HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE CHANGE IN PLACES OF DETENTION Demilitarisation of prisons in Kazakhstan The UN Committee against Torture identified the transfer of authority for the penitentiary system to the Ministry of Justice as one of the main achievements of legal reform in Kazakhstan in their concluding observations, adopted in 2001. It recommended to ‘complete the transfer of responsibilities for prisons from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice, thereby permitting the demilitarization of the penitentiary system.’ UN Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations on Kazakhstan, 2001 (UN-Doc. A/56/44(SUPP)). e. Policies and procedures These will need to reflect the wider statement of purpose and be in line with human rights. They should ensure that actions that may interfere with the rights of detainees are taken on an individual basis, according to an assessment of their necessity, legality and proportionality. It is not always easy to operationalise human rights standards. But there is an important body of practical guidance developed by expert bodies such as the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT)47 and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).48 Some measures frequently recommended by these bodies include: • Effective accountability systems • Independent complaints mechanisms • Clear disciplinary procedures • Dynamic security (see section f below) • Fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment • Purposeful activity and measures for social reintegration for prisoners A ‘dynamic security’ approach acknowledges that securing the perimeter and procedural security arrangements, while important, are not sufficient to ensure safety and security in prison. Rather, the factors that determine safety and security are ‘dynamic’ and require staff to be aware of what is going on in the place of detention. It is widely recognised that staff interacting with detainees in a humane and equitable way enhances security and good order.49 Incidents can best be prevented if a positive relationship is established between staff and detainees, which allows staff to identify tensions building up at an individual or group level and therefore intervene early on.50 Since detention staff know the detainees, ‘they will be able to identify any who are unsettled or likely to threaten violence and deal with them in a way which prevents the onset of violence. It will also be more difficult for prisoners who wish to create trouble to stir up other prisoners if the general approach of staff has been fair and consistent’.51 Dynamic security is therefore based on positive staffprisoner relationships combined with fair treatment and purposeful activities. The revised Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners recognise this concept, encouraging prison administrations to ‘use, to the extent possible, conflict prevention, mediation or any other alternative dispute resolution mechanism to prevent disciplinary offences or to resolve conflicts’. (Rule 38) g. Symbols and language • Independent monitoring • Individualised risk assessments f. Dynamic security Where there is a need for a break with the past, the symbols and language of the detaining organisation may need to be changed. For example, following the cessation of ‘the Troubles’ in Northern Ireland, an independent commission found that the ‘words and symbols’ of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were associated with one side of the conflict and had become politicised.52 It was thus renamed the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its crest and oath were replaced to ensure neutrality in relation to the two communities in Northern Ireland.53 This symbolic transformation has had an important impact on the organisation from a human rights perspective.54 47. The UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture was created under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT). See http:// www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/OPCATIntro.aspx <accessed 27 November 2015>. 48. See www.cpt.coe.int 49. United Nations, Prison Incident Management Handbook, 2013, p21, 22. 50. ‘The development by staff of positive relationships with prisoners based on firmness and fairness, in combination with an understanding of their personal situation and any risk posed by individual prisoners’. See Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the management by prison administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners (Rec(2003)23). 51. A Coyle, A human rights approach to prison management, second edition, pp 59, 60, 69, 70. 52. The Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland, 1999, chapter 17. 53. Northern Ireland Policing Board, Human Rights Thematic Review: Policing with and for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Individuals, 2012, p40; G Ellison, ‘A Blueprint for Democratic Policing Anywhere in the World?: Police Reform, Political Transition, and Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland’, Police Quarterly, vol. 10, 2007, p251; and M Lamb, ‘A Culture of Human Rights: Transforming Policing in Northern Ireland’, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 2008, p389. 54. M Lamb, ibid. 14 | Penal Reform International | Institutional culture in detention: a framework for preventive monitoring