Centenial Celebration

Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Date: November 22, 2024 Fri

Time: 11:30 am

Results for detention

13 results found

Author: Ricupero, Isabel

Title: Migration and Detention: Mapping the International Legal Terrain

Summary: This working paper attempts to map the web of international and regional instruments and mechanisms that together make up the "solid legal framework' relevant to the phenomenon of migration-related detention. Deprivation of liberty typically takes the form of administrative detention, though there are increasing instance of states criminalizing irregular entry or presence. Migrant detainees can include asylum seekers and refugees, irregular immigrants, stateless persons, and victims of trafficking. This paper is organized according to five main sections: "Treaties and Protocols"; "UN Declarations, Principles, and Guidelines"; "UN Charter-Based Mechanisms"; "Regional Norms and Standards"; and "Additional Sources" (international humanitarian law and relevant conventions of the International Labor Organization).

Details: Geneva: Global Detention Project, Programme for the Study of Global Migration, The Graduate Institute, 2009

Source:

Year: 2009

Country: Switzerland

URL:

Shelf Number: 116187

Keywords:
Detention
International Law
Migration

Author: Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children

Title: Locking Up Family Values: The Detection of Immigrant Families

Summary: Consistent with the role of the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service in advocating for appropriate treatment of immigrant women, children and families, the authors found it vital to engage in field research and to take an active part in examining this new policy. This report and research builds on the agencies' ongoing work on behalf of children and families in detention. In particular, they sought to examine issues of family unity and the provision of legal, medicinal and psychsocial services to families who are in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security.

Details: New York: The Commission, 2007

Source: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service

Year: 2007

Country: United States

URL:

Shelf Number: 105688

Keywords:
Detention
Families
Immigration

Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspectorate

Title: Police Custody: The Detention of Persons in Police Custody in Northern Ireland

Summary: This inspection reviewed the custody services by the Police Service of Northern Ireland in four main areas: strategic and service-wide issues; treatment and conditions; healthcare; and individual rights. The purpose behind this kind of review is to ensure the treatment and care of detainees is critical ensuring that those who are detained in police custody are dealt with in an effective, efficient and humane manner.

Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2009

Source:

Year: 2009

Country: United Kingdom

URL:

Shelf Number: 115350

Keywords:
Detention
Police Behavior

Author: Amon, Joe

Title: Where Darkness Knows No Limits: Incarceration, Ill-treatment, and Forced Labor as Drug Rehabilitation in China

Summary: This report details the abusive conditions suffered by detainees in China's drug detention centers, the failure of the Chinese government to deliver on its avowed commitment to a medical-based approach to its illicit drug use and addiction problems, and the human rights violations associated with the Anti-Drug Law. The report calls on the Chinese government to immediately close these centers and develop genuinely therapeutic, voluntary, community-based, outpatient drug dependency treatment alternatives.

Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2010. 37p.

Source: Internet Resource

Year: 2010

Country: China

URL:

Shelf Number: 117824

Keywords:
Detention
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Forced Labor
Human Rights Abuses

Author: United Nations. General Assembly. Human Rights Council

Title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Manfred Nowak, on his Mission to Uruguay (21-27 March 2009)

Summary: This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his mission to Uruguay, which took place from 21 to 27 March 2009. The Special Rapporteur expresses deep appreciation to the Government for the excellent cooperation extended by the authorities during the course of the visit. He notes the Government’s commitment to uphold and promote human rights and the progress made since the end of the dictatorship in 1985. The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned that children are at great risk of ill-treatment in police stations and detention facilities. He also found consistent allegations of beatings after arrest, as well as excessive use of force and collective punishments after riots and rebellions in detention facilities. The punitive approach applied in the penitentiary system and the lack of activities do not allow for rehabilitation. The use of imprisonment as the first rather than a last resort has failed to reduce the rates of criminality or prevent recidivism. On the contrary, most of the prisons in Uruguay are severely overcrowded and there exists a serious risk of a total collapse of the penitentiary system. Although some efforts have been made to improve overall conditions in prisons and prevent overcrowding, the conditions in some detention facilities, particularly Libertad Penitentiary and the Santiago Vázquez Prison Complex (Complejo Carcelario Santiago Vázquez, known as COMCAR), amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. The overcrowding, the non-separation of pretrial and convicted detainees as well as the limited access to medical services is of concern in practically all of the places visited. A comprehensive reform of the whole administration of justice system, aimed at the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, should be a high priority. Although the Government has recently introduced the crime of torture in the Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, the provision is unlikely to be applied to perpetrators of individual crimes, as reflected since its entry into force in 2006. Nevertheless, the provision should serve as an inspiration for the reform of the criminal code. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the creation of a National Action Plan on Fighting Domestic Violence and acknowledges that some first steps were taken in this regard. However, its full implementation has been delayed, leading to a situation of inadequate preventive and protective measures afforded by the State. In light of the above, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government of Uruguay fully implement its obligations under international human rights law. In particular, he urges the Government to criminalize torture in line with the Convention against Torture, to prevent the use of excessive use of force by the police, to expedite judicial proceedings, to ensure that the perpetrators of human rights violations committed during the dictatorship are brought to justice without further delay and to fully implement the National Action Plan on Fighting Domestic Violence. Moreover, the Government should undertake, without delay, a fundamental reform of the criminal justice and penitentiary systems aimed at the rehabilitation and a better reintegration of offenders into society, introducing and strengthening, inter alia, non-custodial measures of punishment, and continue its efforts to improve the conditions of detention. The Special Rapporteur also urges the closure of prisons with inhuman conditions of detention; particularly “Las Latas” of Libertad Penitentiary and Modules 2–4 of COMCAR. The Special Rapporteur calls upon the international community to assist the Government of Uruguay in its fight against torture and ill-treatment by providing financial and technical support. The Special Rapporteur welcomes Uruguay’s ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and the recent adoption of a law establishing a National Human Rights Commission, including a national mechanism for the prevention of torture. On the basis of discussions with public officials, judges, lawyers and representatives of civil society, interviews with victims of violence and with persons deprived of their liberty, often supported by forensic medical evidence, the Special Rapporteur found few reports of torture. However, he received frequent allegations of ill-treatment in several detention facilities.

Details: Geneva: United Nations General Assembly, 2009. 52p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2010 at: http://www.crin.org/docs/Nowak_Uruguay_en.pdf

Year: 2009

Country: Uruguay

URL: http://www.crin.org/docs/Nowak_Uruguay_en.pdf

Shelf Number: 117591

Keywords:
Detention
Prisons (Uruguay)
Punishment
Torture

Author: Thomson, Nick

Title: Detention as Treatment: Detention of Methamphetamine Users in Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand

Summary: This report examines the establishment and operation of centers to detain and “treat” methamphetamine users in Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos. It documents the increasing number of such compulsory drug treatment/detention centers (CDTDCs), examines the policies and practices that force people into them, and explores the implications for individual health, public health, and human rights. This approach to treating methamphetamine use is implemented without evidence of effectiveness, and it places people in environments where their basic health needs are unmet and abuse is pervasive. The core issue identified in this report is the use of law enforcement approaches to address health issues. Though drug policies in Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos have been amended in recent years to recognize that drug dependence is a health issue, the public security sectors in these three countries tend to trump the smaller and weaker health sectors. Illicit drug use remains a violation of criminal law in these countries, and people who use drugs are treated as criminals. CDTDCs are generally run by police or military personnel. Drug users are often detained using administrative rules rather than criminal laws, and in many cases, do not see a judge or have the ability to question or appeal internment. International actors, particularly agencies of the United Nations and donor states, face a policy conflict when confronted with CDTDCs. At the same time that they advocate for evidence-based treatment, they issue grants to agencies working with these centers or to the centers themselves. The steady growth in the construction of the CDTDCs, and the lack of HIV prevention or treatment, evidence-based and effective drug treatment, or any other medical treatment, reveal the limits of the approach. While opiate users comprise the majority of those detained in CDTDCs in countries like China and Vietnam, in many countries in Southeast Asia it is methamphetamine users who are the overwhelming majority of detainees. The production, trafficking, and use of methamphetamine in Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos pose significant challenges to both the law enforcement and health service sectors. As with other problems related to illicit drugs, finding an appropriate balance between the security needs of the community and the health needs and rights of methamphetamine users should be the ultimate goal. The current approach, however, is harmful to the health and rights of individuals, and to the health of the larger community.

Details: New York: Open Society Institute, International Harm Reduction Development Program, 2010. 81p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2011 at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/ihrd/articles_publications/publications/detention-as-treatment-20100301/Detention-as-Treatment-20100301.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: Asia

URL: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/ihrd/articles_publications/publications/detention-as-treatment-20100301/Detention-as-Treatment-20100301.pdf

Shelf Number: 121474

Keywords:
Detention
Drug Abuse and Addition (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand)
Drug Abuse Policy
Drug Abuse Treatment
Drug Offenders
Human Rights

Author: Open Society Foundations, International Harm Reduction Development Program

Title: Treated With Cruelty: Abuses in the Name of Drug Rehabilitation

Summary: More and more people who use drugs each year are locked away in the name of drug rehabilitation without any real access to medical care or legal recourse. Drug users rarely enter such detention centers voluntarily, and even if they do, they nearly never are allowed to leave at their will. Detention centers rely on physical abuse, shackles, solitary confinement, and other indignities to “treat” drug addiction and extract labor from the detainees. Moreover, they are often overseen by government authorities, with private business exploiting the forced labor inside. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of people quickly return to drug use once they are released from these centers. Treated with Cruelty: Abuses in the Name of Rehabilitation provides first-person testimonies of drug users who have been detained in such centers located in China, Cambodia, Mexico, and Russia. Tied to these harrowing stories are human rights commentaries, which offer an in-depth review of the international standards in health and human rights that are being denied to the men and women who are locked away.

Details: New York: Soros Society Foundations, 2011. 44p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/ihrd/articles_publications/publications/treated-with-cruelty-20110624

Year: 2011

Country: International

URL: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/ihrd/articles_publications/publications/treated-with-cruelty-20110624

Shelf Number: 121870

Keywords:
Detention
Drug Abuse Treatment
Drug Offenders
Human Rights

Author: Elliott, Richard

Title: Treatment or Torture? Applying International Human Rights Standards to Drug Detention Centers

Summary: More and more people who use drugs each year are locked away in the name of drug rehabilitation without any real access to medical care or legal recourse. Drug users rarely enter such detention centers voluntarily, and even if they do, they nearly never are allowed to leave at their will. Detention centers rely on physical abuse, shackles, solitary confinement, and other indignities to “treat” drug addiction and extract labor from the detainees. Moreover, they are often overseen by government authorities, with private business exploiting the forced labor inside. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of people quickly return to drug use once they are released from these centers. Treatment or Torture? Applying International Human Rights Standards to Drug Detention Centers makes the case that abuses in these facilities constitute torture or cruel, degrading, and inhuman treatment. This comprehensive analysis relies on frameworks to suggest governments must take action to close these facilities or risk not meeting their international obligations. It will prove invaluable to anyone bringing cases of torture in drug detention to international, regional, or domestic bodies charged with preventing or prosecuting torture.

Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2011. 72p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/ihrd/articles_publications/publications/treatment-or-torture-20110624/treatment-or-torture-20110624.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: International

URL: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/ihrd/articles_publications/publications/treatment-or-torture-20110624/treatment-or-torture-20110624.pdf

Shelf Number: 121871

Keywords:
Detention
Drug Abuse Treatment
Drug Offenders
Human Rights

Author: Gogia, Giorgi

Title: Administrative Error: Georgia’s Flawed System for Administrative Detention

Summary: Georgian authorities have used the Code of Administrative Offenses in recent years to lock up protestors and activists at times of political tension. The code allows for a person to be imprisoned for up to 90 days for certain administrative offenses, or misdemeanors. However, as this report describes, the code lacks due process and fair trial protections required for punishment of this severity. It does not explicitly require that police promptly inform defendants of their rights or give reasons for their detention. Detainees are often not allowed to contact their families, and if retained, lawyers often have difficulties in finding detainees in custody. Nor do detainees enjoy fair trial rights in court. Trials are often perfunctory, rarely last more than 15 minutes, and judicial decisions often rely exclusively on police testimonies. If lawyers are present, they lack time to prepare an effective defense. Lawyers and their clients also face obstacles exercising the right to appeal. Those handed terms of administrative imprisonment serve sentences in temporary detention isolators not intended for long-term occupancy, where conditions often fall short of international standards. As a party to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, Georgia should ensure full due process protections for administrative defendants, particularly with regard to the right to notify a third party about detention, the right to lawyer of one’s choosing, and the right to a fair trial.

Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2012. 43p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/georgia0112ForUpload.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: Georgia

URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/georgia0112ForUpload.pdf

Shelf Number: 123550

Keywords:
Administrative Detention (Georgia)
Courts
Detention
Human Rights
Misdemeanors
Punishment
Trials

Author:

Title: Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Summary: This report presents the results of our review of DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program for detaining and removing illegal aliens1 apprehended in the United States and at ports of entry. The program is administered through ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal (DRO). The objective of our review was to determine the extent to which DRO is performing its mission to remove all illegal aliens who are removable, including those that pose a potential national security or public safety threat to the U.S. Currently, DRO is unable to ensure the departure from the U.S. of all removable aliens. Of the 774,112 illegal aliens apprehended during the past three years, 280,987 (36%) were released largely due to a lack of personnel, bed space, and funding needed to detain illegal aliens while their immigration status is being adjudicated. This presents significant risks due to the inability of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and ICE to verify the identity, country-oforigin, and terrorist or criminal affiliation of many of the aliens being released. Further, the declining personnel and bed space level is occurring when the number of illegal aliens apprehended is increasing. For example, the number of illegal aliens apprehended increased from 231,077 in FY 2002 to 275,680 in FY 2004, a 19 percent increase. However, during the same period, authorized personnel and funded bed space levels declined by 3 percent and 6 percent, respectively. These shortfalls encourage illegal immigration by increasing the likelihood that apprehended aliens will be released while their immigration status is adjudicated. Further, historical trends indicate that 62 percent of the aliens released will eventually be issued final orders of removal by the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) and later fail to surrender for removal or abscond. Although DRO has received additional funding to enhance its Fugitive Operations Program, it is unlikely that many of the released aliens will ever be removed. As of December 30, 2005, there were more than 544,000 released aliens with final orders of removal who have absconded. Declining bed space and personnel levels are also making it difficult for ICE/DRO to detain and remove illegal aliens that are from countries other than Mexico (OTM) including aliens from countries whose governments support state sponsored terrorism (SST) or who promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations and their members (SIC). Of the 605,210 OTMs apprehended between FY 2001 and the first six months of FY 2005, 309,733 were released of which 45,008 (15%) purportedly originated from SST and SIC countries. DRO estimates that in FY 2007 there will be 605,000 foreign-born individuals admitted to state correctional facilities and local jails during the year for committing crimes in the U.S. Of this number, DRO estimates half (302,500) will be removable aliens. Most of these incarcerated aliens are being released into the U.S. at the conclusion of their respective sentences because DRO does not have the resources to identify, detain, and remove these aliens under its Criminal Alien Program (CAP). It is estimated that DRO would need an additional 34,653 detention beds, at an estimated cost of $1.1 billion, to detain and remove all SST, SIC, and CAP aliens. Additionally, DRO’s ability to detain and remove illegal aliens with final orders of removal is impacted by (1) the propensity of illegal aliens to disobey orders to appear in immigration court; (2) the penchant of released illegal aliens with final orders to abscond; (3) the practice of some countries to block or inhibit the repatriation of its citizens; and (4) two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions which mandate the release of criminal and other high-risk aliens 180 days after the issuance of the final removal order except in “Special Circumstances.” Collectively, the bed space, personnel and funding shortages coupled with the other factors, has created an unofficial “mini-amnesty” program for criminal and other high-risk aliens. DRO’s goal is to develop the capacity to remove all removable aliens, and it has developed a strategic plan covering 2003-2012 entitled “Endgame,” to accomplish that goal. However, the plan identifies several significant challenges beyond its control, including the need for sufficient resources, political will, and the cooperation of foreign governments. Current resources, including those included in the FY 2006 Appropriations Act and the Administration’s FY 2007 budget request, are not sufficient to detain all high-risk aliens, including those from SST and SIC countries. We are recommending that the Assistant Secretary (ICE) develop a plan to provide ICE with the capacity to: (1) detain and remove high-risk aliens; (2) intensify its efforts to develop alternatives to detention; and (3) resolve with the State Department issues that are preventing or impeding the repatriation of illegal OTMs. Also, we are recommending that DRO expedite its efforts to implement a data management system that is capable of meeting its expanding data collection and analysis needs relating to the detention and removal of illegal aliens. Such a system would significantly enhance DRO’s ability to support future budget requests, identify emerging trends, and assess its overall mission performance.

Details: Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2006. 52p.

Source: Office of Audits Report OIG-06-33: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2012 at http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_06-33_Apr06.pdf

Year: 2006

Country: United States

URL: http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_06-33_Apr06.pdf

Shelf Number: 124081

Keywords:
Criminal Aliens (U.S.)
Deportation
Detention
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Immigrations
Immigrants

Author: Fair Trials International

Title: A Measure of Last Resort? The practice of pre-trial detention decision making in the EU

Summary: 1. Pre-trial detention (depriving suspects and accused people of their liberty before the conclusion of a criminal case) is intended to be an exceptional measure, only to be used as necessary and proportionate and in compliance with the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. Its use is only acceptable as a measure of last resort, in very limited circumstances. Unfortunately, in the EU as around the world, these strict limitations are not always respected. 2. The EU is facing a long-standing crisis in prison overcrowding that threatens to undermine mutual trust and the functioning and legality of mutual recognition instruments like the European Arrest Warrant. Overcrowding, and the rights violations it causes, is driven in part by excessive use of pre-trial detention, in contravention of regional and international standards. The European Commission and Parliament have, for the past five years, repeatedly recognised the need for improved standards of pre-trial detention. Recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union have again pushed the need for regional legislation to the fore. 3. Given the concern expressed about excessive use of pre-trial detention in the EU, there is a surprising lack of information on the practical operation of procedural rules designed to ensure that detention is only used when strictly legal and necessary. In order to gain a realistic view of problems in practice on which to develop targeted national and regional solutions, Fair Trials has coordinated research in ten EU Member States (England and Wales, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Spain) to analyse the practice of pre-trial detention decision-making and the use of alternatives to detention. The research consisted of legal and statistical analysis, hearing monitoring, case-file reviews, a survey of defence lawyers, and qualitative interviews with prosecutors and judges, resulting in detailed reports. This report provides a high-level overview of the research and analysis from an EU regional perspective..."

Details: London: Fair Trials, 2016. 84p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Measure-of-Last-Resort-Full-Version.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Europe

URL: https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Measure-of-Last-Resort-Full-Version.pdf

Shelf Number: 144813

Keywords:
Detention
Human Rights Abuses
Imprisonment
Pretrial Detention

Author: Muntingh, Lukas

Title: Arrested in Africa: An Exploration of the Issues

Summary: Recent research and advocacy efforts have drawn attention to the excessive use of and prolonged pre-trial detention in Africa. At any given moment there are roughly 1 million people in Africa's prisons. Far more move through prisons each year. Their stay in prison, regardless of duration, starts with being arrested. Substantially more people are arrested than those who end up in prison for pre-trial detention. Pre-trial detention figures are thus a poor indicator of contact with the criminal justice system. The purpose of arrest and subsequent detention of a suspect is essentially to ensure the attendance of the person in court or for another just cause. The police's powers of arrest are, in theory, curtailed to the extent that the arresting officer must be able to provide reasons for the arrest and continued police detention. Police officials have considerable discretion in executing arrests, especially when arresting without a warrant. This exploratory report focuses on arresting without a warrant and starts off with setting out the legal requirements in this regard by way of a case study. In order to understand current arrest practices, the report provides a brief description of the history of policing in Africa and concludes that much of what was established by the colonial powers has remained intact, emphasising high arrest rates, a social disciplinarian mode of policing, supported by myriad petty offences that justify arrest without a warrant. This combination enables widespread corruption and results in negative perceptions of the police. The report further argues that given the wide discretionary powers of the police to arrest without a warrant, it follows that not all people are at an equal risk of arrest, but rather that it is the poor, powerless and out-groups that are at a higher risk of arrest based on non-judicial factors. The report concludes with a number of recommendations calling for further research, decriminalisation of certain offences and restructuring of the police in African countries.

Details: South Africa: Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, 2015. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2017 at: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Arrested%20in%20Africa%202.pdf/view

Year: 2015

Country: Africa

URL: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Arrested%20in%20Africa%202.pdf/view

Shelf Number: 146606

Keywords:
Arrests and Apprehensions
Detention
Pretrial Detention

Author: Roehm, Scott

Title: Deprivation and Despair: The Crisis of Medical Care at Guantanamo

Summary: From the inception more than 17 years ago of the Guantanamo Bay detention center located on the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, senior detention facility personnel have consistently lauded the quality of medical care provided to detainees there. For example, in 2005, Joint Task Force (JTF) Guantanamo's then-commander said the care was "as good as or better than anything we would offer our own soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines." In 2011, a Navy nurse and then deputy command surgeon for JTF Guantanamo made a similar claim: "The standard of care here is the best possible standard of care (the detainees) could get." In late 2017, Guantanamo's senior medical officer again echoed those sentiments: "Detainees receive timely, compassionate, quality healthcare...(which is)...comparable to that afforded our active duty service members on island." There have been many more such assertions in the intervening years and since. Following an in-depth review of publicly available information related to medical care at Guantanamo - both past and present - as well as consultations with independent civilian medical experts and detainees' lawyers, the Center for Victims of Torture and Physicians for Human Rights have determined that none of those assertions is accurate. To the contrary, notwithstanding Guantanamo's general inaccessibility to independent civilian medical professionals, over the years a handful of them have managed to access detainees, review medical records, and interface with Guantanamo's medical care system to a degree sufficient to document a host of systemic and longstanding deficiencies in care. These include: - Medical needs are subordinated to security functions. For example, prosecutors in a military commission case told the judge explicitly that the commander of Guantanamo's detention operations is free to disregard recommendations of Guantanamo's senior medical officer. - Detainees' medical records are devoid of physical and psychological trauma histories. This is largely a function of medical professionals' inability or unwillingness to ask detainees about torture or other traumatic experiences during their time in the CIA's rendition, detention, and interrogation program, or otherwise with respect to interrogations by U.S. forces - which has led to misdiagnoses and improper treatment. -In large part due to a history of medical complicity in torture, many detainees distrust military medical professionals which has led repeatedly to detainees reasonably refusing care that they need. Guantanamo officials withhold from detainees their own medical records, including through improper classification. -Both expertise and equipment are increasingly insufficient to address detainees' health needs. For example, a military cardiologist concluded that an obese detainee required testing for coronary artery disease, but that Guantanamo did not have the "means to test" him, and so the testing was not performed. With regard to mental health, effective torture rehabilitation services are not, and cannot be made, available at Guantanamo. - Detainees have been subjected to neglect. One detainee urgently required surgery for a condition he disclosed to Guantanamo medical personnel in 2007 - and they diagnosed independently in 2010 - but he did not receive surgery until 2018 and appears permanently damaged as a result. - Military medical professionals rotate rapidly in and out of Guantanamo, which has caused discontinuity of care. For example, one detainee recently had three primary care physicians in the course of three months. - Detainees' access to medical care and, in some cases, their exposure to medical harm, turn substantially on their involvement in litigation. For example, it appears extremely difficult, if not impossible, for detainees who are not in active litigation to access independent civilian medical professionals, and for those who are to address a medical need that is not related to the litigation. For detainees charged before the military commissions, prosecution interests have superseded medical interests, as with a detainee who was forced to attend court proceedings on a gurney writhing in pain while recovering from surgery. These deficiencies are exacerbated by - and in some cases a direct result of - the damage that the men have endured, and continue to endure, from torture and prolonged indefinite detention. It is long past time that the medical care deficiencies this report describes were acknowledged and addressed. Systemic change is necessary; these are not problems that well- intentioned military medical professionals - of which no doubt there are many, working now in an untenable environment - can resolve absent structural, operational, and cultural reform. Nor, in many respects, are they problems that can be fully resolved as long as the detention facility remains open. Guantanamo should be closed. Unless and until that happens, the Center for Victims of Torture and Physicians for Human Rights call upon Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judiciary to adopt a series of recommendations aimed at meaningfully improving the status quo. These include, but are not limited to: lifting the legal ban on transferring detainees to the United States and mandating such transfers when detainees present with medical conditions that cannot be adequately evaluated and treated at Guantanamo; ensuring detainees have timely access to all of their medical records upon request while otherwise maintaining confidentiality of those records (especially with regard to access by prosecutors); and allowing meaningful and regular access to Guantanamo by civilian medical experts, including permitting such experts to evaluate detainees in an appropriate setting. If the United States declines to take the steps this report recommends, complex medical conditions that cannot be managed at Guantanamo should be expected to accelerate in frequency and escalate in severity.

Details: New York: Physicians for Human Rights and The Center for Victims of Torture, 2019. 58p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2019 at: https://phr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/PHR_CVT-Guantanamo-medical-crisis-report-June-2019-1.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: United States

URL: https://phr.org/our-work/resources/deprivation-and-despair/

Shelf Number: 156815

Keywords:
Detainee
Detention
Guantanamo
Human Rights Abuses
Medical Care
Prison Condition
Prisoners
Torture