|
|
||
Af advokat Claus Bonnez, Landsforeningen KRIM Opdateret 6. september 2010 Den europæiske torturkomite (CPT) besøgte i februar 2008 blandt andet Statsfængslet Østjylland. Komiteen udtalte i en rapport offentliggjort på CPT's hjemmeside den 25. september 2008, at de langvarige anbringelser i sikringscelle, hvor de indsatte fastspændes i mange timer og nogle gange i flere dage, kan betragtes som mishandling ("Ill-treatment"). Sådan mishandling er i strid med Den europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3, der omhandler tortur. Komiteen henstiller, at behovet for sikringscelleanbringelse vurderes af en læge og ikke af fængselspersonale. Endvidere henstiller komiteen, at den indsatte skal have menneskelig kontakt under hele fikseringen, og at der skal være mennesker i rummet, hvor den fikserede ligger. En normal fiksering bør ikke tage mere end "minutter" og bør sjældent udstrækkes til at vare i "timer". Dette er en gentagelse af torturkomiteen udtalelse efter et lignende besøg i Tjekkiet i 2006. Også her udtaltes det, at beslutningen om placering i sikringscelle ikke må træffes af fængselspersonale men af en læge. I "Report to the Government of Denmark on the visit to Denmark
carried out by the European Committee |
|||
c. sikrede celler og fikseringsmidler
69. Dansk lovgivning tillader, at en indsat kan
anbringes i en sikringscelle og blive immobiliseret med anvendelse
af magt, hvis dette er nødvendigt for at forebygge øjeblikkelig vold
eller overvinde voldelig modstand, for at forebygge selvmord eller
selvbeskadigelse. Ingen anbringelse i sikringscelle eller
immobilisering ved anvendelse af magt må finde sted, hvis dette er
uproportionalt i forhold til formålet og den lidelse, som dette kan
medføre. Dertil kommer, at anbringelse i sikringscelle og
immobilisering ved anvendelse af magt skal ske på den mest mulige
hensynsfulde måde. 70. CPT er betænkelig ved længden af den tid, hvor fastspænding anvendes overfor indsatte, der er placeret i sikringsceller i Statsfængslet Østjylland. Der har været i alt 46 tilfælde af placering i sikringscelle med fiksering i fængslet i 2007; I 54% af tilfældene ophørte foranstaltningen inden for 6 timer, i yderligere 36% inden for 24 timer. I de resterende 5 tilfælde havde den længste periode varet i 89 timer. Registreringerne foretaget af fængslet var af en
særdeles god standard. En detaljeret protokol blev udfærdiget i hver
enkelt sag. Denne indeholdt blandt andet begrundelsen for at anvende
fiksering og en redegørelse om den indsattes adfærd under forløbet.
Dog rejste undersøgelsen af en protokol, der blev udtaget
stikprøvevist, nogle spørgsmål. Den omhandlede indsatte var blevet
placeret i sikringscellen efter, at denne havde nægtet at drikke
vand som forlangt af personalet i forbindelse med, at han skulle
indtage en pille. Har var blevet fikseret med bælte om hænderne og
anklerne fra kl. 21:46 den 29. august 2007 og indtil kl. 7:18 den
følgende morgen (dette vil sige omkring 9,5 timer). Ifølge
protokollen havde den indsatte sovet det meste af tiden. En læge
havde tilset ham straks efter fikseringens påbegyndelse (kl. 10:45).
- Udstyret, der anvendes, skal være indrettet således, at skadelige følger, ubehag og smerte under fikseringen begrænses, og personalet skal være kvalificeret til at anvende udstyret. - Perioden, hvor fikseringen finder sted, skal være så kort som muligt (normalt minutter frem for timer). Undtagelsesvis forlængelse af fikseringen kræver en yderligere vurdering fra en læge. Fiksering i flere dage på en gang kan ikke retfærdiggøres og kan sidestilles med mishandling. - Personer, der udsættes for fiksering, skal fuldt
ud informeret som årsagen til fikseringen. |
|||
Nedenfor gengives ovenstående uddrag af rapporten på originalsprog: |
|||
c. security cells and means of restraint69. Danish legislation provides that an inmate may be confined in a security cell and be immobilised by force, if necessary, to avert imminent violence or overcome violent resistance, or to prevent suicide or self-mutilation. No confinement in a security cell and forced immobilisation may be effected if such a measure would be disproportionate in view of the purpose of the measure and the indignity and pain which might be caused by it. Moreover, any confinement in a security cell and forced immobilisation must be effected with as much consideration as circumstances permit. All prisons visited possessed one or more security cells which were furnished with a bed, to the side of which were attached leather bracelets designed to immobilise the hands alongside the body, a broad leather strap to immobilise the trunk and leather bracelets to immobilise the ankles. Inmates placed in a security cell were closely monitored by staff, and a doctor was called in whenever an inmate was immobilised. Cases of inmates held under immobilisation for more than 24 hours were reported to the Prisons and Probation Service, which monitored the situation. 70. The CPT is concerned by the length of time during which means of restraint were being applied to prisoners placed in a security cell at East Jutland State Prison. There had been a total of 46 cases of confinement to a security cell and immobilisation at that establishment in 2007; 54% of them were terminated within 6 hours, and a further 36% within 24 hours. Of the remaining five cases, the longest had lasted for 89 hours.[38] The records maintained at the prison were excellent. A detailed protocol was drawn up in each case, comprising, inter alia, the reasons for the application of restraint and an account of the prisoner’s behaviour during the measure. However, the examination of one protocol chosen at random raised some questions. The prisoner concerned had been placed in a security cell after refusing to take water to swallow a pill as ordered by staff, and had been immobilised (with a belt, hand and ankle straps) from 9.46 p.m. on 29 August 2007 until 7.18 a.m. on the following morning (i.e. for some 9½ hours). According to the protocol, he had been asleep for most of that time. A doctor had examined him soon after he had been immobilised (at 10.45 p.m.). 71. The CPT understands that it is necessary on rare occasions to resort to means of restraint in a prison setting. However, in the Committee’s opinion, the approach to immobilisation in prisons should take into consideration the following principles and minimum standards: · Regarding its appropriate use, immobilisation should only be used as a last resort to prevent the risk of harm to the individual or others and only when all other reasonable options would fail satisfactorily to contain those risks; it should never be used as a punishment or to compensate for shortages of trained staff; it should not be used in a non-medical setting when hospitalisation would be a more appropriate intervention. · Any resort to immobilisation should be immediately brought to the attention of a doctor in order to assess the need for the measure, as opposed to certifying the individual’s fitness for it. · The equipment used should be properly designed to limit harmful effects, discomfort and pain during restraint, and staff must be trained in the use of the equipment. · The duration of fixation should be for the shortest possible time (usually minutes rather than hours). The exceptional prolongation of restraint should warrant a further review by a doctor. Restraint for periods of days at a time cannot have any justification and would amount to ill-treatment. · Persons subject to immobilisation should receive full information on the reasons for the intervention. · The management of any establishment which might use immobilisation should issue formal written guidelines, taking account of the above criteria, to all staff who may be involved. · An individual subject to immobilisation should, at all times, have his/her mental and physical state continuously and directly monitored by an identified member of the health-care staff or another suitably trained member of staff who has not been involved in the circumstances which gave rise to the application of immobilisation. The staff member concerned should offer immediate human contact to the immobilised person, reduce his/her anxiety, communicate with the individual and rapidly respond, including to the individual’s personal needs regarding oral intake, hygiene and urination and defecation. Such individualised staff supervision should be performed from within the room or, if the inmate so wishes, very near the door (within hearing and so that personal contact can be established immediately). The supervising staff member should be required to maintain a written running record. Further, the person concerned should be given the opportunity to discuss his/her experience, during and, in any event, as soon as possible after the end of a period of restraint. This discussion should always involve a senior member of the health-care staff or another senior member of staff with appropriate training. The CPT recommends that the Danish authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that all the principles and minimum safeguards set out above are applied in prisons when resort is had to immobilisation. |
|||
|
|||