RISK FACTORS DERIVING FROM AN OVEREMPHASIS ON SECURITY Kazakhstan: Double transfer of authority In 2001, Kazakhstan reported to the UN Committee against Torture the transfer of authority for the penitentiary system to the Ministry of Justice as one of the main achievements of legal reform at that time. In its concluding observations, adopted on 17 May 2011, the UN Committee against Torture recommended Kazakhstan 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.’35 Allegations of torture and ill-treatment raised by monitoring bodies until then were concentrated in facilities under the responsibility of the Ministry for the Interior, in isolation cells of temporary detention and cells in police stations. Following the transfer of authority in 2002, the prison population decreased, with Kazakhstan slipping from 3rd highest place in the ranking of global prison populations in 2001 to 22nd place in 2010. Public control over prisons was enhanced and significant progress was made with regard to dealing with the problem of tuberculosis in prisons. However, on 26 July 2011 Kazakhstan revoked this transfer of authority by Presidential Decree ‘On the Penitentiary System’. Monitoring bodies should enquire whether and to what extent the culture of the ministry responsible for prisons, its hierarchy, training and self-image impacts on the treatment of prisoners and the security measures applied. When interacting with prison authorities, they should stress the distinct roles of policing and investigation of offences and the management of a penal institution. They should also highlight the presumption of innocence for pre-trial detainees and the benefits of a rehabilitative rather than punitive penitentiary system. 2. Over-classification Prison systems in almost all countries operate some form of classification. The revised UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners define two purposes for classification: the first to separate from others those prisoners who, by reason of their criminal record or background, are likely to exercise a bad influence; and the second to divide the prisoners into classes in order to facilitate their treatment with a view to social rehabilitation. The Rules also state that ‘so far as possible separate institutions or separate sections of an institution shall be used for the treatment of the different classes of prisoners.’36 Information on the initial assessment and classification reports should be entered in the prisoner file management system.37 Given the diversity of a prison’s population, the same level of security is not applicable to all prisoners in one institution. A one-size-fits-all approach does not improve prison security nor does it contribute to the objective of prisoner rehabilitation. Individual classification of prisoners should take place as soon as possible after admission. However, the classification system should be flexible in order to allow prison officials to adapt to situational changes. Classification should avoid imposing a high security regime ‘to be on the safe side’. In every country, there is likely to be a small number of prisoners who are considered to present a particularly high security risk and who may require special conditions of detention. These prisoners may need to be held in a special security unit where their movements and activities are (highly) restricted. However, prisoners are frequently over-classified and subject to regimes more restrictive than required. Often classification is based solely on the nature of the offence committed, rather than individualised and taking into account the background of the offence and other factors. In particular, prisoners on death row and those serving a life sentence are frequently subject to harsh security regimes based only on the nature of their sentence rather than on any risk they may in fact represent to other prisoners or staff. Risk assessments often wrongly perceive prisoners’ needs as ‘risk factors’. A prisoner who displays symptoms of depression or another mental health issue may receive a higher security classification, which can lead to greater isolation. Instead, mental health issues require a holistic programme in a lower security setting. In some jurisdictions, authorities may have limited choices for placing detainees in appropriate facilities and low-risk detainees may be over-classified because the adequate facility is overcrowded or located a long distance away from their home, family and friends. Due to the generally lower security risk they pose, some countries have established separate security categorisation arrangements for women, for children under the age of 18 or for young adult offenders. However, in other countries women tend to be overclassified and made subject to levels of security that are not justified. 35. Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on Kazakhstan, 17 May 2011, A/56/44(SUPPL). 36. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rules 93 and 94. 37. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 8 (b). Penal Reform International | Balancing security and dignity in prisons: a framework for preventive monitoring |9