CAT/OP/ROU/1 VI. Situation of persons deprived of their liberty A. Police detention 1. Preventive arrest and detention centres 68. The delegation observed that the maximum length of detention of 180 days 22 in preventive arrest and detention centres under the authority of the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police was generally respected, but remains concerned that the detention of pretrial detainees in those centres does not seem to be limited to exceptional circumstances. It notes that, despite the provisions contained in article 115 (1) of Law No. 254 of 2013 requiring that during the trial phase detainees be transferred to penitentiaries, the delegation met detainees who were being held in preventive arrest and detention centres during their criminal prosecution. 69. The delegation met many children who had spent several months in pretrial detention in preventive arrest and detention centres, some of them being detained with adults, including repeat offenders of serious crimes. The delegation observed that a child’s stay in detention can be extended by a judge on purely economic grounds, such as when parents are considered by the court as being unable to support their child at home. The length of pretrial detention of children, combined with poor living conditions, restrictions on family visits and the obligation to stay in cells for long hours, could be considered to amount to ill-treatment. 70. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party take the measures necessary to increase the use of non-custodial alternatives to pretrial detention, with due regard to international and regional standards. 23 Pretrial detention should be a last resort in criminal proceedings, should only be used for limited periods of time and as determined by law, with due regard to the investigation of the alleged offence and to the protection of society and the victim. 71. Children and adolescents should be deprived of their liberty only as a measure of last resort, for the shortest possible period of time and subject to regular review. They should be detained under conditions that protect them from harmful influences and that take account of the needs particular to their age. 24 2. Material conditions 72. The delegation observed that almost all preventive arrest and detention centres visited were located in the basement of police buildings. Being placed underground means that the detainees have little or no access to natural light and that ventilation in the cells is limited. 73. While noting that a nationwide project for refurbishing several police detention facilities was under way, the delegation observed that many cells visited were still dilapidated and had inadequate bedding with old and filthy mattresses. 74. It also notes that most of the facilities visited had no common space for recreational and sports activities, leaving detainees with no choice but to languish in their cell almost all day. The walking areas were often very small and sometimes oppressive, fully fenced or surrounded by high walls. 75. The delegation received several complaints about the quality and quantity of the food served in police facilities. 76. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party speed up its efforts to ensure that material conditions in police facilities comply with international standards, with a particular focus on improving hygiene, food, ventilation, light, bedding and the 22 23 24 Law No. 135 of 2010 on the Criminal Procedure Code, with further amendments, art. 236, para. 4. Including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules), rule 6.1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 10 (2), European Prison Rules, rule 11. 13