Human Rights in Closed Institutions Report of National Preventive Mechanism of Georgia
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Human Rights in Closed Institutions Report of National Preventive Mechanism of Georgia 2012 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM Situation at Penitentiary Establishments Present Report covers the findings of the monitoring of penitentiary establishments, police departments and temporary detention isolators carried out by the Special Preventive Group of the Prevention and Monitoring Department of the Office of Public Defender of Georgia exercising its power within the National Preventive Mechanism mandate in 2012. Participation of the representatives of the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) together with National Preventive Mechanism team in the monitoring of penitentiary establishments located in Eastern Georgia was ensured within the framework of joint project of PDO and GYLA aiming the support of National Preventive Mechanism. Monitoring of establishments and temporary detentions isolators located in Western Georgia was implemented with the financial support of the European Union. The monitoring of the penitentiary establishments also involved experts from organizations Empathy - the Psycho – Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture, Violence and Pronounced Stress Impact. During the reporting period the Prevention and Monitoring Department of the Office of Public Defender of Georgia undertook 587 ad hoc (3852 inmates interviewed) and 68 planned visits to penitentiary establishments of Georgia and 84 planned (227 inmates interviewed) and 31 ad hoc (101 inmates interviewed) visits to isolators of temporary detention under the MIA of Georgia. During the monitoring process, Special Preventive Group of the Prevention and Monitoring Department of the Office of Public Defender of Georgia were allowed to and moved without any impediments within the penitentiary 2012 establishments as well as within the temporary detention isolators. They were also able to select meeting points with inmates/ detained persons according to their own consideration and interview them. In accordance with Article 19, Chapter three of the Organic Law of Georgia on Public Defender, “Meetings of Public Defender/ member of the Special Preventive Group with persons under arrest, detention or any other form of restriction of liberty and convicts, as well as the meetings with persons held in psychiatric institutions, institutions for elderly persons and child care institutions shall be confidential. Any type of interception and surveillance is prohibited”. Despite the requirement of the law, the monitoring, as well as the materials published in the media revealed that secret video surveillance systems were mounted practically in every establishment in order to ensure both visual monitoring and overhearing. Accordingly, we consider that any issues that the Special Preventive Group and inmates discussed were known to the administration of the penitentiary establishments and any other persons who had access to such recordings. The above represents a substantial violation of national, as well as international standards and it questions both safety of inmates and activity of the National Preventive Mechanism. In the process of the planned monitoring, representatives of Public Defender examined compliance of the existing situation and practice at the establishments with Georgian legislation as well as the international standards. During NPM Report National Preventive Mechanism the monitoring process particular attention was paid to the treatment of detained persons/ inmates in each and every establishment. ILL-TREATMENT AT PENITENTIARY ESTABLISHMENTS A planned monitoring is conducted by the Special Preventive Group twice annually. During the monitoring conducted in summer of 2012 a series of problematic issues were revealed, including systematic character of ill-treatment that was constantly stressed by the Special Preventive Group of Public Defender in both parliamentary and special reports in previous years. Unfortunately, for years the Georgian Government had been failing to take appropriate and adequate measures to eradicate the aforementioned problems, moreover, complete ignorance of systematic violations identified by Public Defender became a tendency. As a result we have got what was so frequently discussed in the reports of Public Defender – spread of syndrome of impunity – violation of prisoners’ rights, exercising physical and psychological pressure on them. And unfortunately the practice has turned into routine and systematic one. The above mentioned was evidenced by so-called “prison videos” aired by the media on September 18, 2012 depicting the facts of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. Starting from September till the end of the year of 2012 several hundred applications and complaints were lodged with Public Defender’s Office by prison inmates, alleging ill-treatment inflicted by prison administration of various penitentiary establishments. All those complaints were forwarded to Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia for relevant reaction. According to an answer from the Chief Prosecutor’s Office an investigation has been launched in respect of every statement. Penitentiary establishment No 1 Despite the fact that Public Defender’s Office very rarely received statements regarding ill-treatment from this establishment, following September, 2012 part of convicts noted that such facts though infrequently but sometimes still occurred in establishment No 1. Public Defender has constantly stressed that placement of a defendant in the said establishment, due to conditions there, could fairly be described as amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment. Case of Archil Gh. On February 28th, 2012 a representative of Public Defender met and interviewed the convict Archil Gh. placed in establishment No 1. In an explanatory note that the convict presented to Public Defender representative, he talked about facts of beating and pressure exercised against him by administration personnel of the establishment. According to the inmate, prison staff asked him to shave off his beard. And as this demand was not fulfilled, on February 27th, 2012 the personnel of the N1 establishment assaulted him physically as well as verbally. During the visit of the representative of Public Defender a bruise in the inmate’s left eye area was observed. He also had headaches and pains in the chest area. On February 29th, 2012 Public Defender applied to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office to start preliminary investigation on the abovementioned fact. On March 5th, 2012 Public Defender’s representative met again and interviewed the convict who stated that his rights were not infringed and denied circumstances indicated in his previous explanatory note. Furthermore, on March 9th, 2012 statement of Archil. Gh. was received by Public Defender’s Office, indicating that the explanations provided by him to Public Defender representative did not match the truth. www.ombudsman.ge NPM Report Situation at Penitentiary Establishments Case of Zurab N., Paata M. and Mirian V. On July 1st, 2012 representatives of Public Defender met and interviewed convicts Zurab N., Paata M. and Mirian V., who on June 23rd, 2012 were transferred from establishment No 15 of the Penitentiary Department to establishment No 1. The convicts explained that their transfer to the closed type establishment was related to a collective explanatory note of convicts of establishment N15 where the convicts openly dared to describe treatments inflicted against them. According to Zurab N., Paata M. and Mirian V. they were especially active in their efforts to convince other convicts in the necessity of lodging such a complaint. That became the reason for the administration of the Ksani establishment “to get rid” of them and transfer to establishment No1. This very statement was corroborates by the fact, that susbequently all the convicts of the Ksani establishment refuted to submit a formal complaint. Pursuant to convicts, on June 28th, 2012 they, one by one, were summoned by the director of the N1 establishment and told that if they did not stop complaining first they would be subjected to administrative punishment and afterwards – their sentence would be prolonged in accordance to the procedures of criminal law. According to convict Zurab N., he asked the director what reasoning would be used for prolongation of his sentence to which S. Kekelashvili answered that he was a director and would be the one to decide whether to plant the so-called shtiri (self made knife in prison) in his pocket or cell or accuse him of an attack on an officer. According to the convicts, they refused to recall the complaint and for that they were subjected to 40 day-long administrative sentence each. All three of them stated that they did not commit a crime for which they had been sentenced by the court decision. On the same day the representatives of Public Defender met and interviewed 21 convicts placed in cell N30 (the cell where Zurab N. was kept) of the N1 establishment. According to them, on June 23rd, 2012 Zurab N. was brought into their cell. The convict did not violate the regime during his presence in the cell, namely, he did not enter into a conflict with a prison staff and did not communicate with prisoners from other cells. According to the same convicts, Zurab N. always politely addressed the establishment personnel. The convicts noted that on June 29th, 2012 a prison guard warned Zurab N. that on Saturday, June 30th he was supposed to be taken to the court though as they said the prison guard did not specify a reason. Convicts