Since the beginning of the year, some fifty detainees in France have chosen the most cruel of all methods of escape from jail : suicide. According to the International Prison Observatory (OIP), the cases of suicide committed while in detention have doubled in ten years. At the Fleury-Mérogis prison there was a whole string of suicides (or near-suicides) between 22nd May and 5th June. Four detainees managed to put an end to their lives while three others were rescued before it was too late. This increase both in the frequency and in the number of cases of suicide in French prisons (and detention centres) is a true reflection of their malaise.

‘Everyday life in French prisons is all too often not in accordance with the law’. This observation of some twenty associations at a press conference at the Palais de Justice in Paris on Wednesday, 16th June, is indisputable. According to these associations, one of the primary causes of the malaise experienced by prisoners and detainees resides in the fact that they have gradually been deprived of their rights. In an ‘open letter to MPs’, these associations, including the OIP, the French Human Rights League (LDH - an affiliate of the FIDH) and even the magistrates’ union call for a regular and effective control of the prison administration by an independent body.

The fact that prisons, i.e. places where individuals who have acted against the law are kept in detention, are sometimes found to be lawless areas is not the least of all contradictions of the French prison system. Intolerable situations, such as abuse, sexual violence, humiliations, etc., are still too often the subject of criticism by organisations, such as the French Human Rights League who frequently deplore these circumstances. But their action remains most of the time without response. And in the few cases where administrative sanctions, such as transfers or dismissals are imposed, this is not followed by a judicial procedure.

The grave incidents which occurred at the Beauvais prison between 1995 and 1998 are a prime example of this: the Director and some wardens began a reign of terror and not only committed atrocities against detainees, but even against prison personnel. When these incidents were finally brought to light by the Prison Inspection Service, the Director was dismissed and six ‘matons’ (a nickname, which is really appropriate in this case) were temporarily suspended from their duties. No judicial fact-finding procedure was opened and the matter was filed without any further action, although some of the acts should have been the subject of further criminal proceedings. In other words, impunity is still common in the French prison system.

Meanwhile, a Bill for the establishment of an external body to ensure compliance with a Code of Ethics within all the security forces is currently being ‘handed back and forth’ between the Senate and the National Assembly. This future body, to be called the Conseil Supérieure de Déontologie et de la Sécurité (CSDS - Supreme Council for the Enforcement of a Code of Ethics and Security) will be composed of seven members to be chosen by the legislative, executive and judicial powers, among others. The field of investigation of this ‘independent public body’ will be very broad, since it will cover most of the public and private security services. The police, the gendarmerie and the guarding will thus be under the control of this body.

And what about prisons and detention centres? The CSDS should, if it is all to make sense, be able to carry out visits to prisons to check whether the rights of detainees are being respected.

But the Minister of Justice has decided otherwise. At his request (and probably under pressure from the prison administration) the control of prisons (and detention centres) will be exempted from the control of the CSDS. In the opinion of Elisabeth Guigou (Minister of Justice), the prison administration staff exercise their duties within the sole remits and under the sole control of the judicial institution and must therefore not be subjected to the control of any other institution.

In their ‘open letter to MPs’, the signatory organisations are trying to challenge this provision, of course, and notably put forward the ineffectiveness, or even the bias of the already existing monitoring institutions. The frequent interruption of monitoring procedures and their haphazard and superficial nature is equivalent to conferring a discretionary power on this institution as regards the way it is organised and the conditions of detention’. These associations remain ‘convinced of the necessity for a truly independent monitoring body, as in other European countries’. In other words, they call on MPs and Senators to ‘ensure that the prison administration should also be part of the institutions which will be controlled by the CSDS’. In the same open letter, they also expressed their concern that this institution should have broader rights, such as the right to initiate proceedings or to visit without prior notification, etc.

The French National Consultative Commission on Human Rights issued a statement, some elements of which were published in the French daily Libération on 17th June. Even though the Commission has not yet spoken out on the CSDS, it recommends a review of the rights of detainees, particularly the right to assistance from a lawyer when they have to appear at the internal prison tribunal. The Chancellery (Ministry of Justice) did not disagree this time round

Gael Grilhot

Signatory organisations:
OIP, ACAT, LDH, Syndicat de la Magistrature, Association Nationale des Juges de l’Application des Peines (ANJAP), Syndicat des Avocats de France (SAF), Union des Jeunes Avocats (UJA), GENEPI, Groupe Multiprofessionel des Prison (GMP), ARAPEJ, Association Nationale des Visiteurs de Prison (ANVP), Act-up Paris, Emmaus France.

 

---

The reaction of the french league for Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights has condemned France for torture, as the result of the acts of a group of police officers who believe they are above the law.

The League for Human Rights regularly exposes cases of police violence that have been brought to its attention, ranging from harassment to the sort of extremes sanctioned by the Court of Strasbourg. It deplores the fact that the Public Prosecutor’s Department seldom follows these cases up and rarely checks on police officers who break the law, thus giving them the message that they are free to carry on breaking the law with complete impunity.

Although only a small number of police officers is involved in these incidents, they are undermining the credibility of the police force as a whole.

The League for Human Rights calls for the speedy introduction of an independent authority vested with the power to investigate any reports of police violence it receives, and to make public its conclusions.

(Press Release 28th July 1999)

---