1) Report to the Latvian Government on the visit to Latvia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 24 January to 3 February 1999 Strasbourg, 22 November 2001 95. It is axiomatic that the cornerstone of a humane prison system will always be properly recruited and trained prison officers. Consequently, the CPT recommends that appropriate steps be taken to fill all posts currently occupied by military conscripts with professional prison staff. 97. Unfortunately, in any prison system cases will occur from time to time of prison staff abusing their authority by ill-treating inmates. When such cases arise, it is essential that the authorities take rapidly the necessary measures. In this connection, and in order to obtain a nationwide view of the situation, the CPT would like to receive the following information for 1998 and 1999: - the number of complaints of ill-treatment lodged against staff working in establishments under the authority of the Department of Prisons; - an account of disciplinary and/or criminal sanctions imposed following such complaints. 239. Moreover, the CPT was concerned to learn that in many prisons in Latvia, custodial durties were performed by unqualified military conscripts. The Committee has recommended that appropriate steps be taken to fill all posts currently occupied by military conscripts with professional prison staff. 2) Report to the Latvian Government on the visit to Latvia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 25 September to 4 October 2002 Strasbourg, 10 May 2005 2. Ill-treatment 67. The CPT.s delegation heard no allegations of torture of prisoners by staff - and gathered no other evidence of such treatment - in the prisons visited or in other prison establishments in Latvia. However, one allegation of deliberate physical ill-treatment was heard at Jelgava Prison. A prisoner 10 claimed in the presence of prison staff that he had been assaulted by a prison officer, whilst his hands were handcuffed behind his 1
back. No allegations of physical ill-treatment were received at the other prisons visited. The CPT recognises that prison staff will, on occasion, have to use force to control violent and/or recalcitrant prisoners. However, the force used should be no more than is strictly necessary and, once prisoners have been brought under control, there can be no justification for striking them. The CPT would like to receive further and better particulars on the action taken by the Latvian authorities following the abovementioned allegation. 68. In order to obtain a nationwide view of the situation in prisons, the CPT would like to receive the following information in respect of the period 1999-2002: - the number of complaints lodged concerning ill-treatment by prison officers and the number of disciplinary and/or criminal proceedings initiated as a result of those complaints; - an account of disciplinary and/or criminal sanctions imposed following such complaints. 69. The CPT is seriously concerned about the frequent occurrence of inter-prisoner violence (fights, threats, extortion, etc.) at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison. In one recent case - at the Rīga establishment - an episode of violence between fellow inmates had resulted in the death of a prisoner. At Daugavpils Prison, the delegation was struck by the rather indifferent attitude of prison staff towards this phenomenon. By way of example, the delegation met a prisoner who had allegedly been assaulted in his cell by a fellow inmate and possibly sustained a broken jaw; although he had been seen by a member of the medical staff, no steps had been taken to remove him (or the other inmate concerned) from the cell. 70. The delegation received a number of allegations by inmates at Daugavpils Prison that they had been threatened by members of the Security Department to be placed in cells with prisoners known to be violent, if they refused to co-operate with the Security Department (cf. section 7b). 71. The CPT wishes once again to emphasise that the duty of care which is owed by the prison authorities to prisoners in their charge includes the responsibility to protect them from other prisoners who might wish to cause them harm. The prison authorities must act in a proactive manner to prevent violence by inmates against other inmates (cf. also paragraph 98 of the report on the 1999 visit). Addressing the phenomenon of inter-prisoner violence and intimidation requires that prison staff be alert to signs of trouble and both resolved and properly trained to intervene when necessary. The existence of positive relations between staff and prisoners, based on the notions of secure custody and care, is a decisive factor in this context; this will depend in large measure on staff possessing appropriate interpersonal communication skills. It is also obvious that an effective strategy to tackle inter-prisoner intimidation/violence should seek to ensure that prison staff are placed in a position to exercise their authority in an appropriate manner. Consequently, the level of staffing must be sufficient (including at night-time) to enable prison officers to supervise adequately the activities of prisoners and support each other effectively in the exercise of their tasks. Both initial and ongoing training programmes for staff of all grades must address the issue of managing inter-prisoner violence (cf. also section 7a). 2
The CPT recommends that strategies be developed with a view to addressing the problem of inter-prisoner violence at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison (and, as appropriate, in other establishments), in the light of the above remarks. 127. The CPT has already highlighted the great importance of the recruitment and training of staff, as well as of the development of good relations between prison staff and prisoners (cf. paragraph 170 of the report on the 1999 visit). This will not only reduce the risk of ill-treatment, but also enhance control and security in prisons, without frequent resort to the sanction of solitary confinement (cf. paragraph 134). 128. Unfortunately, the information gathered during the 2002 visit indicated that little progress had been made as regards the implementation of the specific recommendations made by the CPT concerning staff/inmate relations (cf. paragraph 173 of the report on the 1999 visit). It should be noted that the mere increase of staffing levels, as observed at Rīga Central Prison 17, is not sufficient in itself to improve these relations. With the notable exception of Liepāja Prison (Unit for Juveniles), contacts between prison staff and prisoners were of a formal and distant nature and were kept to a strict minimum. Further, the practices of obliging prisoners to face the wall when staff or visitors passed by, and of appointing "duty prisoners" for each cell, remained unchanged. 129. Consequently, the CPT must reiterate its recommendation that the Latvian authorities: - develop both initial and in-service training of prison staff at all levels. In the course of such training, particular emphasis should be placed on the acquisition and development of inter-personal communication skills. Building positive relations with prisoners should be recognised as a key feature of a prison officer.s vocation; - promote positive and constructive relations between staff and prisoners. In particular, a more proactive role for prison staff should be encouraged, not limited to purely security and control tasks. In this connection, the practice of appointing a "duty prisoner" in cells should be reviewed; - put an end to the practice of obliging prisoners to face the wall when staff or visitors pass by. b. Security Departments 130. The CPT is very concerned about the role of the Security Departments in Latvian prisons. The delegation noted that, in all establishments visited, members of the Security Department fulfilled both custodial and criminal investigative tasks. Such a state of affairs not only leads to potential conflicts of interests but also jeopardises the benefits of the recent transfer of the responsibility for the prison system from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice (cf. paragraph 63). 131. Security Departments are formally subordinated to the Deputy Directors for Security Issues in the respective establishments. The delegation was informed that, in addition to classical.security duties., one of their key tasks was to investigate criminal 3
offences committed by prisoners (whether sentenced or on remand) prior to imprisonment, to interrogate them and collect evidence, such as confessions, before transferring them, for further questioning, to the police (cf. also paragraph 70). Moreover, the delegation was informed that Security Departments had the exclusive decision-making power on the placement of prisoners within the prison and that, in exercising their powers, the Security Departments were de facto independent from the prison administration (including from the Prison Director). Officers of the Security Departments attended the daily roll calls, and on that occasion, prisoners could address themselves to the attending officers concerned for an.interview.. Prisoners who had become victim of inter-prisoner violence or who otherwise felt unsafe in their cell could then request to be transferred to another cell. The delegation was informed that the action taken by the Security Departments upon such requests could well be influenced by the interests of the criminal investigative activities within the establishment. 132. In the CPT.s view, it is a highly questionable state of affairs that prison officers are involved in the investigation of criminal offences - and the collection of related evidence such as confessions of prisoners - in particular, when the offence in question has been committed prior to imprisonment. Furthermore, in almost all establishments visited, a number of prisoners (who were interviewed separately) claimed that they had been.put under pressure. by members of the Security Department to confess to criminal offences they had (or had not) committed prior to their admission to the prison. As already mentioned in paragraph 70, a number of allegations were received from prisoners at Daugavpils Prison that they had been threatened by members of the Security Department with being placed in cells with prisoners known to be violent, if they refused to co-operate with the Security Department. The present situation is clearly detrimental to the protection of prisoners against ill-treatment (including inter-prisoner violence) and lends itself to abuse. The possibility offered to Security Departments, at their sole discretion, to allocate/transfer prisoners within the establishment as a reward (or sanction) for information/evidence provided (or not provided) is all the more unacceptable. The CPT recommends that the Latvian authorities take immediate steps to review throughout the prison system the tasks assigned to the Security Departments, in the light of the above remarks. 3) Report to the Latvian Government on the visit to Latvia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 5 to 12 May 2004 Strasbourg, 13 March 2008 39. In its report on the 2002 visit 10, the CPT made a number of remarks and specific recommendations concerning the problem of overcrowding as well as legal standards 4
for the provision of living space to prisoners in the Latvian prison system. In particular, the Committee recommended that the existing legal standards (i.e. 2.5 m² per person for male adult prisoners and 3 m² per person for female and juvenile prisoners) be increased as soon as possible, so as to guarantee at least 4 m² per prisoner in multi-occupancy cells. Regrettably, in their response to the 2002 report, the Latvian authorities chose to evade rather than address the above-mentioned recommendations, laconically stating that, on the basis of the existing legal standards, none of the Latvian prisons were overcrowded. 2. Ill-treatment 42. The CPT.s delegation heard some allegations of deliberate physical ill-treatment by staff (such as blows to the body) at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison. As was the case in 2002, a number of allegations were heard in both establishments that prisoners had been threatened by members of the establishments. Security Departments that they would be placed in cells with inmates prone to violence, if they refused to co-operate with the Security Department (i.e. to act as an informant or to confess to a criminal offence). In the CPT.s view, such practices can easily be described as psychological ill-treatment (see also paragraphs 48 to 50). In addition, a number of allegations were also received of verbal abuse of prisoners by staff in both establishments. No allegations of physical/psychological ill-treatment or verbal abuse by staff were heard at Jelgava Prison. The CPT recommends that the management at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison be instructed to remind their staff that all forms of ill-treatment of prisoners (including threats and verbal abuse) are not acceptable and will be punished accordingly. 43. The Committee is particularly concerned by the frequency and severity of allegations of inter-prisoner violence it received both at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison. These allegations referred, inter alia, to severe beatings, sexual assaults (including rapes), and threats. 44. One case of inter-prisoner violence merits particular attention. In the course of the visit, the delegation received an allegation that a juvenile prisoner at.ķirotava Prison in Rīga had been the victim of sexual abuse by fellow inmates. In order to verify these allegations, it went to.ķirotava Prison and interviewed the prisoner concerned. The latter gave a detailed - and credible - account of his experiences in several prison establishments, where he said he had been systematically abused (e.g. penetrative intercourse, insertion of various objects into his anus) over a period of many months. The examination of the ano-genital area by the delegation.s medical doctors revealed scarring of the perineum anterior to the anal margin, consistent with repeated anal trauma. It is of all the more concern that, although members of staff had apparently been aware of the situation, no effective steps had been taken to protect the juvenile concerned. Only upon the intervention by the delegation was he transferred to the Prison Hospital, until a safe long-term solution was found. The CPT welcomes the swift reaction of the establishment.s management following the delegation.s request. 5
45. At the end of the visit, the delegation requested the Latvian authorities to provide an account of the measures taken in respect of the above-mentioned case. In their letter of 22 July 2004, the Latvian authorities informed the CPT that the Central Prison Administration.s General Inspectorate had established a commission entrusted with the investigation into the above-mentioned allegations. After interviewing the prisoner concerned, several fellow inmates and members of staff and collecting further evidence (including a forensic medical examination), the commission concluded that the prisoner concerned had "at his own wish provided sexual services to other convicts for compensation". Therefore, it adopted a "resolution on the refusal to initiate a criminal case as there are no signs of a crime". On 30 June 2004, the prisoner concerned was transferred, at his own request, to Matīsa Prison in Rīga, in order to serve the remainder of his sentence. The CPT must stress that the conclusions of the General Inspectorate.s commission are at variance to the conclusions by the medical members of the delegation, which are based, inter alia, on a physical examination of the prisoner.s injuries. Given the serious nature of the allegations made and the injuries sustained by the juvenile prisoner concerned, the CPT recommends that the above-mentioned case be brought to the attention of the competent prosecutor (see also paragraph 47). Further, the Committee would like to receive detailed information on the outcome of the preliminary criminal investigation, and, as appropriate, the action subsequently taken. More generally, the Committee must recall the responsibility of the prison administration to take special precautions to protect juveniles and other vulnerable prisoners from all forms of abuse (including sexual exploitation). 47. The CPT recommends that the existing procedures be reviewed in order to ensure that whenever injuries are recorded by a doctor which are consistent with allegations of inter-prisoner violence, the matter is immediately brought to the attention of the relevant prosecutor and a preliminary investigation is initiated by him. More generally, the CPT calls upon the Latvian authorities to develop strategies with a view to addressing the problem of inter-prisoner violence in the establishments visited (and, as appropriate, in other prisons in Latvia). 48. As regards the role of the Security Departments in Latvian prisons, the CPT has already expressed its serious misgivings in the report on the 2002 visit 13. The recommendations and comments made by the Committee were totally ignored by the Latvian authorities in their response to the above-mentioned report. Members of the Security Departments still fulfilled custodial and criminal investigative tasks, the latter covering both instances of ill-treatment by staff and inter-prisoner violence. 49. Whenever there were indications of possible ill-treatment by staff, members of the Security Department carried out criminal investigations, initially on their own and, subsequently, under the supervision of the competent prosecutor. In serious cases, the General Inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice may also be involved. Only in special cases of misconduct (e.g. corruption, smuggling of drugs, etc.), were criminal investigations conducted by the police (under the supervision of the competent 6
prosecutor). It is clear that any investigations carried out by officers of the Security Department against other members of staff of the same establishment may be compromised as not being independent and impartial. As already described in paragraph 46, instances of inter-prisoner violence were also usually investigated by members of the establishment.s Security Department. One of the consequences was that members of the Security Department were placed in the position of making a judgement on their own activities (e.g. whether appropriate steps had been taken by an individual officer to protect the victim of inter-prisoner violence in a given case). In this connection it should be noted that Security Departments had the exclusive decision-making power on the placement of prisoners within the prison and, in exercising their powers, the Security Departments were de facto independent from the prison administration (and the Prison Director). The fact that, during both the 2002 and 2004 visits, a number of prisoners - interviewed separately by the delegation - complained about psychological pressure exerted upon them by members of the Security Departments (see paragraph 42) indicates that the present situation is clearly detrimental to the protection of prisoners against ill-treatment (including inter-prisoner violence) and lends itself to abuse. 50. In the light of the above, the CPT calls upon the Latvian authorities to take immediate steps to review throughout the prison system the role played by the Security Departments, in the light of the remarks made above as well as in paragraphs 130 to 132 of the report on the 2002 visit. In particular, steps should be taken to ensure that: - criminal investigations into instances of ill-treatment by staff as well as inter-prisoner violence are no longer carried out by the Security Departments. Such investigations should be conducted by a body which is independent of the establishment concerned, and preferably of the prison system as a whole. - prisoners are allocated/transferred to cells under the responsibility of the Director of the establishment concerned. 4) Report to the Latvian Government on the visit to Latvia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 27 November to 7 December 2007 Strasbourg, 15 December 2009 38. At Jēkabpils Prison, the delegation received many consistent and credible allegations of deliberate physical ill-treatment (including excessive use of force) by prison officers. The forms of alleged ill-treatment consisted mostly of punches, kicks and blows with objects such as batons (including on the heels). 39. Another serious allegation of ill-treatment was made by a prisoner who claimed that he had been the subject of sexual abuse by a senior officer who had fondled his genitals and then urinated on his bare buttocks. 7
40. In the CPT s view, the maintenance of order and discipline should be the exclusive task of staff and not prisoners. The CPT recommends that the system of delegation of powers to certain prisoners be abolished at Jēkabpils Prison and in any other prisons in Latvia where it exists. Further, steps should be taken to ensure adequate supervision of prisoners in dormitories by prison officers. 41. To sum up, the delegation gained the distinct impression that the management of Jēkabpils Prison had failed to provide for the most basic requirement of prisoners: a safe environment. The prison was run with parallel systems of intimidation and violence: one was organised by the prisoners themselves with a tiered hierarchy controlled by bosses, with the support of the internal security division, with prisoners considered as untouchable receiving the brunt of the humiliation and forced to work for other prisoners, amounting to a form of slavery; the other was instigated by the prison staff, using transfer to the cell block as a form of intimidation associated with regular beatings by prison officers25. Thus, inhuman treatment had apparently been institutionalised and had become an integral element in the running of this prison (see also paragraph 88). 43. Numerous allegations of physical ill-treatment and verbal abuse by prison officers were also heard from prisoners at Cēsis Correctional Centre. Certain officers (including two members of the establishment s security division) were repeatedly described as sadistic, apparently not only resorting to various forms of corporal punishment for any misbehaviour but even ill-treating juveniles just for fun, as some juveniles put it. Indeed, several prisoners, interviewed separately, gave very similar and consistent accounts of the manner in which they had been ill-treated in the holding area of the administration building (e.g. reference was made to punches to the kidneys). The CPT recommends that the management at Cēsis Correctional Centre be instructed to remind their staff that all forms of ill-treatment of prisoners (including verbal abuse) are not acceptable and will be the subject of severe sanctions. 5) Report to the Latvian Government on the visit to Latvia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 3 to 8 December 2009 Strasbourg, 19 July 87. In all the establishments visited, the delegation was informed that the management was affected by the general problem faced by the prison administration to fill vacant posts of prison officers (due to the lack of suitable candidates). As a result, it was on occasion necessary to recruit persons who had received no training for working as prison officer. 8
The CPT encourages the Latvian authorities to pursue their efforts to recruit qualified custodial staff in the prison system. Steps should also be taken to ensure that all prison officers benefit from adequate initial and ongoing training. 96. In the reports on the 2002 and 2004 visits50, the CPT expressed its serious concern about the role of the Security Departments in Latvian prisons. Officers of these departments fulfilled bothcustodial and criminal investigative tasks (including the taking of confessions in relation to criminal offences committed by prisoners outside the prison). Moreover, security officers had the exclusive decision-making power on the placement of prisoners within the prison and were, in exercising their powers, de facto independent from the prison administration (including from the prison governor) (2002 un 2004 ziņojumos, CPT pauda nopietnas bažas par lomu, kas atvēlēta drošības dienestiem Latvijas cietumos. Šīs struktūrvienības virsnieki pilda gan brīvības atņemšanas, gan kriminālās izmeklēšanas uzdevumiem (ieskaitot ieslodzīto atzīšanos saistībā ar noziedzīgiem nodarījumiem, ko ieslodzītie izdarījuši ārpus cietuma). Turklāt, drošības darbiniekiem bija ekskluzīvas lēmumu pieņemšanas tiesības par ieslodzīto izvietošanu cietumā, izmantojot savas pilnvaras `de facto` neatkarīgi no cietuma administrācijas pārstāvjiem (arī no cietuma priekšnieka). It is evident that such a state of affairs not only leads to potential conflicts of interests but also jeopardises the benefits of the transfer of the responsibility for the prison system from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice. (acīmredzams, ka šāda situācija rada ne tikai potenciālu bāzi interešu konfliktiem, bet arī apdraud tās priekšrocības, kas bija par cietuma sistēmas nodošanai no Iekšlietu ministrijas uz Tieslietu ministriju). 97. The CPT noted that, following the 2004 visit, the former Security Departments had been split into two separate entities, a security division (which reports directly to the prison governor) and an investigation division (which is subordinated to the deputy governor responsible for internal security). In several of the prisons visited, the delegation had consultations with officers of both divisions. From these consultations it became apparent that the recent restructuring had indeed brought about certain improvements. In particular, the separation of custodial and investigative tasks has significantly reduced the risk of conflicts of interest when taking decisions on the allocation/transfer of prisoners. Further, placement decisions are now taken under the responsibility of the prison governor. That said, two major deficiencies still persist, despite the specific recommendations made by the Committee after the two previous visits. Firstly, it was still common practice for prison officers (now members of the establishments security division) to investigate criminal offences committed by prisoners (whether sentenced or on remand) outside the prison, to interrogate them and collect evidence, such as confessions, before transferring them, for further questioning, to the police51. Whenever statements were taken the prison governor was informed and a record was kept in a special logbook. Secondly, prison officers (now members of the establishments investigation division) still carried out criminal investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by staff, initially on their own, and, subsequently, under the supervision of the competent prosecutor. The CPT wishes to recall once again that any investigations carried out by prison officers against other members of staff of the same establishment may be compromised as not being independent and impartial. 9
The Committee calls upon the Latvian authorities to take immediate steps in the entire prison system to ensure that: - officers of security divisions no longer investigate criminal offences committed by prisoners outside the prison and no longer take statements from prisoners in relation to such offences; - officers of investigation divisions no longer carry out criminal investigations into alleged instances of ill-treatment by staff. Such investigations should be conducted by a body which is independent of the establishment concerned, and preferably of the prison system as a whole. 6) Strasbourg, 19.09.11 A delegation of the Council of Europe s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) carried out a periodic visit to Latvia from 5 to 15 September. We have no Report about visit this year () yet. 10