Council of Europe
  What's New ?  |  About the CPT  |  Members  |  States  |  Visits  |  Documents  |  Database

[PDF format] - [Version française]

Ref.: CPT/Inf (99) 12 [EN] - Publication Date: 30 August 1999


9th General Report on the CPT's activities
covering the period 1 January to 31 December 1998

The CPT is required to draw up every year a general report on its activities, which is published. This 9th General Report, as well as previous general reports and other information about the work of the CPT, may be obtained from the Committee's Secretariat.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

ACTIVITIES IN 1998

Visits

Meetings

Publications

ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES

The Convention and its Protocols

CPT membership

Administrative and financial questions

JUVENILES DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY

Preliminary remarks

Safeguards against the ill-treatment of juveniles

Detention centres for juveniles

1. introduction

2. material conditions of detention

3. regime activities

4. staffing issues

5. contact with the outside world

6. discipline

7. complaints and inspection procedures

8. medical issues

APPENDIX 1:

A. Signatures and ratifications of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

B. Expansion of the CPT's field of operations: 1989-1999

C. Signatures and ratifications of Protocols Nos. 1 and 2 to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

APPENDIX 2:

A. Members of the CPT

B. Secretariat of the CPT

APPENDIX 3:

Places of detention visited by CPT delegations in 1998


PREFACE

The European Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CPT) was set up under the 1987 Council of Europe Convention of the same name (hereinafter "the Convention"). According to Article 1 of the Convention:

"There shall be established a European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment..... The Committee shall, by means of visits, examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such persons from torture and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

The work of the CPT is designed to be an integrated part of the Council of Europe's system for the protection of human rights, placing a proactive non-judicial mechanism alongside the existing reactive judicial mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights.

The CPT implements its essentially preventive function through two kinds of visits - periodic and ad hoc. Periodic visits are carried out to all Parties to the Convention on a regular basis. Ad hoc visits are organised in these States when they appear to the Committee "to be required in the circumstances".

When carrying out a visit, the CPT enjoys extensive powers under the Convention: access to the territory of the State concerned and the right to travel without restriction; unlimited access to any place where people are deprived of their liberty, including the right to move inside such places without restriction; access to full information on places where people deprived of their liberty are being held, as well as to other information available to the State which is necessary for the Committee to carry out its task.

The Committee is also entitled to interview in private persons deprived of their liberty and to communicate freely with anyone whom it believes can supply relevant information.

Visits may be carried out to any place "where persons are deprived of their liberty by a public authority". Consequently, the CPT's mandate extends beyond prisons and police stations to encompass psychiatric institutions, detention areas at military barracks, holding centres for asylum seekers or other categories of foreigners, and places in which young persons may be deprived of their liberty by judicial or administrative order.

Two fundamental principles govern relations between the CPT and Parties to the Convention - co-operation and confidentiality. In this respect, it should be emphasised that the role of the Committee is not to condemn States, but rather to assist them to prevent the ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.

After each visit, the CPT draws up a report which sets out its findings and includes, if necessary, recommendations and other advice, on the basis of which a dialogue is developed with the State concerned. The Committee's visit report is, in principle, confidential; however, almost all States have chosen to waive the rule of confidentiality and publish the report.


ACTIVITIES IN 1998

Visits

1. The CPT organised some 130 days of visits during 1998. The highlight of the year was the commencement of the CPT’s activities in the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The Committee expects that it will be a frequent visitor to both of these countries, given the magnitude of the issues falling within the CPT’s mandate. A complete list of the countries and places of detention visited by CPT delegations in 1998 is set out in Appendix 3.

2. The CPT carried out ten periodic visits: to Andorra, Croatia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Moldova, Spain, Sweden, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and Ukraine. This was the first time the CPT had visited Andorra, Croatia, Moldova, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and Ukraine. As for the remaining countries, 1998 marked the second occasion on which the Committee had visited them on a periodic basis (and for Spain, the third).

3. In addition, three ad hoc visits were organised: to Albania, Germany (Frankfurt am Main Airport) and the Russian Federation.

The main objective of the December 1998 ad hoc visit to Albania was to review the conditions at Elbasan Psychiatric Hospital as well as at Prison No. 313 and the Prison Hospital in Tirana. These establishments had been the subject of a number of recommendations after the CPT’s periodic visit in December 1997.

The visit to Germany in May 1998 was organised in order to verify the conditions of detention of immigration detainees at Frankfurt am Main Airport, as well as to examine the procedures for enforcement of removal orders. Prior to the visit, the CPT had received critical reports of those conditions as well as allegations of the use of excessive force during the enforcement of removal orders.

The November 1998 ad hoc visit to the Russian Federation took place two months after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of that country. In this connection it should be recalled that the CPT accords a high priority to visiting without delay States which have recently ratified the Convention. As regards in particular the Russian Federation, in recent years the CPT has received extremely alarming reports about conditions of detention in the country’s pre-trial establishments (SIZO's). Consequently, the CPT considered that it should examine without delay the treatment of persons held in establishments of this type. The visit also provided an opportunity to examine the manner in which detained persons are treated by the police (Militia) during the initial period of their custody.

4. With some exceptions, the degree of cooperation displayed towards CPT delegations during visits remains satisfactory, at both national and local level. This generally favourable situation is certainly due in part to the practice of organising information seminars on the activities of the Committee in States which have recently become Parties to the Convention. In the course of 1998, such seminars were held in Chisinau, Moscow, Skopje and Zagreb (1).

5. Nevertheless, delays in gaining access to particular establishments are still encountered from time to time, especially as regards law enforcement agencies. The policy of CPT delegations has always been, and will remain, to persist until such time as access to the establishment concerned is provided. The Committee wishes to stress in this regard that an initial refusal of access to a place of deprivation of liberty constitutes a flagrant and most serious violation of Article 8 of the Convention (according to which the CPT may at any time visit any place of deprivation of liberty), as well as of the principle of cooperation set out in Article 3; as such, it could certainly justify the making of a public statement under Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

The Committee also wishes to recall the obligation placed on Parties by Article 8, paragraph 2(b), of the Convention to provide full information on places where persons are deprived of their liberty. It remains the case that lists of such places are quite frequently not provided to the Committee in good time.

6. Further, reference should be made to the practice observed on occasion in law enforcement agencies of police officers noting the exact length of time spent by delegation members with detained persons. There can be no legitimate reason for the recording of such information.

Meetings

7. The CPT held three plenary sessions during 1998, in the course of which twelve visit reports were adopted: on visits to Albania, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, Turkey and the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man in 1997, and to Andorra, Germany (Frankfurt Airport), Iceland, Sweden, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and Ukraine in 1998. On the whole, the Committee has been meeting its objective of transmitting to Governments the reports on periodic visits within approximately six months; however, the time lag of four months between plenary sessions sometimes renders it difficult to meet this objective. As regards reports on short ad hoc visits, they are sometimes transmitted within a much shorter period (three months).

8. The CPT continues to seek ways to enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of its procedures, and in particular the functioning of plenary sessions. Most recently, the period of time during which the full Committee meets together during a plenary session has been reduced to four days, freeing up more time for work by visiting delegations and various other subgroups of the Committee within the framework of a "plenary session". This trend, which has been made possible by the recently-introduced expedited procedures for the adoption of visit reports, can be expected to continue.

The Committee is currently reflecting upon the possibility of working in chambers, in particular when examining draft visit reports. Although chambers are not foreseen by the Convention, the CPT can see no legal impediment to the introduction of such a measure via its Rules of Procedure, always provided that its visit reports continue to be formally adopted by the full Committee sitting at plenary level.

9. Reference should also be made to the CPT’s meeting with its liaison officers (cf Article 15 of the Convention) on 13 March 1998 in Strasbourg. This provided a useful forum for a frank, face-to-face exchange of views on matters of mutual concern. In addition to a detailed examination of the role of the liaison officer, topics discussed included the approach to be followed when specific allegations of ill-treatment are received during a visit, ad hoc visits at the invitation of a State, enlivening the ongoing dialogue between visits, financing the implementation of the CPT’s recommendations, and relations with the media.

Publications

10. In the course of 1998, the CPT's reports on visits to Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain were published at the request of the Governments concerned, as were several interim and follow-up responses of Governments. The CPT also welcomes the decision of the Turkish authorities to authorise publication, in February 1999, of the report drawn up by the Committee after its periodic visit to Turkey in October 1997.

At the time of writing, 58 of the 83 visit reports drawn up by the CPT have been published. Many of the remaining 25 visit reports have only recently been forwarded to Governments and will in all likelihood be published in due course.

11. All visit reports which have been published, as well as the CPT's general reports, are now accessible via the Internet (http://www.cpt.coe.int); published responses by Governments are also accessible provided that they have been forwarded to the CPT in electronic format. The CPT's web site also contains information on recent developments, such as new signatures and ratifications of the Convention and its Protocols, visits which have recently been carried out (indicating the composition of the delegation and establishments visited) and updated lists of the names and abridged curricula vitae of the Committee's members.

12. During the year, the activities of the CPT received increasing attention in both the mass media and academic journals. Reference should also be made to the publication of Preventing Torture (Oxford: Clarendon Press) by Malcolm Evans and Rod Morgan, a book which contains the most comprehensive analysis to date of the CPT’s work. Further, the second volume of the Yearbook of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (covering 1993) has now been published (2).


ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES

The Convention and its Protocols

13. Following ratifications by Latvia, Lithuania and the Russian Federation in the course of 1998, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment became one of the few treaties drawn up within the framework of the Council of Europe to have been ratified by all its member States.(3) In fact, ratification of the Convention is now considered as a sine qua non of membership of the Organisation. In this connection, it should be noted that prior to becoming a Member of the Council of Europe on 26 April 1999, the Republic of Georgia gave a commitment to ratify the Convention within twelve months of its accession.

14. The number of Parties to the Convention can be expected to increase further in the years to come, either as a result of accession to the Council of Europe of new member States or following the entry into force of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Only three more ratifications (by Andorra, Croatia and Ukraine) are required for the entry into force of Protocol No. 1, (4) following which the Convention will be "open" to non-member States of the Council of Europe. It is noteworthy that there is no geographical restriction upon the States which might be invited by the Committee of Ministers to accede to the Convention; theoretically, at least, the world will be the limit. The extension of the CPT’s activities beyond the borders of the Council of Europe would be a significant development from the standpoint of the protection of human rights and would bear witness to the Council’s credibility. At the same time, it would be necessary to ensure proper coordination with other treaty systems for the protection of human rights.

15. Reference should also be made to Protocol No. 2, which is designed to introduce technical amendments to the Convention, capable of greatly facilitating the CPT’s work.(5)  This Protocol has no political ramifications. Consequently, the CPT must express its astonishment that almost six years after the Protocol was opened for signature, it has still not proven possible for four Parties to the Convention (namely, Andorra, Croatia, Portugal and Ukraine) to consent to be bound by the text, thereby preventing its entry into force.(6) The CPT trusts that the decision taken on 19 January 1999 by the Committee of Ministers, urging the States concerned to take this step, will have the desired effect.

CPT membership

16. Five new CPT members were elected by the Committee of Ministers in the course of 1998: Mr Aleš Butala (in respect of Slovenia), Mr Aurel Kistruga (Moldova), Mr Rudolf Schmuck (Germany), Mr Davor Strinovic (Croatia) and Mr Volodymyr Yevintov (Ukraine). Further, since the beginning of 1999, four more new members have been elected: Mr Fatmir Braka (in respect of Albania), Mr Yuri Kudryavtsev (Russian Federation), Mrs Veronica Pimenoff (Finland) and Mrs Maria Teresa Pizarro Beleza (Portugal).

At the time of publication of this report, the CPT has 35 members.(7) The seats in respect of Andorra, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are currently vacant.

17. The expanding membership of the Committee brings with it its own challenges. Indeed, the more the CPT's membership grows, the greater the ingenuity required of the Committee in order to sustain the efficiency and cost effectiveness of its working methods, in particular where plenary sessions are concerned (cf. paragraph 8).

Administrative and financial questions

18. By letter of 17 June 1996 to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the President of the CPT set out the projected needs of the CPT in the years to come. The prediction was made that "by the year 2000, some 40 to 45 States will have become Parties to the Convention". To cope with this situation, it was indicated that the CPT wished to be in a position to organise 200 days of visits per year as from the year 2000, which would enable the Committee to ensure that the average period between periodic visits to a given country does not exceed four years. In parallel with this increase in visit days, a reorganisation of the Committee’s Secretariat into three operational units (supported by a central section) was envisaged, the total number of staff posts to increase to 23.

The above-mentioned prediction has turned out to be accurate. Forty of the forty-one member States of the Council of Europe are now bound by the Convention establishing the CPT, and the forty-first (Georgia) is expected to ratify the Convention by 27 April 2000. As already indicated (cf. paragraph 14), the number of Parties will most probably increase further in the years to come.

19. Unfortunately, the vast expansion of the CPT’s field of operations in recent years (cf Appendix 1 A and B) has not been matched by a corresponding increase in the Committee’s resources. The number of visit days and the level of Secretariat resources identified in the CPT President's letter of 17 June 1996 are still a considerable way from being reached. As a result, the CPT’s effectiveness is being undermined; in particular, the Committee does not at present have the necessary resources for developing meaningful programmes of visits in certain countries with exceptionally large inmate populations in respect of which the Convention has recently entered into force. The CPT has proposed that the number of visit days and the Secretariat’s resources be brought up to the necessary levels over the next three years.

The CPT very much hopes that the Council of Europe will be in a position to implement this proposal. By virtue of its powers and experience, the Committee can make a significant contribution to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment throughout the European continent (and even beyond), provided the necessary means are placed at its disposal.


JUVENILES DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY

Preliminary remarks

20. In certain of its previous general reports, the CPT has set out the criteria which guide its work in a variety of places of detention, including police stations, prisons, holding centres for immigration detainees and psychiatric establishments.(8)

The Committee applies the above-mentioned criteria, to the extent to which they are appropriate, in respect of juveniles (i.e. persons under the age of 18) deprived of their liberty. However - regardless of the reason for which they may have been deprived of their liberty - juveniles are inherently more vulnerable than adults. In consequence, particular vigilance is required to ensure that their physical and mental well-being is adequately protected. In order to highlight the importance which it attaches to the prevention of ill-treatment of juveniles deprived of their liberty, the CPT has chosen to devote this chapter of its 9th General Report to describing some of the specific issues which it pursues in this area.

In the following paragraphs, the Committee identifies a number of the safeguards against ill-treatment which it considers should be offered to all juveniles deprived of their liberty, before focussing on the conditions which should obtain in detention centres specifically designed for juveniles. The Committee hopes in this way to give a clear indication to national authorities of its views regarding the manner in which such persons ought to be treated. As in previous years, the CPT would welcome comments on this substantive section of its General Report.

21. The Committee wishes to stress at the outset that any standards which it may be developing in this area should be seen as being complementary to those set out in a panoply of other international instruments, including the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; the 1985 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules); the 1990 United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty and the 1990 United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines).

The Committee also wishes to express its approval of one of the cardinal principles enshrined in the above-mentioned instruments, namely that juveniles should only be deprived of their liberty as a last resort and for the shortest possible period of time (cf. Article 37 b. of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Rules 13 and 19 of the Beijing Rules).

Safeguards against the ill-treatment of juveniles

22. Given its mandate, the CPT's first priority during visits to places where juveniles are deprived of their liberty is to seek to establish whether they are being subjected to deliberate ill-treatment. The Committee's findings to date would suggest that, in most of the establishments which it visits, this is a comparatively rare occurrence.

23. However, as is the case for adults, it would appear that juveniles run a higher risk of being deliberately ill-treated in police establishments than in other places of detention. Indeed, on more than one occasion, CPT delegations have gathered credible evidence that juveniles have featured amongst the persons tortured or otherwise ill-treated by police officers.

In this context, the CPT has stressed that it is during the period immediately following deprivation of liberty that the risk of torture and ill-treatment is at its greatest. It follows that it is essential that all persons deprived of their liberty (including juveniles) enjoy, as from the moment when they are first obliged to remain with the police, the rights to notify a relative or another third party of the fact of their detention, the right of access to a lawyer and the right of access to a doctor.

Over and above these safeguards, certain jurisdictions recognise that the inherent vulnerability of juveniles requires that additional precautions be taken. These include placing police officers under a formal obligation themselves to ensure that an appropriate person is notified of the fact that a juvenile has been detained (regardless of whether the juvenile requests that this be done). It may also be the case that police officers are not entitled to interview a juvenile unless such an appropriate person and/or a lawyer is present. The CPT welcomes this approach.

24. In a number of other establishments visited, CPT delegations have been told that it was not uncommon for staff to administer the occasional "pedagogic slap" to juveniles who misbehaved. The Committee considers that, in the interests of the prevention of ill-treatment, all forms of physical chastisement must be both formally prohibited and avoided in practice. Inmates who misbehave should be dealt with only in accordance with prescribed disciplinary procedures.

25. The Committee's experience also suggests that when ill-treatment of juveniles does occur, it is more often the result of a failure adequately to protect the persons concerned from abuse than of a deliberate intention to inflict suffering. An important element in any strategy to prevent such abuse is observance of the principle that juveniles in detention should as a rule be accommodated separately from adults.

Examples of a failure to respect this principle which have been observed by the CPT have included: adult male prisoners being placed in cells for male juveniles, often with the intention that they maintain control in those cells; female juveniles being accommodated together with adult women prisoners; juvenile psychiatric patients sharing accommodation with chronically ill adult patients.

The Committee accepts that there may be exceptional situations (e.g. children and parents being held as immigration detainees) in which it is plainly in the best interests of juveniles not to be separated from particular adults. However, to accommodate juveniles and unrelated adults together inevitably brings with it the possibility of domination and exploitation.

26. Mixed gender staffing is another safeguard against ill-treatment in places of detention, in particular where juveniles are concerned. The presence of both male and female staff can have a beneficial effect in terms of both the custodial ethos and in fostering a degree of normality in a place of detention.

Mixed gender staffing also allows for appropriate staff deployment when carrying out gender sensitive tasks, such as searches. In this respect, the CPT wishes to stress that, regardless of their age, persons deprived of their liberty should only be searched by staff of the same gender and that any search which requires an inmate to undress should be conducted out of the sight of custodial staff of the opposite gender; these principles apply a fortiori in respect of juveniles.

27. Lastly, in a number of establishments visited, CPT delegations have observed custodial staff who come into direct contact with juveniles openly carrying batons. Such a practice is not conducive to fostering positive relations between staff and inmates. Preferably, custodial staff should not carry batons at all. If, nevertheless, it is considered indispensable for them to do so, the CPT recommends that the batons be hidden from view.

Detention centres for juveniles

1. introduction

28. In the view of the CPT, all juveniles deprived of their liberty because they are accused or convicted of criminal offences ought to be held in detention centres specifically designed for persons of this age, offering regimes tailored to their needs and staffed by persons trained in dealing with the young.

Moreover, the care of juveniles in custody requires special efforts to reduce the risks of long-term social maladjustment. This calls for a multidisciplinary approach, drawing upon the skills of a range of professionals (including teachers, trainers and psychologists), in order to respond to the individual needs of juveniles within a secure educative and socio-therapeutic environment.

2. material conditions of detention

29. A well-designed juvenile detention centre will provide positive and personalised conditions of detention for young persons deprived of their liberty. In addition to being of an adequate size, well lit and ventilated, juveniles' sleeping and living areas should be properly furnished, well-decorated and offer appropriate visual stimuli. Unless there are compelling security reasons to the contrary, juveniles should be allowed to keep a reasonable quantity of personal items.

30. The CPT would add that, in certain establishments, it has observed a tendency to overlook the personal hygiene needs of female detainees, including juvenile girls. For this population in custody, ready access to sanitary and washing facilities as well as provision of hygiene items, such as sanitary towels, is of particular importance. The failure to provide such basic necessities can amount, in itself, to degrading treatment.

3. regime activities

31. Although a lack of purposeful activity is detrimental for any prisoner, it is especially harmful for juveniles, who have a particular need for physical activity and intellectual stimulation. Juveniles deprived of their liberty should be offered a full programme of education, sport, vocational training, recreation and other purposeful activities. Physical education should constitute an important part of that programme.

It is particularly important that girls and young women deprived of their liberty should enjoy access to such activities on an equal footing with their male counterparts. All too often, the CPT has encountered female juveniles being offered activities which have been stereotyped as "appropriate" for them (such as sewing or handicrafts), whilst male juveniles are offered training of a far more vocational nature. In this respect, the CPT wishes to express its approval of the principle set forth in Rule 26.4 of the Beijing Rules, to the effect that every effort must be made to ensure that female juveniles deprived of their liberty "by no means receive less care, protection, assistance, treatment and training than young male offenders. Their fair treatment shall be ensured."

32. The regimes of a number of the juvenile detention centres visited by the Committee have included generalised incentive schemes, which allow juveniles to attain additional privileges in exchange for displaying approved behaviour.

It is not for the CPT to express a view on the socio-educative value of such schemes. However, it pays particularly close attention to the content of the base-level regime being offered to juveniles subject to such schemes, and to whether the manner in which they may progress (and regress) within a given scheme includes adequate safeguards against arbitrary decision-making by staff.

4. staffing issues

33. The custody and care of juveniles deprived of their liberty is a particularly challenging task. The staff called upon to fulfil that task should be carefully selected for their personal maturity and ability to cope with the challenges of working with - and safeguarding the welfare of - this age group. More particularly, they should be committed to working with young people, and be capable of guiding and motivating the juveniles in their charge. All such staff, including those with purely custodial duties, should receive professional training, both during induction and on an ongoing basis, and benefit from appropriate external support and supervision in the exercise of their duties.

Moreover, the management of such centres should be entrusted to persons with advanced leadership skills, who have the capacity to respond in an effective manner to the complex and competing demands placed upon them, both by juveniles and by staff.

5. contact with the outside world

34. The CPT attaches considerable importance to the maintenance of good contact with the outside world for all persons deprived of their liberty. The guiding principle should be to promote contact with the outside world; any restrictions on such contacts should be based exclusively on security concerns of an appreciable nature or considerations linked to available resources.

The active promotion of such contacts can be especially beneficial for juveniles deprived of their liberty, many of whom may have behavioural problems related to emotional deprivation or a lack of social skills.

The CPT also wishes to stress that a juvenile's contact with the outside world should never be restricted or denied as a disciplinary measure.

6. discipline

35. Places where juveniles may be deprived of their liberty almost invariably make provision for disciplinary sanctions to be applied to inmates who misbehave.

In this connection, the CPT is particularly concerned about the placement of juveniles in conditions resembling solitary confinement, a measure which can compromise their physical and/or mental integrity. The Committee considers that resort to such a measure must be regarded as highly exceptional. If juveniles are held separately from others, this should be for the shortest possible period of time and, in all cases, they should be guaranteed appropriate human contact, granted access to reading material and offered at least one hour of outdoor exercise every day.

All disciplinary procedures applied to juveniles should be accompanied by formal safeguards and be properly recorded. In particular, juveniles should have the right to be heard on the subject of the offence which they are alleged to have committed, and to appeal before a higher authority against any sanctions imposed; full details of all such sanctions should be recorded in a register kept in each establishment where juveniles are deprived of their liberty.

7. complaints and inspection procedures

36. Effective complaints and inspection procedures are basic safeguards against ill-treatment in juvenile establishments.

Juveniles should have avenues of complaint open to them, both within and outside the establishments’ administrative system, and be entitled to confidential access to an appropriate authority.

The CPT also attaches particular importance to regular visits to all juvenile establishments by an independent body (for example, a visiting committee or a judge) with authority to receive - and, if necessary, take action on - juveniles’ complaints and to inspect the accommodation and facilities.

8. medical issues

37. When examining the issue of health-care services in prisons in its 3rd General Report (cf. CPT/Inf (93) 12, paragraphs 30 to 77), the CPT identified a number of general criteria which have guided its work (access to a doctor; equivalence of care; patient's consent and confidentiality; preventive health care; professional independence and professional competence). Those criteria apply with equal force to detention centres for juveniles.

38. Of course, the CPT pays special attention to the specific medical needs of juveniles deprived of their liberty.

It is particularly important that the health care service offered to juveniles constitutes an integrated part of a multidisciplinary (medico-psycho-social) programme of care. This implies inter alia that there should be close co-ordination between the work of an establishment's health care team (doctors, nurses, psychologists, etc.) and that of other professionals (including social workers and teachers) who have regular contact with inmates. The goal should be to ensure that the health care delivered to juveniles deprived of their liberty forms part of a seamless web of support and therapy.

It is also desirable that the content of a detention centre's programme of care be set out in writing and made available to all members of staff who may be called upon to participate in it.

39. All juveniles deprived of their liberty should be properly interviewed and physically examined by a medical doctor as soon as possible after their admission to the detention centre; save for in exceptional circumstances, the interview/examination should be carried out on the day of admission. However, a newly-arrived juvenile's first point of contact with the health care service could be a fully-qualified nurse who reports to a doctor.

If properly performed, such medical screening on admission should enable the establishment's health care service to identify young persons with potential health problems (e.g. drug addiction, suicidal tendencies). The identification of such problems at a sufficiently early stage will facilitate the taking of effective preventive action within the framework of the establishment's medico-psycho-social programme of care.

40. Further, it is axiomatic that all juveniles deprived of their liberty should be able to have confidential access to a doctor at any time, regardless of the regime (including disciplinary confinement) to which they may be subjected. Appropriate access to a range of specialist medical care, including dentistry, should also be guaranteed.

41. The task of the health care service in any place of detention should not be limited to treating sick patients; it should also be entrusted with responsibility for social and preventive medicine. In this connection, the CPT wishes to highlight two aspects of particular concern as regards juveniles deprived of their liberty, namely, inmates' nutrition and the provision of health education.

Health care staff should play an active part in monitoring the quality of the food which is being provided to inmates. This is particularly important for juveniles, who may not have reached their full growth potential. In such cases, the consequences of inadequate nutrition may become evident more rapidly - and be more serious - than for those who have reached full physical maturity.

It is also widely recognised that juveniles deprived of their liberty have a tendency to engage in risk-taking behaviour, especially with respect to drugs (including alcohol) and sex. In consequence, the provision of health education relevant to young persons is an important element of a preventive health care programme. Such a programme should, in particular, include the provision of information about the risks of drug abuse and about transmittable diseases.


APPENDIX 1

A. Signatures and ratifications of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (*)
(as at 1 August 1999)

Member States

Date of
signature

Date of
ratification

Date of
entry into force

Albania

02.10.96

02.10.96

01.02.97

Andorra

10.09.96

06.01.97

01.05.97

Austria

26.11.87

06.01.89

01.05.89

Belgium

26.11.87

23.07.91

01.11.91

Bulgaria

30.09.93

03.05.94

01.09.94

Croatia

06.11.96

11.10.97

01.02.98

Cyprus

26.11.87

03.04.89

01.08.89

Czech Republic

23.12.92

07.09.95

01.01.96

Denmark

26.11.87

02.05.89

01.09.89

Estonia

28.06.96

06.11.96

01.03.97

Finland

16.11.89

20.12.90

01.04.91

France

26.11.87

09.01.89

01.05.89

Georgia      
Germany

26.11.87

21.02.90

01.06.90

Greece

26.11.87

02.08.91

01.12.91

Hungary

09.02.93

04.11.93

01.03.94

Iceland

26.11.87

19.06.90

01.10.90

Ireland

14.03.88

14.03.88

01.02.89

Italy

26.11.87

29.12.88

01.04.89

Latvia

11.09.97

10.02.98

01.06.98

Liechtenstein

26.11.87

12.09.91

01.01.92

Lithuania

14.09.95

26.11.98

01.03.99

Luxembourg

26.11.87

06.09.88

01.02.89

Malta

26.11.87

07.03.88

01.02.89

Moldova

02.05.96

02.10.97

01.02.98

Netherlands

26.11.87

12.10.88

01.02.89

Norway

26.11.87

21.04.89

01.08.89

Poland

11.07.94

10.10.94

01.02.95

Portugal

26.11.87

29.03.90

01.07.90

Romania

04.11.93

04.10.94

01.02.95

Russia

28.02.96

05.05.98

01.09.98

San Marino

16.11.89

31.01.90

01.05.90

Slovakia

23.12.92

11.05.94

01.09.94

Slovenia

04.11.93

02.02.94

01.06.94

Spain

26.11.87

02.05.89

01.09.89

Sweden

26.11.87

21.06.88

01.02.89

Switzerland

26.11.87

07.10.88

01.02.89

"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

14.06.96

06.06.97

01.10.97

Turkey

11.01.88

26.02.88

01.02.89

Ukraine

02.05.96

05.05.97

01.09.97

United Kingdom

26.11.87

24.06.88

01.02.89

* The Convention is open for signature by the member States of the Council of Europe.


B. Expansion of the CPT's field of operations: 1989 - 1999

Situation as at 13 November 1989

(date of the CPT's first meeting)

[CPT Map 1989]

Note: This is an unofficial representation of States bound by the Convention.
For technical reasons it has not been possible to show the entire territory of certain of the States concerned.

States bound by the Convention Prison population *
15 States 292 250 prisoners
  • Austria
  • Cyprus
  • Denmark
  • France
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Malta
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Turkey
  • United Kingdom
(Main source:
Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE); data for most States as at 1 February 1990.)

* It should be noted that the CPT's mandate covers also all other categories of places where persons are deprived of their liberty by a public authority:

  • police establishments,
  • detention centres for juveniles,
  • military detention facilities,
  • holding centres for aliens,
  • psychiatric hospitals

etc.

 

Situation as at 1 August 1999

[CPT Map 1999]

Note: This is an unofficial representation of States bound by the Convention.
For technical reasons it has not been possible to show the entire territory of certain of the States concerned.

States bound by the Convention Prison population *
40 States 1 881 500 prisoners
  • Albania
  • Andorra
  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bulgaria
  • Croatia
  • Cyprus
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Latvia
  • Liechtenstein
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Malta
  • Moldova
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Russia
  • San Marino
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
  • Turkey
  • Ukraine
  • United Kingdom
(Main source:
Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE 97.1); data for most States as at 1 September 1997.)

 

 

* It should be noted that the CPT's mandate covers also all other categories of places where persons are deprived of their liberty by a public authority:

  • police establishments,
  • detention centres for juveniles,
  • military detention facilities,
  • holding centres for aliens,
  • psychiatric hospitals

etc.


C. Signatures and ratifications of Protocols Nos. 1 and 2 to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(as at 1 August 1999)

 

Protocol No. 1

Protocol No. 2

Member States

Date of signature

Date of ratification

Date of entry into force

Date of signature

Date of ratification

Date of entry into force

Albania

02.10.96

02.10.96

 

02.10.96

02.10.96

 
Andorra  

***

   

***

 
Austria

04.11.93

30.04.96

 

04.11.93

30.04.96

 
Belgium

04.11.93

12.09.96

 

04.11.93

12.09.96

 
Bulgaria

04.03.97

27.10.97

 

04.03.97

27.10.97

 
Croatia  

***

   

***

 
Cyprus

02.02.94

10.09.97

 

02.02.94

10.09.97

 
Czech Republic

28.04.95

07.09.95

 

28.04.95

07.09.95

 
Denmark

04.11.93

26.04.94

 

04.11.93

26.04.94

 
Estonia

28.06.96

06.11.96

 

28.06.96

06.11.96

 
Finland

04.11.93 *

04.11.93 *

 

04.11.93 *

04.11.93 *

 
France

04.11.93

19.08.98

 

04.11.93

14.08.96

 
Georgia            
Germany

04.11.93

13.12.96

 

04.11.93

13.12.96

 
Greece

04.11.93

29.06.94

 

04.11.93

29.06.94

 
Hungary

04.11.93 *

04.11.93 *

 

04.11.93 *

04.11.93 *

 
Iceland

08.09.94

29.06.95

 

08.09.94

29.06.95

 
Ireland

10.04.96 *

10.04.96 *

 

10.04.96 *

10.04.96 *

 
Italy

30.10.96

08.03.99

 

30.10.96

08.03.99

 
Latvia

11.09.97

10.02.98

 

11.09.97

10.02.98

 
Liechtenstein

04.11.93

05.05.95

 

04.11.93

05.05.95

 
Lithuania

14.09.95

26.11.98

 

14.09.95

26.11.98

 
Luxembourg

04.11.93

20.07.95

 

04.11.93

20.07.95

 
Malta

04.11.93 *

04.11.93 *

 

04.11.93 *

04.11.93 *

 
Moldova

02.10.97

02.10.97

 

02.10.97

02.10.97

 
Netherlands

05.05.94

23.02.95

 

05.05.94

23.02.95

 
Norway

04.11.93 *

04.11.93 *

 

04.11.93 *

04.11.93 *

 
Poland

11.01.95

24.03.95

 

11.01.95

24.03.95

 
Portugal

03.06.94

20.03.98

 

03.06.94

***

 
Romania

04.11.93

04.10.94

 

04.11.93

04.10.94

 
Russia

28.02.96

05.05.98

 

28.02.96

05.05.98

 
San Marino

04.11.93

05.12.96

 

04.11.93

05.12.96

 
Slovakia

07.03.94

11.05.94

 

07.03.94

11.05.94

 
Slovenia

31.03.94

16.02.95

 

31.03.94

16.02.95

 
Spain

21.02.95

08.06.95

 

21.02.95

08.06.95

 
Sweden

07.03.94 *

07.03.94 *

 

07.03.94 *

07.03.94 *

 
Switzerland

09.03.94 *

09.03.94 *

 

09.03.94 *

09.03.94 *

 
"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

14.06.96

06.06.97

 

14.06.96

06.06.97

 
Turkey

10.05.95

17.09.97

 

10.05.95

17.09.97

 
Ukraine

26.01.98

***

 

26.01.98

***

 
United Kingdom

09.12.93

11.04.96

 

09.12.93

11.04.96

 

* Signature without reservation as to ratification.

*** State whose ratification is necessary for the entry into force of the Protocol.


APPENDIX 2

A. Members of the CPT

(listed in order of precedence - as at 1 August 1999 *)

Name Nationality Term of office expires
Mr Ivan ZAKINE,
President
French 20.09.2001
Mrs Ingrid LYCKE ELLINGSEN,
1st Vice-President
Norwegian 20.09.2001
Mr John OLDEN,
2nd Vice-President
Irish 21.03.2003
Mr Constantin ECONOMIDES Greek 30.11.1999
Mr Jón BJARMAN Icelander 26.03.2000
Mr Arnold OEHRY Liechtensteiner 13.01.2001
Mr Leopoldo TORRES BOURSAULT Spanish 03.05.2001
Mr Safa REISOGLU Turkish 20.09.2001
Mrs Gisela PERREN-KLINGLER Swiss 20.09.2001
Mr Florin STANESCU Romanian 21.03.2003
Mr Mario BENEDETTINI San Marinese 21.03.2003
Mrs Jagoda POLONCOVÁ Slovakian 21.06.2003
Mrs Christina DOCTARE Swedish 19.09.2003
Mr Demetrios STYLIANIDES Cypriot 30.11.1999
Mr Adam LAPTAS Polish 30.11.1999
Mr Lambert KELCHTERMANS Belgian 08.01.2000
Mrs Maria SCIBERRAS Maltese 09.01.2000
Mr Miklós MAGYAR Hungarian 03.04.2000
Mr Zdenek HÁJEK Czech 11.09.2000
Mrs Emilia DRUMEVA Bulgarian 17.03.2001
Mr Pieter Reinhard STOFFELEN Dutch 20.09.2001
Mr Ole Vedel RASMUSSEN Danish 20.09.2001
Mrs Renate KICKER Austrian 20.09.2001
Mr Pierre SCHMIT Luxemburger 20.09.2001
Ms Silvia CASALE British 18.12.2001
Mr Andres LEHTMETS Estonian 18.12.2001
Mr Davor STRINOVIC Croatian 04.06.2002
Mr Aurel KISTRUGA Moldovan 04.06.2002
Mr Rudolf SCHMUCK German 08.09.2002
Mr Volodymyr YEVINTOV Ukrainian 09.11.2002
Mr Aleš BUTALA Slovenian 09.11.2002
Mr Yuri KUDRYAVTSEV Russian 12.01.2003
Mrs Veronica PIMENOFF Finnish 28.07.2003
Mrs Maria Teresa PIZARRO BELEZA Portuguese 28.07.2003
Mr Fatmir BRAKA Albanian 28.07.2003

* At this date, the seats in respect of Andorra, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" were vacant.


B. Secretariat of the CPT

Mr Trevor STEVENS

Committee Secretary

Mrs Genevičve MAYER

Deputy Committee Secretary

        Secretariat: Mrs Janey MASLEN

        Ms Violaine JOUANIN

 

Central section

Mrs Florence CALLOT

administrative, budgetary and staff questions

Mr Patrick MÜLLER

Head of the documentation and information centre

Ms Mireille MONTI

archives and publications

 

Units responsible for visits

 

Unit 1

Mrs Genevičve MAYER, Head of Unit

Mr Dominique BERTRAND

Mr Edo KORLJAN

        Secretariat: Ms Violaine JOUANIN

 

Unit 2

Mr Fabrice KELLENS, Head of Unit

Mrs Petya NESTOROVA

Mr Borys WÓDZ

        Secretariat: Ms Olga SOKOL

 

Unit 3

Mr Mark KELLY, Head of Unit

Mr Jan MALINOWSKI

Ms Bojana URUMOVA

        Secretariat: Ms Susan BRADBURY-KIN

 


APPENDIX 3

Places of detention visited by CPT delegations in 1998

I. Periodic visits

A. Andorra (27 to 29 May)

Police establishments

Prisons

B. Croatia (20 to 30 September)

Police establishments

Sisak-Moslavacka Police Administration

Split-Dalmatia Police Administration

Šibenik-Knin Police Administration

Zagreb Police Administration

Prisons

Establishments for young offenders

C. Finland (7 to 17 June)

Police establishments

Frontier Guard establishments

Prisons

Psychiatric establishments

D. Iceland (29 March to 6 April)

Police establishments

Prisons

Psychiatric establishments

Establishments for young offenders

E. Ireland (31 August to 9 September)

Police (Garda Síochána) establishments

Prisons

Psychiatric establishments

F. Moldova (11 to 21 October)

Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior

Balti

Chisinau

Criuleni

Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Justice

Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Health

G. Spain (22 November to 4 December)

Establishments of the law enforcement agencies

National Police Stations

Civil Guard establishments

Other law enforcement agency establishments

Prisons

Psychiatric establishments

H. Sweden (15 to 25 February)

Police establishments

Malmö

Stockholm

Prisons

Detention centres for immigration detainees

I. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (17 to 27 May)

Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior

Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Justice

Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Health

Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Defence

J. Ukraine (8 to 24 February)

Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs

Dnipropetrovsk

Kharkiv

Kyiv

Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Health

Establishments under the authority of the State Security Service of Ukraine

Establishments under the authority of the State Committee for the Protection of National Borders

 

II. Ad hoc visits

A. Albania (13 to 17 December)

Prisons

Psychiatric establishments

B. Germany (25 to 27 May)

C. Russian Federation (16 to 30 November)

Pre-trial establishments (SIZO's)

Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs

Moscow

Central Administrative Area

North-East Administrative Area

East Administrative Area

South-West Administrative Area

North-West Administrative Area

Nizhnyi Novgorod

Saratov

Other establishments


Footnotes

1. To date in 1999, similar information seminars have been held in Riga and St. Petersburg.

2. The Yearbook may be ordered directly from: Human Rights Law Centre, Department of Law, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom.

3. The state of signatures and ratifications of the Convention is set out in Appendix 1 A; the expansion of the CPT's field of operations is illustrated in Appendix 1 B.

4. See Appendix 1 C for the state of signatures and ratifications of Protocol No. 1.

5. Protocol No. 2 introduces amendments regarding the renewal of the CPT's membership and provides that members may be re-elected twice, rather than once as at present.

6. See Appendix 1 C for the state of signatures and ratifications of Protocol No. 2.

7. See Appendix 2 A for the full list of CPT members. Abridged curricula vitae of the members can be obtained from the CPT's Secretariat.

8. Police custody and imprisonment, cf. the 2nd General Report (CPT/Inf (92) 3), paragraphs 35 to 60;
Health care services in prisons, cf. the 3rd General Report (CPT/Inf (93) 12), paragraphs 30 to 77;
Foreign nationals detained under aliens legislation, cf. the 7th General Report (CPT/Inf (97) 10), paragraphs 24 to 36;
Involuntary placement in psychiatric establishments, cf. the 8th General Report (CPT/Inf (98) 12), paragraphs 25 to 55.


  ^

Contact us   |   Press   |   www.cpt.coe.int