Former Convicts are out of Social Support System: A. Sakunts
00:00, July 19, 2011 | News | Right to be free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment | Detention Facilities
Interview with Artur Sakunts, head of the “Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor Office” NGO, Head of the Group of Public Observers Conducting Monitoring of Penitentiary Institutions.
What is the situation in Armenia with respect to torture? Is there torture in Armenia and where is it used?
One can consider that there is torture in all closed and semi-closed institutions and institutions where inhuman treatment is displayed – in penitentiary institutions due to holding conditions (food, health, physical and psychological attitude), in psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, children’s homes. Research and observations show that when people are not inclined to communicate with others, share their problems, this closed state is already a serious precondition to suppose that there is a problem of treatment. And there is no state policy to prevent torture.
Along with state of closeness, we are especially concerned about the fact that there are no internal mechanisms of applications, complaints and appeals which further uncontrollable pressure over a person. If persons out of closed institutions have many difficulties with appealing the actions and decisions of administrative bodies, how can they not have such problems in closed institutions or ones with internal disciplinary regime? If we look at the statistics of administrative liabilities and their appeals, the number of appeals is very small – only 0.1 per cent. This is administrative pressure. And if there are no clear internal mechanisms of appeal in closed institutions, it leads to weakening of liability, and employees of such institutions appear out of control, i.e. risk factors that condition different manifestations of inhuman treatment are much more than the ones reducing them.
Different experts consider that overcrowding and inhuman treatment is torture, however, the UN Convention defines that in order to be qualified “torture” actions should have a concrete goal.
First we have to differentiate people who are detained (as restraint) from convicts with the court verdict in effect. In Armenia detention is basically used as restraint. For what reason? – To extort testimony. That is, the imprisoned person, when there are no mechanisms of control, is more subject to both physical and psychological pressure. Besides, he is more limited (than in freedom) in his ability to use legal support. The bad conditions are added here as well. All this already has a nature of torture in the sense that a person becomes more dependent on the investigation body.
The philosophy, the approaches of the penitentiary system are punishing and not rendering justice. In penitentiary institutions, people mostly complain about unfair treatment and inadequate punishment. People that are kept in inhuman conditions also experience deep psychological sufferings. From that viewpoint, the system that does not provide guarantees for rendering justice and keeps people imprisoned in such conditions, then such conditions have to be considered torture. In very few cases, people manage to pass through such Tartarus and continue their fight for justice. I believe that in such cases too it has to be considered torture and inhuman treatment because by creating such conditions or by being inactive and not eliminating them they intend to deprive the person of his willpower not to be able to fight for his rights.
In your opinion, why does the parole institute not function in Armenia?
It does not function because the criminal philosophy of the state is directed at punishing, repressing and subduing the person and not giving the citizen a chance to reform.
In the past when the questions of parole were decided by the penitentiary institutions, they knew the convicts in person, they were proceeding from his data, and penitentiary institutions had the issue of responsibility. Then a committee was established, unlawful by its nature (Independent commission on issues of conditional parole, replacing the not served part of the sentence with milder one – Author) that was higher than court and was unconstitutional, that was to decide – should the person serve his sentence or not. Decisions of the commission cannot be appealed in court. Those decisions have to be clear and grounded; however, the subjective factor is so big here that it creates grounds for violations and corruption risks.
The commission does not substantiate why the parole has not been granted and what the person should do with such decision. The result of the absence of the appeal system and mechanism of protection of rights is that the person sees that it is not enough that he could not protect his rights during the investigation and in the court, his last hope for freedom did not come true either.
This mechanism creates serious problems namely within the penitentiary institutions – in the staff-convict relations, since the penitentiary institution has no lever to correct the person and give him a chance for being released, it only applies punitive function. On the other hand, the convict has no motivation to behave well in the penitentiary.
What do they do in our penitentiary institutions to correct the persons who committed crimes and were convicted for that?
To put it short – it exists only on paper. There are social workers but their professional level is not high. There is no methodology. One or two specialists cannot work with everyone in an institution with several hundred convicts, run their personal cards. This institute needs to be strengthened, professional abilities need to be raised, they have to develop methodology, extend resources – none of these problems are solved. The issue of employment of convicts in penitentiaries has to be solved as well. People are idle for years there. If people stay idle for years even in freedom, they become fruitless both intellectually and psychologically. So you can imagine what the consequences are in a closed institution.
Convicts have almost no chance to exert themselves as social beings. Neither the convict, nor the staff is to blame for that since the latter has no possibility to provide conditions for that. In separate cases convicts make some goods but it is done on someone’s personal initiative and as personal orders. When institutions are renovated, convicts are engaged in the works but they do not get paid for that. Being idle, convicts engage themselves in vain arguments, cards that are very popular among them, and other far more criminal pastimes that do not contribute to their reforming; very few convicts stay away from such things.
What do the people do after they return to the society after serving the sentence? How can they integrate into the society, what happens with them?
There are rehabilitation centers in different countries that solve their employment problems. Nothing of the sort functions in our country, the law does not regulate it clearly either. Criminal policy should involve all stages, in Armenia that stage is not addressed at all.
Convicts have absolutely no chance to get a normal job. Businessmen avoid hiring former convicts; those who are ready to accept them think in what criminal plans they can use them in their business.
Former convicts are out of social support system and have to find some way out themselves. They already have been labeled as former convicts. They are not accepted as full-fledged citizens any more. The state has no appropriate policy. If it wasn’t for a few NGO projects funded by foreign countries, which is a drop in the ocean, nothing will be done in this field.
The obligations undertaken by our state before European structures are first of all obligations before its own citizens. The concept of their performance should be based on development of man-centered policies. If we approach the issue from this viewpoint, we will see that the problem is not the lack of funding but the efficient and targeted allotment of funds. The problems need a fundamental solution.
The system is anti-human, it has to be changed radically. If the problems of reforming and engagement are not solved, we all suffer since each of us may become the potential victim of the repeated offence of certain convicts.