Conditions of detention in a remand prison. Monitoring

The International Society for Human Rights – Ukrainian Section (ISHR-US), thanks to funding from the Human Rights and Democracy Support Fund of the US Department of State, carried out the project 'Transparency of the isolation process for persons in temporary detention facilities (ITT) and remand prisons (SIZO) of Ukraine (2006–2007)'.

Within the framework of this project, monitoring was conducted regarding the state of the observance of the rights and freedoms of individuals held in the remand prison (SIZO) of Kyiv, as well as the conditions of their detention in the aforementioned special institution. During the monitoring process, survey forms developed by the non-governmental human rights organization 'Donetsk Memorial' were used. Experts from the ISHR-US made editorial changes to the content of these questionnaires in accordance with the specific requirements of the project. Presented below are the results of the survey conducted in SIZO No. 13 in Kyiv. The survey was carried out during January–February 2007.

General characteristics of detention conditions in SIZO No. 13 based on an analysis of survey results from prisoners and their relatives

The total number of prisoners surveyed was 142 (140 men and 2 women). By age, the respondents are divided into three groups: young people (under 35) account for 75% of those surveyed, middle-aged people (from 35 to 50) – 21%, and the remaining 4% are over 50 years old. 26% of those surveyed have incomplete secondary education, 33% have basic or general secondary education, 27% have vocational-technical education, and 14% have higher education. The majority of those surveyed are unmarried (58%), 28% are married, and 14% are divorced.

The total number of SIZO visitors surveyed was 100 (35 men and 65 women). In terms of age, the following groups were identified: young people under 35 (57%), middle-aged people (from 35 to 50) – 23%, and older people – 17%. 5% have incomplete secondary education, 32% have basic or complete secondary education, 22% have vocational-technical education, and 41% have secondary-specialized or higher education. Among visitors, 42% were married, 46% unmarried, and 11% divorced.

The vast majority of prisoners surveyed (93%) are citizens of Ukraine; the rest are stateless persons (2 people) and citizens of Russia and Belarus (7 people). Only three of the foreign citizens indicated that they exercise their right to contact a representative of the embassy of the state of which they are citizens. Six respondents confirmed the ability to use the services of an interpreter if necessary.

The vast majority of those surveyed had not been previously convicted (89%). 11% of respondents indicated that they had a prior conviction. More than half of those surveyed (58%) have the status of convicts serving their sentences as maintenance staff of the SIZO. Another third (34%) are convicts who are in the SIZO for other reasons. Only 4% of those surveyed had the status of an accused person or a defendant.

To determine the length of stay in the SIZO, it was necessary to exclude from the total sample those convicts who are serving their sentences in the SIZO. It turned out that among the remaining respondents, 54% had been in the SIZO from 9 months to 3 years, and 12% – for over 3 years (Table 1).

Table 1

Duration of stay in the SIZO, %

Another source of information about the length of stay of prisoners and convicts in the SIZO was the responses of relatives or acquaintances who visited the SIZO to deliver parcels. It turned out that the majority of them came to see prisoners who had not yet received the final status of convicts. In particular, more than half of the visitors came to those whose case investigation was ongoing (33%), or to those waiting for the case to be transferred to court (21%). Another third of the prisoners to whom parcels were sent (33%) were in the SIZO because the court of first instance was ongoing or they were waiting for an appellate court decision. Only 5% of relatives (acquaintances) delivered parcels to those serving their sentence in the SIZO. Therefore, by analysing the responses of SIZO visitors, it was possible to obtain information about the contingent that was not sufficiently represented in the prisoner survey sample.

According to the estimates of relatives, the picture of the duration of stay in the SIZO looks different than according to the data of the prisoner survey, as the prisoners indicated significantly longer terms of stay. One explanation for this is, obviously, that in the first months of stay in a remand prison, the level of visits by relatives and acquaintances is somewhat higher than later on. However, it is possible that the difference in results is a consequence of the survey not fully covering the entire prisoner contingent.

An analysis of the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine under which the respondents are accused or convicted shows that among the prisoners, there is a prevalence of people who have committed quite serious crimes (robbery, assault – 37.7%, murder and grievous bodily harm – 27%). (See Table 2). Respondents who committed other crimes (theft, fraud, etc.) mainly have the status of convicts who are in the SIZO as maintenance staff.

Table 2

Under what article are you accused or convicted? %

The vast majority of those surveyed (94%) were found to be familiar with the rights and duties defined by their status (suspect, accused, convicted). Those who were not familiar cited the formal attitude of the administration as the reason. However, given the isolated nature of such cases, it can be stated that, in general, the respondents are aware of their rights and duties. As for the sources from which they received the relevant information, SIZO employees were mentioned most often (cited by 60% of respondents), the rest received the necessary information from specialized literature and media (15%), from textbooks and information boards (12%), and during communication with lawyers, investigators, or judges (11%).

It should be noted that, in general, access to information about the rights and duties of prisoners is effectively provided to a sufficient degree. The majority of respondents (94%) confirmed that the 'Rules for the detention of persons taken into custody' are posted in places designated by the SIZO administration. The same number of respondents replied that they have the opportunity to use the texts of laws if necessary. Similarly, the majority (88%) noted that their rights and duties had been explained to them by a judge, prosecutor, or investigator.

The prisoners' right to information is also ensured by their access to the media. The vast majority of those surveyed (96%) indicated that they have the opportunity to watch television, and practically everyone (96%) answered that they watch TV daily or 5–6 times a week. The situation is the same regarding the opportunity to listen to the radio. 95% of respondents noted that they listen to the radio, and the majority of those who listen to the radio do so daily (96%). 96% of respondents read newspapers and magazines. The majority (83%) of those surveyed indicated that they read the newspaper 'Segodnya', 34% read a specialized publication for those in institutions of the penal system, 10% – 'Uriadovyi Kurier', and 7% each – 'Fakty i Kommentarii' and 'Kievskiye Vedomosti'. 53% of respondents read the press every day, 20% read it several times a week, and another 20% noted that they have the opportunity to do so once a week. None of the respondents complained that their restriction of the right to access the media was related to the conditions of their stay in the SIZO. In addition to access to the media, prisoners have the opportunity to use the SIZO library. 72% of respondents use it. Those who do not do so cite personal reasons first and foremost: unwillingness, a dislike for books, having their own literature, or the ability to borrow it from cellmates.

An analysis of respondents' answers to the question 'Which rights do you consider most important?' indicates that approximately one-third of prisoners (30%) are of the opinion that the observance of human rights in general should be ensured. Another third (30%) specifically focus on the need to observe the right to visits, correspondence, and phone calls; 16% focused on the observance of legal rights: to defence, parole, pardon, or amnesty; 11% consider the most important thing to be the provision of the prisoners' right to personal safety. Among other rights mentioned were such general human rights as the right to education, the right to medical care, the right to work and rest, and freedom of religion. Separately, one can distinguish judgments that directly concerned the conditions of stay in the SIZO, for example, respondents wrote about the importance of compliance with the rules of detention of convicts, noting that they have a right to better service, a right to sleep, and rest.

Only 13% of respondents gave an answer to the question 'Which rights are you particularly lacking?'. Most often, the right to telephone conversations and the right to visits were named (8% of respondents). In addition, human rights in general, the right to better service, and legal rights were mentioned.

A special block of questions was devoted to the analysis of the situation regarding the provision of rights to correspondence, visits, and calls. Most prisoners noted that they correspond with relatives and other acquaintances (Table 3). However, a comparison of this data with that obtained from the survey of relatives shows that there are significant discrepancies, which indicates that the survey of prisoners does not fully reflect the picture in the SIZO.

Table 3

Do you correspond with relatives or acquaintances? %

As we can see, those surveyed in the SIZO generally have the opportunity to correspond, while those whose relatives came to the same SIZO with a parcel do not have this opportunity. In both questionnaires, respondents were also asked why they do not correspond. Both prisoners and relatives cited the prohibition on corresponding in connection with an ongoing investigation, an ongoing trial in the court of first instance, or the case being in the appellate court as the primary reason. Thus, among the relatives who stated the reasons why they do not correspond, 72% cited exactly these reasons. The same was pointed out by those prisoners who mentioned the circumstances hindering correspondence. Moreover, while prisoners only state the fact of the ban on correspondence, relatives comment on it, viewing it as a violation of civil rights: 'Why can't we write before the trial, and what if the investigation lasts a year or two?'. Relatives also indicate that the ban on correspondence is somehow circumvented by them ('unofficial letters', 'letters passed by a lawyer'). Personal reasons ('there is no need', 'no ability', 'wrote, but received no answer') were cited by only 5 respondents among prisoners and 7 among relatives.

Among the problems that arise for prisoners with the realization of the right to correspondence, the delay of letters was primarily named. In total, 68 respondents answered the question 'How long does the SIZO administration delay (process) your letter?'. 40% indicated that it takes less than 5 days, 50% noted that letters are delayed for up to 10 days, and 10% waited for letters that were processed by the administration for more than 10 days. None of the respondents expressed complaints regarding the appearance of letters received after being checked by an inspector. One of the obstacles in realizing the right to correspondence and written appeals (complaints, statements) is the inability to obtain paper and a pen. It turned out that only 42% of respondents received them from the administration, while 58% did not.

In addition to the right to correspondence, the realization of the right to visits attracts the special attention of prisoners. Here, as in the situation with correspondence, one should compare the answers of prisoners and relatives to create a balanced picture regarding the situation in this area. Among prisoners, 89% answered this question. Of these, 80% noted that they use the right to a short-term visit with relatives provided by legislation, and among the reasons hindering the realization of this right, prisoners named not only the ban, but also reasons of a personal nature ('parents cannot come', 'I don't want to'). Among the purely domestic problems that arise with the right to a short-term visit, it was pointed out that the meeting rooms were poorly equipped, in particular, that 'there is no toilet at the visits'. None of the surveyed prisoners indicated the reasons for which he was refused (if such cases occurred) a short-term visit with relatives. The vast majority of prisoners (84%) indicated that they have one visit per month, 2 respondents answered that they have visits every week, and the rest had visits less often than once a month. Only 75 respondents answered the question about when the last visit with relatives took place; 51 of them belong to the convicts serving their sentences in the SIZO. This category of respondents exercises their right quite regularly (82% had a visit in the month of the survey or the previous month).

Among the surveyed relatives, only 51% used this right to a visit. Among those who answered the question about the frequency of visits (there were 53 such people in total), 55% indicated that they have a visit once a month, however, relatives repeatedly wrote that they had only one visit in total, and sometimes relatives understand by a 'visit' the fact that they saw the accused at the trial. For 66% of respondents, the visit lasted 1 hour, for 18% – 2–3 hours, and for 14% – a few minutes.

The vast majority of relatives who cannot exercise the right to a visit (78%) indicated that they cannot obtain permission for it. 88 people applied for such permission; of them, 67% applied to the investigator and investigative bodies, 37% to the court, and 8% to the SIZO administration (the number of responses exceeds 100% because respondents could indicate all the instances to which they applied). Of those who applied for such permission, 57% received a refusal. Most often, among the instances from which a refusal was received, relatives named investigators and investigative bodies (59%), courts (25%) and the SIZO administration (14%) refused less frequently. Respondents made 18 appeals to various instances to challenge the refusal of a visit. They most often appealed to the prosecutor's office (11 times), 7 appeals were directed to the court, 4 each to higher investigative bodies and the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Punishments, three complaints were sent to the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, and two – to human rights organizations.

Most often, the reason for refusing a visit to relatives was that 'the investigation is ongoing', 'the trial is ongoing', 'the appeal is being considered', or 'it is not allowed under the article'. However, often the reason is not reported at all ('no reason', 'they just said it's not allowed') or is justified very subjectively ('you haven't served enough, they said it's too early to go on visits'). Those who do not have family ties do not receive permission for a visit; in particular, the lack of marriage registration becomes a reason for refusal ('our marriage is not officially registered, although we have two children and we have been together for 10 years'). The answers of relatives also testify to the fact that there are cases when the opportunity to receive a visit is used as a tool of pressure on the convict ('the investigator demands reinforcement of certain evidence for the prosecution', 'in the investigator's opinion, the suspect behaved badly', 'the investigator demands the information he needs from the prisoner').

In addition to correspondence and visits, an important form of contact for prisoners with relatives (acquaintances) is receiving parcels. This right is used by the majority of prisoners (68% of the total number surveyed). 65 people answered the question of how often this happens, most of whom are convicts serving sentences in the SIZO. They receive parcels quite regularly – 40% once a month, 20% – twice a month, 26% – once a week, and the rest – less than once a month. Those who answered the question about why they do not receive parcels cited primarily personal reasons ('relatives refused', 'refused help from relatives'). One convict wrote that he does not receive parcels because 'the SIZO administration takes them for themselves'.

More information about the requirements for parcels and restrictions on their content was provided by the survey of prisoners' relatives. Let us recall that all surveyed relatives and acquaintances were in the SIZO specifically for the purpose of delivering a parcel. As it turned out, most respondents prefer to do this directly in the SIZO, as only 27% send parcels (packages) by mail. Restrictions on the content of parcels and the complexity of the delivery procedure itself were recorded. Among the difficulties that arose in the process of delivering parcels, the refusal to transfer electrical appliances was named ('they did not allow us to transfer a television', 'they did not accept the electric receiver', 'it is difficult to find documents for television sets', 'they don't allow transferring radios, CD players, clocks, books, why not?').

The situation with the transfer of necessary medicines was clarified separately. 57% of the surveyed relatives indicated that they sent their relative (acquaintance) parcels with medications for treatment. Sometimes parcels have a clearly targeted, one-time nature ('dental kit'), but in most cases (74%), the need to transfer medicines arises every month. The very procedure for such transfers causes difficulties ('terrible difficulties, why separate forms? And in general, they don't want to take many medications necessary for treatment'; 'they don't allow many medicines, and we don't know which ones are allowed to be transferred'; 'medicines were not accepted').

Among the proposals regarding desired changes to the norms and rules of detention in the SIZO, relatives indicated the need to cancel many restrictions on the content of parcels. In particular, referring to the poor feeding of prisoners, they suggest 'accepting all food products, including home-cooked ones', 'transferring more hygiene items'; 'allowing the transfer of fiction, periodicals, crossword puzzles, etc.' Much criticism is caused by the very procedure of accepting parcels. As one of the respondents noted, 'it's bad not only for those who are sitting [in prison], but also for those who come to deliver parcels'. The most important complaints are related to the fact that the parcel acceptance process is very slow ('instead of 4 windows, only 1 is working. You spend a lot of time on parcels'; 'a civilized procedure for delivering parcels is needed so as not to stand for 5 hours in line'; 'improve the conditions for deliveries and the conditions for the location during deliveries (especially in winter)'). In addition, there are complaints about the work of SIZO staff – 'change the incorrect attitude of the staff who accept parcels. They cut fat and soap with the same knife, they damage the parcels'. Facts of direct abuse are also cited: 'We delivered a parcel, and then the lawyer, who was with a relative on a visit for the case, called and said that the convict did not receive any parcel. And in the summer, the parcel was delivered 10 days later and all the products had spoiled – they rotted'. It should be noted that complaints regarding the acceptance of parcels are not isolated and indicate the need to review the conditions of this procedure and the relevant norms and rules regarding the regulation of the content of parcels.

A separate block of questions in the questionnaire for prisoners concerned the possibilities of exercising the right to telephone conversations provided by law. The vast majority of those surveyed (93%) noted that they do not have such an opportunity due to a lack of access to a telephone.

Among the most important rights of prisoners is the right to medical care. First of all, it should be noted that the vast majority of those surveyed assessed their state of health as satisfactory (61%) or good (28%). Only 11% of respondents defined their state of health as poor. The vast majority of those surveyed confirmed that they are provided with both general medical care (97% of respondents) and medical care on request (92%). Two of those surveyed who did not receive medical care wrote that they were refused because 'there was no opportunity to have personal medications' and 'because you have to pay'. 9% of respondents indicated a refusal to provide emergency medical care. This was explained by the lack of necessary medicines.

The general level of medical care is assessed by the vast majority of those surveyed as average (79%), 18% consider it low, and 4% – high. The majority of those who answered the question about whether they receive the necessary medicines noted that all necessary medicines are provided to them (76%). They receive medicines mainly from medical personnel (68% of respondents) and from relatives (32%). Prisoners have the opportunity to receive not only general but also specialized medical care. In particular, there is a dentist in the SIZO, and in the opinion of the majority of respondents (72%), the dental office is well-equipped. 67% of respondents confirmed the possibility of access to a gynecologist/urologist (andrologist).

Although the assessments of medical care by prisoners are generally positive, the questionnaires of relatives indicate that there are certain problems in ensuring this right. In particular, citing examples of its violations, relatives write: 'he needs treatment, but it is absent'; 'it is impossible to get a doctor's services', 'little access to a doctor'; 'a sick person is needed by no one, they are not receiving medical help'; 'the possibility of contracting tuberculosis'.

Also important for prisoners is the provision of their legal rights. The majority of those surveyed (79%) noted that they receive legal assistance if necessary. First of all, such assistance is provided by SIZO staff (83% of respondents turned to them). 17% of respondents used the help of a lawyer. Only 4% of respondents complained about obstacles from the SIZO administration regarding the organization of meetings with a lawyer. As an example of such an obstacle, a refusal to call a lawyer was mentioned. In total, 39% of those surveyed have a lawyer. 72% of those who have a lawyer noted that legal assistance is paid. Among those who do not have a lawyer, 25% believe that such assistance is paid.

10% of those surveyed complained about the use of torture, beatings, or other cruel actions by SIZO staff or the investigator against them. However, only 4 people agreed to state who they were subjected to cruel treatment by. 'Operational staff', 'the investigator', and 'the senior inspector' were named as the culprits. One prisoner wrote 'from everyone'. In total, 68% of respondents answered the question of whether prisoners have the opportunity to turn to the appropriate authorities for help in case of cruel treatment. Most of them (81%) believe that they have such an opportunity. The rest (19%) deny such a possibility. The vast majority of those who answered the question about whether they are hindered in making complaints (in total, 83% of respondents answered) noted that there are no obstacles (92%), the rest (9 people) indicated the presence of obstacles.

However, the total satisfaction demonstrated by respondents when answering the question about cruel treatment of them and confidence in the ability to resist it cannot be accepted without reservations. Those respondents who answered the question about the consequences after appealing noted that there were 'no' consequences, or that the consequences were 'beatings, torture, threats'. One of the respondents wrote: 'they hid me in a cell while the traces of the interrogations disappeared'.

The existence of facts of cruel treatment is also evidenced by the questionnaires of relatives. In their questionnaires, there are complaints about 'inappropriately cruel treatment of my son'; 'exceeding official duties'; and that 'they are keeping them in the isolation ward for longer than allowed'. A possible way to influence such a situation was the suggestion to 'install video surveillance cameras in every cell to control all illegal actions by law enforcement officers, and not only'.

The vast majority of prisoners (84%) were informed about the application of penalties in case of violation of the SIZO regime by them. 20% of respondents answered that penalties were applied to them. Regarding the fairness of the punishments applied to them, the opinions of the respondents diverged. 54% consider the applied punishment to be correct, 46% deny this. Among the violations were 'inter-cell communication', 'possession of prohibited items', 'attempting to manufacture alcohol', 'wasteful consumption of electricity'. Among the penalties mentioned were 'warning', 'reprimand', 'detention in a punishment cell'.

The general assessment of detention conditions in the SIZO by prisoners tends to be 'satisfactory' (64%), 29% consider them good, 7% consider them poor. Among the shortcomings of detention, the following were mentioned: 'a lot of people in the cells'; 'food that is impossible to eat, poor heating, constant drafts'; 'small cell'; 'attitude'. The condition of the cell in which the prisoners are held was assessed as satisfactory by 55%, as good by 42%, and as poor by only 3%. The number of people in the cells ranges from 2 to 40. 45% of respondents indicated that there are fewer than 8 people in their cell, in 25% there are from 8 to 19 people in the cell, and in 30% – 20 or more people. The number of beds coincides with the number of prisoners. All prisoners are provided with bed linen by the SIZO administration. The linen is changed once a week.

Assessing the inventory located in the cell, 34% of all surveyed indicated the presence of some furniture in the cell, 8% mentioned that there are household items in the cell. 37% of all surveyed indicated the possibility of storing food in the cell, 67% do not have such an opportunity. Food is stored in a specially designated place, in a room for eating. Practically all cells have windows. Only 2 respondents indicated the absence of a window in the cell. In most cells (56%), the windows are covered from the outside with iron shutters.

To the question 'Do you smoke in the cell?', 14% of all surveyed answered in the affirmative. However, this happens primarily in cells with a relatively smaller number of prisoners. Thus, only two respondents from those held in cells with more than 20 people noted that they smoke in the cell. The light switch is located in the cells in the majority of cases (81%). 94% of those surveyed assessed the level of lighting in the cells to allow reading and other needs as sufficient. Most of those who answered this question (65 people) noted that they do not have any electrical appliances in the cell. 15% of all surveyed have an electric kettle, other electrical appliances (most often a radio) – 12%.

Assessing the sanitary and hygienic conditions of detention, a third of those surveyed (31%) noted that there is a toilet in the cell. Its sanitary condition was assessed as good by 33%, as satisfactory by 52%, and as poor by 15% of those held in such cells. The same applies to the equipment of the cells with a washbasin. It is present in a third of the cells where those surveyed are held. 96% noted that there is a shower or another place in the SIZO where one can wash. Practically all those surveyed use the shower. The majority of them (85%) wash in a shower located not in the SIZO building itself, but on its territory in another room. The majority of respondents assessed the condition of the shower as satisfactory (47%) or good (44%). 9% consider the condition of the shower to be poor. 26% of all surveyed have the opportunity to use the shower once a week, 65% answered that they can use the shower upon request. Prisoners are provided with hygiene products (soap, shampoo, etc.) primarily by relatives (55%), 12% are issued by the administration, and 31% noted that they buy them themselves. Among the hygiene products provided to prisoners, soap is the primary one (74%), which is provided to prisoners once a month.

To meet the necessary needs, there is a shop in the SIZO. More than half of all surveyed buy something in it (88% of those who answered this question). Payment is mainly in the form of cashless settlement (96% of purchases).

The general characterization of the conditions of the prisoners' stay in the cells can be supplemented by comments made by relatives. In particular, the following shortcomings are noted: 'there are very many of them sitting in one cell, 30-40 people'; 'it is very cold in the cells in winter'; 'they turn off the water'; 'poor conditions for sleep'; 'detention conditions need to be improved (conditions for sleep, better beds)'; 'cockroaches, and you can't transfer products [to combat them]'.

Prisoners noted that they have three meals a day. The quality is assessed as good by 34% of those surveyed, as satisfactory – 49%, and as poor – 17%. All prisoners who indicated that they need a dietary menu (15 people) noted that they are provided with such food. Regarding the presence of meat in the menu, the opinions of the respondents were divided (Table 4).

Table 4

How often is there meat in the menu?

As can be seen, the majority of respondents claim that there is meat every day, and a part even denies its presence. It should be said that in the suggestions made by relatives regarding the improvement of detention conditions, critical assessments regarding the food were repeatedly expressed. In their questionnaires, which are significantly more frank than those of the prisoners, we read: 'They feed them like dogs...'; 'the food and bread are not fit for consumption'; 'they feed them very poorly in the SIZO. They do not allow dairy products. One has to bring very large parcels, as there is no opportunity to come often'.

Another necessary sign of the observance of prisoners' rights is walks. The vast majority of surveyed prisoners (83%) answered that they go for a walk. Moreover, among those who do not go for a walk were convicts serving sentences in the SIZO who work outside all day. Thus, in fact, the vast majority have the right to a walk. The frequency and duration of walks were assessed by only 56 respondents. More than half of those who answered noted that they can exercise the right to a walk in their free time in permitted zones, another 34% have a walk once a day, and 12% – twice a day. The duration of the walk is mainly 45–60 minutes.

As in the cases of assessing compliance with other rights, relatives of prisoners often express themselves regarding the need for changes in ensuring the right to walks. In particular, they state that 'the prisoners have very little time for a walk'; 'walks in the fresh air are very short'.

Persons who are in the SIZO are currently in most cases provided with the opportunity to perform their religious rites and meet with a spiritual representative of the religion they profess. Thus, the fact of a visit to the SIZO by a representative of their own religious denomination was noted by 79% of those surveyed. Only one respondent complained that this does not happen because the administration does not provide permission for it. As a rule, priest visits take place on religious holidays. Religious rites are performed individually by 27% of all surveyed. Only one person noted that he is subjected to discrimination by other prisoners or the SIZO administration on religious grounds, justifying this by the fact that they 'do not believe in God'.

The majority of those surveyed (87%) noted that they are involved in work during their stay in the SIZO. It is primarily voluntary in nature. Only 5 people indicated that it is forced, one respondent considers it violent. 88% of those working noted that their labor is paid, 13% work without payment.