III -
Prisons
1. Situation in prisons
In penitentiaries Serbia-wide convicts staged riots in
December 5-early December 2000 period, which irrespective of their
possible political background, drew attention to numerous problems
related to the enforcement of prison sentences.
According to the Serbian Ministry of Justice and press
and electronic media coverage, rioting began on 5 November 2000 at 23 ha
and 25 minutes in Sremska Mitrovica penitentiary. Convicts demanded
improvement of prison conditions, in terms of major subsidies,
treatment, health care and equitable treatment of all convicts. A demand
was also voiced that the Amnesty Act, embracing all convicts and all
offences, be adopted as quickly as possible. Dissatisfaction was voiced
with the pardon of a large number of Albanians by the new FRY president.
All in all 29 demands were placed. Uprising quickly spread to Nis and
Pozarevac penitentiaries, two days later to Padinska Skela and the
Belgrade District Court prison, and then to smaller prisons in Serbia.
Both the Justice Ministry officials and convicts repeatedly stressed
there were no inter-ethnic conflicts during the uprising. In Serbia
there are 21 district prisons, 5 correctional facilities for men and one
for women. There are 7,5000 convicts in all Serbian prisons.
In Sremska Mitrovica the uprising was started by 1,000
inmates of a total of 1,300. It was a very dramatic development. As
convicts torched and smashed all the premises, a large damage was
incurred. A group of convicts spent seven days on the prison roof.
Similar scenario was played out in Nis and Pozarevac penitentiaries.
Interestingly enough rebelled convicts of the Nis penitentiary demanded
pay hikes for all the prison staff.
Justice Co-Ministers of the Republic of Serbia
regularly negotiated with representatives of convicts. According to the
Justice Ministry communiques convicts were promised that the National
Parliament of Serbia would debate the Amnesty Act at its 23 December
session, but only if the situation in prisons normalized immediately.
The aforementioned communiques also stated that while the inmates'
demands were justified, such a violent kind of protest-was not.
Circumstances which led to the uprising, synchronized
protests in prisons Serbia-wide and political developments indicated
that the uprising was stage-managed and orchestrated by the top State
Security leadership, which was not dismissed after the 5 October events
and installation of the new authorities. It was assumed that the State
Security Services intended to destroy documentation on various misuses
by the prison administrations and spread feelings of insecurity among
citizens at large. It is well known that the State Security Services in
the past used convicts to carry out different tasks, even to liquidate
their political "opponents." It was leaked on several occasions that the
prison administrators received kickbacks for the release of Albanians
and conditional release of some convicts.
Involvement of the State Security Services in the
prison uprising became evident when Rade Markovic, Head of the SSS,
escorted Flora Brovina, President of the League of Albanian Women, on 9
November, to the Nis penitentiary. The Republican Justice Ministry
explained that Markovic was there to protect Brovina, while Markovic
himself said that he was a member of the federal and republican
delegation.
However, despite all speculations as to the causes of
the uprising, situation in the Serbian prisons is so dire that it needs
urgent both domestic and foreign assistance and intervention. A
decade-long isolation of the country favored inhuman conditions in many
prisons and poor security measures in prison hospitals. Hence the
convicts' demands related to urgent improvement of prison conditions and
treatment are justified.
Frequent psychological and physical torture, degrading
and cruel treatment of inmates speak of gross violations of personal
integrity within the prison walls. Food is insipid and bad and meat is
rarely eaten. Hygiene conditions are sub-standard. Heating is irregular,
while some rooms accommodate up to 50 beds. Contact with the external
world is restricted, and telephones are often not accessible to
convicts. Convicts of the Sremska Mitrovica penitentiary stated that
some of them were beaten 150 times by batons as a punishment, while
cutting the convicts with shaving blades was portrayed by the prison
authorities as 'self-mutilation'. It was also said that some convicts
were not handed their mail for years, while some were intentionally
starved. Medical care war provided irregularly. There were problems with
the use of solitary cells, discipline, inspection control, regime of
activities, system of complaints and medical services.
On 8 November 2000 a long-standing director of the
Sremska Mitrovica penitentiary was arrested under suspicion of misuse of
his official capacity. He is still in custody.
The Act on Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions, passed
on 15 April 1997, has numerous shortcomings, mainly stemming from its
non-harmonization with international norms and standards. This Act does
not provide for the functional protection of inmates from mental and
physical torture. Furthermore the Act does not include provisions
ensuring full control of prison work and conditions. Judicial bodies are
vested only in formal and restricted right to control the prisons, while
foreign and domestic humanitarian organizations and NGOs have no access
whatsoever to prisons in Serbia. Under the aforementioned Act the prison
administration is tasked with enforcement of criminal sanctions.
Due to all the aforementioned problems and
shortcomings it is necessary to immediately draw up a new Act on
Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions. System of enforcement of prison
sentences must be brought into line with the international legal acts,
conventions, and widely accepted standards. Conditions under which
prison sentences are enforced are regulated by general provisions of
international conventions on human rights, the European Prison Rules and
Standards of Minimum Rules on Treatment of Convicts. International
standards restrict long solitary cell confinement, use of handcuffs and
chains, and use of force by law-enforcement officials. International
conventions and rules clearly define cases of physical and mental
torture.
Standards of Minimum Rules on Treatment of Inmates,
adopted by the UN, clearly define conditions for enforcement of prison
sentences, describe in detail prison cells, solitary cells, conditions
of personal hygiene and institutional hygiene, prison food, clothes,
medical care, discipline, punishment, methods of coercion, contacts with
external world and treatment of mentally ill convicts and special
categories of convicts.
The new Act must provide for the possibility of free
complaints of inmates, permanent control of prison administration and
convicts, and security measures relating to prison sentences. However
introduction of new laws, standards and rules shall not improve the
overall prison situation, unless educational and training programs for
prison personnel are launched. They should be first taught the basics of
human rights, rules and standards related to treatment of convicts,
psychological status of inmates, and the need for their genuine
rehabilitation. Prison administration and personnel tend to think that
convicts in prisons should be additionally punished. In other worlds a
general standard that convicts already punished by prison sentences,
should not be additionally punished has not been honored.
International financial assistance is urgently needed
as is foreign assistance in organization and control of prison work, and
in educational and training programs. In view of poor prison conditions
and the recent riots an initiative for setting up a special committee
for the prevention of torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading
treatment and punishment should be launched. That committees should be
modeled on the European Committee established by the European Convention
on Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Penalties and
Treatment. A similar committee should be urgently set up in Serbia. It
should be composed of experts in human rights, penology, psychiatry,
judges, professors, and those with professional experience in criminal
sanctions enforcement. That committee would operate outside the judicial
system and would take on the role of a control and prevention body, as
required by the interim period developments.
2. Private prisons
In the wake of political changes media speculations on
existence of private prisons in Serbia became rife. It was repeatedly
stressed that prominent abductees Ivan Stambolic, judge Simeunovic and
some wealthy individuals were held in private prisons pending their
ransom payment. There are indications that such prisons may indeed
exist. The police have not uncovered any such prison, whereas the top
police officials publicly denied their existence.
Miroslav Todorovic, one of the dismissed judges of the
Belgrade District Court, told daily "Borba" (22 December 2000) that
there were 10 such prisons in Serbia, and that their owners were
individuals who had amassed wealth through racketeering and acting as
loan sharks. He said he had met several citizens subjected to torture in
those jails. According to Todorovic the jails were built like bunkers
and were equipped with torture devices.
One of the police co-ministers, Slobodan Todorovic, in
his interview to Vecernje Novosti daily (23 December 2000) denied the
existence of those jails, and asked the gossip-mongers to produce 'hard'
evidence.
Irrespective of the police disclaimers it is believed
that there are several such prisons in Serbia, set up by the State
Security Services to eliminate opponents of the former regime
Vreme weekly in its 28 December issue ran an analysis
of data gathered on private prisons. It stated among other things that
the State Security Services used different flats for holding "suspects"
and 'interviewing' them." Those who underwent such treatment were in no
position to prove that their "jailers" were the SSS agents, and also
lacked courage to report their calvary. Speculation is rife in the
Belgrade Palace of Justice that judge Nebojsa Simeunovic, prior to his
drowning, was held captive for twenty days in one of those prisons.
The same article stressed that "existence of criminal
gangs specializing in debt-repayment is not disputable, in view of
slowness of judicial proceedings. One anonymous interviewee even stated
that those gangs had good co-operation with the police, which supplied
them with data on their debtors. Frequent abductions and hand-over of
ransom-without the police intervention- indicate that the long-standing
crisis in the judiciary and the police contributes to criminalisation of
the society. Hence there must be a grain of truth in the stories about
private prisons.
3. Private detective agency "Ozna"
Private detective agency "Ozna" caught the public
attention in November 1999 when its owner, Zivorad Jovanovic, disclosed
that he was engaged in tracking down missing and imprisoned Serbs and
Albanians. According to his account a deal was struck with a brother of
a missing Albanian to effect the exchange of three Serb abductees for
his brother (if found) in lieu of DM 30,000 compensation (fees). Zivorad
Jovanovic then stated that public at large would be duly notified of
results of his search. Authorities then failed to respond to his
statement, but it caught attention of families of missing persons in
Kosovo. On 29 January 2000 at 13.00 h, in Merdare, three Albanians were
handed over to their families, while three Serbs were simultaneously
handed over to "Ozna" detectives in place Rozaje. Identity of exchanged
persons was "a business secret," and its disclosure was also banned by
their respective families. As promised, Jovanovic held a press
conference, but divulged only some details of the exchange operation.
One Albanian and his neighbor were imprisoned in Pozarevac, while the
third one was in Sremska Mitrovica penitentiary. On 28 January all three
were sentenced on 12, that is 14 months of prison for "staging armed
sentry vigil of their village," but as they had already served that time
in prison, they were released and exchanged. Jovanovic stressed that he
was congratulated by "the top military leadership of the country" and
that an intense search for missing policemen Ljubisav Biocanin and
Miodrag Krstic and some YA soldiers was under way. He also disclosed
that "Ozna" was contacted by a father of a missing Albanian, who
"offered" five Serbs in exchange for his son. He also stressed that
"Ozna" only took on search of persons gone missing by 1 September 1999,
in order to discourage further abductions.
Media coverage on the first exchange of Serbs and
Albanians caused numerous public reactions, notably of lawyers and
jurists, who called into question legitimacy of the entire operation and
of the opposition parties who blamed state authorities and the ruling
regime for lethal consequences of the Kosovo war adventure. But many
citizens welcomed that action and some maintained that "thanks to Ozna
efforts human lives were saved."
However on 8 October 2000 Vladan Lukic, District
Prosecutor in Kragujevac, at the request of the republican prosecutor's
Office ordered a probe into "Ozna" activities The then republican
Justice Minister Dragoljub Jankovic sharply reacted to the entire case
by announcing rigorous judiciary measures. He also hinted at the
possibility that "some non-judiciary persons, who are currently under
investigation, were embroiled in the case." District Public Prosecutor
stressed that he was interested in discovering any unlawful elements of
the operation, the way the agency found the Albanian convicts and
Serbian prisoners, and its fees for the whole operation." Owner of
agency Zivorad Jovanovic amended his original story by admitting that
the agency was registered for security operations, that the three
practically released Albanians were safely escorted to their family and
the three 'liberated' Serbs were taken over from an Albanian.
Private agency "Ozna" still operates, and the whole
case was "glossed over" by the top leadership. Reliable sources maintain
that many people were involved in the exchange, starting from prison
guards, to judicial bodies, the police, State Security Services, and the
high state officials. Public opinion knows that Albanians paid hefty
amounts as "ransom" for the release of family members imprisoned in
Serbian jails. According to a retired State Security colonel that was a
good enough motive for the "justice to turn a blind eye to the whole
operation." A friend of Zivorad Jovanovic intimated that the former
policeman (Jovanovic) had good ties and strong background...otherwise he
could not have carried out the whole operation. But Jovanovic made a
mistake by making public the whole case...he was probably motivated by
some prosaic reasons, for example the agency's promotion."
Although it was stated that there were no other cases
of exchange, it is possible that they simply have not been made public.
In all likelihood "Ozna" continued its search for the missing, notably
of Albanian descent and charged heavily for its services. One must pose
a question whether the exchange scandal was accidentally mounted or it
was an attention-getting vehicle, as "Ozna" obviously needed to attract
a large number of Albanian clients willing to pay any price for the
release of their next of kin.
HCHRS |
