THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Requesting State -v- JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE Requested Person INDEX Page A. Introduction 2 a. The Request 2 b. Procedural History (US) 3 c. Procedural History (UK) 4 B. The Conduct 5 a. Second Superseding Indictment 5 b. Alleged Conduct 9 c. The Evidence 15 C. Issues Raised 15 D. The US-UK Treaty 16 E. Initial Stages of the Extradition Hearing 25 a. Section 78(2) 25 b. Section 78(4) 26 I. Section 78(4)(a) 26 II. Section 78(4)(b) 26 i. Section 137(3)(a): The Conduct 27 ii. Section 137(3)(b): Dual Criminality 27 1 The first strand (count 2) 33 The second strand (counts 3-14,1,18) and Article 10 34 The third strand (counts 15-17, 1) and Article 10 43 The right to truth/ Necessity 50 iii. Section 137(3)(c): maximum sentence requirement 53 F. Bars to Extradition 53 a. Section 81 (Extraneous Considerations) 53 I. Section 81(a) 55 II. Section 81(b) 69 b. Section 82 (Passage of Time) 71 G. Human Rights 76 a. Article 6 84 b. Article 7 82 c. Article 10 88 H. Health – Section 91 92 a. Prison Conditions 93 I. Pre-Trial 93 II. Post-Trial 98 b. Psychiatric Evidence 101 I. The defence medical evidence 101 II. The US medical evidence 105 III. Findings on the medical evidence 108 c. The Turner Criteria 111 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Supermax Isolation
    one Supermax Isolation Solitary confinement has been part of American correctional practice since the birth of the nation. Th e idea of isolating prisoners for their own good was supported in the fi nal years of the eighteenth century by such prominent fi gures as Benjamin Franklin and his friend Benjamin Rush, the pioneering psychiatrist. During that era, many Quakers viewed crime as a moral lapse and jail as a place where prisoners would be left by themselves in a cell and would be expected to search their souls about their errant ways and be “penitent” (thus the origin of the word penitentiary). But over the years, prison funding could not keep pace with a growing prison population, so this kind of solitary confi nement for the general population of prisoners was abandoned as too expensive to construct for or to maintain. Where solitary was retained, its original rehabilitative rationale was stripped away; it was now openly used merely as a dreaded punishment and deterrent within the prison and as a convenient means of separating out, for months, years, even decades, individuals whose inclusion in the general prison population might pose problems for prison management. the long history of solitary confinement in the united states Th e fi rst correctional facility in the nation to consign prisoners to single cells was the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia. It was originally built in 1773 to handle the overfl ow of prisoners from the nearby, massively overcrowded High Street Jail. Th ere were simply too many debtors, paupers, prostitutes, thieves, and ex- slaves going to jail for the jailers to fi nd the space to house them.
    [Show full text]
  • Julian Assange Judgment
    JUDICIARY OF ENGLAND AND WALES District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Vanessa Baraitser In the Westminster Magistrates’ Court Between: THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Requesting State -v- JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE Requested Person INDEX Page A. Introduction 2 a. The Request 2 b. Procedural History (US) 3 c. Procedural History (UK) 4 B. The Conduct 5 a. Second Superseding Indictment 5 b. Alleged Conduct 9 c. The Evidence 15 C. Issues Raised 15 D. The US-UK Treaty 16 E. Initial Stages of the Extradition Hearing 25 a. Section 78(2) 25 b. Section 78(4) 26 I. Section 78(4)(a) 26 II. Section 78(4)(b) 26 i. Section 137(3)(a): The Conduct 27 ii. Section 137(3)(b): Dual Criminality 27 1 The first strand (count 2) 33 The second strand (counts 3-14,1,18) and Article 10 34 The third strand (counts 15-17, 1) and Article 10 43 The right to truth/ Necessity 50 iii. Section 137(3)(c): maximum sentence requirement 53 F. Bars to Extradition 53 a. Section 81 (Extraneous Considerations) 53 I. Section 81(a) 55 II. Section 81(b) 69 b. Section 82 (Passage of Time) 71 G. Human Rights 76 a. Article 6 84 b. Article 7 82 c. Article 10 88 H. Health – Section 91 92 a. Prison Conditions 93 I. Pre-Trial 93 II. Post-Trial 98 b. Psychiatric Evidence 101 I. The defence medical evidence 101 II. The US medical evidence 105 III. Findings on the medical evidence 108 c. The Turner Criteria 111 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Privatization in the United States: a New Strategy for Racial Control
    PRISON PRIVATIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES: A NEW STRATEGY FOR RACIAL CONTROL by Gertrudis Mercadal A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Sciences in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida August 2014 Copyright by Gertrudis Mercadal 2014 ii PRISON PRIVATIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES: A NEW STRATEGY FOR RACIAL CONTROL by Gertrudis Mercadal This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s dissertation advisor, Dr. Farshad Araghi, Department of Sociology, and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & Letters and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ______________________________ Farshad Araghi, Ph.D. Dissertation Advisor ______________________________ Susan Love Brown, Ph.D. _____________________________ Simon Glynn, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Michael J. Horswell, Ph.D. Director, Comparative Studies Program ___________________________________ Heather Coltman, DMA Dean, Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & Letters ___________________________________ __________________ Deborah L. Floyd, Ed.D. Date Interim Dean, Graduate College iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express her sincere love and gratitude to her husband, André Sabbagh, and her mother, Lucy Cottone Palencia, for their encouragement and patience during the writing of this manuscript. The author also wishes to thank the members of her advisory committee for their valuable time and advice during the development of this work, most especially Dr. Farshad Araghi for his insightful guidance and thoughtful mentorship during the years of research and writing of this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lenient in Theory, Dumb in Fact: Prison, Speech, and Scrutiny
    \\jciprod01\productn\G\GWN\84-4\GWN403.txt unknown Seq: 1 19-JUL-16 10:28 Lenient in Theory, Dumb in Fact: Prison, Speech, and Scrutiny David M. Shapiro* ABSTRACT The Supreme Court declared thirty years ago in Turner v. Safley that prisoners are not without constitutional rights: any restriction on those rights must be justified by a reasonable relationship between the restriction at issue and a legitimate penological objective. In practice, however, the decision has given prisoners virtually no protection. Exercising their discretion under Tur- ner, correctional officials have saddled prisoners’ expressive rights with a host of arbitrary restrictions—including prohibiting President Obama’s book as a national security threat; using hobby knives to excise Bible passages from let- ters; forbidding all non-religious publications; banning Ulysses, John Updike, Maimonides, case law, and cat pictures. At the same time, the courts have had no difficulty administering the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Per- sons Act (RLUIPA), which gives prisons far less deference by extending strict scrutiny to free exercise claims by prisoners. Experience with the Turner stan- dard demonstrates that it licenses capricious invasions of constitutional rights, and RLUIPA demonstrates that a heightened standard of review can protect prisoners’ expressive freedoms without compromising prison security. It is time for the Court to revisit Turner. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................. 973 R I. TURNER IN THE SUPREME COURT ...................... 980 R II. TURNER IN THE LOWER COURTS ....................... 988 R A. Hatch v. Lappin (First Circuit) ...................... 989 R B. Munson v. Gaetz (Seventh Circuit) ................. 990 R C. Singer v. Raemisch (Seventh Circuit) ............... 991 R D.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S4732
    S4732 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 27, 2009 lights to go on when we flip a switch, and we plant was being closed, more than 130 ‘‘Hopefully, when we obtain the power con- do not expect our computers to shut down as ALCOA employees accepted the company’s tract, it will just be a matter of waiting for nature dictates. severance package. Others were laid off—245 the market to pick up again. The good thing Solar and wind electricity are available hourly workers and 80 of the salaried work- about aluminum is that it is used in more only part of the time that consumers de- force. and more applications. It’s going to be mand power. Solar cells produce no electric The London Metal Exchange price for alu- around for a long time.’’ power at night, and clouds greatly reduce minum is half what it was one year ago, so their output. The wind doesn’t blow at a con- prospects for any immediate change is nil. f stant rate, and sometimes it does not blow The demand for the 1.3 million pounds of GUANTANAMO BAY at all. molten metal that the smelting plant can If large-scale electric energy storage were produce does not exist in the current mar- Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise viable, solar and wind intermittency would ketplace. to speak about the detainment facili- be less of a problem. However, large-scale Still, leadership at the company is hopeful ties at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. electric energy storage is possible only in that when the economy rebounds, Tennessee At the end of January of this year, the few locations where there are hydro- Smelting Operations will be in a position to be restarted.
    [Show full text]
  • PAYING the PRICE for SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
    PAYING the PRICE for SOLITARY CONFINEMENT Over the past few decades, United States corrections How Much More Does It Cost? systems have increasingly relied on the use of solitary The high costs of solitary confinement have been confinement as a tool to manage certain incarcerated documented by many states as well as the federal populations. Prisoners in solitary confinement remain government. Below are some examples: alone in their cells for 22-24 hours per day – for months, years, and even decades at a time. This practice, which States: has been shown to be inhumane and ineffective, is also • Arizona: A 2007 estimate from Arizona put the extremely costly. Though limited nationwide data exists, annual cost of holding a prisoner in solitary state data suggests that the cost of housing a prisoner in confinement at approximately $50,000, compared solitary confinement is 2-3 times that of housing a to about $20,000 for the average prisoner.5 1 prisoner in general population. • California: For 2010-2011, inmates in isolation at Pelican Bay State Prison’s Administrative Why is Solitary More Expensive? Segregation Unit cost $77,740 annually, while inmates in general population cost $58,324.6 Holding prisoners in solitary confinement is resource- Statewide, taxpayers pay an additional $175 intensive from start to finish. Below are two of the biggest million annually to keep prisoners in solitary costs associated with the use of solitary confinement. confinement.7 Construction: To accommodate the vast numbers of • Connecticut: In Connecticut, housing a prisoner in prisoners kept in solitary confinement, a new kind of solitary confinement costs an average of twice as prison has emerged.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    Case 1:12-cv-01872-RC Document 259 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JEREMY PINSON : : Plaintiff, : : Civil Action No.: 12-1872 (RC) v. : : Re Document No.: 147 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION Pro se Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson is currently an inmate at ADX Florence, a federal prison located in Colorado. While in prison, Mr. Pinson has filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, requests with different components of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). On several occasions, the DOJ has asked Mr. Pinson to clarify his records requests, told him that it could not find records that are responsive to his requests, or informed him that the records he sought were exempt from disclosure by law. Mr. Pinson took issue with some of these determinations, so he filed a complaint claiming that the DOJ improperly withheld numerous records from him in violation of FOIA. In response, the DOJ filed several pre-answer motions, each asking the Court to dismiss or grant summary judgment in its favor on different portions of Mr. Pinson’s complaint. Now before the Court is the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment as to Mr. Pinson’s numerous FOIA requests submitted to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and several claims Case 1:12-cv-01872-RC Document 259 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 64 brought against BOP employees pursuant to Bivens v.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Federation: Prison Transportation in Russia: Travelling
    PRISONER TRANSPORTATION IN RUSSIA: TRAVELLING INTO THE UNKNOWN AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL IS A GLOBAL MOVEMENT OF MORE THAN 7 MILLION PEOPLE WHO CAMPAIGN FOR A WORLD WHERE HUMAN RIGHTS ARE ENJOYED BY ALL. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. © Amnesty International 2017 Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons Cover photo: View from a compartment on a prisoner transportation carriage. (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. © Photo taken by Ernest Mezak https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode For more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. First published in 2017 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW, UK Index: EUR 46/6878/2017 Original language: English amnesty.org CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS 7 DISTANCE FROM HOME AND FAMILY 7 TO COMBAT CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT 7 CONTACT WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD 7 METHODOLOGY 8 1. BACKGROUND: RUSSIAN PENAL SYSTEM 9 2. DISTANCE FROM HOME AND FAMILY 10 2.1 GENDER AND DISTANCE 14 2.2 LEGAL CHALLENGES ON DISTANCE 15 2.3 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS 15 3. CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT 17 3.1 TRANSPORTATION BY TRAIN 18 3.2 TRANSPORTATION IN PRISON VANS 19 3.3 LEGAL CHALLENGES ON CONDITIONS 21 3.4 ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE 22 3.5 ACCESS TO TOILETS 22 3.6 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS 23 4.
    [Show full text]