RISK FACTORS DERIVING FROM AN OVEREMPHASIS ON SECURITY Risk factors deriving from an overemphasis on security Security measures form an integral part of the daily reality for detainees when they enter prisons, go to the courtyard or work, interact with staff or receive visits from relatives. The way in which security is managed in prisons, and its impact on the dignity of detainees, will differ from institution to institution and may be the subject of detailed assessment by monitoring bodies. This section does not provide an exhaustive list of how approaches to security can impact on dignity in prisons, but seeks to identify certain common security practices and measures, which involve a particular risk of infringement upon the dignity of detainees. 1. Institution in charge of prisons The nature of the institution in charge of prisons has a direct impact on how security is managed within it. Where prisons and the penitentiary service are under the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, military institutional culture can result in an overemphasis on discipline and security with prisoners seen as enemies.28 To a lesser extent, this can also be true when the prison service is run by the Ministry of Interior, given the measures of value, behaviour patterns and role of police officers in the criminal justice system. The rather military culture of these institutions is commonly reflected in their structure, hierarchy, training programmes, employment conditions, mandate and the self-image of staff in prisons under their responsibility. Recognising this risk, one of the measures required for accession to the Council of Europe by former Soviet countries, therefore, was the transfer of the penitentiary service from the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Justice.29 The UN Committee against Torture has made a similar recommendation, ‘permitting the demilitarization of the penitentiary system’.30 The separation of the functions of investigation and prosecution on the one side, and of execution and supervision of criminal sanctions on the other, has proven to be an important factor in the humanisation of prison systems. The revised UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners reflect this observation and call for professional prison officers who ‘have civil service status with security of tenure subject only to good conduct, efficiency and physical fitness’.31 New Prison Service in Honduras On December 2012, Honduras adopted a National Penitentiary Law that addressed a systemic structural deficiency in the prison system in the country – the lack of a proper regulatory framework.32 The Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture had recommended in 2010 the adoption of a prison policy that sets out a comprehensive plan for the establishment of an autonomous structure, independent of the police and capable of carrying out the duties and tasks that are vital to its purposes.33 While until then the National Police was the institution in charge of prison administration, the reform created an autonomous institution, the National Penitentiary Institute, linked to the Ministry of Interior and Population and established a specialised professional civil service career for prison staff and guards. Prison management requires very distinct skills from those of policing, and experience across the globe has confirmed that rehabilitation of offenders has a far higher prospect of success if allocated to judicial authorities rather than police. The civilian control of the Ministry of Justice is therefore considered to be more compatible with the rehabilitative aim of imprisonment and the need to ensure human rights of detainees.34 28. See PRI/APT, Institutional culture in detention: a framework for preventive monitoring, 2nd edition, 2015. 29. For example, Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Opinion No. 193 (1996) on Russia’s request for membership of the Council of Europe, para.7x, 25 January 1996. 30. Committee Against Torture (CAT), Concluding observations on Kazakhstan, A/56/44(SUPPL), para.129(a). 31. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 74(3). 32. See recommendation by the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) following its 20 September 2009 visit to Honduras, CAT/OP/HDN/1, para. 212c. 33. Report on the visit of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) to Honduras, 10 February 2010, CAT/OP/HND/1. 34. PRI/APT, Institutional culture in detention: a framework for preventive monitoring, 2nd edition, 2015. 8 | Penal Reform International | Balancing security and dignity in prisons: a framework for preventive monitoring