Results of the survey of persons held in Kyiv ITTs. Monitoring of detention conditions in ITTs.

International Society for Human Rights – Ukrainian Section (ISHR-US), thanks to funding from the US Department of State’s Human Rights and Democracy Support Fund, has completed the project “Transparency of the process of isolating persons in ITTs and pre-trial detention centres of Ukraine (2006–2007)”.

Within the framework of the project, monitoring was carried out regarding the state of the implementation of rights and freedoms for persons held in ITTs and pre-trial detention centres in Kyiv, as well as the conditions of their detention in these specialised institutions. During the monitoring, survey forms developed by the non-governmental human rights organisation “Donetsk Memorial” were utilised. Experts from ISHR-US made editorial changes to the content of these forms in accordance with the specific requirements of the project. Presented below are the results of the survey of persons held in Kyiv ITTs. The survey was carried out during January–February 2007.

Analysis of the results of the survey of persons held in ITTs

The total number of prisoners surveyed was 80 (95% – men). The overwhelming majority of those surveyed (87%) are young people under the age of 35. The educational level corresponds to the age structure of the respondents. 16% of respondents have incomplete secondary education, 55% have basic and complete secondary education, 15% have vocational-technical education, and 17% have higher education. The majority of respondents are not married (67%), 22% are married, and 11% are divorced. All those surveyed were citizens of Ukraine.

About one-third of the respondents (29%) already had experience of staying in an ITT; the remaining 71% ended up there for the first time. More than half of those surveyed (57%) have the status of suspects, and 30% are accused. Among the respondents, there were also seven defendants and three convicts. The term of actual stay in the ITT at the time of completing the questionnaire for the majority of those surveyed was from 1 to 3 days; only 12% of respondents had been in the ITT for more than 10 days (Table 1).

Table 1. Term of stay in the ITT

An analysis of the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine under which the respondents are accused indicates that one-third of the prisoners are suspected of robbery, mugging, or hooliganism (34%), one-third of theft (33%), 16% are suspected or accused of fraud, receiving a bribe, or financial crimes (all these respondents have higher education), and the remainder are incriminated with murder and grievous bodily harm (9%) and crimes related to drugs (9%).

The prisoners’ familiarity with the rights and obligations conditional upon their status is generally satisfactory. 61% of respondents confirmed that they are familiar with these rights and obligations, 30% noted that they are partially familiar, and the rest – 9% – answered that they do not know their rights and obligations. Most often, respondents receive information about their rights from ITT staff (69% of respondents). The same number of respondents (69%) noted that their rights and obligations were explained to them by an investigator, defender, or lawyer. 13% learned about their rights and obligations from cellmates, and 12% familiarised themselves with them independently (mass media, specialised literature). At the same time, the latter source of information is available to a minority of those surveyed. It turned out that 40% of those surveyed have the opportunity to use copies of laws in case of need.

The opportunity to familiarise oneself with the “Rules of conduct in detention centres for the temporary detention of detainees and persons taken into custody” is generally satisfactorily provided by the administration. 86% of respondents confirmed that these rules are posted in places designated by the ITT administration.

Among the most important (necessary) rights of persons held in an ITT, respondents primarily noted the right to parcels (78%); 51% consider the right to correspondence necessary; among other necessary rights, the right to visits, telephone conversations, the right to read books, and listen to the radio were also named. Two respondents wrote that all human rights should be ensured.

Ensuring these rights can hardly be considered satisfactory. First and foremost, the right to any contact with the outside world is quite limited. Thus, only 7 respondents answered that they have the opportunity to correspond with relatives or acquaintances, while 70 respondents denied such a possibility. The main reason preventing the realisation of the right to correspondence is the lack of permission from the person (body) in whose proceedings the case (verification materials) is located. This was named by 72% of those who answered this question; another 10% cited personal reasons (“I have no need”, “I have no relatives”, etc.). The rest (18%) noted that they lack the financial means to correspond (no money for envelopes, stamps, etc.). At the same time, one-third of all those surveyed (33%) confirmed that the ITT administration provides them with paper and pens for writing letters, complaints, or applications.

It should be noted that the respondents’ answers do not always reflect their experience of staying in the ITT at the very moment of the survey. For example, one of the respondents, characterising the problems arising for him regarding the realisation of the right to correspondence, noted that “letters often do not arrive”, but at the time of the survey, he had been in the ITT for only 2 days. However, this person had been in the ITT before, so his answers relate to a past, not current, situation.

The overwhelming majority of those who answered the question about the term for the delay and processing of letters by the ITT administration (84%) replied that they had no information on this matter. Moreover, among those who determined a specific delay term, of whom there were 10 people, only two actually received letters. Thus, it is impossible to evaluate the real time of possible delays based on the data obtained in the survey. Comments regarding the results of the inspector’s review of letters were expressed by seven respondents, only two of whom actually had the opportunity to correspond. The prisoners’ complaints concern primarily general moral norms that guarantee the protection of a person’s private life. Respondents write that “reviewing is unnecessary”, “I do not like this re-reading”, “it is indecent to read other people's letters”. There is also a fear, expressed by one of the respondents, that “the investigator will use my testimony to his own advantage and against me”.

The right to telephone conversations is provided similarly to correspondence. Only 7 respondents noted the possibility of having them; 65 people denied it. Real access to a phone for prisoners is mainly through a lawyer or an investigator. Among those who noted that they had had telephone conversations, four used a phone card, and three spoke at the expense of the person being called. All those who had phone cards (6 people) received them through relatives or acquaintances.

14 respondents (18% of all those surveyed) had the opportunity to realise the right to visits. The main obstacle in the realisation of this right is the lack of permission from the person (body) in whose proceedings the case (verification materials) is located. This specific reason was indicated by 90% of those who answered this question (a total of 48 people gave an answer). Only two respondents indicated that they do not want visits. At the same time, there were references to the fact that the refusal received was unreasoned, which causes complaints from the detainees. As one respondent wrote, “Personally, I do not understand why such a complete ban exists”. Among the problems arising with the realisation of the right to short-term visits with acquaintances and relatives, they mostly pointed out that a very long time is needed to obtain permission for a short-term visit (81% of those who answered this question). Characterising the reasons for refusal, those surveyed most often indicated that permission for a visit is not granted “for reasons of pre-trial investigation” (41% of respondents), three cited a ban or refusal by the administration. Other reasons were also named. In particular, one of the respondents indicated that the obstacle is a “long queue for visits”, another noted that obtaining such permission is “practically unrealistic, impossible”.

Among those who had short-term visits, eight respondents answered that there was only one such visit. It should be noted that the respondents either have different opportunities for the realisation of their rights or are not always sincere in their answers. At the very least, three respondents indicated that they had had three or more visits. At the same time, they had all been in the ITT for 3 days at the time of the survey.

Compared to the opportunity to contact relatives and acquaintances, the opportunity to receive packages and transfers from close ones and relatives is better ensured. 54% of all those surveyed received them, 30% did not. Mainly, there was one transfer (33% of respondents); 20% had this opportunity twice. The main reason for the absence of packages and transfers is cited by the respondents as the lack of such opportunity on the part of relatives or acquaintances. At the same time, this obviously refers not only to financial constraints. Often, the lack of information among relatives was cited as a reason: “parents and loved ones do not know where I am”, “relatives do not know my whereabouts”. Only two respondents indicated that they did not receive a package due to its contents not meeting legal requirements.

Access for persons held in an ITT to mass media is poorly ensured. 88% of respondents noted that they do not have the opportunity to watch TV either in their cell or in a special room. Only those who have a TV in their cell can watch it every day. Among those surveyed, there were 9 such people. In this case, the TV is usually private and belongs either to the respondent themselves or to a cellmate. In all cases, the TVs belong to the prisoners, with whom 2 to 3 people are located in the cell. In the case where there is a TV in the cell, it is watched practically every day. Thus, it is more a matter of poor equipment in the rooms where prisoners are held, rather than a ban on watching TV as such. At least among the reasons preventing them from watching TV, 41% of respondents named its absence. It can be assumed that even those who answered that they are unable to watch TV due to an administration ban (16% of all respondents) primarily meant not the deprivation of their right to watch TV as a method of punishment or pressure, but the factual impossibility of satisfying this need due to the cells not being equipped with TVs. It should be noted that the need to watch TV is quite urgent, as only two respondents answered that they do not watch TV because they do not need to.

The situation is even worse regarding the ability to listen to the radio. Only three respondents answered affirmatively to the question of whether they listen to the radio. The same number noted that they can do so daily. Two others have the opportunity to listen to a radio receiver at least once a week. The rest are deprived of this possibility altogether. Only one respondent noted that it was provided by the administration. The reasons why respondents do not have the opportunity to listen to the radio are the same as in the case of the impossibility of watching TV. It is more a case of not a ban as such, but the absence of a radio receiver (this reason was named by 76% of respondents).

Contradictory data were obtained regarding the ability of prisoners to read the press. It turned out that the vast majority of those surveyed (71%) noted that they read newspapers and magazines. Moreover, the prisoners’ preferences are quite diverse – from *Demokratychna Ukraina* and *Kyivskyi Telegraf*, which were named by two respondents each, to popular publications like *Bulvar* (48%), *Segodnya* (43%), *Argumenty i Fakty* (27%), *Fakty i Kommentarii* (22%). The frequency of reference to the press also turned out to be very high. 44% of the total number surveyed answered that they read newspapers and magazines every day. However, often the respondent answered these questions by focusing not on the conditions of stay in the ITT, but on how they familiarise themselves with the press while at liberty. It is not accidental that 66% of those who noted that they read newspapers and magazines simultaneously named the absence of newspapers and magazines as the reason why they do not read the press. Characteristic in this regard are the answers of respondents who wrote in the questionnaires: “I read all newspapers, but have no opportunities”; “I read any newspapers that are transferred or are in the cell”, or those “which are sent in a transfer”, etc.

Although there is a library in the ITT, only two respondents answered that they use it, while 65 people wrote that they do not use it. Among the reasons conditioning such a situation, the prisoners who do not use the library primarily cited a lack of personal desire (37% of those who responded), 24% noted that they are not satisfied with the library fund, 14% cited the fact that the administration does not allow it. Obviously, this refers not to direct bans, but to the lack of proper information about the opportunity to use the library. A certain proof of this is that 25% of those surveyed cited as reasons that “there is no library”, or wrote the following: “did not know about the library”, “I was told that there is none here”, “but is it here?”, “they did not offer it”, “they do not go around the cells”, etc.

A special block of the questionnaire was devoted to the problem of medical care for persons held in ITTs. Evaluating their state of health at the time of the survey, the majority of respondents considered it satisfactory (50%). Approximately a quarter were dissatisfied with their state of health (13% assessed it as unsatisfactory, 9% answered that they were ill). The rest were either undecided (15%) or did not give an answer to this question at all (9%). 45% of respondents received medical assistance upon their own request during their stay in the ITT; 16% of those surveyed noted that they were provided with medical assistance by specialists from a city hospital. 19% of respondents pointed to a refusal to provide medical assistance. Among the reasons for refusal, those surveyed named “refusal by the administration” (“complete indifference of the administration”, “they say this is not a hospital”), “refusal due to lack of equipment”, “refusal due to lack of medicines” (“the medic has nothing, not a single pill”). At the same time, one of the respondents wrote that “medical staff in the ITT are very responsive”.

Regarding the quantity and assortment of medicines, the opinions of those surveyed diverged. Among those who answered this question (53 people), 42% believe that there are not enough medicines (“medicines are either expired or not effective enough”), 40% think there are enough. The rest answered that they do not know. At the same time, it turned out that those who received assistance in the majority (52%) believe that there are enough medicines, while those who did not receive it are more often convinced that there are not enough medicines (50%). The majority of respondents (68%) did not order medicines from relatives; 10% of the total number of respondents received medicines from relatives. Only one respondent turned to a dentist during their stay in the ITT. The overwhelming majority of those surveyed (95%) believe that they do not have access to a gynaecologist/urologist (andrologist).

Ensuring the legal rights of persons held in ITTs is primarily linked to the opportunities to receive legal assistance. The majority of respondents who answered this question (63 people) noted that they do not receive such assistance (52%), 48% of respondents confirmed that they are provided with such an opportunity. In total, 53% of the total number of respondents have a lawyer, and 54% noted that legal assistance is paid. Most often, the impossibility of receiving legal assistance is linked to the fact that those surveyed do not have the opportunity to contact a defender (35% of those who answered), another 28% noted that they do not have the ability to pay for legal services, and another 35% do not consider it appropriate. Most often, legal assistance is provided by a defender (71% of those who answered), 15% indicated that they receive legal assistance from ITT staff. Only four respondents complained about obstacles from the ITT administration regarding the organisation of meetings with a lawyer. As an example of such an obstacle, the refusal to contact acquaintances who could call a lawyer was named.

11% of respondents complained about the use of torture, beating, or other cruel actions (for example, the use of obscene language) against them by ITT staff. Seven agreed to indicate from whom and for what they were subjected to cruel treatment. It turned out that the detainees do not see motivated reasons for such an attitude from ITT staff. Cruel actions were experienced from “members of the administration because I could not run down the corridor”, “from an inspector because I was in the toilet”, “without necessity by staff”. One of the detainees wrote that “during the detention, I did not resist but was beaten by one police officer”.

An assessment of the possibility of turning to the relevant bodies for help in case of need was given by 36 respondents. The majority of them (67%) believe that they have such an opportunity. Only seven respondents noted that they are obstructed when making complaints; 36 respondents (45% of the total number of respondents) denied the existence of such obstacles. However, in the case of appeals, the detainees suffer rather than receive satisfaction. At least, when evaluating the consequences of such appeals with complaints, those surveyed named results such as “bad treatment”, noting that the consequences were “bad, and I do not know how else one can turn [to someone]”. The ITT administration’s attitude towards such appeals is evaluated as indifferent (“investigation staff delay or pay no attention to complaints, arguing the need to provide testimony, not complain”) or negative (“there were appeals, but they were not satisfied and such attempts at appeal are punished”). Although the majority of respondents (55%) were not informed about the application of penalties in case of them violating ITT regulations, only one person had actually violated the regulations, and a warning was applied to them.

A separate block of questions was devoted to the conditions of detention. The general assessment by persons held in the ITT is average. 69% consider them satisfactory, 20% – good, 4% – poor; the rest did not answer. A negative assessment is linked by respondents to the influence of those factors that were already mentioned above, namely, the ban on visits, the negative attitude of staff. However, purely domestic problems were also named: “hygiene is absent”; “very dim lighting, poor ventilation of the cell”; “impossibility to shave every day”; “they give dirty bed sheets, the same blankets, pillowcases and everything also stinks”. The conditions of staying in the cells are partially worsened by the respondents themselves, as 78% of all respondents noted that they smoke in the cell.

The condition of the cells is assessed mainly as satisfactory; only three respondents (4%) acknowledged it as poor, 70% – satisfactory, 19% – good; the rest did not answer. The number of prisoners in a cell fluctuates from one to seven people. The cells are mainly small, which can be judged from the total number of beds (Table 2).

Table 2. How many beds are in your cell? (N=64)

Thus, all prisoners have a separate sleeping place. Only two respondents noted that they are not provided with bedding. The overwhelming majority (79%) receive it from the administration; some have it transferred by relatives, and one person had bedding with them.

Conditions of stay in the cells are also determined by the presence of the necessary equipment. Among the items that are in the cell, an individual bed (99% of those who responded) and an individual bedside table (53%) were primarily named. The presence of a TV in the cell was noted by 11%, a radio receiver by only two. In three questionnaires, those surveyed noted that there is a table in the cell, in two, that there are chairs. The assessment of the ability to store food products in the cell turned out to be contradictory: 50% of all those surveyed wrote that such an opportunity exists, 41% that it does not. Obviously, the former considered the very possibility of having certain products in the cell, while others characterised the storage conditions. At least the answers to the question of where those who denied the possibility of keeping them in the cell store their food, indicate that the overwhelming majority (28% of the total number of respondents) noted that the products are in the cell on the window or on the windowsill. Only one respondent reported the absence of a window in the cell altogether. For the majority of those surveyed (61%), the window in the cell is not covered from the outside by metal blinds. 30% reported that the windows are barred, the rest did not answer the question.

The level of lighting in the cell for reading or other needs satisfies the majority of those surveyed. 65% of respondents believe such lighting is sufficient, 26% feel there is not enough light (the rest did not answer). Detainees are mainly unable to regulate artificial lighting independently, as 90% of those surveyed noted that the electric light switches are located outside the cell. In the cells, there is an opportunity to use one’s own electrical appliances; in particular, 65% of all respondents noted that they have water heaters in the cells, 10% have a TV, only one respondent named a radio receiver, and one person indicated that there is a kettle in the cell.

All those surveyed answered that there is a toilet and a sink in the cells. The condition of the toilet is assessed mainly as satisfactory (82% of those who responded) or good (12%). Only four respondents complained that the toilet is in poor condition. None of the respondents have a shower in the cell. However, 89% of those who responded confirmed the opportunity to take a shower. Detainees have such an opportunity once a week, although complaints arise among those surveyed regarding it (“the opportunity is once a week and very unsatisfactory, poor”; “once a week in cold water”; “we wash, but the time for washing is too short, 5-7 min.”). Those who have a need for hygienic procedures more often wash “in the sink”. Hygiene products (soap, shampoo, etc.) are provided to persons held in the ITT mainly by relatives and acquaintances (76% of all those surveyed). Only two respondents received them from the administration.

Catering for prisoners is regular; the overwhelming majority of those who answered this question (96%) noted that they are fed three times a day. 51% of all those surveyed recognise the quality of food as satisfactory, 19% called it good, 19% likewise called it poor (the rest did not answer). Ten respondents indicated that they need a special menu (diet, etc.). Only two of them confirmed that they are provided with such food. Conversely, 12 people answered that they have special food. Thus, the rest (10 people) consider the very food in the ITT to be “special” compared to their usual way of eating. The assessment of the compliance of the quality and quantity of food with the norms provided for by current legislation is ambiguous, obviously because many of those surveyed are in fact unfamiliar with these norms. In general, 31% of the total number of respondents believe that the norms are fulfilled, 14% deny this, 41% are undecided (the rest did not answer).

73% of all those surveyed fully use the right to a walk, 13% partially, only two respondents do not use it (12% did not answer). The overwhelming majority (74%) use this right every day, 9% – every other day, the rest did not answer. The duration of the walk is evaluated differently. 38% of those who answered this question noted that it lasts less than an hour, 52% acknowledged that the walk lasts an hour, two noted that the duration of the walk is 2 hours. The rest of the respondents could not clearly define the time (“I don’t know”, “it varies”, “they take us out when they want, they don't when they want”). The main reason why they do not go for a walk is cited by the respondents as a lack of desire (85% of those who answered this question), another 10% cite their state of health.

A minority of those surveyed have the opportunity to satisfy their religious needs. Only 17% of those who answered this question confirmed that they are visited by a representative of the religion they profess. As for the reason, 48% believe that the administration does not facilitate this, 26% answered that they cannot establish contact, another 26% are not interested in such meetings at all (“I do not wish to”, “atheist”). The opportunity to perform religious rites was confirmed by three respondents; the rest of those who answered this question either have this opportunity partially (48%) or do not have it at all (46%). Obviously, there are no specially equipped rooms for performing religious rites in the ITT, as 79% of those who answered this question do not know about them, and 21% believe that they do not exist. None of those surveyed complained about being subjected to discrimination on religious grounds from other persons held in the ITT or from the ITT administration.

Respondents are mainly not involved in labour. Only two respondents noted that they were involved in cleaning; moreover, as one of them wrote, “I went to clean with pleasure so as not to sit alone in the cell”, thus the nature of the labour is voluntary.