FACTSHEET 3.4 Protection vs. surveillance What could monitoring bodies check? The authorities have a responsibility to find an adequate balance between guaranteeing the safety and security of the persons monitored by CCTV on one hand, and respecting their privacy and dignity on the other. • Is the right to privacy in the context of CCTV If the main objective of video-recording in police custody is to deter unlawful actions and ensure that police officers are accountable, this should not interfere with the person’s right to privacy. monitoring taken into consideration by the authorities? How do the authorities/ detainees/ members of the monitoring body themselves perceive the balance between security/protection and privacy? • Are persons in custody informed about the presence of CCTV and its purpose? • Are toilets, showers, washbasins, rooms for medical examination, rooms for meetings “ The question of video-surveillance in places of deprivation of liberty is of a different nature than in locations open to the public. Whereas rapidly going through a ‘video-recorded area’ (which is the fate of any citizen in the public area, in public transportation, in stores, etc.) may be tolerable, the situation is quite different when the camera lens is permanently fixed on oneself, with all activities including private ones being viewed. Video-surveillance in this case leads to the negation of intimacy, which cannot be accepted. 16 ” (French Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty) Even though persons held by the police do not usually spend as much time in custody as in other places of detention such as prisons, monitoring bodies visiting police stations have the difficult task of assessing whether there is an appropriate balance between surveillance and the right to privacy. This is particularly important for sensitive areas within the police station, such as toilets, showers, rooms for meeting with lawyers, or rooms where medical examinations take place. Whenever video-recording is used in a police station, persons under arrest should be informed about their location and purpose. Overreliance on CCTV may lead to a false illusion of security and safety. CCTV cameras should also not replace personal contact between detainees and staff, and their use should not lead to the dehumanisation of places of deprivation of liberty. • with lawyers and rooms where body searches take place monitored by CCTV? • When and where are detainees not monitored by CCTV? • Is there a general impression that security and safety mainly depend on the CCTV monitoring system? • Are physical checks of the cells conducted less often because of the presence of • video-recording? What is the perception of detainees/ prison officers? Do registers provide information? • Do detainees feel protected, or harmed, by the use of CCTV? 4. What can monitoring bodies do? Thanks to their visits to places of deprivation of liberty, monitoring bodies, including National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) established under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), have a role in monitoring the use of CCTV equipment and video-recording in police stations. They can check on the spot whether the location of CCTV cameras, the type of equipment, the recording and storage systems are appropriate. They can also enquire about accountability issues (who is in charge of supervising the use, storage and destruction of footage, who has access to monitors and footage, what procedures there are when abuses take place); regulations (if any); and whether or not there is an overreliance on video-surveillance to the detriment of detainees’ right to privacy. The modalities of video recording police interrogations, as an essential safeguard against torture and other ill-treatment, should be a key concern for monitors. To this end, monitoring bodies should ensure that they cross-check sources of information, including reviewing legislation and regulations, through interviews in private with detainees, interviews with police officers, on-site inspection and viewing of recordings if feasible. The 16. Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté, Rapport annuel d’activité 2009, p111. Available at: http://www.cglpl.fr/wp-content/uploads/ rapport_2009_ Dalloz.pdf <accessed 23 October 2013>. 6 | Penal Reform International | Video recording in police custody: Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment