On March 6, 2006, Alain Grignard, the deputy head of the Brussels police anti-terrorism unit declared on his return from a visit to Guantanamo-Bay with Anne-Marie Lizin, chair of the Belgian Senate: "At the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons". According to Grignard, it is undeniable that holding people for many years in detention, without letting them know what will happen to them, constitutes in itself a "mental torture"; however, as far as infrastructures and basic rights to food, clothing and medical care are concerned, the situation of detainees in Guantanamo is better than that of Belgian prisoners. In this document, we examine how such a statement, drawing a parallel between satisfying "detention facilities" and the qualification of "model prison", has to be interpreted.
[...] The Court distinguishes between three types of behaviour (torture, inhuman and degrading treatment) on the basis of an intensity criterion. Types of behaviour that “cause, if not actual bodily injury, at least intense physical and mental suffering to the persons subjected thereto and also lead to acute psychiatric disturbances during interrogation[2]” correspond to inhuman treatment, whereas degrading treatment such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance.”[3] In order to improve the protection and promotion of Human Rights, the members of the Council of Europe signed in 1987 the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ECPT). [...]
[...] The European Court of Human Rights deals with inter-state as well as with individual complaints. Therefore, detainees theoretically have the opportunity to have their case brought before the Court. However, there are two limits to the efficacy of this mechanism. The first is that, with the increase in the number of individual complaints, the Court is no longer able to settle all the cases[18]. Furthermore, the majority of detainees are, on the one hand, unaware of the existence of this mechanism; and on the other hand, unable to bring their cases before the Court without assistance, due to the absence of necessary qualifications, or education, among detainees. [...]
[...] Simonnot) Press Review Les prisons en France, French Ministry of Justice, February 2006 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Report to the French Republic relative to its visit in France (11-17 June 2003) VASSEUR, V., Médecin-chef à la Santé, Le Cherche-Midi, Paris GUIBERT, N., Le cri d'alarme du médecin-chef, psychiatre, de la prison de Fresnes, Interview with Christiane de Beaurepaire, 06/05/06 ; C. de Beaurepaire intends to bring up her right to alert, a right that “corresponds to a cessation of work because of a very important degradation of means of activity”. She particularly criticizes the lack of personnel in the prison of Fresnes: 0,8 nurses for 2000 detainees. Prisons : des portes s'entrouvrent, in Le Monde Dossiers et documents, 351, March 2006 Prisons : des portes s'entrouvrent, in Le Monde Dossiers et documents, 351, March 2006 id. [...]
[...] Indeed, the allegation of degrading treatment was for a long time only accepted when the action under consideration occurred in a public place. As a consequence, the prohibition of degrading treatment mentioned in Art 3 ECHR could not apply to persons deprived of their liberty. Nowadays, on the contrary, it is generally admitted that the action does not need to happen in a public place to fall under the jurisdiction of Art 3 ECHR. Deplorable conditions of detention can thus be described as degrading treatment. [...]
[...] Robles underlines in his report, France has introduced extensive legislation in the field of carceral administration. Three successive programs, between 1987 and 2000, have been created in order to increase the capacity of penal institutions: the “Chalandon”-Program (1987), provided for the creation of twenty-five new prisons; six additional prisons were subsequently inaugurated between 2003 and 2005, thanks to the “Mehaignerie”-Program of 1994; which was followed six years later, by the “Jospin”-Program, designed by the ex-Prime Minister. This program has not yet been realised, which shows that the biggest problem is not so much of proposing programs, but more of being able to implement them afterwards. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
