CULTURAL RISK FACTORS FOR TORTURE AND OTHER ILL-TREATMENT IN PLACES OF DETENTION psychological, social and health care needs.24 In addition, the impact of detention can be harsher on women than men. Because there are fewer prisons for women, they tend to be detained far from their families and they are more likely to suffer social isolation, given the added stigma women face for being detained in many contexts. d. Security is paramount Success in places of detention is often measured by the fact that there have been no security-related incidents. Security concerns can therefore take on a paramount role, to the detriment of the rights of detainees. For example, in France, there was a police practice of systematically removing the glasses and bras of detainees in police custody on security grounds. The French National Preventive Mechanism found that this failed to balance security measures with the dignity of detainees and was disproportionate, given the small number of incidents it may actually prevent.25 A culture of violence in a Moldovan prison In its visit to Moldova in 2010, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) noted that there was a climate of violence and intimidation in prison no.12 in Bender. This was linked to the informal prisoner hierarchy and the fact that guards considered they had to rely on this to maintain order. Not only was there violence between prisoners, but guards also participated in violence, especially at night. Prisoners who had been victims of interprisoner violence were allegedly approached to make payments to prisoner ‘leader’ or guards, to ensure their security or to be left alone. Report to the Moldovan Government on the visit to Moldova carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 21 to 27 July 2010 e. A culture of violence g. ‘Us and them’ A culture of violence develops with the attitude that violence is normal in a place of detention. This can exist when coercion is seen as justified or acceptable and is used systematically by staff, for instance for obtaining confessions or maintaining order. It can also ensue when authorities tolerate, encourage or fail to address interdetainee violence, and is often linked to the existence of informal detainee hierarchies. It is likely to impact negatively on staff in places of detention as well as detainees. It is common that in places of detention, a hostile ‘us and them’ attitude develops between staff and persons deprived of their liberty. Staff may be suspicious of the intentions and behaviour of detainees they are supervising or feel in competition with them for the attention of management.28 Staff may also hold such attitudes towards superiors and society, for example that ‘no-one understands the risks we take for our work’.29 Research has shown that in policing, ‘us and them’ type attitudes are linked to more coercive behaviour among police officers.30 In prisons, similar attitudes among staff were linked to higher levels of distress among prisoners.31 f. Using authority for personal gain Staff working in places of detention may believe they are justified in using the power they have over other individuals for personal gain. This may be because they resent pay levels they think are unfair or management they feel does not support them in their work. They may also feel they need the extra income to maintain lifestyle.26 When corruption is rife in society and its institutions, staff may think that ‘this is how things are done’ and be influenced by the unlikelihood of getting caught or punished. In some cases, they may be pressured by colleagues or superiors to take part in corruption rackets. These types of attitudes may lead to behaviour such as providing privileges for certain detainees in return for bribes (including in collusion with informal detainee hierarchies) or, in extreme cases, using torture or the threat of it to extort money from relatives of detainees.27 h. A culture of impunity A culture of impunity exists when there is a general tolerance of human rights abuses in places of detention and those responsible are not held to account – whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings32 – or when penalties are too lenient to act as a deterrent. Pacts of silence among staff, also known as ‘esprit de corps’ (the practice of not reporting or covering up acts of wrongdoing by colleagues), contribute to such a culture. Impunity is entrenched when rule of law institutions fail to provide accountability, including through impartial investigations and prosecution of perpetrators. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture has highlighted that impunity is a major root cause of the on-going prevalence of torture and other ill-treatment in many countries.33 24. UNODC and UNAIDS, Women and HIV in prison settings, 2008. See also PRI, Women in criminal justice systems and the added value of the UN Bangkok Rules, 2015. 25. Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté, Rapport d’activité, 2008, pp89-90. 26. The World Bank, Youth for Good Governance, Module IV: Causes of Corruption. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/35971/mod04.pdf <accessed 30 November 2015>. 27. ‘Corruption in Iraq: Your son is being tortured. He will die if you don’t pay’, The Guardian, 16 January 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/ jan/16/corruption-iraq-son-tortured-pay <accessed 30 November 2015>. 28. A Coyle, Managing Prisons in a Time of Change, International Centre for Prisons Studies, 2002, p77. 29. According to an expert in penal reform interviewed for this paper. 30. Terrill et al, ‘Police Culture and Coercion’, Criminology, Vol. 41, issue 4, 2003, pp1003 – 1034. 31. A Liebling, ‘Why Prison Staff Culture Matters’ in The Culture of Prison Violence, Byrne, Taxman and Hummer (eds), Allyn and Bacon, 2007, p105. 32. United Nations updated set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity (2005) (E/ CN.4/2005/102/Add.1). 33. Interim report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 2010, A/65/273. Penal Reform International | Institutional culture in detention: a framework for preventive monitoring |9