who were ill-treated, raped or even killed by other detainees in their cells in the total absence of a reaction from Detention Authorities.29 Tolerance of inter-detainee violence is generally highlighted as a major contributing factor to violence.30 Isolation and vulnerability of detained people It is self-evident that detainees have limited contact with the outside world. They usually have restricted access to computers, the internet, mail or telephones. As discussed above, pre-trial detainees, in particular, may face worse detention conditions than convicted detainees and in some countries (like Sweden) their access to the outside world is frequently severely restricted to protect the integrity of evidence at trial.31 According to the CPT:32 In a number of visit reports, the CPT has taken the view that the conditions of detention of remand prisoners in the establishments visited were totally unacceptable and could easily be considered to be inhuman and degrading. Moreover, remand prisoners are frequently subjected to various types of restrictions (in particular as regards contacts with the outside world), and, in a number of countries, certain remand prisoners are held in solitary confinement by court order (sometimes for prolonged periods). People in immigration detention are also particularly vulnerable. As was noted in a recent report by the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (“PICUM”):33 [C]onditions of extreme social segregation, access to a legal representative may be the only link to the outside world, and provide the only safe opportunity to report complaints of abuse or sexual assault inside detention facilities. Migrants who do not have legal representation face significant hurdles in advocating effectively for their own rights and safety while in custody. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 18 Good practice – Sweden In Sweden, migrants may use the immigration detention centre’s telephone free of charge and there is approximately one computer for two detainees in the Detention Centres. Detainees also have a right to have a mobile phone without camera. This vulnerability is exacerbated by the limited (sometimes prohibited) access to Detention Centres for independent experts, NGOs and lawyers. Access to detention facilities is typically determined by the Detention Administration which is given a wide margin of discretion in deciding who has access to detention facilities and when. There are frequently no objective criteria to allow access for monitoring purposes and, although refusals of access can in some cases be brought before the national Ombudsperson’s office, it is unclear whether the Ombudsperson can compel Detention Centres to provide access. In addition, detainees may face other vulnerabilities which add to their isolation. For example, immigration detainees, and many pre-trial detainees34 are foreigners, which can make it harder for them to understand and exercise their rights (and to communicate with people who could help them) due to language barriers.35 There often are no translation or interpreter services and limited ways to inform detainees about the functioning of the detention facility (i.e. who to go to in the case of violence) and about detainees’ rights. In addition, many people in pre-trial detention, in particular, suffer from learning disabilities and mental illness36 and many people in immigration detention have suffered trauma.37 Even if they speak local languages, they may therefore be less able to understand their rights and to speak up for themselves. In Hungary, the penitentiary institutions must make sure that the mental state of vulnerable detainees is continuously monitored by professionals. They must ensure that foreign detainees are placed in cells with detainees who speak the same language. In practice, however, this does not happen. CPT, Extract from the 7th General Report, available at: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4d7882092.pdf. See also, CAT/C/MDA/CO/3; Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary, submission referred to in Human Rights Council, Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General, Human rights in the administration of justice, 2019, A/HRC/42/20, p. 6 (references omitted). Human Rights Council, Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the SecretaryGeneral, Human rights in the administration of justice, 2019, A/HRC/42/20, p. 6 (references omitted), available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/session42/Documents/A_HRC_42_20.docx. CPT, Report to the Swedish Government on the visit to Sweden carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 18 to 28 May 2015, published in 2016, available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680697f60. CPT, Remand detention, Extract from the 26th General Report of the CPT, published in 2017, p. 1. PICUM, Guide to the EU Victims’ Directive: Advancing Access to Protection, Services and Justice for Undocumented Migrants, 2015, p. 15, available at: http://picum.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/VictimsDirectiveGuide_Justice_EN.pdf. See Fair Trials, Where's my lawyer? Making legal assistance in pre-trial detention effective, published in 2019, available at: https://fairtrials.org/publication/wheres-my-lawyer. See also European Parliament, Procedural Rights and Detention Conditions Cost of Non-Europe Report, published in 2017, p.80, at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/611008/EPRS_STU(2017)611008_EN.pdf. “According to 2015 SPACE statistics, 3 per cent of all inmate populations in the EU (including pretrial detainees)250 were citizens of another EU Member State. The unweighted average share of foreign EU citizens as a proportion of total prison population in each EU Member State was 6.8 per cent (median 4.6 per cent), although there was notable variation among Member States. The highest share was recorded in Luxembourg (42.2 per cent), followed by Austria (22.3 per cent) and Cyprus (18.8 per cent). By contrast, Hungary and Slovakia did not report any inmates holding the citizenship of other EU Member States.” See e.g, European Prison Litigation Network white paper on access to justice for pre-trial detainees, Bringing Justice into Prison: For a common European Approach, 2019, p. 38 et sec, available at: https://www.prisonlitigation.org/livre-blanc-sur-lacces-au-droit-et-au-juge-en-detention-provisoire/?lang=en. See N. Singleton et al, Psychiatric morbidity among prisoners in England and Wales, (ONS, 1998) and NICE, Mental health of adults in contact with the criminal justice system, NICE Guideline 66, March 2017, available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng66/evidence/full-guideline-pdf-4419120205. Fundamental Rights Agency, Current migration situation in the EU: Torture, trauma and its possible impact on drug use, 2017, available at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2017/february-monthly-migration-focus-torture. PICUM, Guide to the EU Victims’ Directive: Advancing Access to Protection, Services and Justice for Undocumented Migrants, 2015, available at: http://picum.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/VictimsDirectiveGuide_Justice_EN.pdf.