Management of Remand Detainees in South Africa - DCS-Home

More documents

Recommendations

Info

accusation that is made. As mentioned above in 2.2.7, international standards demand that the detainee should be entitled to seek the help of a lawyer in challenging the legality of detention before a court. All countries allow the detainee the right to legal counsel. 2.2.9. The Right to Notify Others This is another essential safeguard against the risk of abuse related to pre-trial detention. The detainee is entitled to notify significant others “with undue delay” after his/her arrest or detention. In addition, International Standards stipulate that the detainee‟s physical and mental condition should be carefully recorded whilst detained. Through notifying significant others, the pre-trial detainee can maintain sufficient contact with the outside world through visits from family (spouses, children, etc) and written and telephonic correspondence. In most countries, the right to notify others is upheld. Notification can only be delayed on request of the arrested person. However, the right to notify others can be restricted by the prosecuting authority when it is deemed to be detrimental to the investigation as practiced by Norway, Finland, the Russian Federation, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Germany and Iceland. 2.2.10. The Right to not be tortured International Instruments provide detailed standards for the regime and conditions of pre-trial detention. Due to there being on-going investigations regarding the pre-trail detainee, there is a group that may be particularly vulnerable to ill treatment, cruelty and torture. In this regard, the interrogation of pre-trial detainees is guided by international standards and complaints about torture and cruelty are required to be investigated “promptly and properly”. Furthermore, no statement given as a result of torture can be used as evidence in any court proceeding, except against a person that was accused of torture. In 2002, the U.N. Committee Against Torture voiced concern about detention under conditions resembling isolation in Norway as well as in Sweden for excessive use of force by police officers and prison guards. In a Country Report on Human Rights Practices released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour in March 2006, it was noted that the South African government generally respects the human rights of its citizens. However, government, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and local media reported the following serious human rights violations with respect to RDs: Lengthy delays in trials and prolonged pre-trial detention; Use of excessive force by the police against suspects and detainees, which often results in deaths and/or injuries; and Abuse, (including beatings and rape) of prisoners and severe overcrowding in prisons. 30
The human rights violations mentioned above must be borne in mind when devising policy for the management of RDs in South Africa. Despite awareness and acknowledgement of the above mentioned principles and rights related to RDs, major challenges are experienced in seeking to address them in practice. 2.3. Governance Models in the Management of RDs The following five governance models related to the management of RDs are mentioned in the literature. 2.3.1. Management by the Ministry or Department of Correctional Services This model has the Department or Ministry of Corrections as primarily responsible for the detention and management of RDs. This governance model is currently the preferred and most commonly used model internationally. 2.3.2. RDs jointly managed by the Investigating Authority and Correctional Department Combined governance is another common approach whereby responsibility is shared between the Investigating Authority and the Department or Ministry of Correctional Services. The investigating authority is responsible for initial detention, transportation of the detainee from court to the correctional facility and thereafter all transportation for court appearances. 2.3.3. RDs managed by other Departments. In Russia, Kazakhstan and Armenia for example, the Ministry of Interior is still in charge of some 10% of the remand detention centres. In China the procuratorate is responsible for the entire management of remand detainees and in Canada the Department of Justice is responsible for the management of RDs. 2.3.4 RDs managed by Local Government. This governance model is mostly evident in the United Stated of America where each County has its own jail managed by the elected County Sheriff. Some counties combine together to manage a regional county jail. This is also prevalent in Denmark. 2.3.5. Participation at various levels of the Criminal Justice System A successful approach to the management of RDs has to focus on all levels within the criminal justice system in order for long term change to be effected. The Investigating Authority, the Judiciary, Correctional Services, other relevant Governmental Departments (such as DSD, DHA etc.) and relevant independent supervisory/regulatory bodies all have unique roles to play in order to reach a collaborative, integrated approach to the management of RDs. 31
Page 1 and 2: Discussion Document on Management o
Page 3 and 4: The National Development Committee
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents Preamble 10 CHAPT
Page 7 and 8: 4.2.1 General inmate population 57
Page 9 and 10: 9.4.3 The safeguards for children i
Page 11 and 12: warrants, bail options, and so on.
Page 13 and 14: The White Paper further articulated
Page 15 and 16: A crime is committed Integration in
Page 17 and 18: Multiple number of co-accused in on
Page 19 and 20: 200000 180000 160000 140000 120000
Page 21 and 22: Limited access for legal consultati
Page 23 and 24: 1.5. Cluster Approaches In order to
Page 25 and 26: CHAPTER 2: International Trends 2.1
Page 27 and 28: 2.2.1. Guarantee of Personal Libert
Page 29: detention must be made by an author
Page 33 and 34: The above mentioned services will b
Page 35 and 36: Table 2.2 Current International Bes
Page 37 and 38: e prioritised and addressed. Partic
Page 39 and 40: made available for focus to be cast
Page 41 and 42: CHAPTER 3: Legal Framework 3.1. Int
Page 43 and 44: d. to have their trial begin and co
Page 45 and 46: In other words, there should be no
Page 47 and 48: CHAPTER V: UNSENTENCED PRISONERS (s
Page 49 and 50: 3.3.1. The Universal Declaration of
Page 51 and 52: 3.3.3. The African Charter on Human
Page 53 and 54: prisoners; the rights and obligatio
Page 55 and 56: Comments made by The Honourable Jud
Page 57 and 58: 4.2. Overview of RD Population in D
Page 59 and 60: 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000
Page 61 and 62: of RDs. The figures on crimes that
Page 63 and 64: Less than 3 months >3 - 6 Months >6
Page 65 and 66: The figure below represents the ave
Page 67 and 68: 1200 1000 multiple crimes are not r
Page 69 and 70: 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 April 2
Page 71 and 72: Nationality April 2009 June 2009 Se
Page 73 and 74: The number of Admissions and releas
Page 75 and 76: There are 11 privately managed SCFs
Page 77 and 78: SCFs in Eastern Cape and Northern P
Page 79 and 80: DCS admits approximately 20 and 26
Page 81 and 82:
etween the Provinces including dire
Page 83 and 84:
esponsibility for both RDs within i
Page 85 and 86:
children RDs are detained without a
Page 87 and 88:
include health care, education, art
Page 89 and 90:
arrested, regardless of citizenship
Page 91 and 92:
o The use of mainstream curriculum
Page 93 and 94:
6.1. Introduction This chapter prov
Page 95 and 96:
25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 6000
Page 97 and 98:
The top ten facilities with the hig
Page 99 and 100:
Umtata Med (580) Boksburg (2012) Mo
Page 101 and 102:
There are 11 private secure facilit
Page 103 and 104:
medical officer to ascertain age an
Page 105 and 106:
The security responsibilities in DC
Page 107 and 108:
information is not provided to the
Page 109 and 110:
The current identification process
Page 111 and 112:
unning in Gauteng when the situatio
Page 113 and 114:
The facilities that fall under phas
Page 115 and 116:
For the Department of Justice and C
Page 117 and 118:
CHAPTER 8: Monitoring/Oversight 8.1
Page 119 and 120:
The Commissioner must include in th
Page 121 and 122:
longer justifiable for any person t
Page 123 and 124:
Inadequate systems for monitoring i
Page 125 and 126:
9.4 Challenges and Recommendations
Page 127 and 128:
emand detainees who cease to be so
Page 129 and 130:
Limited information obtained from D
Page 131 and 132:
o Lack of guidance through policy w
Page 133 and 134:
o Provisions for illiterate RDs who
Page 135 and 136:
Children RDs should be detained in
Page 137 and 138:
A strategy for determination of hig
Page 139 and 140:
A system of providing feedback to t
Page 141 and 142:
9.9 Issues and Recommendations on O
Page 143 and 144:
CONTRABANDS CONFISCATED IN PRETORIA
Page 145 and 146:
145
show all

Management of Remand Detainees in South Africa - DCS-Home

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?