CULTURAL RISK FACTORS FOR TORTURE AND OTHER ILL-TREATMENT IN PLACES OF DETENTION Systematic torture and a culture of impunity in Nepal In 2011, the UN Committee against Torture found that torture is being systematically practiced in Nepal and highlighted endemic impunity for human rights violations as a contributing factor. According to information it received, there had been a failure to criminalise torture and no prosecutions or convictions for torture or related abuse in the country. Police often refused to register alleged cases of torture or, along with prosecutors, procrastinated in investigating. The fact that only disciplinary sanctions and lenient penalties were imposed for these acts contributed to the culture of impunity. Moreover, in some cases, high ranking officers of the Nepal Army accused of torture and enforced disappearances had reportedly been allowed to take part in UN peacekeeping missions or promoted, contributing to the message that ‘violence carries no consequences for the perpetrators’. Report of the Committee against Torture, 2012 (A/67/44), Annex XIII. 3. Where can these risk factors be found? a. Dominant cultures and subcultures As well as dominant cultures in the whole detaining organisation, there may be subcultures in different institutions within it (for example, different prisons or police stations may have their own distinctive cultures). As a former UK police officer described: ‘I was involved in an investigation into a death in custody in a police station where the culture was totally different from others in the division. There was a real culture that you were tough – violence was part of the management structure….’ There may also be subcultures in sections, units and departments within a place of detention, or across different levels of staff. In addition, detainee subcultures – which often exist in total institutions such as prisons – can have a significant impact on the life of both staff and detainees. Negative subcultures that develop as part of detainee self-management systems or informal hierarchies can represent particular risk factors for torture and other ill-treatment. b. Informal detainee hierarchies Informal detainee hierarchies are common in prisons and can represent strong subcultures with a combination of cultural risk factors. They often have a clear structure and rules, which are enforced through threats, intimidation and violence. These may be linked to structures of gangs or armed groups that exist in the outside world. Detainee hierarchies can act as an alternative administration, collecting ‘membership fees’ and operating a system of payments for ‘privileges’ to which detainees would otherwise be entitled. They can thus control every aspect of a detainee’s life, from access to phone calls, to meetings with relatives and contact with the authorities. Such hierarchies often control the trade in illicit goods, including drugs, within prisons. Informal prisoner hierarchy in an Armenian prison ‘The ‘thieves’ structure’, which operates in affiliation with the administration, is like a political party that has a fascist ideology and arrangements. Each prisoner that enters the penal institution is mandatorily recruited into the membership of that party. No one dares to express dislike of it. Membership fee is 5,000-10,000 Armenian Dram per month [approx. 10,000-20,000 USD]. It is collected in each cell separately… Each new prisoner is taken aside to a corner of the cell, explained the charter of the ‘party’ and warned about the punishment meted out in case of noncompliance’. Life inside penal institutions, DITORD/OBSERVER #8, 2009, Helsinki Committee of Armenia. Although not officially recognised, staff may rely on or collude with informal detainee hierarchies to maintain order, for example where there is a lack of resources or experience, to suppress political opposition or complaints, or for corruption and extortion. Detainee leaders may also exercise power over the prison administration. Such hierarchies not only pose a threat to good order within the place of detention, they constitute a high-risk situation in terms of inter- prisoner intimidation and can lead to a culture of inequality of treatment between inmates.34 They often serve to benefit the leaders to the detriment of those at the bottom of the hierarchy, who tend to be from marginalised groups. 34. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), Report to the Armenian Government on the visit to Armenia carried out by the CPT from 10 to 21 May 2010. 10 | Penal Reform International | Institutional culture in detention: a framework for preventive monitoring