Poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije o izvajanju nalog državnega preventivnega mehanizma za leto 2011 c) Preprečevalna administrativna osamitev Zakonodaja v večini evropskih držav dovoljuje sprejetje upravne odločbe za oddajo zapornikov v samico, če so ti resno poškodovali ali bi verjetno lahko resno poškodovali druge, ali če zelo resno potencialno ogrožajo varnost oseb ali zapora. Osamitev lahko traja samo nekaj ur, če gre za osamljen dogodek, ali pa več let, če zaporniki veljajo za zelo nevarne in pomenijo stalno grožnjo. Gre za osamitev s potencialno najdaljšo dolžino trajanja in pogosto z najmanj zaščitnimi postopki. Zato je bistveno, da obstajajo pravila, ki zagotavljajo, da se administrativni ukrep osamitve ne bi uporabljal prepogosto (na primer kot pripravljena rešitev za vsak obravnavan disciplinski prekršek), preveč na široko in predlolgo. Zato se morajo zaščitni ukrepi, navedeni v 57. točki tega poročila, dosledno upoštevati. d) Osamitev za zaščito zapornika Vsak zaporniški režim ima zapornike, ki jih je treba zaščititi pred drugimi zaporniki. To je lahko potrebno zaradi narave njihovega kaznivega dejanja, njihovega sodelovanja s kazenskimi sodnimi organi, rivalstva med tolpami, dolgov zunaj zapora ali v njem ali splošne ranljivosti osebe. Večino zapornikov je v takih razmerah mogoče voditi kot splošno zaporniško populacijo, nekateri zaporniki pa so izpostavljeni tako velikemu tveganju, da jim zapor lahko zagotovi varnost samo z individualno oskrbo, ločeno od drugih zapornikov. Zapor lahko uredi samico na zapornikovo prošnjo ali na pobudo vodstva zapora, ki oceni, da je ta ukrep potreben. Ne glede na postopek ostaja dejstvo, da se zapornik zelo težko reši zaščite do konca prestajanja kazni – in morda celo pri naslednjih kaznih. Obveznost države je, da zagotovi zapornikom v zaporih varno okolje. Za izpolnitev te obveznosti bi morala država dovoljevati čim več socialnih stikov med zaporniki, seveda ob vzdrževanju dobrega reda. Osamitev naj bi bila res zadnji ukrep za zaščito zapornika takrat, kadar ni nobene druge možnosti za zagotovitev varnosti ogroženega zapornika. Odločitev za samico: postopki in ukrepi 57. Da bi se ukrep osamitve izvajal samo v izrednih razmerah in za najkrajše potrebno obdobje, mora biti za vsako vrsto osamitve določen poseben postopek za izvajanje in pregledovanje ukrepa osamitve. V nadaljevanju so navedeni postopki, ki so po mnenju CPT najustreznejši: a) Osamitev kot sestavni del pripora Kot je že nakazano, naj bi osamitev oseb v priporu veljala samo za redke zapornike in takrat, ko za posamezen primer obstajajo neposredni dokazi, da je resno ogroženo delovanje sodnega sistema, če se zapornik druži z določenimi sojetniki ali drugimi osebami na splošno. Take odločitve morajo biti sprejete na javni obravnavi, s kar najširšo obrazložitvijo sodbe in z možnostjo pritožbe na vsako odločitev posebej. Pristojno sodišče bi moralo redno pregledovati odločitve in ugotavljati, ali še obstaja potreba po osamitvi. b) Osamitev kot disciplinski ukrep Razlog za izrek disciplinskega ukrepa osamitve in dolžina trajanja kazni morata biti v celoti dokumentirana v zapisniku o zaslišanju pred disciplinsko komisijo. Ti zapisniki morajo biti na voljo višjim vodilnim delavcem in nadzornim organom. Na voljo mora biti tudi učinkovit pritožbeni postopek, ki omogoča pravočasno ponovno preučitev potrjene krivde in/ali kazni, da je še mogoče spremeniti izvršitev kazni. Potrebna spremljajoča okoliščina tega postopka je možnost pravnih nasvetov, do katerih so zaporniki v tej situaciji upravičeni. Zapornike, ki prestajajo tako kazen, mora vsak dan obiskati direktor zapora ali kak drug višji vodilni delavec, odprava osamitve pa mora biti odrejena, kadar to zahteva zapornikovo stanje ali vedenje. Treba je voditi evidenco vseh obiskov in z njimi povezanih odločitev. 164 Državni preventivni mehanizem v Republiki Sloveniji po Opcijskem protokolu h Konvenciji OZN proti mučenju in drugim krutim, nečloveškim ali poniževalnim kaznim ali ravnanju Implementation of the Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism in 2011 c) Administrative solitary confinement for preventative purposes The law in most European countries allows for an administrative decision to place into solitary confinement prisoners who have caused, or are judged likely to cause, serious harm to others or who present a very serious risk to the safety or security of the prison. This may be for as short as a few hours, in the case of an isolated incident, or for as long as a period of years in cases involving prisoners who are considered as particularly dangerous and to continue to pose an imminent threat. This is potentially the longest lasting type of solitary confinement and often the one with the fewest procedural safeguards. It is therefore crucial that there be rules to ensure that it is not used too readily (e.g. as an immediate response to every disciplinary infraction pending adjudication), too extensively or for too lengthy periods. Accordingly, the safeguards described in paragraph 57 below must be rigorously followed. d) Solitary confinement for protection purposes Every prison system has prisoners who may require protection from other prisoners. This may be because of the nature of their offence, their co-operation with the criminal justice authorities, inter-gang rivalry, debts outside or inside the prison or the general vulnerability of the person. While many prisoners can be managed in the general prison population in these circumstances, the risk to some is such that the prison can only discharge its duty of care to the individuals by keeping them apart from all other prisoners. This may be done at the prisoner’s own request or at the instigation of management when it is deemed necessary. Whatever the process, the fact is that it can be very difficult for a prisoner to come off protection for the rest of the sentence – and maybe even for subsequent sentences. States have an obligation to provide a safe environment for those confined to prison and should attempt to fulfil this obligation by allowing as much social interaction as possible among prisoners, consistent with the maintenance of good order. Resort should be had to solitary confinement for protection purposes only when there is absolutely no other way of ensuring the safety of the prisoner concerned. The decision of placement in solitary confinement: procedures and safeguards 57. In order to ensure that solitary confinement is only imposed in exceptional circumstances and for the shortest time necessary, each type of solitary confinement should have its own distinct process for applying and reviewing it. The CPT outlines here what it considers to be the appropriate processes: a) Solitary confinement as part of remand conditions As already indicated, solitary confinement of persons remanded in custody should only be used sparingly and where there is direct evidence in an individual case that there is a serious risk to the administration of justice if the prisoner concerned associates with particular inmates or others in general. Such decisions should be made in open court, with as fully reasoned a judgment as possible, and be separately appealable. They should also be reviewed by the competent court on a frequent basis to ensure that there is a continuing need for solitary confinement. b) Solitary confinement as part of remand conditions The reason for the imposition of solitary confinement as a punishment, and the length of time for which it is imposed, should be fully documented in the record of the disciplinary hearing. Such records should be available to senior managers and oversight bodies. There should also be an effective appeal process which can reexamine the finding of guilt and/or the sentence in time to make a difference to them in practice. A necessary concomitant of this is the ready availability of legal advice for prisoners in this situation. Prisoners undergoing this punishment should be visited on a daily basis by the prison director or another member of senior management, and the order given to terminate solitary confinement when this step is called for on account of the prisoner’s condition or behaviour. Records should be kept of such visits and of related decisions. National Preventive Mechanism in the Republic of Slovenia under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 165