Yuliya Lynch
Fellowship Location: Perm, Russia
Perm Regional Assistance Center
Last week was very busy as we prepared for the international conference. I translated the information for the foreign guests (program of the conference, list of the participants, schedule, etc.) and assisted in the organization of the event. This conference was truly important and very large for Perm. The topic of the conference was Pre-project for the prevention of torture in prisons and other social institutes, such as mental hospitals, orphanages, and army but the focus was made on the Russian jail system. The goal was to understand how to address the torture in social institutes in the long term project (3-5 years) and to draw a possible context of this project, which should start next year in most states of the Russian Federation.
Let’s start from the beginning. How does the Russian government prevent torture in prisons and other social institutes now? Well, primary today social institutes overseen by the Public Monitoring Commissions (PMCs). People, whose rights may have been violated, may submit a complaint to ombudsman of the state, police, or free legal assistance centers. However, only the PMCs are responsible to prevent the violation of the rights.
The Russian commissions (http://www.onkrf.ru/) were formed only two years ago by the new law (http://ufsin.kaluga.ru/control/43). They were formed in each state from the regular citizens, who are not specialists in prevention of the violation of the rights, most often they are from the human rights profession. The PMCs do not have any financial support from the government. The law says that the members of PMCs have to spend their own funds to cover all of the expenses, such as transportation, technology, paper, electricity, etc. The PMCs has rights to visit social institutes after notifying the institute first. The members of the PMCs can talk to prisoners only in the same room with officers. By the law, a PMC can suggest to a social institute to eliminate the violation or to improve something to prevent the violation. However, a PMC can only suggest something, and doesn’t have any real power over the officers.
The participants of the conference included ombudsmants from seven states, the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation (Vladimir Lukin), members of the PMCs from over 23 states and republics, representatives of the Council of Europe, the representative of the Chancellor of Justice of the Republic of Estonia, and the representatives of the Russian Head Department of the Federal Service of Punishment Executions, the Head Department of Police Affairs, the prosecution. The structure of the conference combined discussions in small groups and presentations of the speakers. It was a two days conference, which our center helped to organized. In the next parts, I will share the experience from this conference and my notes.
Markus Jaeger, from the Council of Europe, spoke about the work of PMCs in their social institutes. He said that the PMCs in Europe have full-time employees; they can come unannounced, talk to any prisoner without guards, review all files, and go to the media at any time. The next speaker, who I would like to mention, is Igor Aleshin, the representative of the Chancellor of Justice of the Republic of Estonia. He shared with the audience that they have very open and democratic system in social institutes. When Estonian PMC goes to check an institute they talk to all prisoners, eat and smoke with them. They can come anytime announced. If they detected a violation, they would submit a recommendation to the institution; in 96% an institute would correct the violation right away. Moreover, the PMC in Estonia monitor social networking channels (Twitter, Facebook) and respond to any posts that can indicate a violation. Mr. Aleshin stated that the monitoring is the most direct and important function of the PMC. If the violation is already committed, for the most part it is work of the police. The members of the PMC are professionals and independent from the government. The Chancellor cannot be removed by the government before his time come. I asked Igor, what about what the prisoners complain the most. He replied that prisoners do not like that they have to carry their own bedding, pillow, and blanket to the cell. In Estonia, they have only 3,000 prisoners total in five prisons.
The Russian PMCs do not have one or the most effective algorithm, which every PMC will follow when they check the social institute and how to prevent violations. In the example of prison, the members of PMCs are not sure where should they start form the kitchen or cells, and how to detect hidden violations. The members of the PMC shared that in his state they have complaint boxes in prisons, where every prisoner could put a complaint without being detected. However at the end of the day or week, the officers will have to register a complaint and will know the names of the prisoners, who think that their rights were violated. On the other hand, a PMC’s member from Chelabinsk replied that in the prisons in his state, they would bring the envelops with them and prisoners would put their complaints there. In this case, the officers will register the complaint and will know the name of the prisoner, but will not be able to read the context.
The main results of the discussions in the small groups include the following:
1. The partial financial support should be from the government, as the members of the PMCs cannot bare all the expenses or always depend on the grants
2. PMCs should have trained professionals and not only regular citizens. PMCs must have a few full-time employees to answer phones, email, write press relizes, and so on
3. PMCs should be able to visit the prisoners/patients in social institutes if they were transferred to other state
4. The members of the PMCs would like to visit one other to exchange the experience
5. The web pages of each PMC should be developed and one common web site must be created. This will help to inform the citizens about their rights and exchange experience between PMCs
6. The federal laws are very limited and may be interpreted differently. Some social institutes do not have an updated version of the laws and officers simply are not informed about the functions of the PMCs
7. The government should allow PMCs to ask the opinions of the experts when needed
8. PMCs have to have more authority so that the social institutes would fulfill their recommendations
9. The prisoners should have a better access to the legal information. The officers/guards should have special trainings about the rights of prisoners. The members of the PMCs should, also, complete some trainings to increase their professional level. The educational programs may prevent the violations
10. The prisoners in Russia should be able to send complaints by mail if they do not have money
11. The PMCs must print free newspapers and distribute itamong citizents to increase informative level of the masses
12. It would be very helpful for the overall statistics to interview the prisoners about the conditions and treatment in the prisons
13. PMCs members should travel abroad and communicate with foreign PMCs to gain more knowledge
14. All prisons must have cameras to secure the fair treatment
15. PMCs should have a federal status and not a state
16. PMCs have to be allowed to check the social institutes without prior notification
17. PMCs would like to have resources to offer free legal help, provide printed laws to their clients
As mentioned before, Russian PMCs have a long way to go in order to improve the prevention rates. The mos troubled state from all that were presented was Bashkortostan Republic. The members of the PMC stated that officers beat 80% of all prisoners regularly. Many prisoners die from beating, luck of healthcare, and overall poor conditions. The authorities falsify the medical reports and do not provide any official responses to the problem.
In the next part, I would like to express my emotions about the conference. I really think that this Conference is crucial in development of the prevention mechanisms in the Russian Federation. It is no question about that. But something else I have noticed. The ombudsmants of the states that were present are very far from the regular people. Let me explain. They are arrogant, spoiled and egoistic. For example, they needed a taxi particular brand, they did not want to register as all guests, they must have special attention to them at all the time. I certainly did not like it. They should serve people and do not be kings in their attitudes.
In my next blog, I will write about the “Pilorama” that followed the conference and the visit to the museum Perm-36.