Prison System

Prison is a term describing a building in which people are legally held as a punishment for a
crime they have committed or while awaiting trial1.It is an imortant part of the criminal justice system
in every country because of plays a crucial role in upoholding the rule of law. At best prisons should be
able to offer a humane experience with opportunies for prisoners to obtain assistance and help with
rehabilitation. At their worst prisons can be sites of appalling suffering, incubators of disease from
which prisoners return to society poorly equipped to respect the law. Unfortunately, the experience
of many prisoners – perhaps the majoriy – continues routinely to involve often gross violation of basic
human rights.

In addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the administration of prisons is

subject to a range of traties, including the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights and the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Teatment or Punishment, as well
as other international standards and norms. These instruments make it clear that while prisoners lose
their right to freedom of movement they keep their rights as human beings when they are in detention.
They must not be trated in an inhuman or degrading way. International standards forbid all forms of
torture.

There are roughly 10.1 million people formally imprisoned worldwide, according to the latest
estimates by the International Centre for Prison Studies’ World Prison Brief. There are many others
who are either detained in military detention facilities, held in some form of administrative detention,
or detained by police and other security forces with little or no legal process.

There are three broad categories of human rights and humanitarian concerns regarding
persons held in detention: 1) unsafe prison conditions, including overcrowding, poor sanitation,
inadequate access to food or potable drinking water, and poor medical care, including inadequate
services for people with disabilities; 2) mistreatment of prisoners by prison staff or other authorities;
and 3) inadequate legal protections leading to prisoners’ incarceration, as well as failure to respect the
right to legal redress while in prison.

A majority of the world’s prison systems do not function at the level of the United Nations’
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. In some countries, relevant international
obligations and standards are deliberately disregarded.

Prison Overcrowding

Overcrowding is a central problem in prison management around the globe. In Ukraine, for
instance, overcrowded conditions in at least one detention facility compelled detainees to sleep in
shifts in 2012. In Eritrea, severe overcrowding in regular prisons resulted in people being held in
irregular facilities, including unventilated shipping containers or crowded basements without
ventilation or sanitation. And in Sri Lanka, it is estimated that the prison system routinely houses
approximately three times its capacity.

For many countries, overcrowded facilities are symptomatic of broader issues, such as
overwhelmed and inefficient justice systems, untrained and corrupt law enforcement officials, or
mismanaged and underpaid prison staffing. For example, many prisons in Central America are under

1
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prison
the supervision of the military or local national police force – organizations which generally lack
expertise in prison operations and management. As a result, some corrections systems are devoid of
competent managers; lack standard operating procedures or are unable to implement them; and often
demonstrate little-to-no commitment to staff training, development, and treatment.

In Serbia, there were more than 11,000 prisoners in a system designed for 6,500 and poor
sanitation was a problem in many facilities. There were some reports of physical abuse of detainees in
police custody as well as by prison guards in some locations. In Chad, Amnesty International described
prison conditions generally as “so deplorable that they amount to cruel, inhuman, and degrading
treatment or punishment.” Additionally, regional detention centers had a very limited budget for food
and provided few meals for inmates. Prison guards were not regularly paid and sometimes “released”
prisoners who offered compensation in return.

The acute and widespread challenges posed by overcrowded prisons around the world often
lead to other serious problems. Overcrowded prisons are more likely to be unsanitary, violent, difficult
to control, and difficult to administer. In South Sudan, despite efforts by the prison service, limited
resources and judicial capacity led to harsh, overcrowded, and life threatening prison and detention
center conditions that resulted in illness and death.

Even in countries in Western Europe with relatively greater resources such as Italy, Ireland,
Belgium and France, prison overcrowding continues to be a problem. In Italy, for example, in 2012,
66,529 inmates were held in 206 prisons designed to hold 47,048 people. The United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has called prison overcrowding “the most worrying emergency that the
Italian penitentiary system has to deal with.” In a recent Chamber decision the European Court of
Human Rights ruled that overcrowded prisons violated the prohibition of torture and inhuman or
degrading treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mistreatment of Prisoners

The deliberate physical, psychological, and sexual mistreatment of inmates by prison officials
is also a persistent and pervasive issue of concern. In many cases, these abuses occur in police stations,
on military bases, or in pretrial detention facilities. Pre-trial detainees are often at greatest risk of being
mistreated, according to the Open Society Foundation because they are often under the sole control
of the detaining authorities, who may “perceive torture and other forms of ill-treatment as the easiest
and fastest way to obtain information or extract a confession.”

Transparency regarding pre-trial detention practices, tracking of detainees, and regular

outside monitoring are important to the prevention of mistreatment at this vital stage of custody.
Immediate and regular access to family and legal counsel are also important as protective measures.

In addition, abusive authorities often intimidate or degrade prisoners as a technique to exert

control over or punish political prisoners. In North Korea, political detainees are routinely subjected to
systematic physical and psychological mistreatment. According to numerous defector accounts and
NGO reports, prisoners experience severe beatings, electric shock, public nakedness, confinement in
small immobile cells, and the coercion of mothers to watch infanticide of their newborns. In Syria,
activists cited hundreds of credible cases of security forces allegedly abusing and torturing prisoners
and detainees during 2012. Human Rights Watch reported the government held tens of thousands of
protestors and activists on whom it inflicted beatings, electric shocks, and other abuse.
 Inadequate Legal Process

Inadequate Legal Process Prisoners are often denied the minimum legal protections and legal
process guarantees in the three phases of their detention or imprisonment: in the pre-trial phase; at
trial; and in the post-conviction stage while they serve their sentences.

Globally, detainees also experience a wide range of due process shortcomings during trial. In
Cuba, for instance, despite the fact that the law presumes defendants to be innocent until proven
guilty, authorities often place the burden on the defendant to prove innocence rather than on the
prosecution to prove guilt. Many detainees, especially those accused of political crimes, report their
attorneys have difficulties accessing their files due to bureaucratic and administrative obstacles.

In Vietnam, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) controls the courts at all levels and in many
cases it determines verdicts. Political influence, endemic corruption, and inefficiency distort the
judicial system and prison sentences. The party’s influence is particularly notable in high-profile cases
and other instances in which authorities charged a person with challenging or harming the party or
state. In Iran, the UN Human Rights Council and various human rights groups, including Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters without Borders (RSF), frequently condemn trials
that disregard international standards of fairness. The government often charges individuals with
vague crimes such as Report on International Prison Conditions United States Department of State
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor “antirevolutionary behavior,” “moral corruption,”
“siding with global arrogance,” and “crimes against Islam.” Secret or summary trials of only five-minute
duration frequently occur.

In conclusion, the problems faced by persons in detention are expansive in both their nature
and geography. They range from inadequately resourced detention facilities to intentional and
calculated acts of mistreatment by repressive governments. They are found in developed as well as
developing countries around the world. Yet the precise nature of the challenges is specific to each
country.

Bibliography
1. http://justiceandprisons.org/?page_id=5023
2. https://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PRI-Prisons-global-trends-
report-LR.pdf
3. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/210160.pdf
4. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-
statistics/International_Statistics_on_Crime_and_Justice.pdf
 The case of Vartic v. Romania (2013)

Procedure

The case originated in an application against Romania by a Moldovan national, Mr

Ghennadii Vartic in 2008.
The applicant alleged that while in detention in Rahova Prison he was provided neither with
vegetarian food as required by his Buddhist convictions nor with adequate medical treatment.

The facts

In 1999 the applicant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. He served his sentence
in various Romanian prisons.
In 2006 the applicant was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C by doctors at Colentina
Hospital. Dr S. A., a specialist in internal medicine, recommended further investigations. After
a full medical examination, Dr. V. R., a gastroenterologist, made the same recommendation
and held that the applicant could receive treatment while in detention.
From 2006 onwards the applicant requested the Rahova Prison authorities and the
National Prison Service to provide him with a vegetarian diet in accordance with his Buddhist
beliefs. He also claimed that this type of diet was the most appropriate for a person with
hepatitis.
In 2007 Dr P. M. O., a general practitioner in Rahova Prison, made the following written
note on one of the applicant’s request forms: “Is registered with chronic hepatitis type C.
Propose to approve.”
The Rahova prison authorities informed the applicant that the relevant legislation did not
provide for a vegetarian diet. They noted however that a Christian Orthodox fasting diet that
excluded food of animal origin (no.17) was provided for and that detainees could apply for
this type of diet.
The applicant was provided with the diet for detainees who were ill. The parties submitted
several menus for this type of diet; these menus included pork.
According to the information submitted by the parties, seventeen types of diet were
provided for; they each took into consideration the detainees’ age, sex, medical condition or
availability for work. With the exception of diet no. 17, none took into consideration religious
requirements.

In his first complaint the applicant claimed, among other things, that he had recived
discriminatory treatment in respect of the dietary requirements of his religious beliefs. He also
alleged that the prison authorities had failed to treat him with Interferon, as prescribed by the
specialist doctors.
The judge noted that the prison authorities had contacted the “Group for Buddhist
Meditation” for information regarding the dietary requirements of this faith, and were open
to accommodating the applicant’s dietary requirements. With respect to the medical
treatment, the judge held that, according to the applicant’s medical report, he had received
the medication prescribed by the doctors. The judge also noted that in February 2007 the
applicant had refused a medical examination and that he had been offered a fresh
examination in a public hospital in order for him to be diagnosed and receive treatment
recommendations. Consequently, the judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-
founded.
The applicant appealed before the Bucharest District Court. He argued that the prison
authorities had failed to provide him with a vegetarian diet on the ground that it was not
available under the regulations and that the Christian fasting diet provided only 2,000 calories,
while he was prescribed a 3,175-calorie diet for his medical condition. He also alleged that he
had not received treatment with Interferon.
The Bucharest District Court dismissed his complaint as ill-founded on 6 August 2007.

European Court of Human Rights

The applicant complained that by refusing to provide him with the vegetarian diet required
by his Buddhist convictions, the prison authorities had infringed his right to manifest his
religion as provided in Article 9 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private,
to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed
by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public
order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

In the instant case, the Court takes the view that the applicant attached high importance to
his complaint that he was not being provided with food in accordance with the requirements
of his religion. As regards the subject matter of his complaint, the Court finds that the nature
of the issues raised in the present complaint gives rise to an important matter of principle.

The applicant argued that he had never declared himself as Christian Orthodox. He was born
in the former USSR, where christening children was not a common practice. He was raised as
an atheist and embraced the Buddhist faith later in life. In detention, he relied on the
vegetarian food his family sent him by post, but after the adoption of the Minister of Justice’s
order no. 3042/2007 he could no longer receive parcels by post. His family had difficulty
travelling to the prison regularly. When he was refused a vegetarian diet by the prison
authorities he adopted a diet of bread and margarine and sometimes marmalade. He
maintained that the Rahova prison authorities’ failure to provide him with a vegetarian diet
amounted to a violation of his freedom of religion.

The Government argued that the applicant appeared as Orthodox in the Rahova Prison
documents. Following an audit, the prison authorities in Rahova found that some detainees
changed their religion in order to receive better food: the authorities consequently required
detainees to provide written proof of their religion. The applicant did not submit such written
proof, and he was provided with food which was adequate for his health; his diet excluded
pork, but contained lean meat. The Government indicated that general medical opinion held
 that a vegetarian diet was not suitable for persons with hepatitis. They concluded that this
complaint was manifestly ill-founded.

THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Declares the complaint concerning the freedom of religion admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention;

3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date
on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect
of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 200 (two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;