The Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention in Bulgaria by BG Helsinki

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention in Bulgaria

A report of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee

Sofia, 2003

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Community. The views expressed herein are those of the publishers, and can therefore in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Commission.

*** The text below comprises of excerpts of a larger report in Bulgarian, published by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in the framework of the program for research of the situation in the places of detention. The full report is available in Bulgarian only. The report was written by BHC staff and researchers Slavka Kukova, Stanimir Petrov, Dr. Georgi Bankov, Krasяimir Kanev, and Vanina Nikolova, BHC intern.

Title of the Bulgarian edition: Дисциплинарната практика в местата за лишаване от свобода в България ISBN of the Bulgarian edition: 954-9738-17-5

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Contents

The Reform in Bulgarian Prisons After the Amendments of the Law for Execution of Penalties from 25.06.2002 1.1 Overpopulation and Prison Hostels of Transitional Type 1.2 Material Conditions 1.3 Food 1.4 Healthcare in the Places for Deprivation of Liberty 1.4.1 Legal Statute 1.4.2 Economic Parameters 1.4.3 Addictions 1.4.4 Tuberculosis Disciplinary Practices â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Analysis of the Practice from 2002 and 2003 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Rewards 2.3 Offences 2.4 Procedure for Establishing That an Offence Has Been Committed and Execution of the Penalty 2.5 Penalties 2.6 Prolonged Isolations

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

The Reform in Bulgarian Prisons After the Amendments of the Law for Execution of Penalties as of 25.06.2002

In June 2002 there was a consecutive round of amendments and supplements made to the Law for the Execution of Penalties (State Gazette, issue 62, 2002). The amendments concerned texts that seriously contradicted the European Standards fĐžr the Treatment of Prisoners. These amendments also affected texts settling the legal status of the Central Penitentiary Administration and the individual prisons accordingly as well as the regulation of their economic activities. It was expected that these amendments would contribute to the improvement of the material conditions and the optimization of the disciplinary practices, the economic market and social activities. 1.1

Overpopulation and Prison Hostels of Transitional Type

The expansion of the range of sentenced prisoners that can be placed in prisoner hostels of open and transitional type did not lead to the expected significant reduction of the overpopulation of the main building of the prison. The increase in the relative share of prisoners placed in hostels was expected to result in improved chances of faster re-socialization and employment opportunities. In the last couple of months the employment rates in the prisons have gone down indicating the expected result had not materialized. In response to a letter from BHC, on September 9 2003 the head of the Central Penitentiary Administration revealed data on the employment rates of prisoners during the last five years: Year

Employed %

1998

33.80%

1999

32.00%

2000

33.00%

2001

32.00%

2002

32.00%

2003

29.00%

According to the amendments to the Law for Execution of Penalties (LEP) the convicted for the first time to imprisonment up to five years for intended crimes and the convicted for negligent crimes are placed in prison hostels of open type. Below is the dynamics of the number of people placed in prison hostels of open type: As at 01.01.2002

256

As at 01.01.2003

482

As at 01.11.2003

555

Despite the increase, the total number remains small. Therefore, the increase in the numbers of prisoners in the prisoner hostels of open type cannot compensate for the 4

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

decrease in the employment rate and the increase in the total number of prisoners. The prison hostels of transition type accommodate convicted prisoners with good conduct, who have served at least six months of the imposed penalty in a prison or prison hostel of closed type and they have under five years of their prison sentence to serve. In contrast to the those with short sentences who have the opportunity to spend most of their prison time in better conditions, the convicted with sentences above 10 years (even first-time felons) would have the opportunity for an early and ahead of term release on probation before they get the chance to be moved to a prison hostel of transitional type. Thus a prisoner with a 20-year sentence would be entitled to an early and ahead of term release on probation in 10 years and would be entitled to an accommodation in a prisoner hostel of a transitional type only in 15 years. As a result of the amendments of the terms the number of prisoners placed in prison hostels has increased as follows: As at 01.01.2002

328

As at 01.01.2003

672

As at 01.09.2003

1 104

As at 01.11.2003

1 110

Article 12 para. 2 of the Law for Execution of Penalties states that: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Recidivists, accommodated in the prisons and the prison hostels of para. 1 can be moved to another prison or prison hostel only in exclusive cases, if they have reformed and if there is no danger to exert negative influence over the other prisoners.â&#x20AC;? The text of the Law for Execution of the Penalties indicates lack of precision that would allow administrative arbitrariness, and the strict adherence to this text would in no way result in an increase of the number of prisoners in prisoner hostels. The strategy of the Central Penitentiary Administration is to encourage the prison governors to act at their own discretion, while using the legal mechanisms for decreasing the overpopulation in prisons, and place as many detained as possible in the prison hostels until their full capacity is reached. According to employees from the Central Penitentiary Administration, the prison governors do not follow the regulations as they want to avoid escape attempts and other problems. On the other hand, some of the prison executive directors believe that the mere adherence to the formal legal preconditions for the placement in prison hostels is not enough. It is often the case that even though the required period of the sentence for placement in a prison hostel has passed, the prisoners have not corrected and reformed themselves. Due to these reasons the prison administrations cannot take a chance and place prisoners in locations with lower levels of security without being convinced that the prisoner will not skip work or try to escape. The administration of the prison suffers penalties in any case of a successful escape from prison. In some regions of the country the capacity of the prison hostels of transitional type has already been reached (for example, the Vit Prison Hostel in the prison in Pleven. In the Belene Prison a significant number of the prisoners are approved for placement in a hostel, but there is not such in the prison. The Vit Prison Hostel is the closest hostel to the Belene Prison, but as already mentioned, its capacity has been filled. According to the administration of the prison in Belene the prisoners can file requests for transfer to another prison hostel with available spaces, such as prison hostel

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Razdelna in the prison in Varna. However, this hostel is far away from Belene and parents and relatives would be deprived of the opportunity to visit the prisoners. As a result of this consideration the prisoners decide to remain in the main building of the Belene Prison. The continuation of the overpopulation problem in the main buildings of the prisons, despite the increase in the relative share of prisoners placed in prison hostels of open and transitional type, is mainly due to the increase of the absolute number of prisoners – an increase from 9,041 in 2002 to 9,918 as of 01.11.2003. The changes in the instructions for the territorial distribution rearranged the regions of country from which prisoners are distributed to the individual prisons. As a result convicted recidivists from the Sliven region serving time in the prison in Pazardzik need to be moved to the prison in Burgas, and convicted recidivists from the Shumen region serving time in the prison in Burgas need to be moved to the prison in Pleven. As the group of recidivists from the Shumen region is twice as small than the group of recidivists from the Sliven region, the total number of prisoners in the Burgas prison has increased by almost 100 people despite the lack of the necessary conditions for their accommodation. 1.2

Material Conditions

The overpopulation and the inability of the legislative amendments to provide a clear solution of this problem have had a negative influence on the material conditions in the prisons. The material conditions are still not in line with the international standards, and domestic legislation does not impose obligatory standards for the prisoners’ accommodation. In a letter to the BHC, Mr. Petar Vasilev, executive director of the Central Penitentiary Administration at the Ministry of Justice, states: “In compliance with Art. 9 of LEP prisons must meet the security and sanitary requirements and must have the necessary residential communal-household and other premises.” (Letter to BHC, No 5349-1 from 18.07.2003). He also emphasizes that “the correspondence of the material conditions in the prisons, the reformatories, the prison hostels and the investigation detention centres with the requirements of the above-mentioned order is determined in compliance with the European regulations for the prisons concerning the inflow of enough fresh air and daylight, the access to sanitary premises and drinking water, the opportunities for ventilation, heating, showering, medical care, organization of educational, sport, work and other activities.” During their visits to prisons in 2002 and 2003 the BHC researchers established that the conditions in Bulgarian prisons are still far away from the European standards. There are identical problems in all prisons and prison hostels, mainly concerning the access to sanitary premises and the use of buckets for toilet needs; overpopulation, and the small area of the cells; the shortage and the poor condition of the beddings; the shortage of places where the prisoners can keep personal belongings; meagre food and inadequate health care. The standards of the Committee Against Torture at the European Council regulate that prisoners have 6 sq. m. of personal space. Almost no place for deprivation of liberty in Bulgaria meets these standards, and in some there are drastic deviations from the directions.

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

This is the situation in the prison hostels in Troyan and Kremikovci. The BHC researchers visited the Atlant Prison Hostel in Troyan on 16.07.2003 and established that the first cell in Group One measured 5.7 x 9.65 m, i.e. 55 sq.m. and was inhabited by 31 prisoners. Thus each person deprived of liberty had only 1.77 sq.m. available. All cells from the first prisoners' group located on the right side of the corridor have the same measurements and there are between 28 and 31 prisoners accommodated in each of these cells. The BHC researchers saw a similar situation in the Kremikovci Prison Hostel during their visit on 11.07.2003. Seventeen prisoners were accommodated in a 40.2 sq.m. prison cell, each of them having 2.36 sq.m. personal space. In the wooden barracks where the fifth prisoners' group is accommodated, 15 prisoners live in a space of 31.5 sq. m. resulting in a 2.1 sq.m. personal space. The worst situation is observed in another cell of the main building of the Kremikovci hostel where 15 prisoners live in a 25.4 sq. m. cell and each of them has it their disposal 1.69 sq. m. The lack of space is a major problem in the main building of the Burgas prison as well. The BHC researchers visited a cell with surface of 26 sq. m. that accommodated 18 prisoners, each of whom had 1.44 sq. m. of living space. The following table informs of the maximum number of prisoners placed in a single cell, according to data released by the administration of the prisons in the years 2002 and 2003. Prison

Maximum Number of prisoners placed in a single cell

Belene

Bobovdol

Boichinovci Reformatory

Burgas

Varna

Vratza

Lovech â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Troyan Hostel Veliko Turnovo Hostel

25, 3, 45

Pazardzik

Pleven

Plovdiv

Sliven

Sofia

Stara Zagora

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

The shortage of adequate financing and the overpopulation in the places for deprivation of liberty cause the problem with the lack of beddings, bedside tables and other furniture (tables and chairs) in the cells. The problem of the shortage and poor condition of the tables, chairs and personal belonging lockers is especially urgent in the prisons in Plovdiv, Pazardzik, Varna, Lovech, Bobovdol, Vratza, Pleven and Stara Zagora. In the prison in Lovech 4 prisoners share the same locker, and in the prison in Pleven there are only 3 lockers in a cell with 20 people. The material conditions in the cells in the Pleven prison are a cause of extreme concern. The linoleum on the floor, if there is linoleum at all, is torn, the walls are dirty, the windows are not well isolated and when it rains the rain gets into the cells through the windows. The cells are left unlocked only for a couple of hours a day, which causes serious hygienic inconveniences for the prisoners who need to use buckets for their natural needs throughout the whole day. The prisoners said that they had to empty out the full buckets through the windows. There is no running water in the cells. Buckets are used also in the prisons in Sliven, Varna, Lovech, Plovdiv, Burgas, Vratza, Sofia and Stara Zagora, but only during the night. In some of the places for deprivation of liberty there are not enough buckets. In the prison Atlant Prison Hostel in Troyan there are only 2-3 buckets in the most overcrowded cells with 35 people each. Some of the prisons experience water and central heating shortages and restrictions. Hot water is available only during the hours for showering and washing. The prison in Plovdiv has water-supply restrictions and the prisoners are not allowed to use water during the night and throughout most of the day. The situation is similar in the prison on the island of Belene. According to the inmates at the prisons in Lovech and Vratza the central heating is turned on only for a couple of hours during the day. The prisoners in the prison in Burgas have access to the bathroom only once in two weeks because the prison has problems with the hot water supply. During the winter of 2002-03 the prisoners were allowed to use the bathroom only once in three weeks due to fuel shortages. The sanitary premises in the prisons are also very unkempt. Although the toilets in the Boichinovci reformatory were renovated recently, the BHC researchers established that the sinks were broken, the taps were not functional, and the toilet seats were dirty. In the prison in Vratza there are 2 toilets on each floor and they are used by 100 people on average. The condition of the sanitary premises in the prison hostel in Troyan as of the visit of the BHC researchers in November 2003 was a cause of concern. In Troyan, the 150 prisoners on each floor used 3 toilets and 5 wash-basins with cold running water only. The beds in most of the prisons are old and need urgent replacement of the bedsprings and repainting. The mattresses, blankets and bed sheets, as well as the clothing and underwear and towels of the prisoners are in very bad condition. In the prison in Belene there are enough summer army clothes for all prisoners, but there are no large sizes for the overweight prisoners. In the Boichinovci reformatory some of the prisoners did not have shoes or flip-flops and walked bare foot during the BHC visit there. In general the clothing and underwear of the prisoners in Boichinovci, Burgas, Lovech, Bobovdol, Plovdiv and Pazardzik were worn out, torn, dirty and illfitting.

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

In many prisons the inmates complained about the poor hygiene and the spread of cockroaches. In the prisons in Varna and Pleven there were many complaints about the hygiene in the food lockers in the canteen and the spread of cockroaches in the canteen and the prison cells. 1.3

Food

Most of the prisoners have complaints about the amount and quality of the food. In some prisons (Varna, Boichinovci and Vratza) the complains were mostly about the quality of the food and not its quantity. The daily food allowance per prisoner in 2002-03 comes to 1.20 BGN (app. 0.60 Euro) on average. The daily food allowance values, as released by the prison administration in 2003, are as follows: Prison

Daily Food Allowance

Belene

1.30 BGN

Bobovdol

1.20 BGN

Boichinovci

1.27 BGN

Burgas

1.20 BGN

Varna

2,902 Kcal

Vratza

1.30 BGN

Lovech

1.05 BGN

Pazardzik

1.12 BGN

Pleven

2.12 BGN

Plovdiv

1.00 BGN

Sliven

No Data

Sofia

1.80 BGN

Stara Zagora

1.00 BGN

Besides the official funding received and determined according to the budget, the income from the economic activities of the prisons is also included in the so calculated value of the daily food allowance. In the prison in Pazardzik, for example, the daily food allowance is 1.12 BGN (app. 0.51 Euro), of which only 0.44 BGN comes from the budget and the rest comes from the prison's own income. The prison in Lovech did not receive funding for food from the state from the beginning of 2003 until 13.03.2003. Working prisoners are entitled to extra servings of food, but in some prisons there are only extra servings of bread for those prisoners (Sliven and Lovech). In the prison in Pazardzik the additional food for the working prisoners consists of wafers, bread,

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

margarine, and halva (sweet dish made of crushed sunflower seeds). In the prison in Vratza, the extra food allowance value for workers is 0.30 BGN and is an extra 175 grams of bread with an egg or cold cuts. In Sofia, the extra allowance value is also 0.30 BGN and usually comes as a can of food or cold cuts. There is variability in the frequency of meat in the diet in the various prisons. In the prisons in Sofia and Pazardzik meat is served 6 days a week. In the prison in Bobovdol, meat is also served almost every day. In the prison in Plovdiv, the meat is present 1-2 times per week, and in the prison in Lovech â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2-3 times per month (as stated by the prisoners; the administration reports that meat is served every other day). In the prison in Vratza, meat is served once a week. Meat soup is served for breakfast 3 days a week, and dishes with chopped meat - twice a week. In the prison in Pleven, every prisoner receives approximately 150 g of bread and 50 g of meat. In the reformatory in Boichinovci it was pointed out that the daily menu hardly provides the required 3,492 Kcal per day. The explanation is that very often the lower-calorie soy products replace meat products. According to the deputy chief of economic matters, meat is served twice a week and fish - once a week. However, from the inspected menu list it was evident that in the week of 21.07 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 03.08.2003 meat was not included in the menu in a single meal. The cook explained that meat is present in the meals only when an animal from the farm affiliated with the reformatory has been slaughtered. Apparently this happens rarely. In the prison in Sofia, according to the main cook, dietary food is prepared especially for prisoners with diabetes (15 people), ulcers (80 people) and liver problems (20 people). 1.4

Healthcare in the Places for Deprivation of Liberty

1.4.1 Legal Statute The legal problems arising after the Law for the Medical Establishments (LME) was passed have intensified and led to a drastically lower level of healthcare for the patients and insurmountable problems for the healthcare professionals. The lack of registration of medical centers according to LME makes their existence illegal. The medical documents issued are not in compliance with the legal regulations. Forms certifying agreement on the patient's side are also lacking. The medical information entered into the system of the places for deprivation of liberty is also not in conformity with the format accepted for the whole country and is much more limited. An additional problem is that the information is not public and is not available even to the Ministry of Health, in violation of Article 6, para. 3 of LME. The prison pharmacies are not registered, which is another violation of the domestic legislation. The Law for Control over the Narcotic Substances and Precursors is violated when certain medical substances are prescribed. Bulgarian legislation sets the norm for the duration of a medical examination at 20 minutes. At least 10,000 examinations are carried out in a single medical centre. There is an acute shortage of nursing medical personnel despite the large number of examinations. Approximately 90% of the prisoners have medical records, and in some 10

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

prisons this figure reaches 100% (Pleven and some others). The prison medical centres in the prisons do not consider the National Framework Contract and the packets for healthcare, determined by the Ministry of Health, as obligatory for them. Preventive examinations (general examinations) with the necessary thoroughness and frequency are carried out very rarely in the system of places for deprivation of liberty. The medical examinations upon admittance still do not include the measurement of the body weight. Another problem is the lack of information coordination when a prisoner is moved to or from another prison or institution (investigation detention centre, police stations, etc). In the summer of 2003 the Council of Ministers published Decree No. 159 that identified the prison medical centres as medical establishments in accordance with Art. 5, para. 1 of LME. Regulations for the medical centres' structure and activities was also published. According to these regulations at least three doctors and/or dentists need to be hired. This fact presupposes the hiring of another 10 doctors in the systems of the prisons. The chosen structure of the LME implies that only specialized medical care will be available in the medical centres thus leaving a gap in the provision of primary medical help. In the quoted documents it is not mentioned that the newly created medical establishments are legal entities, as required by art.3, para.2 of LME thus making their registration impossible. It is possible that they start their activity with a special permission, but such permission was still not received as of November 2003. 1.4.2 Economic Parameters The total allowance for a prisoner, including healthcare, was lower in 2003 than in the preceding period. The financial resources are still not differentiated in the budgets of the prisons. The other source of funding â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the National Health Insurance Fund, which after several years finally started playing a role in the medication purchases and the medical examinations and tests â&#x20AC;&#x201C; has now become practically unusable. After the large-scale campaign in the end of 2003 aiming at determining the good payers, it was established that almost all prisoners who went to prison after 2000 have unpaid instalments from the time before they were sentenced. The law states that the Ministry of Justice pays for the healthcare of the prisoners only during the time of their sentence. The prisoners themselves usually do not have the finances to pay back what they owe in terms of healthcare insurance from before. As a result the National Health Insurance Fund has refused healthcare and medical tests funding for approximately 80% of the prisoners. Special vehicles for transportation of sick prisoners were provided to the medical centres. However, these vehicles lack medical equipment and are in practice used for all kinds of transportation needs of the prisons. 1.4.3 Addictions

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Medical history in the prisons in Varna, Burgas, Plovdiv, Bobovdol and Sofia shows that there is a strong tendency towards an increase in the number of drug addicts. The appropriate medical treatment is only available in the prison hospitals in Lovech and Sofia. 1.4.4 Tuberculosis In 1996-97 a sharp increase in the number of tuberculosis cases was registered. Since 2000 there has been a continuous gradual decrease and in 2002-03 a decrease was also registered. Undoubtedly this is due to the large number of hospitalized and treated patients and to the active and appropriate treatment in the tuberculosis clinic in Lovech. Out of all non-capital prisons in the country, only this prison clinic has necessary conditions for the treatment of the disease. The average patient's stay at the clinic is several months due to the limited number of beds and the large number of sick prisoners. In general the requirements of medical and regulatory nature with regard to the period of convalescence are not met in the provincial prisons, which creates the danger of disablement or even death. In approximately 40% of the prisons visited in 2003 the required health diet was not provided. There are even no requests for such diets in the prison in Stara Zagora. The most common reason is lack of funding. It is only natural that cases of recurrence and aggravation of the sickness occur. The dental care has definitely improved as compared to the period 2000-02. A common practice has become the preventive annual examination with a fluorograph. The medical problems in the places for deprivation of liberty are complex, numerous and serious. The solution of the problems as well as the medical staff's observance of the prisoners' rights require independence of the medical centres, separate administration and an increase in the specific funding from the budget of the Ministry of Justice.

Disciplinary Practices â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Analysis of the Practice from 2002 and 2003

2.1 Introduction ` The prisonersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; every day activities are determined by the regime. As stated in the Law for the Execution of Penalties, the regime facilitates the establishment of order and discipline and the use of time during the day. The previous BHC publication on the human rights situation in Bulgarian prisons1 pointed out that the practice of the inference of and the penalty imposition in the prisons are still not standardized. The current BHC research on the disciplinary practices in Bulgarian prisons covers a period with legislative changes. This affected the practices of the changing of the regime of the prisoners, the penalty impositions and the encouragement distribution, the early release on probation and the job placements.

Human Rights in Bulgarian Prisons, Sofia, BHC, 2002.

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

2.2

Rewards

The reward is an integral part of the maintenance of order and discipline in the places for deprivation of liberty. Under Article 74 of LEP rewards are given for marked discipline, significant labour achievements and other positive acts of the inmates. The 2002 amendments of the Law for Execution of Penalties introduced two new kinds of rewards: Article 74, para.1, i) “Leave up to 12 hours out of the place for deprivation from liberty of the inmate, accommodated at prison hostels of open and transition type”, and Article 74, para. 1, k) “Deleting or revoking of an imposed disciplinary sanction.” The information collected by BHC in 2002 from the places for deprivation of liberty points out that the two most preferred forms of rewards by the prison administrations are two to five days leave and an increase of the due under the regime sums for satisfying of personal needs up to 50% - for a term of one month. The most common reward in 2002 in the prisons in Belene, Bobovdol, Burgas, Vratza, Pleven and Plovdiv was home leave for 2 to 5 days. In the prisons in Lovech and Stara Zagora the prisoners are most commonly rewarded with extraordinary visits or food parcels. The greatest number of rewards in the form of an increase of the due under the regime sums for satisfying of personal needs up to 50% are rewarded in the prisons in Belene, Burgas, Lovech, Plovdiv and Pazardzik. The dire financial and social circumstances of the prisoners in Bulgarian prisons and the limited financial resources of the prisons explains the data. In the prisons in Belene, Bobovdol, Lovech, Pleven, Stara Zagora the number of rewards is bigger than the number of punishments. Prison

Most Commonly Awarded Reward

Second Most Commonly Awarded Reward

Belene

Up to 5 days home leave – 106

Increase in the due under the regime sums by 50% - 88

197

Up to 5 days home leave – 148

Extraordinary visit or food parcel - 117

377

Pecuniary and material awards

Excursion – 35

Burgas

Home leave for 2-5 days – 442

Increase in the due under the regime sums by 50% - 223

n.a.

Varna

n.a.

Vratza

Up to 5 days home leave

Extraordinary visit or food parcel

121, 510 inmates

Lovech

Extraordinary visit or food parcel - 703

Increase in the due under the regime sums by 50% - 389

1,559 rewards, 824 inmates

Pazardzik

Increase in the due under the regime sums

Up to 2 days home

584

Bobovdol Boichninovci

Number of Visits

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Prison

Most Commonly Awarded Reward

Second Most Commonly Awarded Reward

by 50% - 291

leave – 106

Up to 2 days home leave – 157

Up to 5 days home leave – 131

Plovdiv

Up to 5 days home leave – 207

Increase in the due under the regime sums by 50% - 192

528 inmates

Sliven

n.a.

189

Sofia

n.a.

Stara Zagora

Extraordinary visit or food parcel - 530

Up to 5 days home leave - 301

1,387

Pleven

2.3

Number of Visits

486

Offences

The amendments of Article 40 of the Law for Execution of Penalties introduced new limitations for the prisoners. Inmates are not allowed: to receive or possess printed and other materials with pornographic content or proclaiming national, ethnic, racial or religious hatred; to conduct meetings and group protests; to conduct meetings, which are not permitted by the administration; to move without control in and out of the region of the places for deprivation from liberty, except in the cases, provided in the law. These amendments have significantly increased the tension among the prisoners, especially given the over-crowdedness of the prisons and the arising social and everyday problems, typical of the examined period (mid 2002 to the end of 2003). The prisoners often have an unanimous opinion about certain problems related to the living conditions and the actions of the prison and prison hostel administration or the guards. Therefore a meeting could easily turn into a protest and for this reason the prisoners do not receive permissions to organize meetings. Very rarely can they use the media to bring their problems to the public attention since journalists need special permission from the prison or prison hostel governor (Article 34, para. 3 of LEP), and they are most often an interested party in the matter. The released statistics on the offences in 2002 in some prisons reveal that the most common offence in the prisons in Plovdiv, Stara Zagora, and the reformatory in Boichinovci is fighting among inmates. Fights account for 17% of all offences in the prison in Plovdiv, 30% in the prison in Stara Zagora, and 30% - in Boichinovci. The most common offences in the prisons in Pazardzik, Vratza and Burgas are the possession of prohibited objects, the attempts to bring in prohibited letters and objects, thefts and frauds. No data on the offences in 2002 have been collected in the prisons in Bobovdol, Varna, Lovech, Pleven, Sofia, and Sliven. Prison

Most Common Offence

Second Most Common Total Number of Offence Penalized Offences

Belene

Insubordination to

Violence - 29

166

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Prison

Most Common Offence

Second Most Common Total Number of Offence Penalized Offences

orders - 39 Bobovdol

n.a.

322

Boichinovci

Battery - 27

Others

Burgas

Theft, fraud, appropriation – 91

Gambling - 80

Varna

n.a.

Vratza

Possession of prohibited Offences related to the objects – 73 work, insubordination to orders – 55

192 for the period July – December 2002

Lovech

n.a.

560

Pazardzik

Attempts to bring in and Not allowed contacts out letters and and visits – 175 prohibited objects – 452

1341

Pleven

n.a.

204

Plovdiv

Prisoner fights – 72

Bringing in, preparation and consumption of alcohol – 38 427

Sliven

n.a.

305

Sofia

n.a.

539

Stara Zagora

Battery – 141

Insubordination to or non-performance of orders – 76

466

442

n.a.

It is an attested by both prisoners and the prison administrations that the overpopulation, the lack of enough furniture to keep personal belongings in, the shortage of jobs or other activities outside the cells influence the number and character of the offences. For this reason the solution of the disciplinary problems among prisoners should be sought for through the improvement of the material conditions. On the other hand the analysis of the statistical data revealed by the prisons indicates that in some prisons the prisoners can play card games undisturbed. In other prisons card games are considered offences and are penalized. In some prisons the obese prisoners are allowed to wear their own clothes as opposed to the uniform due to the shortage of bigger-size clothes. Thus there is a paradox when thinner prisoners are penalized for not wearing the uniform while the obese prisoners do not have to wear it at all. These observations and the vast differences in the disciplinary practices among the prisons leaves the impression that the penitentiary system in Bulgaria is still not ruled by clearly set rules. 2.4

Procedure for Establishing That an Offence Has Been Committed and 15

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Execution of the Penalty In the cases when a prisoner has committed an offence the member of staff who has established the offence is obliged to prepare and submit a report to the executive director of the prison. The report must precisely describe the facts and the circumstances – what happened, who the offenders were and what actions were taken to prevent or stop the offence. When increased security measures had to be used, the report must inform of the reasons for their use, what the measures were in particular and when the necessity for their use disappeared. The employee must also point out witnesses of the incident and to attach the explanations of the offenders and the witnesses. In the report the employee may suggest a penalty. The report is submitted to the inspector (Social Activity and Reforming Work – SARW) of the group, who prepares a resolution move for application of a penalty. The inspectors are experts with pedagogical qualifications and their function is regulated in the law as follows: “At the places of deprivation from liberty reformation work shall be carried out, directed to improvement and reformation of the inmates, increase of their culture, legal and moral consciousness” (Article 65, LEP). The participation of the inspectors in the penal procedures makes the prisoners perceive them as part of the security system of the prison and not as pedagogues and educators. On the other hand the involvement of the inspector with an opinion on the offence and an evaluation of the penalty guarantees that the penalty will be in accordance with the prisoners' personal characteristics and will thus have the expected instructive and reforming effect. During the present study it was not possible to establish to what extent the opinions of the SARW inspectors and the executive directors of the prisons differ from each other with regard to the kind and severity of the penalty. Once the SARW inspector has finished working on the report, it is handed in to the deputy-executive director in charge of social activities, who also has to approve or disprove of the suggested penalty. Article 78, para. 1 of the Law for Execution of Penalties states: “The disciplinary penalties shall be imposed by the chief of the prison.” However, the law does not require the executive director to examine the paperwork and to listen to the offender's side (for example the executive director of the prison in Lovech delegated this right to his deputy). The penalty itself is executed by the Commission, which must hear the defendant. The order for the execution of a disciplinary penalty must be motivated. Otherwise, no matter whether it has been appealed or not, it can be repealed by the Central Penitentiary Administration. During the interviews with some prisoners who had been penalized, it became clear that the prisoners were often not allowed to testify and explain the offence. In August 2003 the prisoner B.I. from the Kremikovci prison hostel was penalized with “isolation in a penalty cell” - at first for three days and then for another five. The penalties were imposed because he “accused members of the administration in biased attitude towards him.” Before the execution of the penalties I. prepared a written defence document. During the procedure for the penalty imposition, he was not given the opportunity to defend himself and throughout the whole time he was interrupted by the prison employees. Immediately after the imposition of the penalties he appealed and at the moment is awaiting a date for the case (2 cases). He is afraid that he will once again be deprived of the opportunity to protect himself and

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

for this reason he wants to get a defender, which he has the right to (Article 78b, para 3). The conclusion of the present study is that certain aspects of the disciplinary practices need to be clarified and made more precise. The previous publication attempted to analyze the practice for establishing the details of the offence and to later compare it with the practice for the imposition of disciplinary penalties. The time interval between the perpetration of the offence and the imposition of the penalty can be between a couple of hours and a couple of days. During that time the facts are verified. In the prison in Sofia there is a special cell for the accommodation of inmate offenders until the situation has been clarified. The cell is known under the acronym UPE (Until Penalty Execution). On 30.01.2003 after a day of strong toothache and not receiving the necessary dental care, the prisoner M.P. expressed his protest by breaking the window of the cell door in front of the guards. Immediately after the incident he received dental care. After that, around 8 pm, he was placed in First Group, where there is a higher security zone, until the circumstances were made clear. He was kept isolated in the cell until 04.02.2003 when he was imposed a penalty of isolation in a penalty cell for 7 days. The penalty was executed from the day of its imposition and not from the day of his isolation for the investigation process. According to the penalty practices in the prisons the days spent in the UPE cell are not subtracted from the length of the imposed penalty. According to the officer on duty captain D. and major Sergeant L.I., who were on duty on 30.01.2003, the length of the stay in the UPE cell is not more than a day. The case of the prisoner P., who spent almost 4 days in the cell, was explained by the fact that the penalty could not be imposed and executed over the weekend and in such cases the penalty was imposed on the first working day. According to an employee of the regime-administrative office of the prison the normative ordinance that regulates the stay in a cell until the situation has been clarified is the â&#x20AC;&#x153;police law.â&#x20AC;? However, the Law for the Execution of Penalties does not contain a reference to the detention of people in the prisons based on Art. 70 of the Interior Ministry Act. The detention until the situation has been clarified is not itself documented. The employees of the regime-administrative department did not count the stay in the UPE cell as a punishment and this explains why they did not deduct the length of that stay from the penalty. The above-mentioned procedure for preparing the offence reports requires an investigation and the inclusion of the standpoint of several penitentiary employees. During the investigation part of the content of the report may not be confirmed by the collected evidence. For this reason one may assume that the number of offence reports should be greater than the number of imposed penalties. And when the offence is light, the measures may be pedagogical. The data on the number of offences and the number of penalties indicates that the ratio offence to penalty is one to one in almost all prisons. Prison

Number of offences in 2002

Number of penalties in 2002

Belene

166

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Prison

Number of offences in 2002

Number of penalties in 2002

Bobovdol

322

Boichninovci

Burgas

442

441

Varna

No data

Vratza

192 for the period 07-12.2002

169 for the period 07-12.2002

Lovech

560

Pazardzik

1341

1343

Pleven

204

175

Plovdiv

427

602

Sliven

305

371

Sofia

539

Stara Zagora

466

372

Fewer penalties than the total number of offences have been imposed in the prisons in Stara Zagora, Vratza, and Pleven. The data reveal the opposite trend in the prisons in Sliven and Plovdiv. The explanation of the prison administrations of the two prisons is that a single offence is often committed by multiple offenders and very rarely are there cases when the one prisoner suffers two penalties for the one offence. In a letter to BHC from 07 April 2003 the executive director of the prison in Plovdiv gave examples of such offences: “One prisoner tattooing another – then both prisoners are penalized for the same offence; gambling – one offence, several offenders and several penalties.” However, the secretariat at the prison in Plovdiv did not mention these particular offences as some of the most common ones. The executive director also clarified that “in rare cases, but only when the offences are very serious or there is a case of recidivism of particular offences, two penalties for the same offence can be imposed by the order of Article 79, para. 3 of the Law for Execution of Penalties.” The data from the first 9 months of 2003 point to a different trend: Prison

Number of reports on offences committed by inmates for the period January-September 2003

Number of orders for disciplinary penalties for the period January – September 2003

Belene

170

171

Bobovdol

207

156

Boichninovci

138

Burgas

991

572

Varna

470

509

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Prison

Number of reports on offences committed by inmates for the period January-September 2003

Number of orders for disciplinary penalties for the period January – September 2003

Vratza

404

229

Lovech

703

454

Pazardzik

635

545

Pleven

133

205

Plovdiv

432

522

Sliven

976

256

Sofia

980

445

Stara Zagora

307

390

The table illustrates that the investigation procedures are vastly different in the different prisons. In some prisons the number of reports is smaller than the imposed offences, whereas in others the number of reports is significantly bigger than the number of penalties. The bigger number of penalties in relation to investigation reports in the prisons in Belene, Varna, Pleven, Plovdiv and Stara Zagora is possibly due to the preparation of a larger number of reports on offences with multiple offenders such as fights and card games. This fact is indicative of the different directions in which the disciplinary repression in the difference prisons aims at. When there are many reports, the employees of НОС are probably very pedantic and careful to follow the regulations and file a reports for every offence. The opposite case is possible too – reports are filed only for obvious and serious offences of the regulations. 2.5

Penalties

The 2002 amendments and additions to LEP (State Gazette, issue 62, 2002) revoked the following penalties: reprimand, deprivation of correspondence rights for up to 3 months, deprivation of visits for up to 3 months and deprivation of the right to receive food parcels for up to 3 months (all present in the former LEP in Article 76, b, f, g, and h. The reasons for these changes were most probably complex: the realization that these penalties are not efficient for the purposes of reform; the financial difficulties experienced by the prisons in providing the prisoners with food and personal hygiene items (that are often provided for by relatives during visits or sent in parcels); the view that the visits will later ease the process of reintegration and re-socialization in society. Only one new penalty was introduced: repealing of an award, which has not been used, but this penalty is almost never applied in practice. As mentioned in the previous BHC publication 2, the amendments of Article 76 of LEP improved the rights and freedoms of the prisoners. However, the limitations of the range of penalties are conductive to an increase in the number of tougher penalties, such as isolation, which cannot not lead to a more humane penitentiary system. The data on Bulgarian prisons in 2002 reveal that the most common penalties 2

Human Rights in Bulgarian Prisons, BHC, 2002, p.15.

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

were extraordinary duties for cleaning, isolation in a penalty cell without going to work and reduction of the due sums under the regime. The statistics on the relative share of isolation as a penalty indicate: ● There are a total of 322 penalties in Bobovdol, of which 152 penalties are isolation in a penalty cell without going to work (47%). ● In Lovech, 142 penalties of a total of 560 are isolation in a penalty cell without going to work (25%). ● In Pazardzik, 503 penalties of a total of 1,343 are isolation in a penalty cell without going to work (37%). ● In Pleven, 75 penalties out of a total of 175 are isolation in a penalty cell without going to work (34%). ● In Plovdiv, 168 penalties out of a total of 602 are isolation in a penalty cell without going to work (28%). ● In Sliven, 109 penalties out of a total of 371 are isolation in a penalty cell without going to work (29%). ● In Stara Zagora, 168 penalties out of a total of 372 are isolation in a penalty cell without going to work (45%). In the prisons in Bobovdol, Plovdiv, Sliven, and Stara Zagora the isolation in a penalty cell without going to work was the most common form of penalty. It was the second most common penalty for 2002 in the prisons in Pazardzik, Pleven, Boichinovci. There was no 2002 data available for the prisons in Sofia, Belene and Varna. The prison in Vratza is an exception because the most common penalty there is a “note with warning” and it was imposed 102 times in the period July – December 2002 (out of a total of 169 penalties for the second half of the year). Prison

Most Common Penalty

Second Most Common Penalty

Belene

In the last 6 months 43 “isolation in a penalty cell” penalties were imposed

No data

Isolation in a penalty cell without going to work – 152

Extraordinary cleaning duty – 85

322

Extraordinary cleaning duty – 51

Isolation in a penalty cell without going to work – 19

Deprivation of correspondence for up to 3 months – 230

Deprivation of visits for up to 3 months – 107

441

Varna

No data

Vratza

Note with warning 102 for the second half of 2002

Extraordinary duty for 169 for the period cleaning – 41 for the second 07-12/2002 half of 2002

Lovech

Extraordinary cleaning duty – 188

Reduction of the due sums under the regime up to 50% - 162

Bobovdol Boichinovci Burgas

Pazardzik

Extraordinary cleaning duty – 547

Total Number of Penalties

166

560

Isolation in a penalty cell without going to work – 503 1343

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Prison

Most Common Penalty

Second Most Common Penalty

Total Number of Penalties

Pleven

Extraordinary cleaning duty – 67

Isolation in a penalty cell without going to work – 60

175

Isolation in a penalty cell without going to work – 168

Reduction of the due sums under the regime up to 50% - 107

602

Plovdiv

Sliven

Isolation in a penalty cell without going to work – 109

No data

Sofia

No data

539

Stara Zagora

Isolation in a penalty cell without going to work – 168

Extraordinary cleaning duty – 130

372

371

Considering the fact that the inmates isolated in penalty cells without going to work are not only deprived of visits, but also of food parcels and personal expenses money (Article76a, LEP), the new LEP regulations are even less humane than the old ones. This trend was also observed in the first 9 months of 2003. The following table illustrates the differences among the prisons for the year 2003. Prison

Number of prisoners as at 01.11.2003

Number of disciplinary penalty orders

Number of Share of the total imposed penalties number of by the order of penalties (%) Art. 76, i) and j) of LEP

Belene

604

171

35.67

Bobovdol

443

156

54.5

Boichinovci

130

393

67.24

Burgas

773

572

220

38.5

Varna

895

509

217

42.63

Vratza

678

229

37.55

Lovech

1358

454

128

28.2

Pazardzik

676

545

197

36.14

Pleven

681

205

46.83

Plovdiv

908

522

231

44.25

Sliven

310

256

34.77

Sofia

1466

445

263

59.1

In the reformatory Boichinovci the imposed penalties are by the order of Art. 124, para.1, h) of LEP: “isolation in penalty cell with or without going to work and school – up to five days for the general and up to ten days for the severe regime.” 3

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Prison

Number of prisoners as at 01.11.2003

Number of disciplinary penalty orders

Number of Share of the total imposed penalties number of by the order of penalties (%) Art. 76, i) and j) of LEP

Stara Zagora

996

390

181

46.41

The prisons in Sliven, Belene and Pazardzik have the smallest share of isolations in penalty cells based on all imposed penalties, whereas the reformatory in Boichinovci and the prisons in Sofia and Bobovdol have the largest. The prisons in Burgas, Pazardzik and Sliven have the largest relative share of isolations by the order of art.76, j) and i) based on the total number of prisoners in the particular prison. The terms of the isolations in penalty cells were also an important component of the disciplinary practices in the prisons in 2003. As the following table illustrates, the executive directors do not have a uniform rule. Prison

Number of imposed penalties by the order of Article 76, i) and j) of LEP

Up to 7 Days

Over 7 Days

Belene

Bobovdol

85, 21 of which imposed by the order of Art. 81 of LEP 14

Boichinovci

39 by the order of Art.124, h) of LEP

29 – up to 3 days

10 – up to 5 days

Burgas

220

120

100

Varna

217

158

Vratza

Lovech

Data not collected

Pazardzik

197

136

Pleven

Plovdiv

231

154

Sliven

Sofia

263

194

Stara Zagora

181

In some prisons (Varna, Pazardzik, Plovdiv, Sofia, Sliven) it is more common to impose short-term isolations, and in others (Belene, Bobovdol, Stara Zagora) – longterm ones. Two of the prisons for first-time offenders (in Belene and Stara Zagora)

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

and two of the prisons for recidivists (in Sofia and Pleven) released 2003 data for isolation by the order of Article 76, i), LEP (with going out to work) and Article 76, j), LEP (without going out to work). The penalties without going out to work are imposed on non-working prisoners who commit offences more often than the employed ones. The number of isolations for over 7 days is significantly higher than the number of isolations for up to 7 days in the three prisons for first-time offenders (Belene, Bobovdol and Stara Zagora), which is probably due to the specifics of the committed felons. In the all other prisons the recidivists' better adaptability to the prison conditions has led to the practice of imposing a greater number of short-term isolations in the penalty cell as opposed to isolations for over 7 days. Prison

Number of Imposed Art. 76, i) Penalties under Art. Up to 7 Over 7 Total 76, i) and j) of LEP Days Days

Art. 76, j) Up to 7 Days

Over 7 Days

Total

Belene

Pleven

Sofia

263

171

240

Stara Zagora

181

171

The maximum length of isolation in a penalty cell regulated by LEP is 14 days. In some cases, two or more consecutive isolations can be imposed on the prisoners. After the first 14-day isolation is over, the second one begins immediately. Article 106 of the Regulation for Implementation of the Law for Execution of Penalties provides â&#x20AC;&#x153;Two or more consecutive punishments of isolation in a penalty cell, with our without going to work, shall not be implemented without a break of no less than 3 days between them, unless their total duration is up to 20 daysâ&#x20AC;?. Thus with the subsidiary normative act the length of the continuous isolation in a penalty cell is increased to 20 days. During the BHC visits it was established that it is a common occurrence to impose two, three or more isolations on prisoners who have systematically breached the regulations. This practice is facilitated by the lack of disciplinary commissions to determine specific penalties to specific offences. Instead of a series of isolations, Article 85, a) of LEP regulates that such prisoners can be accommodated in permanently locked premises under strengthened supervision and guard, and every three months there will be an assessment of the need for continuing the application of the measure. The complaint to BHC of the prisoner S.P. in the prison in Varna provides a typical example of such abuse by the administration through continuous isolations. I have been in a penalty cell since 22 August 2003. I declared in written statement that I declined to eat meat. The chief of the social inspectors Mr. A. and I reached a consensus and I started received food without meat on the basis of the declaration. this was done without a written order, but the oral order of Mr. A. was followed strictly. After two months the feeding without meat was suspended because there was not legislative act. No one answered my question as to why I was given food without meat without the act in the first place. Later, I got 14 days in the penalty cell because I declined to eat meat. It was fabricated that I declined to follow an order. Subsequently, there was another invented accusation and I was given another 14 days isolation because I offended 23

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

and slandered employees of the prison in Varna by filing appeals. After that after another 'invention' I was imposed another 14 days of isolation because I “threatened” a sergeant from НОС. I am going to serve this penalty from 22.10.2003. After that I will serve another 14 days because I have had in possession prohibited items in the penalty cell. The amendments and additions to LEP give the prisoners the opportunity to appeal (including in court) the imposed on them disciplinary penalties related to isolations in penalty cells (Article 76, i) and j) of LEP. The following table shows that the prisoners in all prisons, but the reformatory in Boichinovci, made use of this opportunity. Prison

Appealed penalties under Article 76, i) and j) of LEP

Appeals considered by the Court

Belene

Bobovdol

Boichinovci

Burgas

Varna

Vratza

Lovech

Pazardzik

Pleven

i) – 1; j) - 2

Plovdiv

Sliven

Sofia

Stara Zagora

The share of isolation appeals is greatest in the prisons in Varna (18%) and Belene (13%). The smallest share is observed in the prisons in Plovdiv (3.03%), Pleven (3.1%) and Bobovdol (3.5%). The reformatory in Boichinovci has been excluded from this analysis. The situation in the reformatory in Boichinovci with regard to appeals is very disturbing and illustrates the lack of legal assistance when it comes to disciplinary procedures in the Bulgarian places for deprivation of liberty. This state of affairs contradicts the status of the under-aged offenders in the penal process – they are obligatorily provided with a lawyer, when necessary – free of charge. In the other prisons the prisoners who have been imposed penalties, should be allowed access to legal assistance when they need it, including free of charge when they cannot afford to pay for a lawyer themselves. The share of appeals considered grounded by the court out of all appeals filed during the 9 months in 2003 is 13%.

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Interviews with the prison administrations revealed that neither the SARW inspectors, nor the regime inspectors have clarity on the rules for disciplinary penalties appeals. Since the order for disciplinary penalties regularizes only the time terms on the report consideration (Article 78b, para.2, LEP) by the body that issued the order 9 most commonly the chief of the prison, as well as on the consideration of the case by the court (art.78b, para.3, LEP). However, since the time term of the appeal of the penalty imposition order is not settled, the BHC researchers established that the different prison administrations had different interpretations of the procedure. In a penalty imposition order form in the prison in Plovdiv one can read the following: “This order can be appealed in front of the Plovdiv district court no later than 7 days from the date it was given to the penalized individual.” The same form in the prison in Pleven reads the following: “This order can be appealed in front of the Pleven district court no later than 14 days of its issuance.” In the prison in Stara Zagora the interpretation is that as the law does not specify the deadline, by which the order can be appealed; the penalized prisoner has the right to appeal regardless of the time period that passes since its imposition. The prison administration gave an example of a prisoner who served his penalty under Article 76, j, LEP more than 6 months ago and appealed the order only when he found out that there was a record of his penalty in his personal file. In accordance with the regulations set by LEP the prison administration sent the appeal to the court that considered it in the term set by law. The table makes it evident that the appeals of imposed penalties in only 4 prisons have been found grounded by the court. It is interesting to note that out of 40 appeals since the beginning of 2003 in the prison in Varna, 12 (30%) were found justified by the court. In the prison in Sofia, the court found 2 appeals justified (18%) out of a total of 11 appeals. When the appeal of the penalty is sent to the court, which then sets the day for the case within the 3-day period regulated by law, the prisoner should be allowed to wait for the court decision and only after that, if the court confirms the penalty, should he be isolated. In some cases (common for the Sofia district court) the court cannot consider the appeal within a 3-day time period and sets a date sometimes in more than a month's time. In such cases the prison administration assumes that the appeal does not prevent the execution of the penalty and isolates the prisoner. The administration assumes that in order to achieve the expected result the penalty should be executed immediately after the offence. Indeed, the Law for Execution of Penalties does not explicitly state whether the appeal stops the penalty execution. In the case when the court rules the penalty unjustified the only action that can be taken is the removal of the penalty record of the prisoner's personal file. The discussed issue is of great importance to the prisoners due to the legal consequences that the imposition of disciplinary penalties has on them. These determine the prisoners' work status, the decision of the commission of Article 17 in LEP to offer the prisoner for early liberation on probation, change of the regime for execution of the penalty to a lighter one, etc. For this reason the settlement of this matter is of urgent priority. In fact, the disciplinary penalty appeal case, as well as the investigation for the penalty imposition, should provide a fair trial and include the opportunity to call on and interrogate witnesses on the penalized prisoner's side, to present evidence, to have legal defence, etc. Unfortunately, even the existing rare practice of appeals against the 25

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

disciplinary penalty “isolation in a penalty cell” shows that the legal control is more or less perfunctory. It is moreover based on the prison administration's account because often the prisoners do not have access to all the paperwork on their cases, do not have the financial means to hire a lawyer and to call on witnesses on their side. The lack of a clear legal appeal procedure gives the prison administrations the opportunity to interpret and act arbitrarily. Here is a typical case: With an order from 03.07.2003 the prisoner M.S. was given 14 days isolation in a penalty cell because on 08.06.2003 he came into conflict with a НОС employee. The order was handed to the prisoner M.S. on 08.07.2003 (i.e. one month after the offence) and he declined to sign it in front of 2 witnesses. The same day he appealed the penalty. The court did not set a date for the legal proceedings, the prisoner S. was isolated in a penalty cell on 22.07.2003. In a phone conversation on 01.08.2003 the chief of the Kremikovci prison hostel confirmed that S. was isolated in a penalty cell without waiting to set the date for the case. He also confirmed that despite the filing of the appeal, he had not received notification from the Sofia district court that a date had been set. The governor made inquiries in the regime office in the prison in Sofia and he was told that the appeal did not stop the execution of the penalty. According to the chief, in case the court repealed the penalty, the record of the penalty would be deleted from the prisoner's personal file and would not “burden him.” In the end, the case was heard in mid-August 2003. The court confirmed the penalty. 2.6

Prolonged Isolations

Before the amendments and additions to LEP in 2003, there were a few mechanisms in different acts and by-laws that legally regulated for the prolonged isolation of prisoners in permanently locked premises under strengthened supervision and guard. The amendments to LEP introduced a new Article 85a, the text of which draws on the text of Article 56a of the Regulation for Implementation of the Law for the Execution of Penalties. Three mechanisms were created in order to prevent the administration from arbitrariness with the Article 85a isolation penalty execution: the measure shall be immediately terminated when the grounds for its imposition fall away; an assessment of the need for continuing the application of the measure shall be made every three months; the inmate can appeal the order according to the location of the prison or the reformatory of the prisoner. The amendments also introduced Article 130 that allows prolonged isolations for accused and defendants executed after a written ruling of the respective prosecutor or court or after a written ruling by the prison chief for gross and systematic violations of the set rules that set threats to the safety in the prison. The defendant or the accused can appeal such isolations every month by the order of Article 78b of LEP. The data collected on the Bulgarian prisons in 2002 leads to the conclusion that the isolations under Article 85 of LEP are used very rarely as opposed to the isolations under Article 85a. The latter do not require an order from the Ministry of Justice and show identical results. According to LEP isolations under Article 85, LEP can only be given to prisoners, serving sentences under lighter regime and the placement in isolation under Article 85a can only be imposed on prisoners put under severe or hard severe regime. The following table shows that very few isolations were appealed in 2002. One of the 26

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

reasons is undoubtedly the inadequate legal assistance that inmates receive when their penalties are executed. In addition, since isolations can be appealed under Article 78b of LEP, the deadline for appealing the order for the penalty execution has not been specified by the law. Other disputable issues are the subjectivity of penalty execution decision, the limited opportunities the defendant has to prove his claims, and the frequent lack of opportunity to appeal in terms of material shortages such as the lack of paper and envelopes. On the other hand, the prison administrations claim that more and more frequently the prisoners prefer isolations because this gives them the opportunity to have more space to themselves and share the space with significantly fewer prisoners. This argument was used by the administrations to explain the low number of appeals against isolations under Article 85a, LEP. Prison

Isolated prisoners under Isolated prisoners under Appeals against the Article 85 of LEP (up to Article 85a, LEP during isolation under Article 2 months) during the last the last 6 months 85a 6 months

Belene

Bobovdol

Burgas

Varna

No data

Vratza

Number unknown, but there are appeals

Pazardzik

Pleven

1 unsuccessful

Plovdiv

Sliven

1 unsuccessful

Sofia

No data

Stara Zagora

No data

Lovech

The data gathered for the 9 months in 2003 leads to the conclusion that isolation under Article 85 is applied only in 4 prisons, whereas isolation under Art. 85a is typical of all prisons (isolations under Article 85 and 85a do not apply for minors inmates in the reformatory in Boichinovci). As the following table illustrates, there is no direct correlation between the total number of prisoners in a prison and the number of people placed in isolation under Articles 85 and 85a.

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

Prison

Isolated prisoners under Article 85 of LEP (up to 2 months) during the last 6 months

Isolated prisoners under Article 85a, LEP during the last 6 months

Appeals against the isolation orders under Article 85a

Appeals upheld by the court

Belene

Bobovdol

Burgas

Varna

Vratza

Lovech

Pazardzik

Pleven

Plovdiv

Sliven

Sofia

Stara Zagora

The prisons in Pazardzik, Burgas and Sofia have the greatest relative share of prolonged isolations. The prison administrations in Vratza, Bobovdol, Plovdiv and Stara Zagora have managed to reduce the number of the isolations to a minimum. In only three prisons since the beginning of 2003, the Article 85a prolonged isolations have been appealed. Up to the moment of the publishing of this report there have been no cases of court rulings in favour of the appeals. The study established that in some cases the isolations were imposed and executed without the required legal reason and without following the necessary legal regulations. The following case is such an example. During the period from 23.06 until 23.07.2003 the prisoner S.T. in the prison in Burgas was isolated in Sector 2. According to his testimony, he was not informed of the reason for the isolation and the legal grounds for it. He was not imposed a penalty and was not informed of an isolation under Articles 85 or 85a of LEP. He was only told that he was the most dangerous recidivist. After an inquiry by BHC, the prison governor explained the situation in such a way: We would like to inform you that with an order of the Prison Governor of the Burgas Prison from 23.07.2003, the prisoner S.T. was placed in Zone 2 with strengthened guard. The motives for this order are: to protect the prisoner's health, as well as to prevent the prisoner S.T. from harming himself or making a suicide attempt because on 18.06.2003 around 5:15 p.m. the prisoner S.T. tried to commit suicide by taking a large number of pills.

Bulgaria: Disciplinary Practices in Places of Detention Excerpts

After the danger of attempted suicide subsided, the prisoner S.T. was taken out of the Zone 2 with strengthened security with an order of the governor of the Burgas Prison. The director's letter does not point to the legal grounds for order for placement in Second Zone with strengthened guard. The prisoner was not informed of the legal grounds either. The prisoner I.Y. from the Seventh Group in the prison in Sofia was placed in isolation on 23.09.2003 at 5 p.m. in a penalty cell in First Group following an order by the officer on duty Y.Y. The head guard was told that the isolation would continue until the case was cleared. The prisoner Y. was accused of stealing cigarettes. He was placed in isolation without food or water at the particular time and without a bucket for physiological needs. His stay in the penalty cell lasted until 8:15 p.m. when he was moved to the third cell in the same corridor. While he was in the penalty cell the head guard P. entered the cell and started kicking him in the ankles because the prisoner had knocked on the door to be allowed access to the toilet. At 8:30 a.m. on 14.09.2003 he was released, without being given a document listing the legal grounds for the isolation and without being penalized for the act for which he was placed in isolation. A week later he had yet to receive an explanation for the isolation. The prisoner Y. wrote two appeals â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to the prison governor and the deputy chief for regime-security activities, but until the visit of the BHC researcher he had not received an answer.