SPECIAL REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN THE ... · 3. Moment for such a report is very important the BiH Council of Ministers since adopted a Strategy for justice sector reform

INSTITUCIJA OMBUDSMENA/OMBUDSMANA ИНСТИТУЦИЈА ОМБУДСМЕНА/ОМБУДСМАНА ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE ЗА ЉУДСКА ПРАВА БОСНЕ И ХЕРЦЕГОВИНЕ

Ravnogorska 18, 78000 Banja Luka, BiH Tel/Fax: +387 51 303 992 E-mail : [email protected] Grbavička 4, 71000 Sarajevo,BiH Tel: +387 33 666 006 Fax: +387 33 666 007 E-mail: [email protected]

Kralja Zvonimira 6, 88000 Mostar BiH Tel/Fax: +387 36 334 248 E-mail: [email protected] Trg mladih 8/1, 76000 Brčko BiH Tel/Fax: +387 49 217 347 E-mail: [email protected]

SPECIAL REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN THE ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE EXECUTION OF

CRIMINAL SANCTIONS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

2

CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 3

II. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 5

III. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................................. 6

IV. RELEVANT LEGISLATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA .................................................... 6

4.1. Commitment to serve the prison sentence ............................................................................ 7

4.2. Transfer of convicted persons ............................................................................................ 10

4.3. Privileges out of the establishment ..................................................................................... 12

4.4. Conditional release ............................................................................................................. 14

V. ACCOMMODATION ...................................................................................................................................... 16

5.1. Classification of convicted persons .................................................................................... 19

VI. SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE OF ORDER ...................................................................................... 19

VII. HEALTH CARE AND HYGIENE ............................................................................................................ 22

VIII. FOOD .............................................................................................................................................................. 26

IX. PRISON WORK AND OTHER ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 27

X. EDUCATION .................................................................................................................................................... 28

XI. CONTAKT WITH OUTSIDE WORLD .................................................................................................. 28

XII. RELIGIOUS NEEDS ................................................................................................................................... 31

XIII. COMPLAINTS HANDLING ..................................................................................................................... 33

XIV. STAFF ............................................................................................................................................................. 35

XV. WOMEN ........................................................................................................................................................ 36

XVI. MINORS ......................................................................................................................................................... 37

3

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Institution of Human Rights Ombudsmen of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: the Ombudsman Institution) has received a significant number of complaints related to the rights of persons serving prison sentence in the establishments for the execution of criminal sanctions all over the Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Among others, the Ombudsman Institution received a complaint of a group of prisoners of Serbian ethnic origin serving their prison sentence in the Penal Correctional Establishment in Zenica (hereinafter: Zenica Prison) who emphasize in their complaints that they are subject to physical and verbal abuse by other inmates on national/ethnic grounds.

2. Having in mind complexity of the issue involving criminal sanctions execution, in particular from the aspect of constitutional set up of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ombudspersons of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: Ombudspersons of BiH) have decided to prepare a Special report on human rights situation in the establishments for the criminal sanctions execution in BiH. Basis for comparison and assessment is the situation found in these establishments as presented in 2009 Special report on human rights situation in the institutions for criminal sanctions execution in BiH1 along with international and regional standards governing this area.

3. Moment for such a report is very important since the BiH Council of Ministers

adopted a Strategy for justice sector reform for the period 2008 – 2012 (hereinafter: the Strategy) which, under its Column 2 comprises measures aimed at improvement of the criminal sanctions execution process.

This Strategy is an consolidated framework for judicial sector reform, and its Column 2 is aimed at actions in the following segments: 1) criminal justice sanctions execution system, which includes harmonization of all the standards and regulations related to criminal sanctions execution in BiH, establishment of prison management in accordance with harmonized legislation and standards in addition to the implementation of re-categorization of prisons and classification of prison establishments; 2) over-crowdedness of prisons, issue that primarily includes further development of conditional release and alternative sanctions system, in addition to ensuring the implementation of community service at large and improvement of accommodation conditions in prisons through re-construction of the existing prisons or use of the abandoned military establishments and finalization of the state prison construction; 3) guarantee of the international standards implementation, which primarily should be directed to the improvement of criminal justice sanctions system toward the certain vulnerable categories such as minors, women and persons who should be subject to mandatory medical treatment, improvement of health care, guarantee of permanent education of the prison staff, harmonization of legislation with international standards in the field of pardon and amnesty.

1 This Special report could be retrieved from the WEB site of the Ombudsman Institution: www.ombudsmen.gov.ba

4

4. Ombudspersons note that in 2010 the Republic of Srpska (RS) adopted The RS Law

on Criminal Sanctions Execution (hereinafter: ZIKS RS)2 5. In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Federation BiH) certain amendments to

the FBiH Law on Criminal Sanctions Execution (hereinafter: ZIKS FBiH) were adopted in the course of 2011 related to conditional release and electronic monitoring of convicted persons. Ombudspersons also note that in the Federation of BiH procedure of the adoption of a new law on the execution of criminal sanctions, detention and other measures is ongoing. This law provides for, among other things, establishment of the administration for criminal sanctions execution in the Federation, possibility of transfer or prisoners on security or other grounds including inter-entity transfers.

6. Ombudspersons are of the opinion that activities related to harmonization of

legislation involving criminal sanctions execution should continuously be harmonized with international and regional standards both on state and entity level in order to prevent possible negative impacts of non-harmonized laws to the rights of convicted persons who should be treated in a uniformed manner. Importance of co-ordination between the relevant ministries which falls within the mandate of the Ministry of Justice is highlighted. This co-ordination is done according to the mandate set out under Article 13 of the Law on Ministries and Other Administrative Bodies of BiH,3 with the aim of removal of any possibility of different treatment of convicted persons due to the different legal solutions.

7. Ombudspersons note that, comparing the whole prison system with that in 2009, it is

possible to note certain improvement in some segments of the system, especially in the field of co-operation between the Ministry of Justice and criminal sanctions execution institutions, which gained new quality. It could be noted that entity ministries pay more attention to monitoring measures in the establishments.

8. At the same time, in some establishments situation comparing to that from 2009 has

deteriorated, in particular in Penal Correctional Institute in Tuzla (hereinafter: Tuzla Prison), which can be brought to connection with the fact that this establishment does not have a director for more than a year. Ombudspersons think that situation in some correctional facilities in directly linked to the status of management, i.e. expiry of the mandate of directors and their deputies. Insecurity of their employment status represent an existential concern for directors preventing them to fully commit themselves to their work obligations and it gives rise to issue of their authority following the expiry of their mandates.4 Visits to correctional facilities have also proven that directors at the beginning of their mandate have clear visions and action plans (Bijeljina Prison, Banja Luka Prison, Doboj Prison, Bihać Prison, Foča Prison),

2 "Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska” no. 12/10 3 “Official Gazette of BiH” no. 5/03, 42/03, 26/04, 42/04, 45/06, 88/07, 35/09, 59/09 and 103/09 4 Ombudspersons issued a recommendation related to the mandate of prison directors and their deputies, registered under number: P-99/12

5

while establishments where mandate holder is an acting director (KPZ Trebinje), regardless to their personal qualities, are limiting factor.

9. Method of appointment of prison directors is not governed by equal principles in the

BiH legislation. Ombudspersons find particularly problematic the issue of the appointment of directors and deputy directors of the correctional facilities in the Federation of BiH which is done without public competition procedure so that they are simply appointed following the proposal of the Federation minister provided that they meet two criteria: one criterion being university education and the other at least three years of work experience after the gaining of university diploma. Director and deputy directors of a penal and correctional institute cannot come from the ranks of the same constituent people. Furthermore, deputies and advisers of the directors of correctional facilities are appointed and released, again without any public competitions procedure, with approval of the Federation of BiH minister and prison director personally, which raises the issue of transparency and selection of the best candidate.

10. Ombudspersons think that appointment method of the directors of the FBiH prisons

does not ensure appointment based on principles of quality, experience and capabilities, nor it ensures compliance with the provisions of the European Prison Rules which provide for every prison to have a director, who shall be adequately qualified for that post by character, administrative ability, suitable professional training and experience.5 Appointment procedure is fully non-transparent since it is not clear how the minister selects candidates to be proposed and how can everybody meeting criteria apply when no procedure preceding selection of candidates is in place.

11. Issue of appointment and selection of prison management in the Republic of Srpska is

regulated in a better way where manager and deputy manager are appointed by the relevant minister based on public competition for the five years period with possibility of re-election. Manager can be any person with university education in social science or humanities, with work experience of at least three years after the graduation in the field of criminal sanctions execution, judiciary and administration and passed relevant exam in one of the mentioned fields. Minister is obligated to take care during the appointment to ensure participation of constituent peoples of the BiH.

II. METHODOLOGY 12. Methodology used in preparation of this report is based on the analysis of relevant

legislation in BiH governing the issues of criminal sanctions execution and other relevant documents, visits to the prison establishments, that is, criminal sanctions

5 Item 84.1 of the European Prison Rules

6

execution facilities and interviews with management of these facilities as well as the convicted persons. Visits to prisons took place in the period May – June 2012.

III. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 13. The basis for the assessment of situation in the criminal sanctions execution

establishments were principles and standards set out in the following international documents: European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,6 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,7 European Prison Rules.8 Particular attention was paid to the documents that give more details on practical implementation of international standards, which particularly relates to the: The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,9 the procedures for the effective implementation of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,10 The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment11, The Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners12, The UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (Tokio Rules),13 and the basic principles on the use of restorative justice programmes in criminal matters.14

14. Criminal sanctions execution toward women in Bosnia and Herzegovina was

monitored by Ombudspersons of BiH in light of the state obligation to ensure implementation of UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders also known as “Bangkok Rules“.15

IV. RELEVANT LEGISLATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 15. Ombudspersons of BiH decided to pay particular attention to legislation in this report

since the Institution received a number of complaints in which convicted persons indicate to legislation as a source of their rights violation and that this creates conditions for convicted persons to be treated differently. This approach is also dictated by the fact that the Council of Ministers of BiH recognized challenges existing

6 Rome, 04 November 1950 7 Endorsed and suggested for signature, ratification and accession following the GA Resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984, entered into force on 26 June 1987 pursuant to Article 27 (1) 8 Recommendation no.(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the countries related to Prison Rules adopted at a meeting held on 11 January 2006 9 Human Rights: Compilation of the international instruments, vol. I, part one: Universal instruments (UN Publications, No. E.02.XIV.4 (vol. I, part I), sec. J., No. 34. 10 Resolution of Economic and Social Council 1984/47, annex 11 Resolution 43/173, Annex 12 Resolution 45/111, Annex 13 Resolution 45/110 Annex 14 Resolution of Economic and Social Council no. 2002/12, annex 15 Resolution of Economic and Social Council no. 2010/16

7

in the criminal sanctions execution segment which compelled them to adopt a Strategy for Judiciary Sector Reform in BiH,16 which puts all the problems burdening the criminal sanctions execution sector into the three sub-groups, first of them being the non-harmonized legal framework establishing the criminal sanctions execution system, which leads to inconsistent implementation of legislation in BiH.

16. Analysis of the relevant legislation in the field of criminal sanctions execution in BiH17

including the rules on criteria to sending of convicted persons to penal-correctional institutes18 has shown that there is lack of harmonization within the mentioned legislation in the field of committing to serving prison sentence, transfer of convicted persons, use of the right to leave and conditional release.

4.1. Commitment to serving the prison sentence 17. The Bosnia and Herzegovina Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions, Detention

and Other Measures defines that Criminal Department of the Court of BiH commit convicted persons to serve their prison sentence, while other issues related to this field are governed by the Rulebook on Criteria to Sending of Convicted Persons to Serve Prison Sentence issued by the Minister of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This Rulebook defines criteria for timely sending persons with final and binding court sentences to prison. These criteria are the following: gender, age, duration of sentence, previous convictions, residence place of the convicted person, type of security measure and type of educational measure. It is particularly important to emphasize that the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: the Court of BiH) can commit convicted persons to relevant prisons of any entity irrespective of their residence or place of abode of the convicted persons.19

18. In Federation of BiH commitment of convicted persons to serve their sentence is done by the court of jurisdiction in the area where the convicted person has the residence, that is, place of abode, or the Court of BiH when that Court is the one that pronounced sentence. Criteria for commitment of convicted persons are similar to those

16 Strategy for reform of justice sector in BiH for the period 2008-2012, Column 2: Criminal sanctions execution, p. 24 17BiH Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions, Detention and Other Measures (“Official Gazette of BiH” no. 12/10 and 117/11), Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Official Gazette of F BiH” no.. 44/98, 42/99, 12/09, 42/11), Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions, Detention and Other Measures in the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Official Gazette of Brčko District of BiH” no. 31/11) 18Rulebook on Criteria for Sending the Convicted Persons to Serve Prison Sentence («Official Gazette of F BiH” no 34/11), Rulebook on Criteria for Sending the Convicted Persons to Serve Prison Sentence («Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska”, no. 34/11), Rulebook on Criteria for Sending the Convicted Persons to Serve Prison Sentence ("Official Gazette of BiH", no. 47/09 - consolidated, 37/11) 19 The Ombudsman received complaints of a convicted person sentenced for committing a crime before the war on the territory of the Federation of BiH (Case Ž-S-07-764/12), but the court proceedings took place in the Republic of Srpska and this person started serving the prison sentence in Foča Prison wherefrom he escaped first to the Federation of BiH and afterwards abroad. Then he was extradited from a foreign country to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina so he was sent to serve the sentence in Foča Prison despite the fact that he insisted on serving in the entity where he has the residence. For threats of other prisoners this person is in isolation for two years now and his health is deteriorated as he has some skin problems. According to some inmates, he has not been breathing fresh air for more than two months. This convicted person especially emphasizes disappearance of some documentation sent from the country from which he had been extradited and these documents relate to the part of sentence already served there. Registered was also a case of a convicted person asking to be transferred from abroad to BiH prison in order to be closer to his family in the Federation of BiH. For unknown reason the Ministry of Justice of BiH sent this person to serve in Foča Prison in the Republic of Srpska.

8

established in the Rulebook at the level of BiH. Articles 6 – 11 of Rulebook on Criteria for Commitment of Convicted Persons to Serve Prison Sentence of the Federation of BiH (hereinafter: Rulebook on Criteria of FBiH) define that convicted persons are committed to serve their sentence to the penal-correctional establishments and their branch units according to the jurisdiction of the municipal courts.

Article 11 of the Rulebook on Criteria of FBiH provides for the commitment of the following persons to Zenica Prison: • those convicted to a long-term prison sentence, • those convicted and supposed to be sent to the juvenile prison, • those committed to serve the prison sentence after detention, • those committed to serve the prison sentence after detention before the judgment has become final and binding, • those committed to serve the prison sentence for the offence punishable with one year or more in prison; • those who had served the prison sentence once or more times for felonies punishable with two or more years in prison

Article 12 of the Rulebook has established exceptions from the rule on committing to serve the sentence according to which, in case that a convicted person is committed to an establishment with no accommodation capacity, the court turns to the Federation Ministry of Justice to obtain information on prisons having available room. Having obtained such information from the Ministry of Justice the court starts procedure defined by the Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions in the Federation of BiH. This Rulebook gives extremely great margin of discretion to the Federation Minister of Justice, especially defined in Article 14, according to which, when there are particular security and other reasons, Minister of Justice may decide to send some convicted persons into another penal-correctional institute, regardless to criteria established in the Rulebook on Criteria. Yet, this Rulebook does not define neither particular security reasons, nor other reasons which leaves the space for arbitrariness, lack of transparency and violation of principles set out in the BiH Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and criteria for committing to serve the prison sentence.

Such wording without definition of additional criteria and not taking in consideration the fact that there is only one closed-type prison in the Federation of BiH raises the issue of practical implementation of the said provision, that is, creates dilemma about what happens to convicted persons sent to Zenica Prison when there is no any vacant beds. Ombudspersons are concerned for the fact that management of Zenica Prison is forced in such cases to resolve this issue independently. This concern is boosted by the fact that ZIKS FBiH and Rulebook on Criteria FBiH have not defined clearly what happens when convicted persons have place of residence on the

9

territory of the Republic of Srpska, and their sentence is pronounces by a court on the territory of the Federation of BiH, especially in cases when they are found guilty and sentenced for felonies punishable by time sentence to be served in a closed-type prison. Practice shows that in such cases residence criterion set out in Article 2 of the Rulebook on Criteria is neglected which can have negative impacts re-socialization of convicted persons because of their alienation from their places of residence as it diminishes their possibility to maintain contacts with their families.

On the other hand, given the constitutional jurisdiction over the execution of criminal sanctions, there could be raised the issue of readiness or ability of criminal sanctions execution institutions in the Republic of Srpska and their ability to receive persons residing on the territory of the Republic of Srpska, which are sentenced by the court on the territory of FBiH, especially having in mind financial implications of the criminal sanctions execution.

19. Ombudspersons noted during their visits to prison establishments that there is also

practice that convicted persons from detention located within a semi-opened type establishment be sent directly to serve the sentence into the same prison although formal and legal conditions for such procedure are not met (Mostar Prison).

20. The Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions of the Republic of Srpska (ZIKS RS)

sets out that the basic court having jurisdiction on the territory where sentenced person has residence, that is, the place of abode is in charge of commitment of sentenced persons to serve time in prison while the Rulebook on Criteria for the Commitment of Convicted Persons to Serve Prison Sentence establish criteria identical to those set out by the Rulebook of BiH. This Rulebook also foresees the situation that the place of residence of a sentenced person is on the territory of the other entity and the court there pronounces itself as not having jurisdiction over the execution of the sentence and commitment of that person to serve in prison, and in such a case jurisdiction pertains to the court that pronounced the sentence. As for the residence, it is considered to be unknown in such cases. This means that legislation of the Republic of Srpska gives priority to the place of residence or abode in the execution of criminal sanctions, even when that place of residence or abode is on the territory of the other entity and sentenced persons are committed to prison according to their residence.

21. The Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions, Detention and Other Measures of

Brčko District provides for the Basic Court of Brčko District has jurisdiction to commit convicted persons to prisons of their choice in RS or FBiH according to their laws.

RECOMMENDATION: To the Federation Ministry of Justice, in order to ensure equality in treatment of convicted persons in the procedure of committing them to serve prison sentence and practical implementation of criteria for commitment of convicted persons to prison, in particular taking care of residence criterion, to consider amendments to the Rulebook on Criteria for

10

Committing of Convicted Persons to serve prison sentence. This measure would ensure equal treatment of convicted persons in this segment and residence criterion would be treated as relevant regardless to entity. At the same time commitment of a convicted person to prison according to their residence or place would enable them to maintain quality contacts with their families, which is important given the complex economic and social situation facing citizens of BiH including the families of convicted persons. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: at once. RECOMMENDATION: To the Federation Ministry of Justice and the Republic of Srpska Ministry of Justice to harmonize their procedures of committing of sentenced persons to serve time in prison in cases when they are sent without observing the residence principle. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: at once.

4.2. Transfer of convicted persons 22. The right to transfer is a possibility available to prison managements, especially in

cases when convicted persons tend to causing incidents. It is clear that in some situations managements can hardly handle some convicted persons, in particular when there many of them convicted for the same offence. Such situations require transfer to another prison establishment. In addition to safety reasons, there are certain personal aspects compelling a convicted person to ask to be transferred to another prison, primarily their wish to get closer to their families. Transfer of prisoners requires planning and careful assessment since frequent transfers can have detrimental consequences either physical or psychological and could be qualified under certain circumstances as inhuman and degrading treatment.

23. Transfer of convicted persons in BiH represents a complex problem because of non-

harmonized legislation so that transfers are not governed equally in case of transfer from a prison into another located in the other entity. What adds to complexity and confusion are some ad hoc, non-synchronized and non-coordinated interventions in legislation. This takes place when relevant principles have not been observed with a view of categorization of the prisons involved, the one where convicted person should be transferred to and the one where they are currently accommodated. Namely, the Ministry of Justice of BiH, through amendments to the Rulebook on Criteria for sending of convicted persons to serve prison sentence20 enabled transfer of convicted persons from a prison in one entity to another prison in the other entity based on

20 Article 20 of the Rulebook on Amendments to the Rulebook on Criteria for Sending the Convicted Persons to Serve Prison Sentence "Official Gazette of BiH", no: 37/11

11

personal request of the convict or on suggestion of the prison manager. Decision on transfer is brought by the minister of justice and in this the minister is not bound by categorization of the institutions involved, save in cases specially determined by law. This legal provision allows for transfer of a convicted person who had committed gravest crimes from a closed-type prison to a semi-open type of prison. As a reason for such a possibility mentioned is implementation of a more efficient treatment. For instance, a convicted person who served some time in a closed-type prison can be transferred to a semi-open prison if the established degree of their rehabilitation, classification and re-classification lead to the assessment that their transfer can have positive impact to their successful treatment and re-socialization. Ombudspersons observe that the legislator has not provided details as to the length of sentence to be spent in a closed-type prison and that this Rulebook is not harmonized with provisions of the BiH Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions – ZIKS BiH.

24. Such interventions in legislation were not followed by amendments to the entity

legislation related to criminal sanctions execution. It creates additional grounds for unequal treatment of convicted persons although the BiH Ministry of Justice has a mandate to do such coordination in accordance with the BiH Law on Ministries and Other Administrative Bodies21 that sets out the obligation of the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina to act in general as a „central, coordinating body to provide harmonization of the legislation and standards of judicial system among the entities“. Practical implementation of this provision has already resulted in lodging complaints to the Ombudsman Institution.

25. Ombudspersons note that the Federation of BiH face this problem of convicted

persons transfer from the closed-type prison as there is only one such facility on the territory of the Federation, which is Zenica prison. Since the number of convicted persons serving their sentence there is growing, so is the need for transfer, particularly for safety reasons, so it would be necessary to consider possible re-classification of some semi-open type establishments, that is, possibility to install one closed-type ward in some of semi-open type prison facilities.

26. Ombudspersons would like to emphasize the issue of differences in legislation

governing the issue of conditions for transfer. ZIKS BiH allows to the convicted person transfer in cases when they have served 1/2 of their prison sentence and they spend their holiday in their families if they apply for transfer into another prison in the entity where their residence is, which is a call of the Minister of Justice to decide having previously obtained the opinion of prison authorities.

27. Possibility of transfer in Brčko Disktrict is given to convicted persons who served 1/2

of their prison sentence. Decision is made by the Judicial Commission Chairman having previously obtained the opinion of prison authorities.

21 "Official Gazette of BiH", no: 5/03, 42/03, 26/04, 42/04, 45/06 i 88/07,35/09,59/09,103/09

12

28. According to ZIKS of the Federation of BiH, the right to transfer from a prison to another is granted to those convicted persons who served 1/3 of their prison sentence. Decision is made by the Federation the Ministry of Justice having previously obtained the opinion of prison authorities.

29. In the Republic of Srpska decision on transfer is made by the Minister of Justice on

request of the convicted person, after their serving of 1/2 of the pronounced prison sentence. ZIKS RS comprises a provision according to which in cases involving security reasons or related to the prison sentence organization, prison management can file proposal for transfer to be decided upon by the minister. Then, prison manager, with written consent of the convicted person, for safety reasons can apply for transfer to another entity where convicted person has residence. Decision is made by the minister of justice having previously obtained the consent of the minister of justice of the entity where the convicted person is to be transferred.

30. Lack of any provision in ZIKS FBiH related to transfer of convicted persons from a

prison to another one in the other entity has created a situation that there is no example of implementation of similar provision of the ZIKS RS in practice.

RECOMMENDATION: The Ministry of Justice of the Federation of BiH, the RS Ministry of Justice and Judicial Commission of Brčko District of BiH to harmonize provisions in their respective laws on the execution of criminal sanctions related to transfer of convicted persons and to introduce and harmonize provisions governing the issue of transfer of convicted persons from one entity to another in coordination of the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as set out under Article 13 of the Law on Ministries and Other Administrative Bodies of BiH22. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: 90 days.

4.3. Privileges out of the establishment 31. Legislation governing the execution of criminal sanctions in BiH comprise conditions

for use of leaves out of the prison differently. This is a reason for convicted persons to file complaints to the Ombudsman claiming that they are discriminated according to the territory. It is characteristic that in this regard ZIKS FBiH and ZIKS RS are harmonized so it is provided that use of leaves out of prison can be granted to convicted persons once they have served 1/2 of their prison sentence in cases involving grave crimes, or 1/3 of their prison sentence in cases involving crimes

22 Article 13 of the Law on Ministries and Other Administrative Bodies of BiH “the Ministry of Justice shall have the mandate to: (... )general activities as a central coordinating body for ensuring coordination of legislation and standards or judicial system between the entities either through provision of conditions for debate or coordinating the initiatives (...)”

13

punishable by 5 to 10 years in prison, while other convicted persons can benefit of this institute once they have served 1/4 of their prison sentence.

32. The BiH Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions, Detention and Other Measures

sets out that the use of leaves outside of the establishment for persons who committed the gravest crimes after their having served 3/5 of their prison sentence, while persons sentenced to time in prison from 8 to 10 years have to serve 1/2 of their sentence in order to be granted privilege of leave outside the establishment. Persons sentenced to time in prison from 5 to 8 years have to serve 1/3 of their sentence before they can use this privilege, while other prisoners are entitled to this right after serving of 1/4 of their prison sentence.

33. The Law on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions, Detention and Other Measures of

Brčko District provides that convicted persons from the territory of Brčko District use privileges outside the prison as provided by the relevant law applicable on the territory of the entity in which the convicted person serves his/her sentence.

34. Definition of terms and conditions for use of privileges out of the establishment is

different in legislation on national and entity levels. Consequence of this is that persons sentenced to prison for the gravest criminal offences such as war crime, terrorism, crime against humanity and like are treated differently in segment related to privileges to be used out of prison establishment since terms and conditions to be met for that are not the same. This fact additionally complicates criminal sanctions execution, especially when we have situation that more persons are accommodated in one prison establishment, some of them sentenced by the Court of BiH and other by entity courts and in such situation they are not treated equally since they fall under non-harmonized legislation. This is the case with those sentenced and convicted for war crimes. Such legislative solutions aggravate work of prison managements and at the same time provide grounds for constant complaints of convicted persons to the different institutions, thus diminishing their capacity to deal with other issues falling within their mandate.

35. Another problem in use of out-of-prison privileges is evaluation of convicted persons

made by prison management. Namely, prior to deciding on privileges to be used out of the establishment, the convicted person must be evaluated as to degree of risk for community in case of their escape as well as degree of risk that concrete convicted person subject to evaluation could escape at all. In the framework of such evaluation prison institutions are addressing police stations and social welfare centers asking for their opinion, although there are prison establishments that do not turn to social welfare centers in this regard (Mostar Prison).

36. A number of convicted persons complained that prison management not only asked

police stations in their current place of residence to give opinion, but also police stations in their previous place of residence. This is particularly expressed in cases

14

involving persons convicted of war crimes when such inquiries are sent to the places of their pre-war residence, as well as places of their current residence. Criminal sanctions execution legislation does not give precise definition of a competent police authority or a competent municipal social welfare authority.

37. In a large number of cases it was noted that police, on request of prison establishment

to provide their opinion make some field check-ups and inquiries including consultation with victims and/or their families following which they submit answers that injured party does not agree to approve privilege of leave to concrete convicted persons even in cases when they committed petty offences including traffic offences. Such opinions of police stations put prison managements in an awkward situation as they try to encourage and motivate convicted person to improve their behavior during the rehabilitation process and this behavioral improvement is one of conditions for use of privileges.

38. Particularly large number of complaints against police opinions for purposes of

granting privileges relate to the police of Brčko District since they never gave a positive opinion and they provide standard replies without any objective reasoning for their opinions. It is not that only convicted persons from the territory of Brčko District complain of such behavior of the police, but also prison managements, which was the reason for some prison directors to decide to neglect police opinion after two negative standard answers and act based on their own opinion.

39. Although ZIKS BiH and ZIKS of the Federation of BiH include provisions according to

which convicted persons can file complaint to the Ombudsman against a decision on use of privileges, it is not clear what was the purpose of this provision since the Ombudsman took no part in drafting of this legal provision and the form of complaints is also not determined. This is particularly important since any convicted person can address the Ombudsman in general in any given time concerning any issue. So defined possibility of filing complaints apart from this general mandate requires the Ombudsman to define procedure to be followed and applied to such cases so that clarifications are required in this regard.

RECOMMENDATION: To the BiH Ministry of Justice to organize debates and co-ordinate initiative for harmonization of conditions for use of leaves out of prison together with the Ministry of Justice of the Federation of BiH and the RS Ministry of Justice. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: 60 days.

4.4. Conditional release

15

40. Ombudspersons have received a number of complaints of convicted persons complaining of conditional release procedure and of the fact that this issue is differently treated in legislation related to criminal sanctions execution in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Convicted persons documented to Ombudspersons that in a couple of cases during the reviewing of applications for conditional release, Commission for Conditional Release adopted identical decisions only modifying the protocol number and the name of convicted person.23 Having reviewed some decisions on conditional release, Ombudspersons can state that reasoning in these decisions does not comprise any details or precise explanation as to the criteria to which the Commission should concentrate in deciding on the application24 which is particularly important when the application for conditional release is rejected.

41. Although the amendments to the legislation governing the execution of criminal

sanctions have brought some improvements in nomination procedure of the members of the Commission for Conditional Release by which the practice of reviewing the application for conditional release through the prism of the committed offence and length of the sentence was abandoned, yet Ombudspersons note that nomination procedure is still non-transparent since the Commission is nominated by the Minister of Justice in a way to have one representative each from the court and the Ministry of Justice and three independent members of relevant professional expertise25. The Law does not provide criteria based on which the Minister makes nomination nor whether or not any public invitation or completion precedes this nomination, especially having in mind the independence of this Commission.

42. Ombudspersons state that significant steps were made to improve legal provisions

related to conditional release, but, unfortunately, practical implementation is still missing, in particular with regard the obligation of the prison establishment to forward the relevant reports related to conditional release to convicted persons so that they can have the opportunity to react with their written submissions of criminal sanctions do not comprise such provision.

43. Visits to prisons and interviews with convicted persons have shown the absence of

practical implementation of legal provision according to which the director of the establishment is obligated to give proposal ex officio to the Commission for

23 In a prison in the Federation Ombudspersons reviewed decisions related to 4 convicted persons upon their applications for conditional release which all have identical wording with not a single comma changed. 24 Criteria for conditional release are the following: History of criminal offences, behavior in the establishment, personal participation in treatment, attitude towards the criminal offence and the victim, risk of further offending, adequacy of resettlement proposal, opinion by the establishment on admissibility of the application in the framework of post-penal protection 25 All three laws on the execution of criminal sanctions provide that Commission for Conditional Release be composed of the representative of the Ministry of Justice (in FBiH even two members are coming from the Ministry of the Federation, one of them being the president of the Commission), representative of the Court of BiH, or judges of the Supreme Court of RS or a regional court in RS, that is, one member from the ranks of judges and prosecutors in FBiH, and three members of relevant specialist expertise. The Commission for Conditional Release nominated by the Mayor of Brčko District of BiH is composed of each one representative of Appellate court and Basic court, the Prosecutor’s Office, Office for Legal Aid and Judicial Commission. At the level of BiH mandate of the Commission’s five members is 5 years, in RS the Commission has 5 members and their mandate is 4 years, while in the Federation of BiH the Commission has 6 members, and their mandate is 4 years

16

Conditional Release for all the prisoners that could be granted conditional release within the 30 days from the date on which they have 2/3 of their prison sentence and who meet legally provided conditions for conditional release.

44. Duration of conditional release procedure is often very long. There are even

complaints that the sentence was fully served and decision on conditional release had not been reached yet. This lack of defined deadlines for deciding on the convicted person’s application for conditional release is one of the points emphasized by the Ombudsman when listing deficiencies of some legal solutions present in legislation governing the execution of criminal sanctions.

45. Visits to prisons for the execution of criminal sanctions have shown that there are

some problems related to the implementation of provisions regulating the authorities of the Governor with regard to conditional release. Convicted persons indicate that provision according to which the Governor of the Establishment can conditionally release a prisoner with good behavior, who does his best at work and actively participates in the rehabilitation process, and has served at least 4/5 of his sentence, up to three months before completion of the sentence has not been implemented in practice.

RECOMMENDATION: The Ministry of Justice of the Federation of BiH, the RS Ministry of Justice with co-operation of the BiH Ministry of Justice to take measures to harmonize legislation related to criminal sanctions execution in part governing conditional release and ensure practical implementation of so harmonized legislation. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: 90 days. V. ACCOMMODATION 46. European Prison Rules set out for prisoners to be allocated, as far as possible, to

prisons close to their homes or places of social rehabilitation and that allocation should also take into account the requirements of continuing criminal investigations, safety and security and the need to provide appropriate regimes for all prisoners.26 It is also provided that as prisoners should be consulted about their initial allocation and any subsequent transfer from one prison to another far as possible.27 Accommodation provided for prisoners, and in particular all sleeping

26 Paragraph 17.1 and 17.2 of the European Prison Rules 27 Idem, paragraph 17.3.

17

accommodation, should respect human dignity and, as far as possible, privacy, and meet the requirements of health and hygiene, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space, cubic content of air, lighting, heating and ventilation. Minimum requirements in respect of these matters should be set in national law.

47. Care should be taken of profile of convicted persons, which is important from the

aspect of committing of convicted persons into certain types of prison establishments, as well as the transfer. Namely, the Institution of the Ombudsman has registered certain number of complaints lodged by the convicted persons, but also the staff of the prison establishments related to the fact that convicted persons who committed different offences punishable with different sanctions are committed to the same establishment. It is not rare that persons convicted for traffic offences share the room with those who committed grave criminal offences such as war crime.

48. We still witness the practice that convicted persons who committed grave crimes be

transferred from the closed-type prisons to semi-open prisons where security measures are defined differently than in closed establishments prior to their meeting the relevant legal conditions. This fact not only raises the issue of the efficiency of criminal sanctions execution, but also its execution under the same conditions for everybody as it aggravates carrying out the daily tasks to the staff of these establishments.

49. Comparing the current situation with that found in the establishments in 2009, in

light of the above standards, Ombudspersons observe that certain limited improvement could be noticed: accommodation capacity is extended in some establishments; reconstructions took place, as well as some additional works. Structural and organizational changes took place in some prisons, for instance, former Orašje Ward and Busovača Ward became independent prisons, but it remained unclear why the same process did not take place in Ustikolina Ward. Turning wards into independent prisons was not followed with capacity building and absence of support of parent establishments in professional matters, especially in segment of re-education, rehabilitation, health care etc. made this situation even worse.

50. Practical implementation of European Prison Rules 17.1 and 17.3 is insufficient,

particularly in the Federation of BiH in sense of allocating the prisoners as far as possible, to prisons close to their homes or places of social rehabilitation. None of the establishments in BiH ensures the process of consultation with the prisoner as to their initial allocation and any subsequent transfer from one prison to another28.

28 Complaint of convicted persons of Serbian ethnic background serving in Zenica prison in which they ask for transfer to an establishment closer to their place of residence

18

51. In all the prisons managements are making efforts to improve accommodation conditions pursuant to the European Prison Rules.29 Unfortunately in some establishments, despite the invested funds in the last three years, Ombudspersons cannot confirm that any improvement has been achieved in this segment of prison system. This is particularly so in case of Doboj Prison – significant funds were invested in improvement of accommodation capacity through the building of an additional storey, and in case of Tuzla Prison where a new building in Kozlovac was constructed, but executed works are of poor quality and below minimal standards, especially when it comes to hygiene. It is not clear was there any supervision over the civil works since in some places water circles are not in function in Doboj and Tuzla prisons, ceramic tiles have cracks and are broken, ceilings have water stains and like. At the same time, during the re-construction of the prison building in Doboj shields were removed from the windows that were obstructing daylight from entering to the rooms.

52. Ombudspersons notice that some prisons are still functioning in the buildings which

were constructed for or had served other purposes. This is the case with Bijeljina Prison and Sarajevo Prison. Ombudspersons observe the efforts of the Ministry of Justice to further extend prison capacities and improve the quality of life in prison, but no success can be expected without a long-term strategy based on certain criteria including the density of population. This could be best illustrated by the example of Busovača Prison which is fully occupied. It was the only prison that could not receive sentenced persons for lack of accommodation capacity, while other prisons, such as Bihać Prison, Orašje Prison, Doboj Prison and Istočno Sarajevo Prison have available room. In general Ombudspersons observe that the increase of accommodation capacity has reduced or even resolved the problem of prisons over-crowdedness. However, this could not be said about Zenica Prison as the only closed-type prison in FBiH.

53. Capacity of establishments and effectiveness of their use is also linked to the

additional engagement of staff, which is particularly characteristic for the establishments that extended capacity in the last three years such as: prisons in Bihać, Orašje, Sarajevo and Tuzla.

54. Ombudspersons further observe that the worst situation in the whole system of the

criminal sanctions execution is in Sarajevo Prison and that relevant ministry has not followed the real needs from the aspect of density of population gravitating to this establishment. It is unacceptable that the territory of 500 000 – 700 000 inhabitants does not have adequate criminal sanctions execution establishment as recommended in European Prison Rules. Functioning of Sarajevo Prison is additionally complicated by the fact that criminal sanctions execution is realized in three locations one of them being on the territory of the other canton (Ustikolina), and the other on Igman

29 European Prison rule 18.1.

19

mountain where minimum security, sanitary, hygiene and other conditions have not been met.

RECOMMENDATION: The Ministry of Justice of FBiH and RS Ministry of Justice to take measures to improve accommodation quality and to implement the rule that convicted persons be allocated as close as possible to their places of residence or places of social rehabilitation. Criminal sanctions execution establishments to ensure quality accommodation of convicted persons and consultations with them in issues involving the quality of accommodation.

5.1. Classification of convicted persons 55. During their visits to prisons Ombudspersons have received a lot of complaints

relating to classification and re-classification. In these complaints prisoners are complaining of about the insufficient clarity of the provisions regulating classification and inconsistency of their implementation. This creates possibility for unequal treatment of prisoners. It is particularly highlighted this problem in Tuzla Prison, which, in addition to the standard classification, implements a group “P” to which sentenced persons are allocated following their being commissioned to prison and remain in this group during the screening period. But, it is not understandable how some convicted persons can remain in this group for a period of two years. According to the statements of convicted persons in Orašje Prison management applies the group “B – the rightless”, but during their visit Ombudspersons could not establish which criteria are used to classify somebody into this group. In general, convicted persons complaints about too long stay in the group “B” after the conditions for their re-classification into the group “A” have been met.

RECOMMENDATION: The Ministry of Justice of the Federation of BiH to use its power to supervise and check classification of convicted persons in groups. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: at once. VI. SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE OF ORDER 56. Safety in the establishments for criminal sanctions execution should be regarded in

two segments: general safety segment, which includes existence and implementation of measures, prevention of prisoners’ escape, prevention of inflicting injuries, existence of special measures for diminishing the risk of escape and creating hazard to others, and individual safety segment which demands keeping convicted persons

20

free of abuse by the staff of the establishments and other prisoners. Obligation of the establishments for criminal sanctions execution is to ensure full safety of all convicted persons and to investigate, process and sanction any violation of the established safety and order.

57. Ombudspersons notice that relevant authorities during the issuance of zoning and

building permits required for the construction of buildings in the neighborhood of prison establishments do not take care of general public interest, which is to ensure full safety to the establishments for criminal sanctions execution. That way permits were issued to the shopping center „Tempo“ in Istočno Sarajevo next to the building of Istočno Sarajevo prison. This complicates security aspects, and requires additional engagement of the employees in the Prison.

58. Ombudspersons have stated following the visits to the establishments that there is

some progress achieved in the general safety segment, and that no escape was registered from any establishment and that number of abuse of out-of-prison privileges has decreased. In personal safety segment some progress has also been achieved compared to the situation in 2009 so that convicted persons rarely complain of abuse by the prison staff. When they do, they mostly complain of their arrogant behavior, lack of respect and psychological pressure and degrading behavior toward the convicted persons. Such complaints were registered in Orašje Prison where behavior of female counselor and some prison guards, while complaints in Tuzla Prison related mostly to correctional officers, while prison guards were described as very correct and professional.

59. Unfortunately, Ombudspersons have learnt from convicted persons that they were

physically abused by Banja Luka Prison staff, which was not registered in official records of the Prison related to this issue.30 According to the allegations of convicted persons physical force was manifested by inflicting blows wit arms and legs, tying up, placing to solitary confinement where use of force continued. Such form of abuse is practiced in parts of prison not covered by video surveillance.

60. Complaints of convicted persons mostly relate to putting their personal safety in

danger by other prisoners, in form of blackmail, forcing to do some jobs for other prisoners, verbal insults, threats and like. In the establishments where cases of physical abuse of prisoners by their fellow inmates were registered, Ombudspersons paid special attention to check whether or not the prison managements took appropriate measures whenever violation of safety and order took place.

61. For instance, in the case of the complaint lodged by prisoners of Serbian ethnicity

who serve their sentence in Zenica prison Ombudspersons have issued recommendation no. P-198/11 of 22.11.2011. In this recommendation the prison management was recommended to take all measures to prevent abuse. Acting upon

30 Case no.: Ž-SA-07-779/12

21

this recommendation the Prison management replied in the letter no.: 01-12-3233/12 dated 27.04.2012 providing details on all the incidents involving Serbian prisoners and list measures taken in this regard. In order to check out details of reply provided by the prison management Ombudspersons visited Zenica Prison on 21.05.2012 during which visit particular attention was paid to records related to the incidents complained of, reviewing carefully those involving Serbian ethnic background prisoners and it was established that verbal abuses had not stopped, and that it had even worsened in some cases. Based on what the Ombudsman had found it prepared its Information no.: Oi-114/12 on 03.07.2012 and Recommendation no. P-116/12 conveying it to the relevant authorities for further actions.

62. During their visits to prisons Ombudsman staff received complaints of convicted

persons who claimed that they had feared for their safety. This fear is caused by the fact that they serve sentence together with their accomplices in criminal offence committed or have some “unsettled accounts” (Mostar Prison), or they are of different ethnicity than majority of other inmates serving time in that prison (Zenica Prison, Foča Prison, Doboj Prison, Banja Luka Prison). In such cases prison managements try to react in accordance with their mandate, mostly separating prisoners whose safety was in danger and placing them into units with high protection level (Foča Prison). In this way convicted persons have their rights restricted since there is no clear legal basis for such placement of prisoners in the high security units. It is necessary to turn particular attention to lack of clear mechanisms for the assessment of conditions for the implementation of this regime, method of its implementation and, especially, periodical review of justification of this measure, then the issue of convicted person’s consent since they mostly do not have any alternative offered so they agree to the implementation of this measure out of fear for their personal safety.

63. There is also the issue of proportionality, that is, the balance between what seems to

be necessary in a concrete case and the implementation of a concrete measure since that measure can have negative impact and detrimental consequences for the prisoner if not proportionate to the needs, and that it, finally, can be regarded as inhuman and degrading treatment.

64. Another possibility used by the prisons in order to ensure safety of convicted persons

is transfer to another prison within the same entity. Unfortunately, this possibility is limited, in particular when convicted persons to be transferred is placed in a closed-type establishment. This is characteristic for the Federation of BiH since there is only one closed-type prison – Zenica Prison. So, in practice, the Minister of Justice on proposal of the prison director delivers decision to transfer a convict from a closed-type prison to a semi-open prison justifying that by reasons involving their personal safety without any concrete details about mentioned threats. Such transfers are, as a rul,e from Zenica Prison, as a closed establishment, to Mostar Prison as a semi-open facility. At the same time, staff of Mostar Prison, as well as convicted persons, express dissatisfaction with such transfers since transferred persons are mostly convicted for the gravest crimes, such as war crimes, organized crime and like that require

22

measures available in closed-type establishments, while semi-open prisons have completely different functioning regime. This way the rights of convicted persons accommodated in this establishment are restricted.

65. Ombudspersons wish to turn attention to a problem of committing to prison persons convicted of war crimes, where, as it has already been mentioned in items 15-45, legislation causes practical problems manifested in a way that convicted persons be committed to serve their prison sentence in prisons far away from their places of residence. This situation is additionally complicated if such a convicted person is committed to the other entity where it happens that this person serve together with prisoners who had lost some family members in war. Such situation creates environment of intolerance and hatred between the convicted persons, which is manifested in verbal and sometimes physical violence.

66. Prison managements, unfortunately, do not have much help in resolving of these

problems. Instruments available to them are mostly directed to ad-hoc interventions in order to stop violation of the rights of convicted persons by their inmates and are not foreseen to have any long-term effect. At the same time, conflicts between the prisoners of different ethnic backgrounds require mechanisms preventing prisoners of repeating actions that can endanger other prisoners. Transfer of convicted persons into the high-risk units in order to ensure their protection has only temporary effects and prolongation of this measure leads to the violation of a convicted person transferred. At the same time sanctioning of the perpetrator by placing them into solitary confinement has only sporadic effect in sense of prevention of these actions recurrence.

67. Same principles should be observed during committing to prison, and during the

transfer, that is, it would be necessary to allocate the sentenced person to the establishment which is the closest to their places of residence. In practice these principles are not observed which is in violation with European Prison Rules as it aggravates contacts with families and furthermore impedes the social rehabilitation of convicted persons.

68. Convicted persons tend to serve sentence in the entity where they have residence,

either for reasons of their personal safety or to be closer to their families. This situation can be resolved by ensuring the observation of recommendations given under items from 14-45 of this Report.

VII. HEALTH CARE AND HYGIENE 69. European Prison Rules pay a great deal of attention to health care including the

following issues: organizing the health services, medical and health care staff, duties

23

of the medical practitioner, health care provision, mental health and other issues.31 European Prison Rules start from premises that medical services in prison should be organized in close relation with general health care authorities of the community or the nation, into which health policy in prisons needs to be integrated, and compatible with, that prisoners must have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation32.

European Prison Rules demand for every prison to have the services of at least one qualified general medical practitioner, and that arrangements should be made to ensure at all times that a qualified medical practitioner is available without delay in cases of urgency. The Rules also determine that in cases where prisons do not have a full-time medical practitioner, a part-time medical practitioner should visit them regularly. In addition to general medical practitioner every prison should have personnel suitably trained in health care, and services of qualified dentists and opticians should be available to every prisoner. It is very important to highlight that the European Prison Rules provide that medical practitioner or other competent authority regularly inspect, collect information by other means and advise the director upon hygiene and cleanliness of the institution and prisoners, sanitation, heating, lighting and ventilation of the institution and suitability and cleanliness of the prisoners’ clothing and bedding33.

70. In light of standards set out in the European Prison Rules. one could have the

impression that health policy implemented in prisons in Bosnia and Herzegovina has not been fully compatible and integrated into the general health policy in the country and that health policy in prisons does not fall into the mandate of the Ministry of Health, but rather the Ministry of Justice.

71. Health policy in prisons in BiH is non existing, so that health issues of prisoners are

treated as any other prison system related issues and it is completely under discretion of prison managements, which results in different levels of health care provided to convicted persons. Furthermore, very few establishment employ qualified medical practitioners (Banja Luka Prison, Zenica Prison, Bijeljina Prison, Tuzla Prison). Instead, they mostly use the other option provided for in European Prison Rules, that is, a part-time medical practitioner to visit the establishment regularly34. This type of health care is subject to the highest number of complaints since convicted persons claim that such engagement of doctors is not sufficient given the number of prisoners, and that it happens that so engaged medical practitioners do not carry out their duties at all (Orašje Prison).

31 European Prison Rules, part III – Health. 32 Idem, paragraph 40.1 to 40.5. 33 Idem, paragraph 41.3. 34 Based on service contract a doctor can be engaged in Doboj Prison, Foča Prison, Istočno Sarajevo Prison, Trebinje Prison, Bihać Prison, Mostar Prison, Sarajevo Prison, Busovača Prison and Orašje Prison

24

72. Ombudspersons note that problems pertaining to the permanent engagement of a doctor in prisons is closely linked to the fact that medical practitioners do not express interest in such an engagement (Trebinje Prison, Kula Prison and Foča Prison), or to the fact that the funds available have not been sufficient to attract them.

73. During their visits to prisons Ombudspersons tried with no success to check

allegations related to the implementation of contractual obligations by the engaged doctors as there is no documentation about particulars of such an engagement such as times of arrival to work and leaving it, which would normally make the basis to calculate their remuneration. Among downsides of such type of engagement is that medical services in urgent cases cannot be provided at once since nobody is present within the establishment. In such cases first aid services operating in the towns where prisons are located have to be used.

74. Other medical staff in prisons is also lacking, for instance Orašje Prison has only two

paramedics, so that prisoners are left without any medical staff at night. In Igman Ward there is no any medical staff at all, so if a prisoner has a therapy, it is administered by the guards. Ombudspersons also state that no doctor visits this Ward as provided by the European Prison Rules, but a paramedic comes once a week. Practice that guards instead of medical professionals are administering medicines is also in place (Mostar Prison, Orašje Prison).

75. In some prisons a dentist is engaged based on service contract, as well as some

doctors specialists. 76. All prisons except Busovača Prison have infirmary and Ombudspersons are pleased to

note the improvement in their material and technical equipment, in particular the laboratory equipment, which enables less demanding laboratory tests to be done within the establishment thus rendering taking the prisoners out of the prison unnecessary (Banja Luka Prison, Zenica Prison, Foča Prison).

77. Prison managements point out the issue of health care quality that should be

provided for every prisoner since they often need a specialist to examine them and other medical interventions (MRI, CT and like), which are rather costly, exceeding the funds available for that purpose. At the same time it raises the issue of equality of convicted persons with other citizens in the area of health care. All mentioned dilemmas related to health care provision need to be solved and clarified, which requires special legislative interventions.

78. From the perspective of European Prison Rules, engagement of medical doctors is not

satisfactory in segments such as consulting the management about nutrition and environment in which the prisoners spend time, hygiene and sanitary conditions and health care as necessary. Namely, doctors do not pay enough attention to hygiene, especially personal hygiene, maintenance of sanitary areas, cleanliness and adequate footwear for prisoners. For instance, as one of the austerity measures, Orašje Prison

25

management decided not to have prisoners’ laundry washed by machines, but that prisoners themselves should wash their clothes manually. In Doboj Prison there were examples of omissions and negligence as it comes to hygiene including the sheets in conjugal visits room, while the issue of hygiene in Bijeljina Prison can rather be attributed to the age of building, in particular its sanitary installations, than the negligence. Insufficiency of these sanitary installations with regard to the number of prisoners to be served in addition to their condition can cause infections among the inmates. Ombudspersons are surprised by lack of hygiene in Tuzla Prison, that is, its Kozlovac Ward, which is not tolerable since it is a new building. At the moment of visit, Ombudspersons found dirty and uncared for kitchen and water circles, unbearable stink all over the building and no evidence whatsoever of any reactions or measures of the doctor. Prisoners said that the doctor rarely visits Kozlovac, although it accommodated 163 convicted persons at the moment of our visit.

79. In Tuzla Prison there was also evident lack of attention to differences in needs of

female prisoners compared to male population, which requires some additional steps to be taken.

80. Ombudspersons also noted lack of awareness about contagious diseases among the

prisoners. It often causes lack of understanding and conflicts between the prisoners, especially in cases involving HIV positive inmates or those suffering from hepatitis.

There are NGOs dealing with addictions, HIV/AIDS and STDs that include prisons in their scope of work, such as: Association for sexual and reproductive health “XY”, “Margina” Association and „Viktorija“ Association. They are important actors in education of prisoners and are respected by both, inmates and prision managements. Compared to 2009, Ombudspersons have noted that doctors engaged in prisons seized prescribing methadone therapy to prisoners addicted to narcotics as it extends addiction.

81. And last but not the least, Ombudspersons note that European Prison Rule no. 19.3

according to which prisoners should have ready access to sanitary facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy as well as hygiene keeping means including toiletries and general cleaning implements and materials. Prisoners complain of insufficient personal and general hygiene means, which complain the Ombudsman staff could ascertain as they so it themselves during their visits.

RECOMMENDATION: To prison managements in prisons where medical practitioners are engaged based on service contracts to establish register of doctor’s visits in order to follow-up their meeting of contractual obligations.

26

To the Federation the Ministry of Justice, RS the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Commission of Brčko District with co-ordination of the Ministry of Justice of BiH to define minimal standards in the area of health care of convicted persons, in particular the right to specialist tests and examinations and more expensive medical interventions. To prison managements, especially in prisons where hygiene-related problems were observed to take measures to improve hygiene level and strengthen control mechanisms to ensure what is necessary for personal hygiene of prisoners.

VIII. FOOD 82. European Prison Rules provide that prisoners should be provided with nutritious diet

that takes into account their age, health, physical condition, religion, culture and the nature of their work, while standards of nutritious diet should be prescribed in national law. The establishment should provide for food to be prepared and served hygienically and that clean drinking water be available to prisoners at all times.35 During their visits to prisons, the Ombudsman staff paid particular attention to quality of food and hygiene conditions in premises used for food preparation and serving.

83. European prison standards as it comes to food are carefully observed in particular in

Kula Prison, but other prisons also keep up to the standards with no significant divergence, chiefly in preparation of food for different categories of convicted persons. Prisoners from Igman Ward were the only ones that complained of quality and quantity of food, while prisoners Muslims serving their sentence in Doboj Prison complained claiming that pork meet is put in their food. After the Ombudsman’s investigation, these allegations were proven to be true as some prisoners engaged to assist in the kitchen did such things. The Prison management took measures to redress this and take more strict scrutiny over the meet selection and separation.

84. Very professional staff is mostly engaged in kitchens, and some establishments such

as Bijeljina Prison, Busovača Prison and Zenica Prison can benefit from their own produce obtained as a result of their farming in the framework of labor engagement, that is, occupational therapy of prisoners.

85. Ombudspersons have also investigated access to clean water as it was what prisoners

from Orašje Prison complained of. However, it was found that Orašje Prison is supplied with water from the communal water network, so the convicted persons have the same access to water as everybody else from the inhabitants of the city of Orašje. The Prison management made additional tests and it was found with no doubt that water was suitable for human consumption.

35 European Prison Rules from 22.1 to 22.6

27

IX. PRISON WORK AND OTHER ACTIVITIES 86. A satisfactory activity program (work, education, sports and like) is a key of every

prisoner’s welfare, but it is not easy to organize these activities. Obviously, prisoners cannot be just let to “hang out” in their cells, no matter how comfortable these cells might be.

87. During their visits to prisons Ombudspersons have observed that some establishments, especially where circumstances were favorable, had accomplished progress in the field of prison work and work engagement of prisoners in prison farms (Bijeljina Prison, Busovača Prison, Doboj Prison, Bihać Prison and Tuzla Prison and to some lesser extent also prisons in Orašje, Zenica, and Sarajevo - Ustikolina Ward and Igman Ward). In Foča Prison work engagement is organized through the furniture manufacture, Zenica Prison organized work in cast iron factory, or some workshops as it is the case in Banja Luka Prison. In all the establishments convicted persons are engaged in services provision for their own needs, in the kitchen, washing clothes, library, cleaning the premises and similar jobs. Compensation for the job done differs from prison to prison, as well as working regime so that some prisons have works organized per days, and others per months. In general, needs for work and occupational therapy surpass available capacities. What raises particular concerns is lack of work engagement of convicted persons in Sarajevo Prison and Mostar Prison, since location of these establishments, that is, close to the city centre impedes more quality work engagement of prisoners. Engagement on farms has seasonal character and there remains the issue of prisoners engagement during the winter time.

88. Most of the establishments have some sports activities, which are, as a rule, organized in gyms, while few prisons have foreseen possibility of outdoor exercising. Space limitations for this type of practice are especially expressed in prisons located in the vicinity of city centers (Doboj Prison, Sarajevo Prison, Tuzla Prison, Mostar Prison, Trebinje Prison). Ombudspersons note that prisoners complain about the way activities are organized even in Igman Ward although it is not located in urban environment. Some of the prisoners are engaged in agriculture during the summer time, some others doing some supporting activities, while most of them just hang out in front of the building doing nothing. The building has sports grounds for football and basketball. Prisoners mentioned problem of order and daily activities schedule according to which they are not allowed to spend time in their rooms, and their common living room is too small for such a number of people, and this problem is more pressing in bad weather.

RECOMMENDATION: To the establishments for the execution of criminal sanctions in coordination with relevant ministries to examine current forms of occupational engagement and other forms of the

28

activities and based on findings to prepare a long-term plan of measures to be taken taking care to harmonize it with real economic needs and possibilities since occupational therapy represents a progressive right implementation of which is demanding rather significant funds and a longer time period. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: 90 days.

X. EDUCATION 89. According to European Prison Rules, every prison should seek to provide all

prisoners with access to educational programs which are as comprehensive as possible and which meet their individual needs while taking into account their aspirations36. Priority should be given to prisoners with literacy and numeracy needs and those who lack basic or vocational education and special attention should be paid to the education of young prisoners and those with special needs37. In segment of education it is also very important for the prisoners to have a library that should comprise books of educational and entertaining character, as well as other sources of information and media.

90. Ombudspersons established following their visits that there are different

opportunities for the education of prisoners. Forms of education more depend on number of potential beneficiaries, and are mainly integrated into the educational system and professional training in community, which is the reason for most prisons to conclude agreements with primary and secondary schools. Depending on possibilities in the establishments could be found information sections and groups for computer literacy of prisoners. All the prisons have libraries, yet the convicted persons in Orašje Prison complained of lack of books (library has around 300 books), and lack of will of prison management to use potential of some prisoners, some of them being university professors, to improve library functioning, which includes activities on the promotion of reading among prisoners.

XI. CONTAKT WITH OUTSIDE WORLD 91. The European Prison Rules provide for convicted persons to have the right to

communicate as often as possible with their families by letters, telephone or otherwise, as they will be enabled to receive visits not only of their families but also other persons from different outside organizations and like. Furthermore, the Rules provide for the possibility that communication and visits may be subject to restrictions and monitoring necessary for the requirements of continuing criminal

36 European Prison Rule 28.1 37 Idem, 28.2 and 28. 3

29

investigations, maintenance of good order, safety and security, prevention of criminal offences and protection of victims of crime, but such restrictions, including specific restrictions ordered by a judicial authority, shall nevertheless allow an acceptable minimum level of contact.38 Of course, this rule also allows the possibility that national law specifies national and international bodies and officials with whom communication by prisoners would not be restricted.

92. Prisons are also obligated, whenever circumstances allow, to authorize the prisoner

to leave prison either under escort or alone in order to visit a sick relative, attend a funeral or for other humanitarian reasons.

93. During their visits to prisons Ombudspersons have observed that implementation of

the right of the prisoners to receive visits of their family members and their lawyer is on satisfactory level in most of the establishments. However, there are different practices in place as to the procedures followed during these visits, so that some prisons require presence of the guard during the visits, while other prisons do not have it. It raises the issue of criteria for restriction of communication and visits. The Ombudsmen also established differences between the prisons in use of free visits, so that some prisons allow for two such visits a month, and others two.

94. Ombudspersons use the opportunity to highlight a positive example of the

management regarding the visits, this is example of Foča Prison which made special arrangements and made available for visits the room where children of convicted persons can visit their parents.

95. The Ombudsman is surprised by newly established practice in Tuzla, that is its

Kozlovac Ward where visits are organized in rooms with glass partitions dividing the prisoners from their visitors, but there is no lateral partitions between the prisoner or visitors themselves, so that their conversations carried out by phone are all mixed up since they hear each other so sitting in a row with no these lateral partitions. These visits are known internally as visits at the Gate 1, and there are even established Criteria for entitlement to visits at the Gate 1 in Kozlovac Ward dated 06.05.2012. As a main objective of the adoption of these criteria mentioned is better re-socialization and better contacts with family and this is introduced as one of the privileges within the establishment. According to the mentioned criteria, such visits are granted once a month, during the working days from 8:00 to 16:00 hours and exclusively to the closer family members, with no definition what had been meant by closer family and opinion/suggestion should be obtained in order to get these visits approved. In addition to this opinion of the Rehabilitation Service staff it is necessary to obtain opinion of the Security service, and visits can only be carried out in the visit room at the Gate 1, and not in summer garden. Visitors have the right to order food and drinks from the motel nearby served by a waiter. During the visit a guard member must be present and visit ends with a detailed search of prisoners although

38 European Prison Rules 24.1 and 24.2

30

the purpose of this measure remains unclear since the visitors have no direct contacts with prisoners. So defined privilege within the establishment without definition of legal grounds for it raises the issue of securing the prisoners’ contacts with the outside world in accordance with European Prison Rules and does not contribute to maintenance and improvement of relations with the family including children in as normal a manner as possible. In addition to that, this method does not provide minimum of privacy as conversation of the prisoners with their families can be overheard by the other prisoners as well as the prison guard. Criteria used for making the lists of convicted persons not allowed to receive visits on the Gate 139 raise particular concerns of the Ombudsman, since there are indications that this mechanism can be used as a form of additional punishment. At the same time, such restrictions of communication with families open the issue of achieving the efficient re-socialization and creation of conditions for reintegration of the convicted persons into community.

96. During their unannounced visit to Kozlovac Ward the Ombudsmen received a request

for interview from 1/4 of total number of convicted persons serving their sentence there (163). They complaints, apart from reflecting lack of efficient management in Kozlovac Ward for physical separation from the management of the parent Tuzla Prison situated in the city center also indicate the lack of quality treatment in the process of criminal sanctions execution, rare visits of doctor, lawyer, social welfare officers and no supervision over sanitary, hygiene and other conditions. The overall treatment of 163 prisoners is left out to prison guards and two rehabilitation officers. The Ombudsman has also learnt that some labor rights of the prison guards are not implemented as they can use only one free working day in a week. Convicted persons especially complained about the problems related to the visits at the Gate 1 since the procedure for granting it is totally non-transparent and additional criteria have been introduced which exclude certain convicted persons so denying them possibility of using this privilege. This created possibility to various corruptive practices used by the rehabilitation officers. Namely, prisoners indicate that practice of allowing some prisoners to receive visits in the motel against some compensation is still in place. In discussion with rehabilitation officers Ombudspersons tried to find out what was the reason for the adoption of the said criteria, particularly since they restrict the right to privacy and they said that it was the need to prevent smuggling of drugs and narcotics during the direct contacts.

39 At the Gate 1/Kapija 1 the right to visit is denied to the following convicted persons: convicted persons apprehended to serve the sentence; convicted persons who committed criminal offences involving illegal productin and circulation of intoxicating drugs, organized crimes, war crimes, satisfying lust in the presence of a child or juvenile, incest, alcohol and drug abusers regardless to criminal offence committed and duration of sentence, convicted persons benefiting from privileges out of the establishment, convicted persons subject to disciplinary measure of solitary confinement, convicted persons carrying high risk as assessed from penology aspect

31

97. Ombudspersons also note that implementation of the rule according to which prisoners should be enabled to leave prison either under escort or alone in order to visit a sick relative, attend a funeral or for other humanitarian reasons has not been in place to satisfactory level. Prison managements justify that by their fear from the prisoner’s escape, and limited funds when they should leave the prison with escort, especially when the convicted persons is from the other entity. However, based on some lodged complaints Ombudspersons could conclude that in some cases this right is granted easily if not carelessly (Mostar Prison), so it remained dim what are the common principles in the adoption of these decisions.

98. One of possibilities for contacting the outside world in by telephone. The most

recently established system provides that every prisoner has the right to call seven numbers. This system is a source of the constant discontent of convicted persons in all the prisons. Convicted persons claim that for monopoly of the authorized operator elected to provide telephone communications prices are much higher than normally and that they are not allowed to change numbers before the certain time period. Ombudspersons have learnt that prices are much higher when mobile numbers are called, while the prices of ground lines are much favorable.

99. Ombudspersons observe that the issue of access to information is solved in a

different fashion in prisons. Whereas some prisons enable limited access, the others have cable channels available to the inmates. Practice varies from prison to prison also when it comes to possibility that convicted persons bring their own TV set or radio.

RECOMMENDATION: To the management of Tuzla Prison to enable visits to convicted persons in a fashion that guarantees privacy, and maintaining and improvement of family relations of the prisoners. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: at once. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended to prison managements to keep developing procedures for maintaining contacts of the convicted persons with outside world. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: at once. XII. RELIGIOUS NEEDS 100. Prisons are obligated to ensure respect for the prisoners’ freedom of thought,

conscience and religion shall be respected, and prison regime should be organized so

32

far as is practicable to allow prisoners to practice their religion and follow their beliefs, to attend services or meetings led by approved representatives of such religion or beliefs, to receive visits in private from such representatives of their religion or beliefs and to have in their possession books or literature relating to their religion or beliefs.40

101. Ombudspersons note that guarantees for the implementation of religious needs in the

criminal sanctions execution establishments was kept on the same level where it was in 2009, with the difference that now complaints of prisoners related to realization of religious needs have now been registered, in particular when it comes to practicing prayer. This is the case in Sarajevo Prison, the Igman Ward, where, although the room earmarked for religious ceremonies of the Islamic faith believers do exist and is close to the building where convicted persons are accommodated, they cannot practice their prayers when they wish so.

102. In general, convicted persons raised the issue of possible practicing prayer in their

rooms, on their beds, which is something that some prisons allow and some other do not. Here it would be important to have standards especially in light of the fact that prayer is physically different in various confessions, so the absence of standards and their observance open the space for discrimination and different treatment in the field of implementation of the right to prayer.

103. Engagement of religious professionals in order to provide meeting of religious needs

of convicted persons is regulated in accordance to various principles: in some institutions these services of religious professionals are paid for based on service contracts, while some religious professionals provide these services free of charge.

104. Ombudspersons also observe different practices related to the possession of religious

symbols and emblems, since in some prisons these things are confiscated or their owners are recommended to send it back home, while some prisons do not mind wearing or keeping them.

RECOMMENDATION: To the prison managements to re-examine their policies related to the guarantied meeting of the prisoners’ religious needs in coordination with relevant ministries. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: 90 days

40 European Prison Rules 29.1 and 29.2

33

XIII. COMPLAINTS HANDLING 105. Discontent of convicted persons is often expressed through their complaints sent to

different institutions. These complaints can mostly be classified into two groups, the first one comprising complaints related to the system of criminal sanctions execution within the establishment, such as: the right to personal safety, the right to health care, nutrition, treatment and re-socialization, prison work, privileges used within the prison, religious needs and like, and other one complaints related to the rights decided upon by external parties, such as conditional release and transfer to another prison. Handling of these complaints requires quality procedures and responsibility of the relevant bodies, which means that mandates for certain issues must be clearly defined so in case of the rights violation perpetrators can be identified. This would be important for convicted persons so they know to which address to send their complaints. In practice they mostly send them to prison managements although the legislation governing the execution of criminal sanctions define different subjects accountable for various issues. Deliberation and deciding upon complaints of convicted persons requires qualitative procedure and responsibility of authorities in charge since these authorities bear responsibility for possible human rights violations if they occurred. It is important to define responsible body for each step of the procedure. Especially important is to define respondent body to which appeals should be lodged, since this causes certain confusion. In practice convicted persons mostly appeal to prison management, but the law foresees different responsible instances to be addressed.

106. Visits to prisons were the opportunity for the Ombudsman to explore the efficiency of

complaint procedures from the aspect of a convicted person. It was stated that there were different methods to register complaints of convicted persons within the establishments. In some prisons there are so-called applications briefings, reports of which are sent to the director of the establishment. This practice is characteristic for the establishments in the Republic of Srpska and some in the Federation of BiH (Bihać Prison). Such method of registration aggravates its classification per types of the rights allegedly violated, as there is difference between an application and a complaint, including the legal distinction. Some prisons in the Republic of Srpska introduced the practice of organizing the prisoners’ councils through which convicted persons can articulate their complaints. While supporting the functioning of the prisoners’ councils, especially in part related to the prisoners’ rights, the Ombudsman wishes to emphasize that complaints mechanisms must be in place for everybody including those who are not ready to discuss their complaints at the prisoners’ council.

107. Non-existence of separate register of complaints also gives rise to the issue of clear

complaints handling procedures. In some establishments there is no registration system at all, neither of applications nor complaints (Orašje Prison, Mostar Prison,

34

Bihać Prison, Busovača Prison). Instead, the prison director holds interviews with the prisoners at their request. Prisoners in Orašje Prison said that their complaints had often failed to reach the prison director so he had not been able to react accordingly.

In Mostar Prison written complaints are submitted to the prison director and deputy director upon which they take necessary steps to investigate it and decide upon. Registration of complaints has not been in place, and practice of sending the application briefings reports was abandoned which proves it as inefficient. In Zenica Prison complaints handling method is defined in their Guidelines for the Procedure on the convicted persons’ complaint handling method issued by the prison director. It foresees a three-level procedure. The first level is complaints handling is professional staff, the second one director’s deputies, and the third level is director. However, this procedure, according to the claims of convicted persons has not been observed since the largest number of prisoners turn directly to the director. Number of complaints directed to the director imposed the need for the introduction of some form of registration although it was not a legal requirement as nothing about it is in place neither in any for of legislation nor in the Guidelines.

108. Ombudspersons note that directors of some prisons directly address the prisoners,

that is, possibility of direct communication with the director is in place, while other establishments’ directors think that communication of the convicted persons should be directed to the staff dealing with education, rehabilitation and treatment.

109. In addition to the management of prison in which they serve their sentence convicted

persons are addressing the Ministry of Justice, the Ombudsman and other institutions. In some of establishments prisoners can address the Ombudsman in open letters registered in the official prison register along with reply of prison management to the allegations. Asked to provide reasons for such a procedure, prison managements said that they want to prevent from happening events and occurrences causing complaints of convicted persons. In some prisons convicted persons said that the staff told them: “No use from your addressing the Ombudspersons, they cannot help you”. Following the visits to prisons, Ombudspersons had the impression that prisoners do not have a minimum of privacy of their written correspondence since there are prisons where this correspondence is fully under the management’s control. There were cases that letters directed to some institutions, e.g. the Ombudsman had never reached its addressee. It is therefore necessary, in order to provide access to the Ombudsman, to establish complaint boxes with enabled an exclusive access to the Ombudsman and such boxes must be located in spots not covered by video surveillance.

110. Unfortunately, convicted persons think that complaint mechanisms are inefficient and

unfair. The Ombudsman state that complaint proceedings have not been unified and that the following practices are in place:

35

a) inclusion of complaints in reports on application briefings; b) three-level complaints procedure (Zenica Prison), but not in all the prisons; c) complaints addressing the director directly, which is the most frequent form in

practice, including the complaint registration.

Following their visits to the prison establishments, Ombudspersons have concluded that there is no a uniform method of complaint lodging, receipt, registration and handling. Procedure upon complaint is left to prison management to decide. At the same time, ZIKS BiH in Article 80, para. 3, provides that the Ministry of Justice of BiH should issue a rulebook to regulate internal procedures for complaint and other submissions lodging, handling and deciding upon in order to protect the rights of the prisoners.

RECOMMENDATION: The Ministry of Justice of the Federation of BiH, the RS Ministry of Justice and Judicial Commission of Brčko District of BiH to draft the framework for complaint handling procedure that would ensure separation of applications from complaints and establish a unified method of complaint registration and handling, in addition to ensuring the confidentiality in coordination of the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Deadline for compliance with recommendation: 60 days.

XIV. STAFF 111. In all the prisons number of staff has not been sufficient compared to the number of

prisoners. Situation in rehabilitation and treatment sector raises particular concerns thus giving rise to goal aimed at achieving within the criminal sanctions execution system. In some prisons there is no lawyer, social welfare expert or pedagogue. General lack of professional staff compared to the number of prisoners is also a big challenge, which often leads to „professional burn out“. For instance, in Orašje Prison there were 130 detained and convicted persons and only one rehabilitation officer and when she left to vacation, there was nobody left for this type of work. Similar situation was in Kozlovac Ward, a part of Tuzla Prison where 163 prisoners have only two rehabilitation officers. It also happens that internally re-allocated employees who change their working place on their request (from Zenica Prison to Busovača Prison, Sarajevo Prison, Mostar Prison) leave their orginil place before their position is filled.

112. In sector of rehabilitation no improvement could be registered compared to 2009.

Prison staff has a partial support of relevant ministries, which also suffer for lack of professional staff. Situation is additionally complicated by financial restrictions and budgetary cuts due to austerity measures.

36

113. It must not be forgotten that prison staff duties go beyond guarding and keeping the prisoners safely locked, but to facilitate their social re-integration once they had their prison sentence served.

114. Prison staff circumstances can be illustrated by the situation with their uniforms

which should be of such quality and quantity to reflect their position. Unfortunately, many of them have not gotten new uniforms for three years, as they also do not have summer and winter uniforms or must use their own funds to dye them to hide how worn out they are. Ombudspersons remind to what the CPT has underlined in its General report41 „the cornerstone of a humane prison system will always be properly recruited and trained prison staff who know how to adopt the appropriate attitude in their relations with prisoners and see their work more as a vocation than as a mere job. Building positive relations with prisoners should be recognised as a key feature of that vocation“.

RECOMMENDATIONS: The Ministry of Justice of the Federation of BiH, the RS Ministry of Justice to consult prison managements and trade union organizations of prison employees and prepare a comprehensive analysis of status and needs of prison staff, with emphasis on professional training, especially in the field of human rights and interpersonal communication, professional burning-out and establishment of strict supervision mechanisms. Based on this analysis it is necessary to draft program of work with prison staff as a long-term strategic goal. . Deadline for compliance with recommendation: 90 days. The Ministry of Justice of the Federation of BiH, the RS Ministry of Justice to re-examine current system of prison guards uniforms and, depending on available funds, try to improve quality of their uniforms in order to ensure their dignity. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: at once. XV. WOMEN 115. Women are committed in two institutions for the execution criminal sanctions in BiH.

These are Istočno Sarajevo Prison and Tuzla Prison. At the moment of visit of the Ombudsman’s staff there were 37 convicted women in Tuzla, and 18 in Istočno Sarajevo Prison.

116. Ombudspersons note that conditions for the execution of criminal sanctions for

women are improved a great deal. For instance at the moment of visit by the 41 Excerpt from the 11 General report (CPT/inf (2001) 16)

37

Ombudsman newly constructed building earmarked for women was opened in Istočno Sarajevo and Tuzla Prison took some measures to comply with recommendations of the Ombudsman and other institutions as well in order to improve situation of female prisoners. Prison building in Istočno Sarajevo was built according to standards which ensure the female prisoners to fully enjoy all their entitlements according to European Prison Rules where special space is arranged for women with babies and small children.

117. Unfortunately, in the mentioned institutions women are engaged in traditionally

female jobs, such as sewing or crocheting or kitchen jobs or some cleansing works. In Tuzla female prisoners complained of lack of understanding for the specific needs based on their biological determinations and not obtaining of hygiene needs.

RECOMMENDATION: To Tuzla Prison to improve provision of convicted women with hygiene supplies specific given their biologic specifics. Deadline for compliance with recommendation: at once. XVI. MINORS 118. During their visits to the criminal sanctions execution establishments the

Ombudsman staff also visited parts where measures toward minors are implemented. This will be subject of a next report on the rights of children in conflict with law. Banja Luka, August 2012

OMBUDSPERSONS OF BIH

______________________ Nives Jukić

______________________ Ljubomir Sandić

______________________ Jasminka Džumhur