THE EUROPEAN PRISON STANDARDS – BULGARIAN PERSPECTIVE

Introduction

By way of a foreword, speaking about the European prison standards and their Bulgarian perspective, Bulgarian legislation offers a detailed regulation of the places of imprisonment and the regimes for execution of penalties, of the rights of those deprived of their liberty, the possible limitations thereof and the ways in which they are imposed.

The review of the regulatory framework and the practical situation of the penitentiary system, however, show difficulties and lack of consistency in implementing the legislative provisions and a number of other weaknesses and incongruities between the legislation and the practice.

The main problems of the Bulgarian penitentiary system are the outworn facilities, the over-population of the places of imprisonment and hence the problems in ensuring adequate living conditions, the low staffing rates, the insufficient medical care, education and prisoners’ involvement in meaningful activity, etc.Many of those problems are a consequence of insufficient financial resources,[1] which, however, puts Bulgarian authorities in difficulty when assessing their compliance with one of the basic principles of the European Prison Rules of 2006, contained in Rule 4 and stipulating that prison conditions that infringe prisoners’ human rights are not justified by lack of resources. Those problems will be looked at in the following paragraphs, in accordance withthe structure, introduced in the reports of CPT and various other institutions, monitoring the situation in prisons.

I. Prisoners and Staff

1. Number of inmates

There are a total of 13 prisons, functioning in Bulgaria, eight of which are for repeat offenders, three for first-time offenders, one for women and one for juveniles (boys). The prisons have a total of 23 dormitory facilities of open, transitory and closed type.

Over the last two years, the total number of inmates in Bulgarian prisons has been going down. As of 1 January 2008, there were a total of 10,271 inmates, which marks more than 7% reduction over 1 January 2007. For a second year, there was also a drop in the number of remand prisoners (accused and defendants), which resulted in an overall decrease of the over-population in the prisons (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Inmates in Bulgarian prisons (1989-2008)

Source: Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Bulgaria.

A similar trend is observed in the number of prisoners per 100,000 of the population, although these figures still remain high compared to the last decade (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Number of prisoners per 100,000 of the population in Bulgaria (1989-2008)

Source: Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Bulgaria.

2. Overcrowding

Despite thetrend of decreasing the prison population overcrowding remains a major problem for most Bulgarian prisons and an infringement of, inter alia, Rule 18.1of the European Prison Rules, stating that “the accommodation provided for prisoners… shall respect human dignity… due regard being paid to … floor space, cubic content of air, lighting, heating and ventilation” and Rule 18.4, imposing upon national law to provide mechanisms for ensuring that the minimum requirements are not breached by the overcrowding of prisons. According to the Ministry of Justice, at present in all but three of the prisons in the country the number of inmates exceeds the capacity of the prison (Table 1). In most of the prisons the living space for one individual is about 2 sq. m. (far below the standard of 4-6 sq. m.), very often inmates are accommodated in double-bunk and triple-bunk beds, most cells lack separate sanitary facilities, in many places there is no sufficient inflow of fresh air and sunlight.

Table 1: Prison capacity in use (as of 1 January 2008)

Prison / Capacity / In-mates / Capacity in use (%)
Belene / 580 / 533 / 91.9
Bobov Dol / 671 / 523 / 77.9
Burgas / 495 / 885 / 178.8
Varna / 536 / 880 / 164.2
Vratsa / 527 / 670 / 127.1
Lovech / 623 / 1104 / 177.2
Pazardzhik / 622 / 871 / 140
Pleven / 405 / 733 / 181
Plovdiv / 643 / 1113 / 173.1
Sliven / 340 / 372 / 109.4
Sofia / 1588 / 2238 / 140.9
Stara Zagora / 593 / 953 / 160.7
Boychinovtsi / 300 / 84 / 28
Total / 7,923 / 10,959 / 138.3

Source: Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Bulgaria.

Only in the women’s prison in Sliven and in the juvenile reformatory in Boychinovtsi the international standards are complied with, mainly due to the specific category of persons, placed there.

As admitted by the Ministry of Justice, for a long period of time the problem of overcrowding in prisons has been addressed through short-term or temporary measures: reorganization or temporary adjustment of the existing premises, conditional release (release on parole) or relocation of prisoners from the main buildings to transitory dormitories, etc. In late 2006 – early 2007, the Ministry of Justice launched an initiative to submit to the National Assembly a proposal for an amnesty for some of the inmates on the occasion of Bulgaria's accession to the EU. Such a measure would have relieved to some extent the situation with overcrowding but was put on hold by the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights.[2] Even the introduction of probation as a punishment without deprivation of liberty did not result in the expected substantial decrease in the number of prisoners with short-term sentences. The problem may become even more serious in view of the ongoing public debates on the need to broaden the scope of application of imprisonment and/or increase its duration for certain types of criminal offences.

The CPT Report 2008[3]also paid special attention on the issue of overcrowding pointing out that the size of prison population threatened to undermine efforts to improve prisons. According to the CPT the measures undertaken by the government before the visit of the CPT (increased use of probation, conditional release, transfer of prisoners to less closed conditions, etc.) had so far not made an impact on the prison population and the only viable way to control overcrowding and achieve the standard of 6 sq. m. of living space per prisonerwas to adopt policies designed to limit or modulate the number of persons sent to prison, including a strategy covering both admission to and release from prison to ensure that imprisonment really is the ultimate remedy.

Following the CPT visit the government continued to implement measures to reduce overpopulation, this time focusing on the building of new dormitories and repairing the existing ones (including creation of new sections for newly-arrived inmates in all prisons). The ongoing implementation of the long term strategy of the Ministry of Justice is expected to increase the capacity of existing prisons by about 1,000 places, make the system more cost effective, save financial resources, and allow for a more effective use of the available prison staff. However, according to estimates of the Ministry of Justice, the problems of overcrowding, poor living conditions and lack of compliance with international standards could hardly be solved without the opening of at least two more prisons – one in the Eastern, and one in the Western part of the country. The preliminary plans of the Ministry of Justice envisage that one new prison will be built by the end of 2008 and another one in 2010, both projects to be implemented through public-private partnerships thus allowing for investments by private partners.[4]Measures aimed at decreasing overpopulation are also provided for in the new Draft Law on the Execution of Penalties, developed by the Ministry of Justice, which determines the minimum personal space per prisoner. Additional legal provisions on all other living conditions of prisoners are to be incorporated in the secondary legislation on the implementation of the law.

3. Management and staff, staff-prisoner relations

According to a report of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Bulgaria[5]the number of staff and social inspectors in the prisons is insufficient and there are vacancies in some of the prisons, while the recently introduced cumbersome competition procedure is a further obstacle for attracting energetic and competent staff members. The overall tendency for reduction of administrative personnel in Bulgaria results in further shortages. Centralized training and qualification courses for the prison administration are lacking.

To improve the situation the Ombudsman offered two recommendations regarding prison staff. One is that the Ministry of Justice, together with the Ministry of Interior and the Supreme Judicial Council, should discuss the possibilities for expedited development of a unified database system, which would facilitate the administrative work and increase the effectiveness of prison administration, police departments, probation offices and the judiciary. The other one is that the Ministry of Justice should update, expand and increase the qualification and re-qualification programs for penitentiary officers.

The CPT Report 2008 also notes that staffing levels are low and the shift pattern requires some staff members to work 24 hours at a time, which could easily result in high levels of stress in staff and burnout and to exacerbate the tension inherent in any prison establishment.It is also emphasized that the combination of the low staffing levels and the shift system, coupled with severe overcrowding, could easily compromise the safety of staff and prisoners alike.

In this context, the CPTreminds that ensuring positive staff-inmate relations would depend greatly on having an adequate number of staff present at any given time in detention areas and in facilities used by prisoners for activities. The CPT recommends that it is necessary for management to exercise professional oversight over staff-prisoner relations and encourage dynamic security, whilst discouraging corruption.

Recent measures, undertaken by the Ministry of Justice to improve the oversight over staff-prisoner relations and encourage dynamic security include holding of systematic meetings between the prison management and the official teams, regular training events and courses, performance evaluations and surveys of staff, etc.

Regarding technical equipment of facilities and staff, there is a shortage of surveillance cameras and lack of metal detectors and technical means for protection and prevention.

The situation with the staff in Bulgarian prisons seems to deviate from the section in the European Prison Rules, concerning prison staff, and especially from Rules 76 and 79.1 requiring proper training of all prison staff and adequate salaries to attract and retain suitable staff members.

II. Material Conditions

According to Bulgarian legislation, the places of imprisonment must satisfy certain security and health requirements and must have the requisite premises for accommodation, association, physical welfare and other purposes. However, as established by the Annual report of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee for 2006, Bulgarian legislation does not provide for mandatory standards for the living conditions and living space in the prison cells, which presents a breach of the requirements of the European Prison Rules of 2006.

1. Buildings and facilities

1.1. Buildings

According to the Ombudsman Report 2007, the material conditions in the prisons inspected are outworn and do not meet the requirements of Bulgarian and international norms and standards. The prison facilities are within the respective areas’ regulation borders, which makes the expansion of their territory difficult or even impossible.

The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee[6] confirms the findings of the Ombudsman and emphasizes upon the fact that, despite the positive tendency of reduction of the total number of inmates, Bulgarian prisons remain old and obsolete (most of them dating from the 1920s and the 1930s), and the funds allocated for their renovation are still insufficient. Even after Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, no penal sanctions implementation strategy is developed that could result in improved conditions in prisons. In 2007 the Ministry of Justice and the Central Penitentiary Administration tried to motivate the government to allocate funds for construction or at least for renovation of the country's prisons and various investment projects were announced publicly, but the lack of clarity on the future of the specific prisons demotivated them all. Nevertheless, several prisons announced public tenders for reconstruction of premises, construction of stand-alone lavatories in cells, construction of sewers, meeting rooms and premises for visitors.

The CPT Report 2008 finds access to natural light in the visited prisons (the ones in Sofia and Sliven) generally good, except for the cells in the basement of the Sofia Prison, whose use was later discontinued. Overall ventilation and access to artificial light are also deemed good except for some central cuts in the electricity in the Sofia prison and intermittent electrical supply in Sliven.

The conditions of detention in Bulgaria have been a recurring subject in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the country. The Court’s conclusions about prisons build upon those about the other detention facilities and often concern periods in the distant past, but they are indicative of some of the problems, which continue to plague Bulgarian prisons even nowadays.

Regarding the period 1991 - 1998, in the case Staykov v. Bulgaria[7] complaints were made about overcrowding, poor sanitary facilities, and lack of warm water and of outdoor walk/exercise in the Varna Prison. As a result of these, the applicant suffered from depression and neurosis, and contracted tuberculosis. The Court found the material conditions and the level of occupancy in the prison cell very unsatisfactory, criticized the prison authorities’ strategy against tuberculosis and ultimately found that, “seen against the background of the inordinate length of the applicant's deprivation of liberty”, “the conditions of his detention and their detrimental effect on his health amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment” (paras. 80-82). A similar conclusion was reached in a case, concerning a later period, June-July 1999.[8]In a subsequent set of cases, the Pazardzhik Prison was once found to have a fairly adequate living area and material conditions (access to light, sanitary and washing facilities), decent food, regular outdoor and out-of-cell activities and access to the outside world[9], but in another case the Court saw a link between the conditions in the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and those in the Pazardzhik Prison, where the applicant was transferred “after… more than five months at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility” and it did not take it much deliberation to find a violation of Article 3, as regards the conditions in the Pazardzhik Prison[10].

1.2. Hygiene and sanitary facilities

The BHC Report 2008, confirmed by the findings in the Ombudsman Report 2007( МОЖЕ БИ В ОБРАТЕН РЕД?), reveals that the cells in eight Bulgarian prisons do not have their own toilets. During the day, a lavatory is used by 30 to 50 inmates. During the night lockdown, the inmates in some prisons are forced to use a shared bucket, in front of their cell mates. The general condition of the sanitary facilities – lavatories, bathrooms and toilets – is deplorable, without even the most basic conditions to keep them in a good hygienic state. The lavatories in most prisons have no hot water, much less clothing washing and drying facilities.

Examples supporting the general conclusions of the Ombudsman and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee are found in CPT Report 2008, which notes that in the prison in Sofiathe low staffing levels, especially at night, resulted in failure to provide access to a toiletat night to some prisoners, whose cells did not have integral sanitation. After evening roll call the cell doors were locked for the night and there was no access to the toilets – an unacceptable practice since all prisoners should have access to toilets at all times. The situation was somewhat worse in the prison in Sliven, where there was no integral sanitation in any of the cells. During the day, prisoners could circulate around their units and access to a toilet was not a problem, but at night, low staffing levels resulted in delays or failure to provide access to toilets, and prisoners relied on buckets inside their cells. This was not acceptable, especially in view of women’s special needs. The unit sanitary facilities (showers, sinks and floor-level toilets) were somewhat dilapidated but clean. The situation in both prisons seem to be in drastic contradiction with Rule 19.3 of the European Prison Rules, stipulating thatprisoners shall have ready access to sanitary facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy.

In response to the criticism in terms of the hygiene and sanitary facilities in the prisons the government undertook several measures to improve the situation and to repair or refurbish the existing infrastructure. As regards the CPT recommendations in particular,the measures included provision of integral sanitation in sections where such have not existed before and regular provision of materials for cleaning the cells to all inmates (Sofia Prison). Where due to the lack of financial resources or personnel the respective standards were difficult to fully comply with other measures were undertaken to improve the situation. For example, in the prison in Sofia due to the lack of sufficient staffing levels during the night it is difficult to enable all prisoners to have ready access to a toilet around the clock so as a compensatory mechanism the administration has set up living quarters for inmates with health problems which are not locked at night and at the same time the living quarters with inmates with non-problematic behavior are not locked as well.