PORTUGUESE OMBUDSMAN NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM REPORT TO THE PARLIAMENT 2016 Lisbon, 2017 This document describes the activity developed autonomously, in the year 2016, by the Portuguese Ombudsman as the National Preventive Mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Title: Portuguese Ombudsman – National Preventive Mechanism Report to the Parliament – 2016 Published by – The Ombudsman’s Office – Documentation Division Design – Lagesdesign Photographs – Manuel Gomes Teixeira, Sara Duarte How to contact the National Preventive Mechanism: Rua do Pau de Bandeira, 7-9 1249-088 Lisboa Portugal Telephone: +351 213 92 67 45 | Fax: +351 21 396 12 43 [email protected] http://www.provedor-jus.pt/mnp Table of Contents Activity of the National Preventive Mechanism 7 1. National Preventive Mechanism: Structure of Support and other resources 8 2. Visits to places of detention 9 2.1. Statistic data 9 2.2. Visits made in the year 2016 14 3. Thematic report on educational centres: brief notes 83 4. Recommendations of the National Preventive Mechanism 86 4.1. General appreciation 86 4.2. Recommendations issued in 2016 90 5. Participation in initiatives and institutional diffusion 113 5.1. Participation in initiatives 113 5.2. Institutional diffusion 115 Contents 117 1. Graphs 118 2. Tables 118 3. Analytical index of the visits to the places of detention 119 4. Analytical index of the National Preventive Mechanism’s recommendations 128 Acronyms and abbreviations 129 | 5 Activity of the National Preventive Mechanism > Detail – Entrance National Preventive Mechanism’s facilities 1. National Preventive Mechanism: Structure of Support and other resources Following its designation as the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), this body of the State has designed an organizational structure(1) that would enable the implemen- tation of a system of regular visits to the places where the people deprived or limited in their freedom are retained and enable the verification of the conditions to which they are subject. The NPM Support Framework was therefore created, which is composed by: i) an Advisory Council, ii) a Steering Committee, iii) Visitors Team, endowed likewise with a specific administrative supportiv). The NPM’s advisory body is called the Advisory Council and is composed by a group of personalitiess and entities with knowledge and experience demonstrated in areas related to the purposes of the Optional Protocol Con- vention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punish- ment (OPCAT)(2). The members of the Committee shall be responsible for issuing opin- ions on The annual plan and report of activities and the monitoring of the performance of the NPM, propose places that can be visited by him. In accordance with its Rules of Procedure, the Advisory Council meets at least twice a year, which took place in 2016. The first of its meetings took place on January 28 and, among other things, the plan of activities for the year 2016 and was presented and discussed a document which received a unanimous assent. The second meeting, took place on September 23 and, among other matters, submitted to the members of this body the NPM’s annual activity report of 2015 which was adopted unanimously. Initially with three elements, the Steering Committee became integrated during the course of 2016, by five members. This body is responsi- ble for drawing up the activities and their execution. It is also within its competence to design the report and the preparation of the planning of the visits to be carried out by the NPM, in order to carry out the duties assigned to them(3). The members of the Steering Committee meet on a regular and informal basis in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidelines as an NPM, to prepare the visits and the other activities to be carried out by the NPM, namely the provision of support to the construction and development of insti- tutional links between one NPM and the others, with the purpose of preventing torture and ill-treatment in prisons and other relevant institutional actors in this context at which training or awareness-raising actions were planned. The Visitors Team, composed of nine collaborators of this State body, does the inspections and the drafting of the respective (1) The Support Structure Regulation for the NPM, approved by Internal Order of the Ombudsman No. 1/2014 (NPM) of April 29, amended and republished by Internal Order of the Ombudsman No. 9/2016 (NPM), of October 12, can be found at http://www.provedor-jus.pt/site/public/archive/doc/Regulation_ENPM_0.pdf (2) The composition of the Advisory Council of the NPM is explained in article 4 of the NPM Support Structure. See also articles 5 to 8 of the same Regulation. (3) See article 9 of the Support Structure Regulation. 8 | minutes, as well as the presentation of proposals for the recommendations(4). It should also be mentioned that one of the employees of this State body provides administrative support to the NPM, performing, among other tasks, the registration of documentation, its organization and consequent filing. As in 2015, in the year 2016, the NPM had its own financial resources and was inscribed autonomously in the Ombudsman’s budget, more specifically in the budget which is intended to cover the cost of its operation. 2. Visits to places of detention 2.1. Statistic data In 2016, 53 visits were made to places of detention, and one of them was attended by the Ombudsman himself. The teams of visitors were constituted by members of the Coordination Commission and the Visitors Team, counting likewise, with the punctual participation of other col- laborators of this State body and of an external expert to the NPM. Regarding its quan- tity, and as in previous years, it oscillated between the two and the four elements. The planning that preceded the accomplishment of these visits was aimed at extending the performance of the NPM throughout the national territory. For this reason, districts that did not count visits at the end of 2015 were the preferable intervention of this autono- mous body. In addition to this, the typological plurality of detention places was taken into account, including, inter alia, inspection of prisons, temporary accommodation cen- tres for foreigners and detention areas of police forces and courts. (4) See article 10 of the Support Structure Regulation for the NPM. | 9 Graph I Geographic distribution of the visits made in 2016 14 15 10 7 4 5 4 4 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beja Faro Aveiro Braga Évora Leiria Porto Viseu Guarda Lisboa Setúbal Bragança Coimbra Portalegre Santarém Vila Real A. R. Açores Castelo Branco A. R. Madeira Viana do Castelo From the analysis of the graph above, it appears that, as happened in the previous year(5), Lisbon was the most visited district in 2016 (14 visits, which corresponds to 26% of the total visits carried out that year), a circumstance that is justified by the great concen- tration - geographic and typological - of depriving institutions in this part of the country. It is followed by the districts of Santarém, with seven visits, and Braga, Bragança and Setúbal, with four visits each. With three visits each, the districts of Castelo Branco and Viseu received the work of the NPM. Aveiro, Coimbra, Porto, Viana do Castelo and Vila Real received two visits each and, finally,Faro had one visit from the NPM. The graphical representation below shows the spatial dispersion of NPM intervention since The effective beginning of its activity - which, it is recalled, goes back to the second half of 2014 -, and it can be concluded from the outset that all districts of Portugal and the Autonomous Regions have already been visited by this independent body. In line with what has been verified each year, Lisbon presents itself as the most visited district (30 visits, which is equivalent to approximately ¼ of its total). They are followed the districts of Santarém (10 visits), Faro (9 visits), Porto (9 visits), Coimbra (8 visits) and Setúbal (8 views). The remaining districts have a balanced with regard to the number of NPM visits made to them. (5) In 2015, the NPM made 15 visits in the district of Lisbon. See Report to the Parliament 2015: National Preventive Mechanism (cited National Preventive Mechanism of 2015), p. 14. 10 | Graph II Geographic distribution of all visits made (2014, 2015 and 2016) 30 30 20 8 9 9 10 10 8 5 5 6 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 0 Beja Faro Aveiro Braga Évora Leiria Porto Viseu Guarda Lisboa Setúbal Bragança Coimbra Portalegre Santarém Vila Real A. R. Açores Castelo Branco A. R. Madeira Viana do Castelo Graph III Visits made in 2016 by type of place of detention 24 25 20 15 11 12 10 5 5 1 0 Courts Prison facilities Detention zones Pshychiatric hospitals of the police forces Temporary accommodation centres and residential units From the above graph, it can be seen that, of the 53 visits, 24 (or, in percentage terms, 45%) concerned the places of detention in police facilities(6). There was an overturn of the (6) The distribution of these visits by the types of police forces concerned is subject to more detailed treatment at a later date. See pp. 15-16. | 11 prisons preponderance which come in third place with 11 visits, the number of visits to the cells of our judicial bodies (12) being in second(7). The temporary installation centres for foreigners who are in an irregular situation in our country or for asylum seekers, as well as the residential units that were the object of five visits, one of which served to collect complementary information to an earlier visit.