The Electronic Newsletter of the International Centre for Prison Studies Number 1 January 2005 Welcome to the first issue of Human Rights and Prison Management, an electronic newsletter which is intended to complement the handbook A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management. If you do not already have a copy of the Handbook it is available in English and nine other languages and can be downloaded free of charge as a pdf file in several languages from the ICPS website, www.prisonstudies.org. We are grateful to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the government of the United Kingdom for financing the production of this newsletter.

------------------------------------------------- Contents In the course of our work with the Handbook many people have asked for help in understanding what the international standards for the treatment of prisoners really mean. How big should a cell be? How much access to natural light is adequate as a minimum? In this first edition of the Newsletter we focus on the judicial and monitoring processes which are helping to define the detail of human rights standards in prison management.

Click on a title to go directly to the article IntroductionA message from the Director A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management“…an immensely practical resource that has the potential to meet the needs of prison managers at the same time that it addresses the concerns of prison reformers” Launching the HandbookTo date about 70,000 copies of the Handbook have been printed in ten languages …

International Standards – what do they really mean?An introduction to regional monitoring and judicial bodies

United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or PunishmentOn 15th November 2004 Argentina became the sixth country to ratify the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture … Regional Courts

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights European Court of Human Rights Inter-American Court of Human Rights National Courts Regional Monitoring Mechanisms Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (CPT)

National Monitoring Mechanisms National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) Indian National Human Rights Commission La Defensoría del Pueblo and Procuraduría (Colombia)

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons (England and Wales) Forthcoming Issues

---------------------------------------------------

Introduction Introduction I am delighted to introduce the first issue of the newsletter Human Rights and Prison Management.

I am delighted to introduce the first issue of the newsletter Human Rights and Prison Management. The Handbook A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management, which was first published by the International Centre for Prison Studies in 2002, is now available in ten languages. It has become a primary reference text for prison administrators and prison staff who wish to use the international human rights standards as the basis for managing prisons in a decent and humane manner.

The Handbook A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management, which was first published by the International Centre for Prison Studies in 2002, is now available in ten languages. It has become a primary reference text for prison administrators and prison staff who wish to use the international human rights standards as the basis for managing prisons in a decent and humane manner. P

P P rofessor Andrew Coyle ew Coyle hotograph © David McHugh hotograph © David McHugh

Over the last two years we have received many messages from prison staff and others who have found the principles in the handbook very useful as a context for the way they do their work. Many of them have asked for more information about how to transfer these principles into the detailed work they do every day. They also regularly ask us to provide examples of good practice from around the world. There is clearly a demand for updated information on a regular basis about how to manage prisons within a human rights context. This newsletter is intended to meet that demand.

Over the last two years we have received many messages from prison staff and others who have found the principles in the handbook very useful as a context for the way they do their work. Many of them have asked for more information about how to transfer these principles into the detailed work they do every day. They also regularly ask us to provide examples of good practice from around the world. There is clearly a demand for updated information on a regular basis about how to manage prisons within a human rights context. This newsletter is intended to meet that demand. It will be published approximately four times each year in an interactive format: It will be published approximately four times each year in an interactive format:

- It will be published in a dedicated section of the ICPS website www.prisonstudies.org

- It will be published in a dedicated section of the ICPS website www.prisonstudies.org

- As each issue is published, a message will be sent electronically to the extensive database of individuals and agencies who have already received the handbook, a large number of whom are in continuing contact with ICPS.

- Each issue will develop one of the main themes covered in the handbook. It will respond to questions and issues raised by users of the handbook.

- The themes to be dealt with in each issue will be publicised in advance and readers will be invited to submit specific queries and comments for inclusion.

- The newsletter will be published in English as well as Russian and Spanish.

We will welcome personal contact with readers, suggesting issues to be covered and providing information to be included. Details of how to contact us are given at the end of the newsletter. In addition to providing an overview of the handbook A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management and reaction to it, this first issue of the newsletter takes a look at some mechanisms for ensuring that international standards relating to imprisonment are implemented. Enjoy a fruitful read. Professor Andrew Coyle Back to Contents

----------------------------------------------------- A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management The two main aims of the International Centre for Prison Studies are: • To develop a body of knowledge, based on international human rights covenants

and instruments, about the principles on which the use of imprisonment should be based, which can be used as a sound basis for policies on prison issues.

• To build up a resource network for the spread of best practice in prison management around the world to which prison administrators can turn for practical advice on how to manage prison systems which are just, decent, humane and cost effective.

In fulfilment of these aims ICPS undertakes a wide variety of international projects to do with prison reform. It is possible to develop a variety of models for prison management. At ICPS we are convinced that the best model is that which is developed with a context of human rights. We have been drawn to this conclusion for two reasons. The first is a matter of principle. The human rights model can be applied in all countries and cultures. It is not one which is based on a European or an American model of imprisonment, nor on an African or an Asian model. The international human rights standards have been universally agreed. Most of them have been drawn up and approved by the United Nations and are based on a series of principles which have been agreed by all countries. All democratic governments will wish to adhere to these principles. The second reason that we recommend this form of prison management is that it works. It is a proper and effective way to manage prisons. ICPS has used the human rights model of prison management as a training tool for prison staff and as an aid for strategic management in prison systems around the world and the reaction from prison staff has always been positive. They have always said, “Yes, this approach is relevant to the daily work that we do in prisons and to the way we treat prisoners”. And in many cases, in countries as far apart as Chile and Kazakhstan, there is clear evidence that the implementation of this form of management improves both the professionalism of staff and the treatment of prisoners.

In the course of our work we became aware that there was an absence of good source material to which prison managers and prison reformers could refer. Time and again, we were told by our international partners that they wanted to ensure that prisons were managed in a humane and professional way but that they needed to know more about the principles which would allow them to do this. They also wanted to know how other countries were tackling the problems which they faced and to learn about examples of good practice. In an attempt to help fill this gap ICPS regularly publishes material about prison and human rights in several languages. Our most important publication is A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management: Handbook for prison staff, which was originally published in English in November 2002. Since then it has been translated into a further nine languages and is beginning to be seen around the world as an important tool both in setting a framework of human rights and in defining a curriculum for training staff who work in prisons. The handbook is now available in Arabic, Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese, English, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Serbo-Croat, Latin-American Spanish and Turkish. Several of these translations can be downloaded free of charge from the ICPS website as pdf files. In some cases the files are too big to download easily and the files are available on CD-ROM from the ICPS office. The translations into Brazilian Portuguese, Korean and Japanese were commissioned by the countries themselves with a view to using the handbook in training their prison staff. The handbook was not intended to be the final word on the subject and since its publication ICPS has received many enquiries seeking further information on the topics it covers. This newsletter will attempt to address those issues and to keep the information on standards and examples of international practice up-to-date. For this reason comments and questions from readers will be most welcome. We particularly invite comments linked to the forthcoming newsletter themes. Back to Contents

What people said about the Handbook This is an immensely practical resource that has the potential to meet the needs of prison managers at the same time that it addresses the concerns of prison reformers. Every prison administrator in this country should have a copy on his/her desk, should review policies and practices in light of the handbook, and should reconsider their training programs to ensure that the concept of human rights infuses every aspect of the curriculum. Correctional Law Reporter, USA The Handbook is going to be a very useful reference tool given the studies of prevailing prison conditions being undertaken in the Africa region within the Institute’s programme work. Director, United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders It came at the right time when we were assessing our monitoring project in Pre-trial detention centres. We will use it as an example/guide to do the next round of monitoring… to evaluate the conditions in detention facilities. Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia This new manual is of great importance because of its technical and professional standing. It has arrived at just the right time to help us to increase the training in our academy and also to help us in reforming penal law in Uruguay. National Director of Prisons in Uruguay

Launching the Handbook To date about 70,000 copies of the Handbook have been printed in ten languages. In a number of countries there have been official events to launch A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management. Brazil Prisons in Brazil are administered by state governments. The federal Ministry of Justice printed 35,000 copies of the handbook for distribution to prison staff in all states. The publication of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the handbook was marked by an event in Brasilia in March 2004 attended by the Minister of Justice, the National Secretary of Justice and the UK Deputy Ambassador. Since then, most of the 27 states have arranged to hold launches before distributing copies of the handbook to their prison staff and a number have also produced CD-ROMS. In the largest of the states, São Paulo, a 10-hour training course is being planned for 15,500 staff, based on the manual and how to implement it. South Korea The government of the Republic of Korea has made a commitment to reduce the use of imprisonment. One practical expression of this commitment has been government support for the translation into Korean of the handbook. This was formally launched at a seminar in Seoul in September 2004 which was attended by around 100 people, including senior prisons personnel, officials of the Corrections Society, human rights activists and the media. Copies of the handbook have been distributed to all the country’s prisons. Japan Historically Japan has always had a low rate of imprisonment but this is now increasing sharply. In 1998 there were just over 50,000 prisoners; by 2002 this had risen to 65,000. In September 2004 it stood at 76,000 and was rising by 1,000 per month. Until recently prisons were largely closed to any outside influence. This has begun to change. Over the last two years there has been a slowly developing rapport between the Ministry of Justice and bodies such as the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA), which has for many years been one of the most active groups in the campaign for prison reform. One of the vehicles used by the Ministry for this discussion has been the semi-official Japan Correctional Association, which arranged for the translation and publication of the handbook in Japanese. This took place in Tokyo in September 2004 as part of a day long public symposium on prison reform, which was attended by over 100 persons and attracted considerable media attention. Representatives of the Ministry of Justice took and active part in the symposium, apparently the first time they had ever taken part in a major public event of this nature. In response to the various questions and suggestions, Tomiyama Satoshi, one of the panellists at the symposium and an official of the Justice Ministry's Correction

Bureau, outlined a set of proposals on prison reform put forth by the Correctional Policy Reform Committee, a special task force of the Justice Ministry formed in 2003. First, he said, the system must be reformed to ensure prisoners are rehabilitated and efforts are truly made to aid their return to society. Second, prison staff reforms are needed, including an increase in their numbers, and maybe eventual private-sector involvement in management. And third, a more transparent correctional policy is needed whereby more information is made open to the public. The Japan Times: Sept. 8, 2004 China Not surprisingly given its total population, China has one of the largest prison populations in the world, although its rate of imprisonment is relatively low. The prison authorities have shown an interest in the Chinese version of the handbook and the opportunity was taken to launch this by means of a seminar on human rights and prison management organised by the Correctional Services Department of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in August 2004. Several intergovernmental organisations have assisted in disseminating the handbooks through their networks. United Nations The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime distributed copies in all available languages to the representatives of member states attending the 13th session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Vienna in May 2004. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has distributed copies in several regions. The OHCHR Field Office in Colombia organised a two day high level seminar in Bogotá in October 2004 with the handbook as its theme. The United Nations Latin American Institute in Costa Rica has been involved in circulating copies to all its member states. Council of Europe In November 2002 the Council of Europe distributed copies to all those attending the 13th meeting of the Directors of Prison Administration in all Council of Europe member states. Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights has used the handbook extensively in the Trans Caucasus. Back to Content

International Standards – what do they really mean? An introduction to regional monitoring and judicial bodies The Handbook sets out the framework of international standards and covenants which are relevant to the management of prisons. Those international standards have their origin in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the main international instruments which flow from it, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Each of these two main instruments is legally binding on all states which have ratified or acceded to them and they both contain references to the treatment of persons who are deprived of their liberty. There are also regional treaties, such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Those broad principles are further elaborated through more specific and more detailed guidelines set out in, for example, the United Nations’ Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. At a regional level those international standards are supplemented through regional instruments such as the European Prison Rules. In order to gain a clearer picture of what might be implied in practice by the principles set out in these international instruments we need to look to the work of the regional judicial and monitoring bodies whose judgements and reports provide increasingly detailed guidance as to what may constitute an acceptable minimum standard. Those judicial bodies include, in the Americas, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and, in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has just recently achieved the necessary number of ratifications and is now in the process of appointing its first judges. Each of these judicial and monitoring bodies constitutes a useful reference point on the extent to which actual prison practice in individual countries meets international standards. The judicial bodies can only rule on the cases that are brought before them. The regional monitoring bodies, however, have a more pro-active role in examining the observance of human rights standards by individual countries. The most comprehensive model of a regional monitoring body is that established by the 46 countries which make up the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CPT) has a remit which authorises it to inspect and report on conditions of detention in any of the member states. Elsewhere, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has appointed a Special Rapporteur on Prison Conditions. It is important to note that the involvement of all of these judicial and monitoring bodies can be beneficial to prison staff. Any initiatives which raise standards in the prison environment will improve the working conditions and environment for staff. Back to Contents

United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment On 15th November 2004 Argentina became the sixth country to ratify the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Not only is it the first Latin American country to do so but it is also the first federal state worldwide to commit itself to the proposed UN inspection system. In December 2002 the United Nations took a major step towards establishing its own mechanism for monitoring the treatment of persons under any form of detention when it agreed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Article 1 of the Optional Protocol states that:

“The objective of the present Protocol is to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The full text of the Optional Protocol may be downloaded at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/opcat.htm. The Protocol will come into force once twenty countries have registered their instrument of ratification or accession to it with the UN Secretary General. There are 29 signatories to the Protocol; with the recent announcement from Argentina there are now six states which have ratified or acceded to it (Albania, Argentina, Denmark, Liberia, Malta and the United Kingdom). The current status of ratification of all UN Human Rights instruments may be viewed at http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/index.htm. Article 17 of the Optional Protocol further requires each State Party to establish national preventive mechanisms:

“Each State Party shall maintain, designate or establish, at the latest one year after the entry into force of the present Protocol or of its ratification or accession, one or several independent national preventive mechanisms for the prevention of torture at the domestic level.”

The Optional Protocol expects that these preventive monitoring agencies, both international and national, should be given unhindered access to all places of detention. Readers of this newsletter should encourage initiatives in their own countries to set up these national monitoring bodies and to ratify the Optional Protocol. Back to Contents

Regional Courts

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights The most recent of the regional Human Rights Courts to be established is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights which came into being on the 25th January 2004 when Comoros became the fifteenth State Party to ratify the Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Unlike the Inter-American and European Courts the African Court was not included in the original Charter (Banjul 1981) but was established as a result of the subsequent Protocol of 1998. Decisions on the location of the Court and the appointment of judges were originally due to be made at the Annual Summit of the Organisation of African Unity in July 2004. In the event, the assembly decided to defer these decisions to the next assembly meeting at the end of January 2005 pending further examination of the implications of its decision to integrate the Human Rights Court with the proposed African Court of Justice. There are fears that this will lead to further delays since the instrument establishing the court of justice has so far only received four of the 15 ratifications required to bring it into force. The final decision on the appointment of judges to the Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights was also deferred to allow time for more nominations to be made. States who have ratified the protocol, the African Commission On Human and Peoples’ Rights and certain recognised inter-governmental organisations are entitled to bring cases before the Court. In addition, Article 5(3) of the protocol provides limited rights for NGOs with observer status before the Commission and individuals to bring cases before the Court. Such cases will only be accepted, however, where the State Party has declared its acceptance of the competence of the Court to consider them either at the time of initial ratification or subsequently. Back to Contents

European Court of Human Rights The rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, together with the reports from the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), go some way towards providing a detailed interpretation of the generic standards contained in international covenants and rules, such as the UN Standard Minimum Rules. In recent years there have been a number of significant rulings from the Court indicating violations of six different articles of the European Convention on Human Rights by the prison administrations in various countries across Europe.

Several violations of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) provide a commentary on what constitutes acceptable conditions of detention. In 2001 the Court found that Greece had violated Article 3 by holding Donald Peers in a shared cell with no windows and no ventilation and in which he had to use the toilet in front of his cell-mate. The UK was also found to have violated Article 3 by holding Adele Price, a thalidomide victim with no arms or legs, for seven days in a cell which was not adapted in any way to her disabilities. A case against Denmark for holding a pre-trial prisoner (Rohde) in solitary confinement for almost a year was declared a violation in 2003. In a case concerning the length of time in pre-trial detention, the Czech Republic was found to be in violation of Article 5 (3) (right to liberty) by holding a prisoner in pre-trial detention for more than four years. Recently the Prison Service in England and Wales has had to change the way in which it conducts its disciplinary proceedings for prisoners because of a ruling from the European Court. In the case of two prisoners, Ezeh and Connors, the Court ruled that the UK had violated the right to a fair trial in cases where the prisoner governor had imposed a punishment of reducing the remission of sentence which the prisoners were entitled to expect. Since the ruling all disciplinary cases which might lead to a punishment of loss of remission are now referred to an independent adjudicator (judge). There have also been several recent rulings in the European Court regarding prisoners’ correspondence, both with family members and their legal representatives. In 2000 Italy was found to have breached Article 8 of the European Convention by restricting a prisoner’s correspondence whilst both France (1999) and the Netherlands (2002) have been found in violation of the same article by interfering with prisoners’ correspondence with their legal representatives and other agencies, including the European Commission on Human Rights. Back to Contents

Inter-American Court of Human Rights In November 2004 the Inter-American Court issued a provisional ruling ordering immediate action to protect the safety of prisoners in Mendoza State, Argentina. In the Americas the member states of the Organisation of American States have established two organs to ensure compliance with the commitments made by those member states who are party to the American Convention on Human Rights (‘Pact of San José”). They are the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. The latter was created in 1978 with the deposit of the eleventh instrument of ratification of the Convention. Unlike the European Court and, to a limited extent, the African Court, individuals have no right of direct access to the Inter-American Court. Under Article 61(1) of the

Convention “[o]nly the States Parties and the Commission shall have the right to submit a case to the Court.” Cases involving individuals can only be bought to the Court’s attention, therefore, where they are adopted by the Commission or a State Party. Most American states have agreed to recognise the jurisdiction of the Court as binding. A small number of countries have chosen only to consult the Court regarding the interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights and other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states. In extreme and urgent cases the Court can issue a provisional ruling ordering immediate remedial measures to be taken pending the outcome of its full deliberations. On 22nd November 2004 the Court issued such a provisional ruling with regard to a case concerning prison conditions in the state of Mendoza, Argentina, which had been brought to its attention by the Inter-American Commission. The Commission’s report drew attention to well-documented concerns over the levels of violence – including several deaths – during the year and the severe living conditions and lack of activity for prisoners. The Court ordered the State to take immediate action to protect the safety of prisoners and to report to the Court on the action which it takes. Back to Contents National Courts In many countries the rulings of the national courts also help to provide a more detailed interpretation of general human rights standards with regard to the treatment of prisoners, especially where those standards are incorporated into the constitution of the country. One example of this system may be found in many Latin American countries which have established a formal Constitutional Court. The relevant authorities (National Human Rights Institution, Defensoría or Procuraduría, for example) may apply to the Court if they feel that the treatment of prisoners constitutes a breach of the constitution or national legislation. These Courts provide a detailed interpretation of national legislation on prison administration. Back to Contents Regional Monitoring Mechanisms In addition to the regional courts of human rights, two regions, Africa and Europe, have also established monitoring mechanisms which look particularly at conditions of detention and their conformity with regional instruments.

Special Rapporteur on Prison Conditions (Africa) In 1996 the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights established the position of Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa. The Special Rapporteur is authorised to visit countries in order to obtain first hand information and to submit detailed reports on the conditions which he/she finds. Those Special Rapporteur’s observations, together with the comments of the government are then published in three of the four official languages of the African Union, English, French and Portuguese. Some of the reports are also published in Arabic. In the course of a country visit the Special Rapporteur may visit any place where people are imprisoned or detained. He/she will meet with the authorities of the country, the Heads of the Prison Service, human rights non-governmental organisations and representatives of civil society. He/she also has confidential interviews with prisoners and discussions with prison staff and officials. As well as submitting a formal report for publication, the Special Rapporteur may make a number of on-the-spot recommendations on the most pressing problems. In a recent report on conditions in Malawi (published in 2002) the Special Rapporteur commented favourably on the work of the National Inspectorate of Prisons, the use of para-legals, the development of prison farms and the involvement of civil society and NGOs. The report expressed serious concerns, however, about a number of other issues, in particular the high levels of overcrowding, allegations of corruption and ill-treatment and the abuses arising from a failure to separate adult and juvenile prisoners.. Many of the reports of the Special Rapporteur can be downloaded from the website of Penal Reform International at www.penalreform.org/english/theme_rs.htm#reports.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (CPT) The reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) generally represent a good source of guidance on the practical application of international standards in prison conditions. Taking as an example the amount of living space per prisoner, the CPT has tended to conclude latterly that a cell of 8 or 9 square metres is appropriate for single occupancy. Where toilet facilities are located in the cell the CPT recommends that these should be adequately screened, especially where cells are occupied by more than one person. Although the findings of the CPT may sometimes be challenged or rejected by governments it can also produce immediate changes through the ‘on-the-spot’ requests that it may issue at the time of its visit. As an example, the directors of the pre-trial prison at Toulon in France responded immediately to CPT concerns about

hygiene, expressed during their visit in June 2003, by arranging the distribution of cleaning materials to all cells and taking action to deal with an infestation by insects1. Many of the CPT’s reports, and government responses to them, can be downloaded in English and French from the CPT website: www.cpt.coe.int. Some materials are also available in Russian and Spanish. Back to Contents

National Monitoring Mechanisms In addition to the regional monitoring mechanisms there is also a developing network of national human rights institutions and commissions. We give below examples of the work of two of these commissions, in Korea and in India, together with examples of the work of the Defensoría del Pueblo and the Procuraduría in Colombia. There are many different models with differing terms of reference. In South America, in particular, they tend generally to be referred to as Defensoría (or Defensor) del Pueblo whereas elsewhere they are usually known as National Human Rights Institutions or Commissions. The National Human Rights Institutions Forum (NHRI) currently lists almost 100 national organisations recognized as functioning in this capacity. As well as their national work the Institutions have begun to come together on a regional and international basis to look at issues of common interest. In October 2004 the African National Human Rights Institutions held their first conference in Addis Ababa. In her address to the Seventh International Conference of National Institutions, held in Korea in September, Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, encouraged the development of partnerships with other actors, such as NGOs. She also welcomed the fact that for the first time NGOs were invited to participate in this conference. Further information on the work of all of these groups, both regional and national, may be found on the website of the National Human Rights Institutions Forum at http://www.nhri.net/. The site also has French and Spanish language versions.

1 CPT/Inf (2004) 6, Rapport au Gouvernement de la République française relatif à la visite effectuée en France par le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT), du 11 au 17 juin 2003

National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) The Government of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) formally established a National Human Rights Commission in November 2001, marking a big step forward in guaranteeing human rights in the republic. The Commission formally began its work in April 2002 under the Presidency of Kim Chang-kuk. The terms of reference of the Commission allow it to enter any place of detention in order to investigate cases brought to its attention. Where it considers that a case is urgent it has the right to demand action to provide immediate relief pending its formal decision. In its first year of operation the Commission dealt with more than 2,800 complaints alleging violations of human rights of which 1,113 concerned the correctional services. The major grounds of complaint raised by those in detention included abuse of punishment, cruel treatment, improper medical treatment, restriction on sending letters or writing, and the use of abusive language by prison guards. A further 839 complaints concerned the police, many alleging illegal detention. In September 2004 the Republic of Korea hosted the Seventh International Conference of National Human Rights Institutions, which, for the first time, invited NGOs to attend. During her visit to address the Conference the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, described South Korea’s efforts to address human rights issues as a role model for Asia. The website for the National Human Rights Commission may be found at: www.humanrights.go.kr/eng/index.jsp Back to Contents Indian National Human Rights Commission A good, established example of a National Human Rights Commission is that which operates in India as a result of the 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act. The Act gives the Commission the power to “…visit, under intimation to the State Government, any jail or any other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection to study the living conditions of the inmates and make recommendations thereon”. In carrying out their investigations the Commission may call for documents or reports from the Central Government or any State Government or authority and may interview anyone it considers necessary. The Human Rights Commission has been particularly active in investigating the treatment of persons held either in prison or police custody and they have requested immediate action to correct a number of abuses. Amongst their specific concerns is the situation of pre-trial prisoners who constitute a high proportion of the prison

population. The Commission has insisted on strict adherence to Supreme Court rulings aimed at preventing excessive periods of pre-trial detention. One of the earliest, important steps taken by the Human Rights Commission was to establish a sound procedure for reporting and investigating deaths and rapes in custody, which includes a requirement for all such incidents to be reported to the Commission within 24 hours. More recently the Commission has been concerned at the treatment of mentally ill prisoners. In addition to the National Human Rights Commission India also has a network of State HR Commissions. Further information on the work of the Indian National Human Rights Commission may be found on its website: http://www.nhrc.nic.in/ Back to Contents La Defensoría del Pueblo and Procuraduría (Colombia) In many countries (particularly in South and Central America) the official bodies dealing with human rights issues are generally known as Defensoría del Pueblo or Ombudsman. In Colombia the Defensoría has staff who deal specifically with prison issues. They have the authority to enter prisons, to speak confidentially with prisoners and staff, and to report on their findings to the relevant authorities. The Procuradoría has produced a number of reports commenting on conditions of detention, notably its reports on the effects of overcrowding and the excessive use of solitary confinement. Back to Contents

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons (England and Wales) Some countries have also developed formal systems of prison inspection which are independent of the prison administration. One of the best examples of this is the system in use in England and Wales. The English inspectorate has the authority to visit any prison at any time either to carry out routine inspections or to look at matters of particular concern. Although they cannot demand changes they have considerable influence because their reports are made available to the public. The reports can be downloaded at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/prisons/inspprisons/inspection.html. As well as reports on individual prisons the inspectorate also produces thematic reports from time to time. These have included reports on Women in Prison,

Suicide, Juveniles in Custody and the Treatment and Conditions for Unsentenced Prisoners. The reports on these thematic reviews can also be downloaded from the HMCIP website. Back to Contents

Forthcoming issues The next two issues of Human Rights and Prison Management will focus on:

• Administration and Personnel (including staff training) • Healthcare in Prisons

We very much welcome your comments and contributions on these and any other issues. We expect to send out the Newsletter on Administration and Personnel in March 2005. If you have any contributions or suggestions to make please contact us directly Click Here