On the Latest Visit of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture to Ukraine
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has again confirmed that in penitentiary institutions, human rights are an empty phrase. But this time, they also attempted to fraudulently deceive the Committee.
Information about the ‘shameful’—from the human rights perspective—policy of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine (SPSU, the Service) in light of the visits of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT, the Committee) has been published on the website of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group more than once. Not exactly a complete failure, but still shameful, from my point of view. Despite constant reports about improvements and excellent policies in the sphere of human rights, the Service falls into the traps of its militarised past and present every time. We have already noted the trend of imitating changes in the Service’s activities and the sphere of serving sentences in our annual human rights report, in particular for 2012[1]. However, this approach was identified by Ukrainian experts immediately after the renaming of the former State Department for the Execution of Sentences[2].
The reader can learn about the successes of the SPSU on its website from a recent anniversary announcement[3]. Without understating the described merits, we offer an alternative view in the relevant sections of human rights organisations’ reports for previous years[4] and in a more current, upcoming report for 2013. For sceptics who doubt the objectivity of human rights organisations, it would be useful to carefully read the latest CPT report on the results of its visit to Ukraine in 2012, and also to view photos of the ‘working tools’ of ordinary penitentiary staff[5].
In general, the CPT has been visiting Ukraine quite often lately, which is linked to a special, thoroughly attentive approach to the specific features of our national penitentiary reform. Without going into the details of this process, let us proceed to the main message.
The author happened to come across information of great interest. It concerns the content of the preliminary oral conclusions of the CPT, expressed during the final meeting following the latest visit to Ukraine in October 2013[6].
Based on the available data, the Committee was, in some institutions, literally being deceived. For example, this happened at Strizhavka Penal Colony No. 81, where, during a visit in 2012, serious concerns were raised due to the intimidation of individual convicts who had spoken confidentially with the CPT delegation after its departure[7]. Despite this regrettable history, new facts have emerged indicating that confidential conversations with convicts, which are given such immense importance, were monitored using special devices[8]. Moreover, this very trick, clearly aimed at revenge against specific convicts and at evading accountability for officials, was, in the Committee’s opinion, possibly used again this year. And all this despite a kind of scandal last year related to visiting this very institution.
Providing inaccurate information by staff at Kryvyi Rih Penal Colony No. 3 and the Dnipropetrovsk pre-trial detention centre regarding the use of service dogs against life-sentenced prisoners can also be viewed as an attempt at deception.
It should be noted that the delegation received no complaints about the intimidation of prisoners by staff before its arrival at the Kyiv and Simferopol pre-trial detention centres or Vinnytsia Penal Colony No. 1, which surely did not happen without the influence of their previous visits by the Committee and the staff’s awareness of its incredible ability to find out the truth about what is actually happening behind barbed wire. At the same time, due to their inexperience, staff at the Dnipropetrovsk and Odesa pre-trial detention centres still resorted to using prohibited methods and intimidated the people held there so that they would not say anything ‘superfluous’.
It is a pity that such experience does not always work. In the same Strizhavka colony, intimidation was repeated, albeit in a different style, namely by using the help of key ‘representatives of the unofficial prison hierarchy.’ Convicts were threatened with beatings if they reported anything negative to the Committee’s delegation at the Kryvyi Rih Penal Colony, which was visited for the first time. By the way, an article was previously published on the KHPG website about the personal experience of staying in this colony, which is also called ‘Bublik’, and about the terrible things that happened there previously and, as one might guess, have been happening since the CPT’s visit[9]. It is also unheard of that in Kryvyi Rih Penal Colony No. 3, some convicts were not allowed to speak with the delegation at all.
Of course, the SPSU can blame all these oversights on the ‘human factor’ of its rank-and-file employees. But one cannot deny the responsibility of the highest management, since these people have not yet been fired and continue to work and even run entire institutions?! Similarly, turning a blind eye to the situation at Oleksiyivka Penal Colony No. 25 and not firing its management can be considered demonstrative. This colony, despite its multi-year horrors—even if ‘toned’ by beautiful material conditions—has been dubbed a ‘death factory’ or the ‘Kharkiv torture chamber’ (from the Ukrainian ‘Kharkivska kativnya’). A special group called ‘Destroy the Death Factory’ has even been created on the social network VKontakte, where one can find details from the media, as well as from eyewitnesses related to it[10]. The latest article by a KHPG activist about this dreadful place describes its current state[11].
By the way, the 2012 CPT visit showed that this colony has serious systemic problems regarding the organisation of its internal regime, characterised by the total intimidation of convicts and the use of physical and mental abuse against them. According to the testimonies of people recently released from AIC No. 25, the Committee’s visit changed practically nothing in the management style of this colony. Convicts were exploited in the literal sense of the word, and continue to be; they were abused mentally and physically, and continue to be. What does the highest management of the SPSU need in order to finally change the leadership of this cancerous tumour of the Ukrainian penitentiary system? Surely not the discovery of a torture case or the death of a convict? If so, then with such an approach, one will have to wait a long time, as everyone knows that all torturers know when and how to stop in time... And in the meantime, thousands of people still have to pass through the clutches of this institution.
Likewise, to this day, people who directly led the mass beating of convicts by a special forces unit of the same Service continue to work in the highest leadership positions of the SPSU. And this is even after the official recognition of the illegality of using the specified unit by the European Court of Human Rights[12].
As for the information collected directly by the Committee, it consists of the following. In the Kyiv, Odesa, and Simferopol pre-trial detention centres, complaints were recorded regarding ill-treatment in the form of ‘slaps and thumps’ on the head, as well as blows with batons. In the Odesa and Simferopol detention centres, there is a general tendency towards the partial transfer of authority from staff to representatives of the prison subculture. Regarding this, the delegation noted that this approach creates a high risk of violence between convicts.
In the Dnipropetrovsk pre-trial detention centre, prisoners made complaints about facts of beatings by cellmates, and perhaps even at the instigation of the institution’s staff. The initiative of the Strizhavka colony’s administration to transfer the function of maintaining discipline to individual leaders—a group of convicts belonging to the prison subculture—negated some positive changes since the Committee’s previous visit to this institution. All this created an atmosphere of pressure and ill-treatment of prisoners.
At Kryvyi Rih Penal Colony No. 3, the CPT delegation received a significant number of complaints and accusations of beatings and collected medical evidence regarding this. It is claimed that operational staff of this institution recruit a group of strong prisoners for the purpose of exerting pressure and ill-treating other convicts. It was noted that this is done to maintain proper discipline in the institution and to obtain confessions from prisoners for crimes they committed before their conviction. All this led to the application of the procedure provided for by paragraph 5 of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, in accordance with which the Ukrainian authorities were obliged to conduct an urgent, thorough, and independent investigation into the ‘style and methods’ of staff work in the Kryvyi Rih colony and, within two months, provide information on the results of the investigation.
Furthermore, attention was drawn to local overcrowding in individual cells in the same colony. For example, in many cells, one prisoner had only 1.5 square metres of space instead of the 4 required in accordance with international standards and criminal-executive legislation.
In the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre, material and living conditions were inadequate in practically all cells, with the exception of the unit for women. It was noted that the Simferopol detention centre is in need of urgent repair, reconstruction, and, furthermore, the decommissioning of semi-basement cells located in Block No. 1. In the Odesa detention centre, premises were deemed too outdated, and it was recommended to consider the construction of new facilities.
The issue was raised that practically no changes are occurring regarding those sentenced to life imprisonment. By the way, in almost all reports on visits to Ukraine, the Committee expresses very many remarks regarding this category of convicts, but this is systematically ignored by national authorities.
The problem of permanent inadequate medical care was highlighted, which includes the lack of documentation and the failure to report cases of bodily injuries found in newly arrived prisoners. Moreover, even if records are made by medical staff, they are superficial. Also, the confidentiality of medical data is not guaranteed. There is no established procedure for systematic screening for Hepatitis C. Existing medical supply stocks are absolutely insufficient. In this regard, the CPT once again drew attention to the need for reform of the medical service of prison institutions and the need to ensure the professional independence of medical staff from the penitentiary administration.
It should be separately noted that the procedure of preliminary remarks resulting from this visit was also used with the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, as there were serious problems in places of detention under its subordination. It is interesting that this, in the end, also did not happen without falsehoods on the part of the police department. Read more about the problem and the CPT’s findings in police institutions here[13].
Summing up, it must be emphasised that the SPSU constantly fails its examination in cooperation with the Committee, as well as in the implementation of its recommendations. Only through a tough reaction to the inappropriate actions of subordinates, the adoption of pragmatic and unconcealed measures, and the immediate dismissal of personnel who use ill-treatment in the performance of their duties will the SPSU be able to achieve recognition, earn respect, and, as a consequence, get rid of the ‘headache’ caused by CPT visits. The logic, in reality, is extremely banal—the more formalism in resolving the problems raised during visits, the less satisfied the institutions of the Council of Europe will be. The message for the SPSU is exactly this: formality in resolving pressing problems and in implementing the Committee’s recommendations is the root of the weed that this international monitoring body is trying to pull out year after year.
[1] www.khpg.org
[2] Yakovets I.S. ‘Penitentiary Service’—mimicry or a desire for change? // Theoretical and Practical Problems of Improving the Activity of the Criminal-Executive System of Ukraine: materials of the All-Ukrainian scientific-practical conference (4 May 2011) - K.: Nat. Acad. of Internal Affairs. - 2011. - pp. 173–175.
[3] www.kvs.gov.ua
[4] www.khpg.org
[5] Photos at the end of this document: www.cpt.coe.int. Translation of the report (without photos): www.khpg.org
[6] For information—after each visit, this body meets with state structures responsible for places of detention and expresses its general impression and urgent remarks in cases of special concern regarding the human rights situation in individual institutions and the safety of individual persons. These remarks are later provided in more detail in writing, and later, with the permission of the national government, a specially prepared, as a rule, fairly voluminous report on the results of the visit is printed in open access.
[7] This, by the way, became the trigger for initiating the public statement procedure, which in the practice of this body is a very rare case. Regarding Ukraine, this was done for the first time, and, saddest of all, for the first time in its history as a consequence of the national authorities’ unwillingness to resolve serious problems in the penitentiary sphere (in the context of their inadequate cooperation with the Committee). Details: khpg.org
[8] It should be said that the possibility of using such ‘know-how’ by domestic penitentiary officials must definitely be taken into account by anyone having any relation to inspections and independent visits to places of detention. After all, it can nullify all attempts at monitoring and, moreover, seriously harm the interviewed person.
[9] khpg.org
[10] vk.com
[11] khpg.org
[12] khpg.org
[13] khpg.org