Training Manual on Human Rights Monitoring - Chapter IX: Visits To Persons In Detention
CONTENTS
A. Introduction
and definitions
B. International standards relating to detention and treatment of detainees
1. Generally applicable standards
b. Prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
c. Physical conditions of detention
2. Standards particularly applicable to pre-trail detainees
b. Segregation
c. Prohibition of arbitrary arrest
d. Notification of reasons for arrest and charges
3. Standards particularly applicable to administrative detention
C. Global detention facility visits
1. Defining pre-conditions and objectives
2. Selection of HROs to visit places of detention
3. Entering the detention facility and announcing the visit in advance
4. Seeing the director of detention facility for initial discussion
5. Interviewing other officials
6. List of detainees and the roster
7. Visiting the entire facility
9. Departing meeting with the director
11. Follow-up visits
D. Focused detention facility visits
Appendix 1: "Summary Report After Visit to Detention Facility"
Appendix 2: "Report After Visit to Detention Facility"
A. Introduction and Definitions
1. This section will discuss international standards relating to detention and treatment of detainees. In addition, this section sets forth guidelines for undertaking both global and focused visits to places of detention.
2. The following definitions have been adapted from the Body of Principles for the Protection of Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. (1)
3. "Arrest" means the act of apprehending a person for the alleged commission of an offence or by the action of an authority.
4. "Detainee" is any person deprived of personal liberty as a result of administrative detention, pre-trial detention, or conviction for an offence; prisoners of war; and persons held in mental institutions. See definition of "prisoner" below. There is some diversity in the way the term "detainee" is used in various countries. For example, a "detainee" under the Body of Principles relates principally to the pre-trial period and does not include persons held after conviction, that is, prisoners. In some countries "detainee" may refer only to those persons who are held under administrative order or under security legislation, and may not relate to individuals held in connection with the criminal process. In any case, this section seeks to comprehend the broadest possible use of the term "detainee" to cover all persons who are deprived of their liberty or are otherwise held in governmental custody. Accordingly, "detainees" include those persons held in prisons, police stations, mental institutions, centres for asylum seekers, juvenile institutions, military prisons, etc. In communicating with local and national officials, however, HROs are advised to understand and use the most appropriate terminology.
5. "Detention" includes pre-trial, administrative, and post-conviction deprivation of liberty or any other condition in which a "detainee" is deprived of liberty.
6. "Prisoner" means any person deprived of personal liberty as a result of conviction for an offence.
7. "Prison" means post-conviction imprisonment.
8. "Global visits" are visits to the entire prison or other detention facility.
9. "Focused visits" relate to specific detainees or a particular problem within a prison or other detention facility.
B. International standards relating to detention and treatment of detainees
1. Generally applicable standards
10. A number of international human rights treaties set forth standards of treatment for individuals in detention or prison. A brief summary of those standards has been adapted from Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention (2). While this Manual sets forth the basic principles, summarized information cannot replace detailed standards. For detailed references, the HRO should refer to the last part of this section F "Further reference" which contains a full list of documents.
11. These standards are set forth here because they should inform the HRO in visiting places of detention and in working to ameliorate the conditions under which detainees are held. Hence, the standards can assist the HRO in knowing what to request and expect from officials who are responsible for detention facilities. HROs should, however, be very careful when referring to specific instruments or standards to esnure that the relevant officials understand that the international standards provide a minimum level of protection for detainees. Government officials should be encouraged to provide conditions which exceed those minimum standards. It is conceivable that officials who are already exceeding international standards in some respects and are given particular instruments, they may be tempted to decrease the quality of care provided detainees. Hence, HROs are encouraged to exercise their good judgement in seeking an amelioration of conditions of detention in referring to specific standards.
12. The first international principle relating to detention and other aspects of governmental policy is non-discrimination. When implementing rights, States should assure those rights to every person within their jurisdiction. See Universal Declaration, Art. 2; Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Arts. 2(1) and 26. Pursuant to rule 6(2) of the Standard Minimum Rules, special measures respecting religious and moral beliefs do not constitute discrimination in violation of the above standards. Measures designed to protect the rights and special status of women, juveniles, aged, sick, or handicapped persons are not discriminatory (Principles on Detention, principle 5(2)).
b. Prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
13. A second fundamental precept is found in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "no one shall be subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
14. Article 2 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment requires each State Party to "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in its territory". Further, Article 16 requires State Parties to "undertake to prevent in its territory any other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity". These principles are also found in Articles 3 and 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from being Subjected to Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
15. Corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments are completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences by rule 31 of the Standard Minimum Rules. The prohibition against torture and cruel treatment has been authoritatively interpreted to forbid prolonged solitary confinement for all detainees. In addition, detainees should be provided with information about disciplinary offences and punishments, as well as information about their rights (Standard Minimum Rules, rule 35; Principles on Detention, principle 30).
16. Law enforcement officials, in their relations with persons in custody or detention, shall not use force (Principles on the Use of Force, principle 15) or firearms (Principles on the Use of Force, principle 16) except in certain very limited circumstances incluidng self-defence and the defence of others against an immediate, serious threat. Further, rule 33 of the Standard Minimum Rules states that, "Instruments of restraint, such as handcuffs, chains, irons and straight jackets, shall never be applied as punishment."
c. Physical conditions of detention
17. Further, the authorities have an obligation to treat all persons deprived of their liberty with dignity and humanity as required by Article 10(1) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This principle guarantees a minimum level of physical conditions of detention. All accommodation provided for the use of detainees should meet minimum standards of health (rules 10 and 19 of Standard Minimum Rules). Detainees should keep their persons clean (rule 15 of Standard Minimum Rules), and should be permitted daily exercise in the open air (rule 21 of Standard Minimum Rules). In addition, detainees should be provided with adequate, wholesome food, and drinking water pursuant to rule 20 of the Standard Minimum Rules. Detainees should also be allowed to wear clothing that is clean and adequate (rule 17 of the Standard Minimum Rules).
18. In addition, detained and imprisoned persons are entitled to adequate medical, psychological, and dental care. (See rules 22, 24, and 25 of the Standard Minimum Rules; principles 24, 25, and 26 of the Principles on Detention).
d. Religion, culture, education
19. Detainees should be allowed to satisfy the needs of their religious life (Art. 18(1) of Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; rule 42 of the Standard Minimum Rules). Detained or imprisoned persons should also have the right to obtain reasonable quantities of educational, cultural and informational material. (See Principles on Detention, principle 28; Standard Minimum Rules, rules 39 and 40; Basic Principles on Prisoners, principle 6.) In addition, the opportunities for meaningful employment during detention required by principle 8 of the Basic Principles on Prisoners promote the dignity and human rights of detainees.
e. Supervision of places of detention
20. Effective supervision of places of detention by impartial authorities interested in maintaining humane treatment is vital for the protection of the human rights of detainees. Pursuant to rule 36 of the Standard Minimum Rules and principle 33 of the Principles on Detention, detained or imprisoned persons should have the right to make a request or complaint regarding their treatment. In the event of the death of a detainee, special measures must be taken to find its cause and prosecute any persons found responsible, especially in cases of torture or ill-treatment. See Principles on Prevention of Execution, principles 9, 12, and 13. Further, in order to supervise the strict observance of relevant laws and regulations, places of detention shall be visited regularly by qualified and experienced persons external to the prison administration. See Principles on Detention, principle 29. Detained or imprisoned persons have the right to communicate freely and in full confidentiality with the persons who visit in accordance with principle 29 of the Principles on Detention.
21. All money, valuables, clothing, and other effects belonging to a detainee which s/he is not allowed to retain after admission should be placed in safe custody until release (rule 43 of the Standard Minimum Rules).
2. Standards particularly applicable to pre-trial detainees
According to Article 9 of ICCPR, detention pedning trial should be the exception rather than the rule. There are several issue to be considered to asses whether pre-trial detention is necessary in a given case, including:
-- are there reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed the offence?
-- would the deprivation of liberty be dosproprotionate to the alleged offence and expected sentence?
-- is there a danger that the suspect will abscond'
-- is there a significant dnager that the suspect will commit further offences?
-- is there a danger of serious interference with thecourse of justice if the suspect is released?
-- would bail or release on condition be sufficient?
International human rights instruments contain specific standards to be applied to people in pre-trial detention. These standards provide for additional guarantees and protections in view of the particular situation of pre-.trial detainees as individuals who are deprived of one of their fundamental human rights - the right to liberty - without having been convicted for an offence yet.
22. One of the distinctions between pre-trial detainees and convicted persons is that pre-trial detainees have "the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." (Universal Declaration, Art. 11(1); Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 14(2)). Further, pursuant to Article 10(2)(a) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and rule 84(2) of the Standard Minimum Rules, unconvicted persons are guaranteed the right to separate treatment appropriate to their status.
23. Presumption of innocence, requires better treatment for persons who are not yet detained as punishment. See rules 86, 87, 88, and 91 of Standard Minimum Rules. All detainees (whether pre-trial or post-conviction) are entitled to humane treatment, but the use of discipline and restraints is also guided by respect for the presumed innocence of the pre-trial detainee.
24. The different categories of detainees are to be segregated in accordance with Article 10(2) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and rule 8 of the Standard Minimum Rules. Accused persons should be kept separate from convicted persons, and juveniles should be segregated from adults. Men and women should be detained in separate institutions. Pre-trial detainees in many countries are subject to the worst conditions of confinement. Pre-trial detention facilities are often overcrowded, antiquated, unsanitary, and unsuited for human habitation. Detainees are held for months or even years while their cases are investigated and processed by the judicial system. (3)
c. Prohibition of arbitrary arrest
25. Arrest begins the process of detention. No one should be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. (See Universal Declaration, Arts. 3 and 9; Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 9(1); African Charter, Art. 6; American Convention, Art. 7; European Convention, Art. 5(1).) Further, pursuant to principle 9 of the Principles on Detention, arrest must always be subject to judicial control or supervision to ensure that it is legal. As set forth in principle 12 of the Principles on Detention, accurate records of arrests should be kept for effective judicial supervision and the prevention of disappearances.
d. Notification of reasons for arrest and charges
26. Article 9(2) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contemplates a two-stage notification process: at the moment of arrest, a person must be told the reason s/he is being taken into custody; within a short period of time, the person must be informed of the charges brought against him or her. Principle 13 of the Principles on Detention extends the notification requirements to the detained person's rights, especially the right to legal counsel.
27. The right to be brought promptly before a judicial authority, whose function it is to assess whether a legal reason exists for a person's arrest and whether detention until trial is necessary, is guaranteed by Article 9(3) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (See also Principles on Detention, principles 11 and 37.) Article 9(3) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also guarantees the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. (See also Principles on Detention, principle 38.)
28. The right to challenge one's detention before a judicial authority is guaranteed to anyone deprived of his or her liberty, but is particularly relevant to pre-trial detainees. (See Universal Declaration, Art. 8; Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 9(4); and Principles on Detention, principle 32.)
In addition, authorities should detain persons only in official places of detention (Art. 10 of Declaration on Disappearance) and keep records of all detainees (rule 7 of Standard Minimum Rules). These measures are important for securing the effective judicial oversight prescribed by principle 4 of the Principles on Detention.
29. The right of access to counsel is guaranteed in connection with the right to fair trial in the determination of a criminal charge against a person. See Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 14(3); Standard Minimum Rules, rule 93; Principles on Detention, principle 17. Access to legal counsel is an important means of ensuring that the rights of a detainee are respected.
30. In addition to having the right to communicate with legal counsel, detainees have the right to communicate with the outside world, particularly with family and friends. See principle 15 of the Principles on Detention and rule 92 of the Standard Minimum Rules. In addition, rule 44(1) of the Standard Minimum Rules requires authorities to inform relatives of a detainee's death in custody.
i. Right not to be compelled to testify against oneself
31. Torture and ill-treatment are sometimes used to compel persons detained before trial to confess and divulge information. Principle 21 of the Principles on Detention prohibits the use of torture or ill-treatment to compel confessions or testimony. Further, pursuant to Article 15 of the Convention against Torture, State Parties shall ensure that statements procured by torture should not be used as evidence against anyone (except to prosecute the torturer).
32. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration and Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have implications for the treatment of detainees. These articles ensure that all persons held on criminal charges have a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, as well as providing minimum guarantees (including effective access to legal counsel) necessary for defense.
3. Standards particularly applicable to administrative detention
33. Administrative detention occurs when persons are deprived of liberty by Government action, but outside the process of the police arresting suspects and bringing them into the criminal justice system. For example, foreigners who seek entry into a country, but are not found immediately admissible, may be subjected to administrative detention. In some countries, governments use administrative detention against political opponents. Because in some countries administrative detention is not reviewed by independent judicial authorities, it is easily subject to abuse by States. Article 9 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. The Government may derogate from its obligations under Article 9 during times of declared public emergency, but such a derogation is subject to the limitations of Article 4 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. A person arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable period (Art. 9(3) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; principle 38 of the Principles on Detention). According to rule 95 of the Standard Minimum Rules, the above-mentioned rights are guaranteed to all people, even those persons arrested or imprisoned without charge.
34. The right to an effective remedy exists for acts which violate the rights or freedoms of a detainee. (See Universal Declaration, Art. 8; Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Arts. 2 and 9; Principles on Detention, principle 35.)
35. Further, the savings clauses in Article 5 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and principle 3 of the Principles on Detention state that the standards contained therein cannot be used as a pretext to limit the application of fundamental human rights which are recognized by or applicable to the State in question.
4. Standards applicable to women
36. Women detainees are particularly vulnerable to rape, other sexual violence, and sexual exploitation. Such violations against women and their rights often go unnoticed and unreported. One reason for the "invisibility" of such violence against women detainees is clearly the overwhelmingly male nature of law enforcement and justice administration in many countries. Sexual violence against women, committed by the State or its representatives, has been recognized as torture. The relevant provisions of the Civil and Political Covenant, and the Torture Convention, are thus fully applicable to such situations.
Importantly, the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (4), provides that States should exercise "due diligence to prevent, investigate and in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private persons".
37. Measures that are designed solely to protect the rights and special status of women, especially pregnant women and nursing mothers, are not considered to be discriminatory. (See Principles on Detention, principle 5(2).)
Rule 53 of the Standards Minimum Rules states that women detainees should be attended and supervised by female officers and staff.
38. In accordance with rule 23(1) of the Standard Minimum Rules, special accommodations should be made for pre- and post-natal care and treatment. Where nursing infants are allowed to remain in the institution with their mothers, provision shall be made for a nursery where infants shall be placed when they are not in the care of their mothers. (See rule 23(1) of the Standard Minimum Rules.)
5. Standards applicable to juveniles
39. Because of their young age, juveniles receive special treatment in international human rights instruments. These standards should be implemented with the goal of rehabilitation in mind.
40. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty establish minimum standards for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty. "Juvenile" is defined as a person under the age of 18. Juveniles should be presumed innocent, and shall have the right to legal counsel.
41. Juveniles deprived of their liberty have the right to facilities and services that meet all the requirements of health and human dignity. They should be separated from adults, and given individualized treatment with an eye towards rehabilitation. Wherever possible, prosecution of juveniles should be replaced by alternative measures. Further, juveniles should be permitted to pursue education, vocational training, and work. See Chapter IV - E -) for more detailed information.
C. Global detention facility visits
1. Defining preconditions and objectives
42. Global visits, that is visits to the entire prison or other detention facility, constitute one of the most difficult and sensitive monitoring tasks. Detainees have frequently been human rights victims of arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment, or other violations. They are among the most vulnerable in a society to further abuse. Hence, visits to detention facilities would appear to be an obvious priority for a UN human rights field operation. Nonetheless, a human rights field operation should pursue such visits only after careful reflection and planning. The first question the operation must ask is: What are the objectives in visiting this detention facility? Second, can this field operation realistically achieve those objectives? Global visits can be extremely time-consuming. Depending on the number of detainees, a global visit may require the efforts of several HROs for a few weeks. Also, a poorly planned visit to a detention facility, or a visit conducted without abiding by strict methodological standards as indicated below, can actually do more harm than good. Such a visit can raise false hopes in the detainees for prompt relief from their suffering. If the visits fail to make progress towards achieving such objectives as preventing torture, some improvements in conditions of the facility, and possibly the identification of detainees who were arbitrarily arrested, the detainees may actually suffer more from the dashed hopes than if the visits had never occurred.
43. Also, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has the greatest experience in regard to visits to persons in detention, and the UN human rights field operation should ascertain whether the ICRC is already visiting persons in detention in the country of operation. If so, can the human rights field operation be of assistance or make progress in areas where the ICRC's mandate does not reach? Can the UN human rights operation develop a division of labour with the ICRC in which each can make a contribution? Such an agreement was, for example, established between the Human Rights Field Operation in Rwanda and the ICRC. A copy of that agreement is found in Appendix 3 and is discussed below at section E "Coordination with ICRC". Assessing the scope of complementarity between the ICRC and the UN field operations' action in a particular country, and deciding about an appropriate division of labour, is the responsibility of the leadership of the field operation and not of the individual HRO.
44. Once the UN human rights field operation has made a considered decision to pursue visits to places of detention, it should be aware of ICRC methods of work and their considerable experience from which some basic principles relating to such visits can be inferred. Also useful are principles drawn from the experience of previous UN human rights operations and the work of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ECPT). Those principles include the need for HROs to make regular, repeated visits to all detention centres and prisons; the officers must be able to take note of the identity of the persons detained, so that they can be seen again; the HROs must be able to visit all detainees; the officers must be able to speak with detainees freely and without witnesses; and the officers must be able to visit all places of detention in the country.
45. Global visits to places of detention can be made to monitor the general human rights situation and make recommendations on the operation and reform of the detention system. Specifically, the human rights operation's mandate may include the following among its principal objectives of a global visit:
(a) to put an end to torture and other ill-treatment, including for example, a systematic practice of beatings;
(b) to secure the release of persons arbitrarily detained for political reasons;
(c) to obtain access to justice for detainees in accordance with procedures and delays provided by law;
(d) to intervene or to assure that victims of human rights violations -- and specifically victims of beatings, ill-treatment, and torture -- receive medical care required by their condition;
(e) to ensure that the authorities responsible for detention centres establish a register of detainees, that it be kept up to date, and that it mentions the legal situation of the detainees; and
(f) to promote, with the competent authorities and specialized organizations, improvement of the material and psychological detention conditions of the detainees.
2. Selection of HROs to visit places of detention
46. A global visit should be planned by the entire visiting team. Each person's role should be well-defined. HROs should also recognize that conducting a proper global visit takes a long time. It may take a few weeks to do a comprehensive global visit -- particularly on the first visit. As preparation for the visit, the HROs should study the first part of this Chapter in regard to international standards relating to detention and treatment of detainees, together with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners as well as the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
47. The visiting delegation should ordinarily be comprised of a doctor and several HROs. If problems of torture or ill-treatment are found, the doctor's participation in the visiting delegation will be particularly needed. Hence, the first visiting delegation should include a doctor. If no problems of torture are encountered, later visits might involve a nurse, public health professional, or other medical personnel. Experience suggests that it may be easier to elicit information from detainees if the doctor or one of the HROs is a woman. Accordingly, one or even all of the HROs could usefully be women -- particularly on a visit to a women's detention facility.
48. The advantage of having two or more persons is that they can compare notes and consult with each other during the detention facility visit. They can also defend and provide support for each other if challenged by detention facility authorities. In general, they should generally work in teams of two and remain together rather than separating during the detention facility visit.
49. The HROs should wear clothing which clearly distinguishes them from detention facility employees. They should wear a badge or other clear indication of their UN status. HROs should not, in general, bring cameras, tape recorders, or similar instruments into the detention facility, as such technology may raise security concerns on the part of the administrators of the detention facility and may raise suspicions in the authorities about the desire to publicize the information gathered. Also, such instruments may raise concerns for the detainees about the security of the information gathered. Under some occasional circumstances, tape recorders may be used for interviewing detainees. See Chapter VIII "Interviewing".
3. Entering the detention facility and announcing the visit in advance
50. It is ICRC practice that a visit to a detention centre should be announced in advance to give the authorities an opportunity to improve conditions as much as possible. While it may seem at first glance that such warning would give the authorities enough time to cover up any poor conditions, the ICRC considers this effort an advantage. Any improvements the Government makes will help the detention facilities.
51. Surprise visits should, however, also be considered. Surprise visits are especially effective when reasonable suspicion exists that visits are pre-arranged by authorities to cover up problematic practices. The ECPT particularly engages in surprise visits to police stations when they are otherwise vising a country's prisons, because it may not be possible to visit all such facilities in a country and sudden visits may give a more candid picture of police practices. In any case, surprise visits are not practicable in large facilities, because most of the prison guards will be notified of the visit before the HROs have reached much of the facility.
52. The HROs should always be on the look-out for "temporary improvements". Hence, one of the questions to ask in detainee interviews is, "How does this day and the treatment you received differ from other days at the detention facility?" In addition, such "temporary improvements" need to be the subject of discussions with the warden/detention facility director at the end of the visit, so that such problems will not happen on future visits.
53. It would be helpful if the HROs obtain and study a map of the detention centre before entering the detention centre. The map will make it more likely that the officers will be able to find all detainees, and will prevent the officers from getting lost. Such a map may be requested from the detention facility authorities. A map may, however, need to be developed during the visit, from previous visitors (e.g., from Physicians for Human Rights, Amnesty International, etc.) or from other sources. A map should not, however, be brought into the detention facility because it might be used by a detainee to plot an escape. In any case, during the visit one HRO should have the responsibility of developing a sense of the entire detention facility, so as to assure that the visitors do not miss parts of the facility.
4. Seeing the director of detention facility for initial discussion
54. On entering the detention facility, the HROs should discuss the visit with the governor, director, or warden. The HROs should explain who they are and briefly describe their mandate and working procedures. The officers need to conduct themselves with confidence and self-assurance. They should seek to develop a rapport with the director through initial small talk before getting down to business. In introducing themselves, it is useful for the HROs to present visiting cards. In explaining their standard procedures for visiting places of detention, the HROs should mention: the initial discussion with the director and possibly other prison personnel (including health professionals), the tour of all parts of the detention facility, the individual interviews in confidence with all those detainees whom the officers wish to see, the concluding discussion with the director, the summary report of the principal points and recommendations arising from the visit, and the resulting report to the central office of the field operation.
55. The HROs should be prepared to explain in simple terms why it is necessary for the officers to follow its standard procedures in visiting places of detention and be prepared to refer to the mandate of the field operation or any agreement which the field operation has made with the Government. The HROs should also be prepared to remind the director that the modalities of the visit have been set forth in the agreement, if that is the case, but it is also acceptable to remind the director that he may well benefit from the visit, for example, by obtaining further information about the situation in the prison, by helping him get resources from the central authorities through the recommendations from the HROs, etc. It may be useful - especially on the first visits - to carry a copy of the mandate or agreement in the local language, which can be shown to the director. The HROs should not bargain with the director over issues which were settled in the overall agreement with the Government. Instead, they should professionally and clearly indicate their expectations as to the visit. They should make it clear that they expect cooperation and that cooperation is the standard process.
56. The HRO should note that in some detention facilities the guards will be cooperative; in others, the guards may be uncooperative and possibly even threatening with their weapons. It may be useful for the HROs to carry letters of introduction from the Government to help assure cooperation. If they meet with resistance, the HROs should politely but firmly challenge the failure to cooperate and indicate that lack of cooperation will be pursued with higher Government officials.
57. In many cases it will be possible to have a reasonable discussion with the director of the detention facility. S/he may see the visit of the UN HROs as a way of trying to communicate to his or her superiors the need for more resources for the detention facility. The HROs may find two kinds of directors. Some directors have chosen work in the detention facility as their profession; in which case they may have a sense of orderly administration and have risen through the ranks to their present high position. Other directors may have been given that job as way of punishing them; they may have little idea of orderly management.
58. In any event, the HROs should ask the warden/director/governor a series of standardized questions. The officers should have read carefully any report from previous visits to the detention facility and make sure that they know precisely what had occurred in past contacts, so that they can discuss points which were made during previous visits and so that they can avoid being misled by comments from the director. In general, HROs should discuss with the director in the initial interview each of the points which were made in the summary report from the previous visit -- particularly those points which are likely to arise in discussions with the detainees. Other questions are suggested by the form of the report (see Appendix 1 and 2). The HROs should listen carefully to the responses of the director which may indicate a willingness to remedy past problems or problems that may arise. The detainees should later be asked the same questions, so that trouble spots and inconsistencies can be identified.
59. In pursuing the discussion with the warden, the leader of the visiting human rights delegation should be in control of the interview and should ask his/her colleagues to participate as the leader sees fit. The other HROs in the delegation should not interrupt, but should make their views known by a quick note or some other discreet sign. The HROs should be prepared to handle requests for assistance from the director. What sorts of things can the human rights operation do and what can it not do? HROs should feel free to accept an offer of hospitality, such as lunch in the prison cafeteria or a cup of coffee, because it will give them an opportunity to have a discussion in a slightly less formal context, but they should not accept any offers which would jeopardize the appearance of independence and neutrality of the delegation, e.g., a suggestion that the director take a female delegate dancing that night.
60. At the end of the interview, the HROs should try to summarize the result of the discussion and then conclude on a friendly note with an indication that the HROs will be looking forward to seeing the director at the end of the visit. For further guidance on the meeting with the director and other officials, see Chapter XVIII.
5. Interviewing other officials
61. HROs should also visit with lawyers, religious advisors, educators, doctors, and others who provide care to detainees in the detention facility. These individuals usually have an independent perspective of the facility as distinguished from those responsible for guarding the detainees.
62. For example, a doctor who is part of the visiting delegation should find that his/her professional relationship will allow medical personnel at the detention centre to share their experiences in a forthright manner. While some detention facility doctors become absorbed in the institutional ethos, their sense of professional responsibility and relationship may be of use in obtaining relevant information.
6. List of detainees and the roster
63. Before going to a detention facility, it would be helpful if the HROs collected the names of some individuals who are thought to be held in the detention facility, so that they have particular individuals about whom they may inquire.
64. The HROs should ask the detention centre authorities for a detailed list of all detainees held in the facility. If no such list exists, the HROs should insist that the detention authorities develop an adequate and up-to-date log including: names, date of birth, other personal details, the charges against each individual, the date of detention, the date of the next expected judicial procedure, health problems, etc. Such a register is required by rule 7 of the Standard Minimum Rules as well as Article 10 of the Declaration on Disappearances. The HROs should assist the detention facility authorities in making sure that such a list is compiled and regularly kept, but should not generally take over the role of compiling a roster. If there is no other way to assure that repeat visits can be properly conducted, if the authorities are unable to prepare a register, and if the human rights operation has adequate resources, HROs should consider preparing a register of detainees.
7. Visiting the entire facility
65. When touring the detention facility, the HROs should decide which parts should be visited and which doors should be opened. In principle, the HROs should visit the entire facility or at least satisfy themselves that they have seen all the detainees. The HROs should try to press for as much access as possible. Sometimes authorities cite security reasons or lost keys for not opening doors. The delegation may need to assess the truthfulness of such excuses. If appropriate, protests should be made through recourse to the human rights field operation central office and to higher levels of the Government.
66. HROs should be aware that some cells may have been walled up or otherwise hidden. One way of determining if there is a hidden cell is to look at the electrical wires in the ceiling. It is also helpful to consult other detainees or someone who has previously been to the detention facility. HROs may get information from other or former detainees, who will know where detainees are hidden.
67. HROs should consider using both group and individual interviews with detainees. To save time on some general issues, the HRO may conduct group interviews, for example, of all detainees in a cell or a small section of the facility. Group interviews are useful for learning of common problems, identifying leaders, getting a sense of the political culture of the detention facility, and determining whom to interview separately. The HRO should also try to get a sense of what groups cannot be interviewed in front of other groups (for example, two opposing ethnic groups).
68. The HRO may want to identify the detainees who have become leaders of detainee organizations, factions, or groups, which ordinarily exist in detention facilities. It would be preferable to learn of the names of such leaders before entering the detention facility, but if the names are not known upon entry, individual detainees can be asked about such leaders. From the HRO's discussions with detainees and detainee leaders, the officer should be able to understand the culture of the detention facility. Which are the various groups or factions? Who are the underdogs? Who are the leaders of which groups? Leaders may be more vocal in identifying detention facility problems or they may be informants for the prison authorities. Leaders may be planted by the authorities and may not be the real leaders. In some contexts, the detainee leaders effectively control the facility. For this reason and others, identifying leaders may be provocative to the authorities. To avoid putting detainees in danger, the HRO may determine which cell block houses certain leaders, and then ask to interview detainees in that cell block. The HRO can then talk to a smaller group, chosen at random but including the leaders.
69. All individual interviews with detainees should take place without witnesses and at a spot decided by the HROs. The HROs should try to identify a place which appears to be most secure from eavesdropping. In general, the HRO should assume that there is no safe place to conduct an interview. Often the detention facility authorities will have prepared a particular room for interviewing. Because of the risk of eavesdropping, the HROs should not generally accept such offers. Sometimes interviews can be done in an unoccupied cell. In other situations, it may be possible to do the interview in a courtyard or in the detainee's own cell; often, however, such locations may be too unsecure and may make the detainee too nervous. For general observations on interviewing, see Chapter VIII "Interviewing".
70. It is important to gain the confidence of the detainee. The detainee is likely to think that the HRO is a fake and has been planted by the authorities. The HROs should introduce themselves, the purpose of the visit, and the confidential nature of the interview. The HROs may have previously provided this information in a general announcement to all the detainees or all the detainees in a group/cell block/large cell, but it may be necessary to repeat the information during the individual interview. The HRO may want to offer water or cigarettes. The detainee should be assured that s/he is an anonymous source, unless the detainee wants his/her concerns to be identified and the HROs consider that a reprisal is unlikely.
71. In general, the first interview with a detainee should generally last at least 20 to 30 minutes -- not including any medical examination. The length of an interview will depend upon the issues covered. Interviews may take longer if there is a greater need to develop a sense of confidence and rapport. Interviews are also likely to take longer if torture may have occurred. In addition, interviews may take longer if an interpreter is involved. HROs may be able to reduce the length of interviews by letting a group of prisoners or their leaders know that they are or are not interested in more information about general conditions, e.g., food, toilets, etc.
72. HROs should be prepared to be very patient with the detainee interviews. The detainees may not have had any other opportunity to tell their stories. The HRO on a detention facility visit should be prepared to hear very similar stories from each detainee. Nonetheless, the detainees have a real need to tell their own experiences. The UN HRO may be the first visitor the detainee has seen in a number of years. The HRO should never forget that at the end of the interview, s/he can leave the detention facility, but the detainee has to return to his or her cell. The HRO should keep attentive during interviews. If the HRO is beginning to get fatigued, s/he should take a break or otherwise renew his/her ability to stay alert.
73. A detainee may ask the HRO to carry a message to his/her family or a family may similarly request a HRO to deliver a message to the detainee. The ICRC manages a well-established system of exchanging written messages between detainees and their families; those messages are routinely reviewed by the authorities before they are delivered. In general, human rights field officers should not accept written messages and should urge that the correspondents use the ICRC system. If the ICRC is not active in the country or in that facility, the human rights operation should consider carefully whether it wants to replicate the ICRC message system. Individual HROs should not, in general, accept written messages from or to detainees, because they may raise security concerns for the authorities.
74. A HRO on a global detention facility visit may want to insist on seeing all detainees in a particular detention facility or may pick some detainees at random. Otherwise, there is a risk of reprisals against individual detainees who have been interviewed. During a second or repeated visit, the HRO should call back most of the detainees seen on previous visits to assure that they have not suffered reprisals.
9. Departing meeting with director
75. A detention centre visit should end with another meeting with the director. Many of the same considerations apply to both the initial and the departing meeting. See Chapter Section C-4 "Seeing the director of detention facility for initial discussion". The HROs may use the departing meeting to request clarification of discrepancies between the initial information provided by the director and the information collected during the visit from observation and interviewing the detainees.
76. In preparing for the departing interview the visiting team should consider what elements to raise and in what order. After some initial small talk, the HROs should tell the director the issues which will be discussed. The team might want to consider putting a relatively positive item first, so that they can establish a friendly rapport with the director, but they should not leave the most important issues until last. It is not necessary to raise every possible issue on a single visit.
77. Depending upon the policy of the field operation as to reporting visits to detention facilities, the team might, for example, explain that they will be sending a summary report (see Appendix 1) with the principal recommendations and conclusions of their visit to the prison director in a short time. The human rights field operation would also be likely to require the visiting HROs to prepare a fuller report (see Appendix 2) to the operation's central office. The central office may include the information in a report to the authorities, but that report may cover several institutions or particular issues. Hence, the larger report would not ordinarily be shared with a single prison director, but would be reflected in further contacts with the central authorities. The director should be promised a copy of the summary report, but the visiting team need not go into all these technicalities of human rights operation internal practice. Instead, they can simply indicate that the director will be receiving a summary report or a "report" on this visit.
78. The visiting team should be practical in developing and presenting its recommendations to the prison director. The HROs should be aware of prison regulations and international human rights standards, including the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, in developing their recommendations, but they should not necessarily refer to those standards. Instead, they should rely principally on good sense under the circumstances. The director may be bound to provide the minimum treatment in the prison regulations, but the HROs can also ask him to provide better treatment. On major issues (such as lack of access to certain detainees), the team should consult the head of the field operation before the concluding discussion with the warden. If necessary, the visit could be suspended so that the head of the field operation could raise critical issues with the higher authorities, before the final discussion with the prison director.
79. At the concluding discussion, HROs should make preliminary suggestions for improvements and offer assistance where appropriate (e.g., blankets, disinfection of cells, mail services, or training of detention facility officers -- to the extent the human rights operation has those services available). It may or may not be within the human rights operation's mandate to provide such assistance, but the operation may be able to identify other sources of assistance. It is not the objective of the human rights operation to substitute itself for the existing prison or justice system, but the operation should encourage the proper functioning of existing structures and may provide assistance, if within the mandate and if available. If medicine or other materials are provided to the director, the team should ask the director to sign a receipt for the materials and should give a copy to other relevant officials, e.g., the doctor for medicines.
80. The visiting team should give the director an opportunity to respond to the recommendations and listen to the director carefully. At the end of the interview, the HROs should summarize those understandings and promise to send the director a "report" on the visit in a few days. The discussion with the director should conclude on a positive note.
81. UN HROs should promptly after a visit to a detention facility prepare a summary report indicating the principal points and understandings arising from the visit and the concluding interview with the prison director. A draft form of the summary report (Appendix 1) has been provided for adaptation to local conditions. The HROs should also prepare a longer and more detailed report for the central office of the operation. A draft form (Appendix 2) has been provided for the fuller report.
82. In general, the summary report should include the principal concerns in regard to such issues as the adequacy and condition of detention facilities; prison register or list of detainees; personal hygiene; medical care and health condition of detainees; water; food and nutrition; outdoor recreation or other physical exercise; family and other visits; other contact without the outside world; treatment when arrested or during detention; length of pre-trial detention; disciplinary cells and nature of disciplinary punishment; violence among detainees; prison rules and complaint mechanisms; etc. The summary report should also indicate the reaction of the prison director and any understandings reached as to those principal points of concern.
83. The area office of the human rights operation should submit the summary report to the prison director and to the operation's central office a few days after the visit. The summary report should be understood as providing a prompt, confidential, informal, and interim summary of the principal points and understandings arising from the prison visit or similar visit to a place where persons are held in custody by the Government. The summary report is not intended to provide a comprehensive report of the visit and is also not intended as a high-level official communication from the UN field operation. The summary report helps to build communication and a level of trust between the area office of the human rights operation and detention facility officials.
84. The HROs should also prepare a fuller report (see Appendix 2) to the field operation central office, which may then decide how to present any more global concerns to those ministers in the Government responsible for detention facilities. The reports may be the subject of demarches to improve detention facility conditions. In addition, publication of relevant information may be needed if the authorities are not sufficiently cooperative.
85. HROs should do a global visit first, and then follow-up focused visits with regard to issues such as (1) torture or ill-treatment, (2) medical concerns, (3) protection of particular detainees, or (4) prison conditions. In general, a visit for additional information should be undertaken as an extension to the first visit. After a summary report is submitted to the Government, the authorities should be given a reasonable time to reply to the observations received and to comply with the recommendations. Further visits should then be undertaken, to monitor the evolution of the human rights situation in a given detention facility. Special attention should be given to any change in the treatment of detainees by authorities and the reasons for it (e.g., change of commander, transfer of personnel, and acceleration of procedures for appearing before the judge). If appropriate, follow-up visits may be undertaken without previous notice to the authorities.
86. During repeat visits, the HROs must actively seek out the persons interviewed in the course of previous visits to assure that they were not subjected to ill-treatment or punishment, and have not been interrogated by warders (guards) or any other Government official, regarding their statements to the HROs.
87. In addition, HROs may want to make further inquiries about and follow-up cases that present -- in addition to violations of legal procedures and guarantees -- a violation of another fundamental right (such as integrity of the person, freedom from arbitrary arrest for exercise of freedom of expression and association, etc.).
D. Focused detention facility visits
88. Focused detention facility visits are specific visits and inquiries concerning individual cases or matters of concern. One use of focused visits is to document particular cases which illustrate the general situation before considering a global visit to a detention centre.
89. A second use of focused visits targets specific detainees. Focused visits may be used when information about an illegal detention of a person is communicated to the HROs, and that information received plus previous experience give reason to fear that the detained individual is the victim of a violation of the right to life, of the right to personal integrity and security, or of freedom of expression and association.
90. The HROs should go to the detention centre to talk to the victim as well as with the detention facility authorities. They must do so particularly when there is a case of ill-treatment, of torture, or a serious threat of torture, even if a victim is being held for a common crime. The purpose of the visit is to verify and complete the information received, and to stop the violation. To avoid putting particular detainees in danger, however, the HRO may try to determine which cell block houses certain detainees, and then ask to interview detainees in that cell block. The HRO can then talk to several of the residents of that cell block, chosen at random but including the individuals of concern.
2. Variations from the global visit
91. Focused visits vary from global visits in that they do not usually involve prior notice to any authority. If, when carrying out a visit to investigate the situation of a specific victim, the HROs are informed of other violations committed in the same detention centre, they should register the new communication and take advantage of their being on the spot to check all possible information.
92. If HROs are refused access to the detention centre, they should not impose themselves, nor remain outside, waiting for permission to enter the centre. The HROs should contact the operation's central office and raise the issue of access at higher levels in the Government.
93. After interviewing detention facility authorities and the detainee(s), the HROs should use the information collected to complete the form for individual cases (see Chapter XIX, Appendix 1). Additional information and other elements of information (copy of arrest warrant, medical records) should be appended to the form on separate sheets. Besides its use for the handling of an individual case, this information will contribute to subsequent reports on the situation of a specific detention facility, as well as reports on the general situation of detention facilities.
94. Communications concerning individual cases, as well as additional information obtained on the occasion of individual visits, should be communicated to the person in charge of the field operation, who will forward a copy to the person in charge of detention facilities.
95. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was established in 1863 as a Swiss-run private independent and neutral organization. It has a staff of about 650 at its headquarters in Geneva and approximately 9,000 others in about 50 other countries, depending upon operational needs. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 authorize the ICRC to visit prisoners of war and other persons deprived of their freedom as a result of armed conflicts.
96. In addition, the ICRC makes agreements with governments to visit persons deprived of their liberty, for example, detainees for security reasons, because of ethnic, political, or other internal conflict situations to which the Geneva Conventions and Protocols do not specifically apply. The ICRC does not generally visit genuine common law prisoners unless there is such disorder in the society that visits are considered necessary to avoid torture, disappearances, or deleterious conditions of confinement. Only for exceptional humanitarian reasons, does the ICRC work for the release of prisoners (for example, to obtain medical care for sick people, people who have already served more time in pre-trial detention than they would if they had been convicted, or very old prisoners). In the large majority of cases, it is principally interested in preventing torture or disappearances and in improving prison conditions to prevent unnecessary suffering. When the ICRC seeks to see prisoners in a particular country -- for example, where there is internal strife and disturbances --, it ordinarily requests complete access to all prisoners in all places of detention for interviews in private with no limit as to the length of such interviews. The ICRC manages a system of exchanging written messages between detainees and their families; the messages may be reviewed by the authorities to assure that they do not raise security concerns. Standard practice of the ICRC is that its delegation of several persons (usually including a doctor or other medical staff) ordinarily talks to the prison director; then tours the entire facility; registers or identifies all the detainees in the facility; must be able to visit all detainees freely and without witnesses, but in practice may talk only to some detainees; talks to other prison officials including medical personnel; has a final interview with the prison director; within a few days prepares a confidential working paper for the prison director summarizing the conclusions and understandings established during the visit; prepares a confidential report (possibly including other facilities) to the Government; repeats the visit to the prisoners and particularly to those whom they have seen in the previous visit; and must be able to visit all places of detention in the country.
97. UN HROs should always try to coordinate their prison visits with the ICRC. Coordination enhances complementarity of action and prevents wasteful duplication of work. As mentioned above, in Rwanda the ICRC Delegation and UN Human Rights Field Operation agreed on Guidelines for Coordination in the Field, which might serve as a point of departure for other such efforts of coordination. See Appendix 3. It is also important for HROs to be aware of ICRC methods of work because any compromise by HROs in regard to the procedures for visiting places of detention might have a deleterious impact upon the willingness of the authorities to cooperate with the ICRC. For example, a HRO who accepted to do interviews of prisoners in the presence of a guard might not only jeopardize the work of other HROs who insisted upon interviews in private, but also might have a consequence for the ICRC and other organizations which visit prisoners.
98. For further reference, the human rights field operation should have a resource centre, which might include documents and instruments related particularly to detention, such as those on following list. (The most critical and relevant items are starred*.)
Alderson, J, Human Rights and the Police (Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1984).
Association for the Prevention of Torture, Guidelines for Investigations about the Conditions and the Treatment in Places where People are Detained and Deprived of their Liberty (1994).
Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 118 (1990).
*Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, G.A. res. 45/111, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 200, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990).
*Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, G.A. res. 43/173, annex, 43 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 298, U.N. Doc. A/43/49 (1988).
Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, G.A. res. 34/169, annex, 34 U.N. GAOR (No. 46) at 186, U.N. Doc. A/34/46 (1979).
Compendium of U.N. Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, U.N. Doc. St/CSDHA/16 (1992).
Consolidated List of the Secretary-General of provisions in the various United Nations standards relating to human rights in the administration of justice, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1991/26 (1991).
*Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. res. 39/46, annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984), entered into force June 26, 1987.
Daudin, Pascal & Hernán Reyes, How visits by the ICRC can help prisoners cope with the effects of traumatic stress, in International Responses to Traumatic Stress (1996).
*Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, G.A. res. 47/133, 47 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 207, U.N. Doc. A/47/49 (1992).
European Committee for Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ECPT), Health Care Services in Prisons, extract from ECPT, Third Report (1993).
European Prison Rules, Council of Europe Recommendation No. R (87) 3 (1987).
Guidelines for Coordination in the Field Between International Committee of the Red Cross Delegates and Field Officers of the Human Rights Field Operation in Rwanda with regard to Visits to Persons Deprived of their Freedom in Rwanda (1996).
Human Rights Watch, Global Report on Prisons 291-97 (1993) (Questionnaire for Prison Visits).
Morgan, Rod & Malcolm Evans, Inspecting Prisons, The View from Strasbourg, 34 British J. Criminology 141 (1994).
O'Neill, William G., Monitoring the Administration of Justice, in Hege Araldsen and Øyvind W. Thiis, Manual on Human Rights Monitoring ch. 7 (Norwegian Institute of Human Rights 1997).
Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, E.S.C. res. 1989/65, annex, 1989 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 52, U.N. Doc. E/1989/89 (1989).
*Prison Reform International, Making Standards Work, an international handbook on good prison practice (1995).
Reyes, Hernán, ICRC Visits to "political" Prisoners, How they work, What they accomplish (1992).
Reyes, Hernán, Visits to prisoners, 3 Torture 58 (1993).
Reyes, Hernán & Rémi Russbach, Le rôle du médecin dans les visites du CICR aux prisonniers, 284 International Review of the Red Cross 497 (1991).
Rodley, Nigel, The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law (1987).
Rutherford, A., Prisons and the Process of Justice (1984).
Rzeplinski, Andrezej, Monitoring Prison Conditions, in Swennenhuis, Raymond, Handbook for Helsinki Committees, A Guide in Monitoring and Promoting Human Rights, and NGO Management 5.2 (1995).
Sorensen, Bent, Guidelines for visits to prisons (1996).
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing Rules"), G.A. res. 40/33, annex, 40 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 53) at 207, U.N. Doc. A/40/53 (1985).
*Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted Aug. 30, 1955, by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, U.N. Doc. A/CONF/611, annex I, E.S.C. res. 663C, 24 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 11, U.N. Doc. E/3048 (1957), amended E.S.C. res. 2076, 62 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 35, U.N. Doc. E/5988 (1977).
United Nations, Analysis of the Haitian Justice System with Recommendations to Improve the Administration of Justice in Haiti: A Report by the Working Group on the Haitian Justice System of the OAS/UN International Civilian Mission to Haiti (1994).
*United Nations, Human Rights and Law Enforcement, a Manual on Human Rights for the Police (High Commissioner/Centre for Human Rights Professional Training Series No. 5, 1997).
* United Nations, Human Rights and Prisons, a Manual on Human Rights for Prison Officials, (High Comissioner for Human Rights Professional Training Series No. 8, forthcoming)
*United Nations, Human Rights in the Administration of Justice, a Manual on Human Rights for Judges and Lawyers (High Commissioner/Centre for Human Rights Professional Training Series No. 6, forthcoming 1997).
United Nations, International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement, A Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police (High Commissioner/Centre for Human Rights, 1996).
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), G.A. res. 45/110, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990).
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, G.A. res. 45/113, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 205, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990).
*United
Nations Centre for Human Rights, Human
Rights and Pre-trial Detention, U.N. Doc. HR/P/PT/3 (1994).
______________________________
1. Body
of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment, G.A. res. 43/173 of 9 December 1988, annex.
4. G.A.
res. 48/104, 48 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 217, U.N. Doc. A/48/49 (1993).
2. U.N. Doc. HR/P/P.T./3 (1994).
3. 3 Human
Rights and Pre-trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards relating
to Pre-trial Detention, U.N. Doc. HR/P/P.T./3 (1994) at 3.