1-The bill envisages the participation of prisoners subject to the provisions of Law no. 3713 in social, cultural, educational and sports activities and in vocational training and prison work activities ONLY IN THE FRAMEWORK OF CORRECTION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMMES. In other words, participating in these activities, doing sports and maintaining social relations with other prisoners are not a right for prisoners but a possibility granted by the prison administration to prisoners in the framework of their correction and education and for as long as it serves this objective. Such an arrangement has serious drawbacks.
-
The offences in the scope of Law no. 3713 are offences committed for a political objective, with a few exceptions. The preparation of “CORRECTION” or “EDUCATION” programmes by the State for these persons who have a certain political consciousness and most of whom are educated means the imposition of certain forms of behaviour upon them. The fact that it will be allowed to benefit from certain social and cultural possibilities or to practice sports only in the framework of such programmes and for as long as it serves this objective will give a “COMPULSORY” character to participation in those programmes. Therefore, the bill does not accept the principle of “VOLUNTARINESS” for participation in the programmes, but it makes such participation a pre-condition for benefiting from the activities and social possibilities in the prison.
-
In these circumstances, what will become of prisoners who do not want to participate in the “correction and education” programmes prepared by the State? Will a prisoner who finds the programmes against his/her political philosophy be unable solely because of his/her attitude to benefit from social activities and to use the common areas, for example to do sports? If one recalls that in the past, especially in the periods of military rule, prisoners were coerced to sing anthems, to act like a soldier and to take an oath before lunch, one has to say the system envisaged in the bill will lead to major disturbances and incidents in prisons.
-
Using the common areas in the prison must be the general rule for all prisoners and must not be tied to any pre-condition. Tying the exercise of this rights to conditions that cannot be fulfilled is tantamount to not granting that right at all. Certain rules may only be envisaged in order to clarify the way in which these rights are to be used.
2-In the bill, it is envisaged that prisoners shall be grouped according to the offences they have committed, to their behaviour in the institution and to their interests and talents. However, Law no. 3713 already makes a grouping by including certain offences within its scope. Re-grouping persons who have been put in the same institution of penal execution according to a further classification of offences will create a situation that is highly open for abuse. Likewise, a grouping based on behaviour in the institution will provide the administrators of the institution with a possibility of abuse. Since there is no objective criterion, the administration will be able to offer a wide choice of sports and social activities to those whom it finds desirable and to restrict such possibilities as much as it wishes in the case of those whom it finds undesirable.
3-In the bill, it is provided that when the programmes are found to have produced results contrary to the objective, the may be ended with regard to those prisoners. Since participation in sports and other social activities is made conditional upon participation in programmes of correction and education, this means that prisoners with regard to whom such programmes have been ended will no longer be able to take part in sports and other social activities, and that they will live again in solitary confinement. Besides, who will decide whether the objective of the programme is achieved or not? How will any abuse in this respect be prevented?
4-The bill states that the duration of a programme and the number of prisoners to participate in it will depend on its character, on the security conditions and on the capabilities of the institution. Since none of these matters is tied to objective criteria, it will be subject fully to the discretion of the officials in charge of the institution concerned. These officials will be able to act as they wish and to impose any restriction they consider suitable.
5-At present, the conditions of imprisonment in F-Type Prisons constitute effectively a system of solitary confinement. Kept in one- or three-person rooms, the prisoners are prevented by physical obstacles from being together during the day. New physical spaces can and must be created in F-Types. For example, it should be possible to ameliorate the conditions of solitary confinement for prisoners who stay in 9 cells next to each other and who, in groups of 3 each, make use of three separate ventilation areas. For this purpose, the doors of their cells which lead to the corridor could be kept open during the day, or every three ventilation areas next to each other could be turned into a single ventilation area. In this way, nine people would be able to come together during the day. Practical solutions of this or similar type could be effective in ending the hunger strikes to death.
6-The second paragraph of the bill of amendment discriminates between prisoners with regard to penal execution: it subjects persons who have committed the same offence to different systems of penal execution. In addition, while it is provided that “prisoners who have served at least one third oft heir sentences in these institutions” may be transferred to other institutions of penal execution, no attention is given to the situation of prisoners who are currently serving their sentences and have spent more than 1/3 oft heir sentences in good behaviour.
CONCLUSION: In its present form, the bill makes the use by prisoners of the common areas in prisons conditional upon their acceptance to participate in programmes of “CORRECTION(!) and EDUCATION” which will be imposed upon them. Such an arrangement will not only solve the current problems but also create even greater problems in the future.
Making use of common areas and participating in sports and social activities are set out in the bill as rights which prisoners may only ”request” to exercise. Therefore, the bill creates a situation which is subject fully to the discretion and desire of the administration and open to abuse.
Even within its own logic, the bill fails to specify any objective criteria in determining either those to participate in a programme or the duration and conditions of the programme or in ending its implementation, and it leaves all these matters to the sole discretion of institution administrators. This suggests a desire to make an arrangement which is both difficult to implement and very suitable for abuse.
Making use of the common areas in prisons and participating in sports and social activities must be specified as rights for prisoners and must not be tied to any pre-condition. As far as concrete steps are concerned, they must start to be taken immediately.
Hüsnü Öndül
President