Introduction
This report addresses some of Amnesty International’s main concerns with regard to human rights protection in the Bahamas, focusing on detainees in the custody of immigration, the police or the prison service.(1)
The report is based on information derived from the visit of an Amnesty International delegation to the Bahamas in August 2002 and ongoing monitoring since that date. The delegation was accompanied by an expert in prison management and criminal justice matters, Professor Rod Morgan. Professor Morgan is currently Chief Inspector of Probation for Her Majestys Government, England and Wales. He is also an expert advisor to the Council of Europe on custodial conditions and processes. Amnesty International is indebted to Professor Morgan for his invaluable assistance throughout the visit.(2)
During its visit, the delegation visited HM Prison Fox Hill, the Carmichael Immigrant Detention Centre and several police stations in Nassau, New Providence. The delegation met with the Minister of National Security, the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Health, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of National Security and other senior officials, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Acting Superintendent of Prisons and members of his management team and with police and prison officers. Finally, the delegation also met with criminal lawyers, members of civil society and others.
The visit was conducted in a spirit of positive co-operation. Ministers, senior officials and operational commanders gave freely of their time to meet with the delegation. Access to all the operational sites the delegation requested to visit - the prison, the immigration detention centre and custodial facilities at police stations - was readily given. Copies of police procedural documentation were furnished and copies of criminal justice reports and statistics given. Ministers and operational staff talked openly about the practical difficulties and policy dilemmas they faced. The courtesy and goodwill with which the delegation was received lays a firm foundation for constructive dialogue in the future. Amnesty International takes these responses to be indicators of a genuine wish to improve aspects of Bahamian provision for persons detained on the authority of the state which, on the basis of what was seen by the delegation during its visit, continues to fall significantly below acceptable standards of custodial provision.
In the year since the organisation’s visit there have been several notable positive developments, including the publication of a report outlining a programme of planned reform for the prison service and the review of legislation concerning police powers. Amnesty International hopes that this report’s findings and recommendations will support and encourage other efforts to improve human rights within the Bahamas today.
Stop Press: As part of its ongoing dialogue with the Bahamian Government, Amnesty International sent an advance copy of the report to the authorities and invited comment. Unfortunately, the Government’s comments were not received by the organization until after the deadline for going to press had passed. Regrettably, this prevented Amnesty International from considering the comments made for inclusion in this report. However, in the interests of continuing the welcome dialogue with the authorities, and to allow those reading the report to be aware of the Government’s views on the matters raised by this publication, Amnesty International has added the Government’s letter as an appendix to the report.
The Commonwealth of The Bahamas consists of approximately 700 islands, stretching from the coast of Florida almost to the shores of Haiti. Only about 30 of the islands are inhabited, and the majority of the population is concentrated on the islands of New Providence (Nassau) and Grand Bahama (Freeport).
Key Recommendations to the Government of the Bahamas
Asylum-seekers and immigration detainees
· Codify Refugee Convention and international human rights standards into law · Immediately end arbitrary detention and introduce safeguards for detention · End use of detention for asylum-seekers save in exceptional circumstances · End ill-treatment and torture in detention · Introduce special protection for children and families · Embark on public education campaign
Prison conditions and treatment
· Tackle overcrowding through legislative, judicial and other measures · Urgently phase out the use of ‘slopping out’ · Allow all prisoners access to adequate food, water, sanitation, washing facilities, health care, clean clothing and bedding, exercise, visits and rehabilitation activities · Detain untried and convicted prisoners and children and adults separately · Improve investigation of allegations of ill-treatment and deaths in custody · Improve working conditions for prison officers and management
Policing
· Review laws and policy to ensure compliance with international human rights standards · Train police officers in procedures on use of force and firearms, arrest, detention and interrogation · Improve organisational culture in line with human rights standards · Introduce sufficient oversight and accountability to investigate alleged abuses
* Amnesty International acknowledges that many people seeking to come to the Bahamas may be economic migrants and that the country has limited economic resources. Amnesty International also acknowledges that the Bahamas has a right to maintain immigration control.
* The Government has in addition given financial assistance to Haiti and recognised the need to address the root causes of mixed flows and to establish legal routes for those seeking work in the Bahamas.
* However these welcome measures are not a substitute for the right to seek asylum. Nor should any measures taken by the Government inhibit the enjoyment by economic migrants of their fundamental human rights. "I’m afraid refugees will soon overrun the Bahamas" * Around the world, the burden of assisting refugees is borne mostly by the world's poorest nations. For example, currently Iran and Pakistan each host over a million Afghan refugees each year. * In 2002, only four persons were recommended for refugee status in the Bahamas.
REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS
Amnesty International has longstanding concerns regarding the treatment of refugees and asylum-seekers in the Bahamas. Successive administrations have failed to ensure that this vulnerable group is protected to the extent required by international law.
During its visit, the organisation discussed its concerns with the Minister of Immigration, responsible for protection of refugee rights in the Bahamas. The organisation also raised concerns with the Attorney General, Minister of National Security, Minister for Foreign Affairs and with the head of the immigration division. The organisation visited the Carmichael Immigration Detention Centre, where most asylum-seekers are detained pending determination of their claims, and spoke with staff and detainees there.
The Bahamas’ legal obligations
The principal instrument for the international protection of refugees is the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘the Refugee Convention’) and its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (‘the Protocol’). As a party to both, the Bahamas is obliged to abide by their provisions.(3) Taken together these instruments provide a critical framework for the protection of refugees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is responsible for supervising the implementation of the Refugee Convention and assisting refugees.(4)
In brief, the Refugee Convention obliges States not to return a person to a country where they have "a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."(5)
In order to meet its obligations under the Refugee Convention effectively, a state is also obliged to use a fair process to determine whether someone meets these criteria. Guidance is provided by the UNHCR and other jurisprudence on how the process should operate.
Other international human rights treaties also provide important protection for refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants. These include the UN Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, neither of which the Bahamas has ratified, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the Bahamas is a State Party.(6) Regional human rights instruments also provide protection.(7)
A background of hostility
Let us protect our country for this present generation and for generations yet unborn.
Minister for Immigration Vincent Peet, announcing the establishment of the Rapid Response Unit to tackle immigration issues in February 2003.(8)
Immigration is an issue engendering fiercely polarised debate in the Bahamas. Although there appear to be no official statistics, non-governmental organisations have documented reports of incidents of discrimination against Haitians in particular.(9) Discrimination is reported to be especially prevalent in the areas of access to education and employment opportunities.
Incidents of violence may also be aggravated by inflammatory media reporting around refugees and immigrants. Existing myths and fears around refugees in the Bahamas appear to fuel editorials and commentaries in newspapers such as the following:
"Fred was right about danger of Haitians!... Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell hit the nail on the head when he warned of the dangers of Haitianisation of our society…Get these [Haitian] misfits off our streets and into rehab institutions. Otherwise we will all eat grass like Haitian goats."(10)
"Now we have to face it that Bahamians are ugly people and a Bahamian/Haitian is even worse. (Oh God man!) … DIS WE PLACE!"(11)
Although Ministers acknowledged to Amnesty International the political instability that exists in Haiti, accurate and informed comments from those in political office about refugees are rare. Haitians and others are often portrayed purely as ‘illegal’. The extent to which the issue of immigration has become a political ‘game of numbers’ was demonstrated in February 2003 when the Minister for Immigration announced forthcoming weekly press conferences to report on the numbers of illegal immigrants apprehended, detained and repatriated.
Despite this, there have been some efforts to tackle racial discrimination in law and in practice. In 2002 the Attorney General launched a public awareness initiative to emphasise the valuable role played in Bahamian society by Haitians and other foreign nationals and to promote understanding of the reasons why many Haitians leave Haiti.(12)
The Refugee Determination Process in the Bahamas
The vast majority of arrivals are first picked up at sea, or in remote southern islands after arriving in poorly-constructed vessels, by Royal Bahamas Defence Force (RBDF) officers or the United States Coast Guard.(13) Under domestic law anybody who arrives in the Bahamas without documents must remain in detention until they are either accepted as a refugee or deported. Undocumented arrivals are thus apprehended, transferred to the control of immigration and detained at the Carmichael Immigration Detention Centre in Nassau (the capital of the Bahamas on the island of New Providence). The Minister of Immigration told Amnesty International that this model of mandatory detention without review is designed to deter and control onshore arrivals of asylum-seekers and to ensure that people are available for deportation if necessary. He informed Amnesty International that the following administrative procedures are used to determine whether asylum-seekers should be given refugee status:
1. Screening form - Immigration officers hand out initial "screening forms" to new arrivals requesting basic data including name and address. The asylum-seeker must convince frontline immigration officers through his or her responses that they are making a valid application to invoke the Bahamas' protection obligations in order to obtain an individual interview.
2. First interview - Individuals who have demonstrated possible grounds for asylum through the responses on the screening form are interviewed individually by immigration officers. Ministers stated that these interviews were in-depth and were always undertaken in conjunction with officials from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
3. Decision by Immigration Officers - Immigration officers decide on the basis of interview whether they believe the applicant meets the definition of a refugee as set out in the Refugee Convention. Their decisions are passed to the UNHCR.
4. UNHCR - The UNHCR make a recommendation on whether refugee status should be granted.
5. Decision by executive - If the UNHCR believe the applicant has shown a well-founded fear of persecution, the applicant’s case file is forwarded, via the Director of Immigration, to the Cabinet with a recommendation for positive exercise of discretion. The final decision is taken by Cabinet.
Failure to provide an adequate determination procedure
Amnesty International is concerned that the present administrative system is inadequate for the purposes of determining refugee status, placing the Bahamas in breach of its international legal obligations. In the organisation’s view, the system in its present form is incapable of providing adequate safeguards to protect people from being returned to countries where they may be killed or otherwise suffer serious human rights violations.
Concerns at port of entry and interview
We were supposed to fill out our forms in English but many of us can’t read or write. We were not even asked why we had left Haiti.. Haitian refugee interviewed in Carmichael Detention Centre by Amnesty International
Amnesty International is concerned about the failure to interview all asylum-seekers at the primary stage of processing claims. Amnesty International is further concerned that the interviews that do take place are insufficient and inadequate.
Staff evidence suggests that initial appraisal is rapid and extremely superficial. Immigration staff described the details normally offered by detainees at first interview as name, date and place of birth. The delegation was informed that illiterate people were provided with help with form-filling but saw no evidence of this on the day of the visit. Despite assertions to the contrary, Amnesty International was repeatedly told by detainees that they had not been informed of their right to apply for asylum. Amnesty International thus fears that if an arrival fails to invoke the Refugee Convention, by not clearly indicating their fear of persecution or mentioning the words 'refugee' or 'asylum', they can be returned to their country of origin without ever going through the formal application process at all.
On the day of Amnesty International’s visit, the delegation was told by immigration staff that more than 80 Haitians who had arrived at the detention centre that day had already been "screened" by midday by being asked their name, date of birth, nationality, origin and mode of travel. The Creole-speaking immigration officer who had undertaken the operation said that he was satisfied that they were all economically-driven illegal migrants, not refugees, who would all be returned without further individual interviews.
The form used to "screen" initial arrivals (which Amnesty International was given a copy of) was insufficient. It contained no questions requesting information on, or alluding to reasons for, departure. The forms that Amnesty International saw were in English only. Although immigration officials indicated to Amnesty International that Creole and Spanish-speaking immigration officers would be present to explain the form to arrivals, no interpretation had been made available for any of the detainees whom Amnesty International interviewed.
Furthermore, it appeared that not all detainees are individually interviewed and their possible case for asylum explored. Amnesty International found no evidence that individual interviews take place, as the immigration staff maintained, in the Carmichael Immigration Detention Centre’s Hut 5. Many of the detainees interviewed by the delegation, some of whom had arrived weeks or months previously, had not been to Hut 5 or been individually interviewed. The problem was particularly acute for non-Cuban nationals. None of the Haitians that the delegation interviewed had been interviewed by immigration officials, suggesting that decisions regarding return in many cases are made at best on the basis of the (inadequate) form alone, at worst without application of any formal procedures at all.
Comments made by some immigration staff involved in decision-making raised doubts about the level of knowledge that immigration officers possess in international refugee law and international human rights law. There are also concerns as to the level to which immigration officers are trained in understanding the impact of trauma on detainees’ subsequent behaviour. The immigration staff maintained that the detainees were nearly all passive and submissive and supplied their details without demur.
Contrary to Government claims, many of those individuals who had been interviewed stated that the interviews had occurred in the absence of UNHCR officials. Furthermore, it was by no means clear whether all cases were sent to the UNHCR.
Lack of legal assistance
Lack of independent legal representation restricts the ability of asylum-seekers to obtain advice about their status or to seek review of a negative decision on their asylum application.
None of the detainees that Amnesty International spoke to had had access to a lawyer. They had not been given information about how to obtain legal representation or their right to apply for asylum and challenge the lawfulness of their detention. The Minister of Immigration acknowledged that there is no provision in law for legal representation to be made available to detainees, although he stated that in practice he would not be opposed to individuals being represented if lawyers were willing to do this.(14)
Decision by Cabinet
The decision as to whether an application for refugee status will be granted is taken by the executive (comprising Ministers of Government). In legal terms, this is considered to be an ‘administrative’ (as opposed to judicial) decision-making body. However Cabinet’s procedures do not conform to legal standards for administrative bodies.(15)
The Cabinet is under no legal obligation to examine all cases, which is remarkable for a de facto first instance decision. Cabinet is not a specialised body with sole and exclusive responsibility for determining asylum claims. The decision-makers - Cabinet Ministers - do not have expertise in international refugee and human rights law.
Asylum-seekers have no right to be present at the determination meeting and do not benefit from the right to independent legal counsel and competent interpreters. Cabinet is not obliged to give reasons for decisions made and both the process itself and the final decision are non-reviewable.
The procedure also appears to be incredibly lengthy, although Amnesty International was informed that once a positive recommendation is made by the UNHCR, a person is normally released from detention. However it is not clear whether release occurs immediately or without delay once a decision has been made. A number of detainees alleged that they remained in detention despite positive determination of their claims.
Amnesty International urges that decisions on refugee claims should be made by an independent, impartial and specialized body with expertise in international refugee law and human rights law and knowledge of the asylum-seeker's country of origin, on the basis of a thorough examination of the individual case.
No appeal
Amnesty International is concerned that no appeal process exists for those whose claims are rejected. The UN High Commission for Refugees’ Executive Committee (EXCOM) requires asylum-seekers to have the right to appeal a decision to refuse refugee status to a judicial or administrative authority.(16)
Despite assurances from Ministers that appeals processes existed, none of the detainees whom Amnesty International interviewed indicated that they had been informed of, or granted access to, any form of appeal mechanism. Indeed, asylum-seekers are detained in the Bahamas under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1967, which appears to prohibit those who have entered the Bahamas illegally from having a right of appeal in law against deportation orders.(17)
Deterrence: Conditions in detention
The use of detention has the effect and intention of inducing asylum-seekers to abandon their claims. It would seem that the Bahamian authorities wish to deter future illegal migration by maintaining miserable conditions at the Centre. The Director of the Immigration Centre acknowledged that one of the purposes of detention in the Bahamas is its deterrent effect.(18) He admitted that Haitians are typically returned within 5 days but that other detainees from further afield are expected to pay for their own return air fare (or to get their families to send the money). The delegation was repeatedly told by detainees, particularly those from Jamaica and Cuba, that their situation at the Carmichael Immigration Detention Centre was so distressing that they wanted to go home. One woman said that she did not want to ask for asylum because of the conditions that her child was living in. Amnesty International has also received reports of ill-treatment there.(19)
The use of detention to dissuade those who have commenced asylum claims from pursuing them, or to deter future asylum-seekers, is contrary to international refugee law.(20) International guidelines that emphasise that detention may be used only as an exceptional measure, subject to strict limitations, are not being followed in the Bahamas.(21)
Domestic legislation incompatible with Refugee Convention
Assertions by Government that the Bahamas maintains a clear and humane policy to establish refugee status applied in a manner consistent with the requirements of international refugee law are further undermined by three factors: the Government’s failure to incorporate the Refugee Convention and Protocol (along with other important international human rights treaties) into law, the effective criminalisation of asylum seekers under domestic law and lastly the terms of existing bilateral repatriation agreements with the Governments of Cuba and Haiti.
Failure to enact Refugee Convention into domestic law
The failure to enact the provisions of the Refugee Convention into domestic law weakens refugees’ ability to access effective protection in the Bahamas. The Attorney General stated to Amnesty International that the Bahamas was not currently considering enacting a law to give effect to the provisions of the Refugee Convention and Protocol, but did state that the Bahamas was at present reviewing all of its international treaty commitments. As of September 2003, no announcement had been made.
Bilateral Protocols
Repatriation agreements exist between the Bahamas and Cuba and Haiti respectively. The 1996 Memorandum of Understanding and its 1998 Protocol between the Governments of the Bahamas and Cuba provide for the repatriation of all Cuban citizens deemed "illegal entrants" within 15 days of the Government of Cuba having been notified of their apprehension. Under the terms of the Memorandum, the Government of the Bahamas is to send identifying information about all detainees to the Cuban authorities within 72 hours of arrival, including full name and address, photo and date of birth. A treaty between the Bahamas and Haiti contains broadly similar provisions.(22)
Amnesty International is concerned that if the authorities provide this information prior to considering protection needs, they may potentially put the detainees and the families of the detainees at risk. The procedures for the return of detainees also effectively deny Cuban or Haitian asylum-seekers access to a fair determination process and undermine the basic principle of international human rights law that the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act.(23) Should detainees be returned to a situation where they face serious human rights abuses, such as torture or death, the Bahamian authorities would be responsible for violating the fundamental principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in the Refugee Convention and customary international law.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs acknowledged to Amnesty International that the provisions of these agreements violate the Bahamas’ obligations under the Refugee Convention. In December 2002 the Government announced that it was planning to renegotiate the agreements. As of September 2003 they remained in force.
Failure to ratify other international human rights treaties protecting refugees
Three other important human rights treaties, the Convention against Torture (CAT), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 1990 Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, have not been ratified and incorporated into domestic law by the Bahamas. This has a significant negative effect on the rights of refugees, asylum-seekers and other migrants in the country.
The ICCPR commits states parties to promote and protect a wide range of civil and political rights, and obliges the State Party to ensure that all individuals subject to its jurisdiction enjoy all the rights included in the ICCPR, without discrimination. This principle of non-discrimination is also enshrined in the CAT, whereby a State Party is obliged to prohibit and prevent torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in all circumstances and to investigate all allegations of torture and bring to justice the perpetrators. The Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, the most recently adopted international human rights treaty, addresses the rights of undocumented as well as legal migrants.(24) In addition the states parties to the ICCPR and CAT are obliged to report on their conduct (to the UN Human Rights Committee and UN Committee Against Torture) under the terms of these treaties. There is no equivalent reporting obligation under the Refugee Convention.
In a number of other countries, both the ICCPR and the CAT have been used to assist refugees whose cases do not fall within the relatively restrictive auspices of the Refugee Convention.(25) The Refugee Convention does not provide protection to persons who are fleeing persecution for reasons outside the Refugee Convention definition, but nevertheless face torture or death on return to their home country. The cardinal principle of non-refoulement (non-return) is enshrined in customary international law, and thus is a binding obligation on the Bahamas.(26) However, incorporation of these human rights treaties would provide a mechanistic model in Bahamian law through which individuals could ensure that they are not forcibly returned to a country where they are at risk.
Amnesty International urges the Bahamian authorities to ratify the CAT, the ICCPR and the Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families in order to demonstrate publicly their commitment to uphold and respect the human rights of refugees, asylum-seekers and other categories of migrants.
The Immigration Act – criminalising asylum seekers
The status of asylum seekers under international law
* It is lawful under international law for a person to seek protection from persecution in the Bahamas even if they arrive without proper visas and identity papers.
* The Refugee Convention implicitly recognises the chaotic and sudden nature of flight, and outlines that states must not punish those asylum seekers who have no choice but to arrive in the Bahamas as 'illegally'.
* A policy of mandatory detention imposes effective punishment on all asylum seekers and is contrary to the provision of the Refugee Convention.
Currently, the sole piece of legislation governing the treatment of asylum-seekers in the Bahamas is the Immigration Act 1967. This criminalises all those who arrive in the Bahamas without valid documentation, including those seeking refuge and protection from torture and other human rights violations.(27) Nor does the Immigration Act enshrine in law refugee determination or protection procedures.(28)
Conclusion: Asylum process risks death for refugees
There is a serious exodus coming out from Haiti and our men are doing all they can to defend the country from it.
Vernon Burrows, Minister for Immigration.(29)
Amnesty International understands that training of around 40 immigration officers took place in Nassau and Freeport in May 2003 in refugee law and status determination. This is to be welcomed. Despite this however, Amnesty International remains deeply concerned that refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution remain at risk of forcible return. Amnesty International hopes that existing training efforts will be fortified through implementation of its recommendations for legal and administrative reform and further training detailed below.
Amnesty International’s concerns about human rights in CUBA: In mid-March 2003, after a period of apparent movement towards a more open and permissive approach, Cuban authorities carried out an unprecedented crackdown on the dissident movement on the island. Over the space of a few days, security forces rounded up 75 dissidents in targeted sweeps. With the exception of half a dozen well-known figures critical of the regime, most of the leadership of the dissident movement, people who had been activists for a decade or more, was detained. They were subjected to hasty and unfair trials, and, just weeks after being taken into custody, were given harsh prison terms of up to 28 years. Amnesty International has reviewed the accusations against them, and considers them to be prisoners of conscience, detained solely for peaceful exercise of fundamental freedoms. Concurrently, the Cuban Government ended a three-year de facto moratorium on executions in early April, killing by firing squad three men who had been involved in a hijacking in which no-one was injured. They had been subjected to a summary trial and appeals process, and were executed less than a week after their trial began. Amnesty International’s concerns about human rights in HAITI: "My family was politically active and we all spoke out against Lavalas. Because we spoke out, my father was killed. My brother… was also killed. …. They found my daughter who was nine years old and they kicked her in the mouth. So I got on the boat with all the other people to flee Haiti." Marie Jocelyn Ocean, Haitian refugee, formerly detained in the USA.(30) Amnesty International is deeply concerned by threats to freedom of expression, association and assembly in Haiti. Journalists, human rights defenders and activists have been threatened and on occasion attacked, most often by supporters of the ruling political party, Fanmi Lavalas. Police have often failed to intervene. Illegal security groups linked to elected officials have been accused of abuses, while police have also been increasingly accused of ill-treatment and torture of detainees; numerous cases of extrajudicial executions of individuals in police custody have been reported. Suspected perpetrators are rarely brought to justice. In recent months, attacks on police stations and a hydroelectric dam have been attributed to armed groups acting against the Government. For more information see www.amnesty.org
Arbitrary Detention of immigration detainees
Amnesty International is concerned that immigration detainees, including asylum-seekers, are routinely being arbitrarily detained in the Bahamas. Arbitrary detention is a violation of human rights and can inflict great physical and mental suffering on detainees. Long-term, prolonged detention, without recourse to any judicial procedures and with limited or no access to visitors, appears to be the norm for many detainees. Individuals held in prolonged or indefinite detention include those whom the State of nationality refuses to accept back, for example those who are not acknowledged as nationals without proof of nationality, or those for whom the question of where to send them is for some other reason unresolved. People thus remain in detention, refused permission to stay, but unable to be returned to their home country. On the day of the delegation’s visit to the Carmichael Immigrant Detention Centre, persons detained included nationals from Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, China, Ecuador, Colombia, Ghana and Nigeria. The average length of detention reported by those that Amnesty International interviewed varied dramatically according to nationality as well as the availability of funds for repatriation. Haitian nationals are returned almost immediately, usually within five days, leaving them unable to access proper recourse to legal procedures to challenge the lawfulness of their return. Others however are detained for much longer periods, sometimes until they can pay for their own repatriation costs (usually by having their families send money). Thus detainees are left in a situation where their liberty depends solely on their financial ability to meet the costs of their removal. Should they be unable to afford this, the state keeps them detained until such time as the authorities arbitrarily decide to fund their removal from the Bahamas.
None of the detainees Amnesty International interviewed had had access to a lawyer or appeared before a court. One West African national told the organisation that he had been detained for 3 years. The Bahamas had not allegedly had diplomatic contact with his country of origin to arrange for repatriation and he did not have the funds to pay for it himself. A Costa Rican national claimed that he had been there since 4 December 2001, since the Captain on a ship he was working on took his passport. A Ghanaian national claimed that he had been detained for over 2 years; allegedly since he presented himself to immigration authorities for assistance two days before the expiration of his student visa. Many Cuban asylum seekers also told the organisation that they had been detained for over 6 months and in several cases, over a year. One Cuban national alleged that she was detained at the Centre despite being in possession of a valid work permit. Another Cuban alleged that he remained detained despite reportedly having been awarded a permit to live in the US. In practice, it appears that detained asylum-seekers are virtually never released from detention before the determination of their claims. It has been alleged that the reason for the delays is attributable to delays by the Cuban Government verifying and providing permission for return. Even if this is the case however, the Bahamian authorities must still take measures to ensure that detention of asylum seekers does not amount to arbitrary detention and to resolve such cases in a timely manner, including by ensuring prompt access of nationals to judicial review of detention.
When is detention of asylum seekers allowed under international law? * International human rights law requires that Governments do not detain people automatically or beyond a reasonable length of time.
* The UNHCR Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers emphasise that in the case of asylum-seekers, detention "may exceptionally be resorted to as long as this is clearly prescribed by a national law which is in conformity with the general norms and principles of international human rights law."(31)
* Instances where initial detention of some individuals may be necessary and permissible could include the verification of identity.
* However there is always a presumption against detention and alternatives to detention should always be considered (such as reporting requirements or open centres).
* In any case, if detained, asylum-seekers should be entitled to minimum procedural guarantees.
* Minors who are asylum-seekers should not be detained.
* Particular attention should be given to vulnerable categories including unaccompanied elderly persons, pregnant or nursing women and torture or trauma victims.
* Being stateless and therefore not having a country to which claim can be made for travel documents should not lead to indefinite detention.
What is "arbitrary detention"? * Arbitrary detention occurs when someone is held in custody in violation of international human rights standards - or when detention results from legislation or practices that violate these standards. * According to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the holding of immigrants and asylum seekers in prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial remedy may amount to arbitrary detention. * The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has said that guarantees are needed to prevent such detention from being arbitrary including, inter alia, communication with the outside world, access to a judicial authority and provision of information about applicable internal regulations.(32) * The UNHCR Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers emphasise that "for detention of asylum-seekers to be lawful and not arbitrary, it must comply not only with the applicable national law, but with Article 31 of the Convention and international law- be exercised in a non-discriminatory manner and must be subject to judicial or administrative review to ensure that it continues to be necessary in the circumstances, with the possibility for release where no grounds for its continuation exist."
Conditions at the Carmichael Immigration Detention Centre
Amnesty International interviewed asylum-seekers and immigrants (hereafter referred to collectively as ‘detainees’) detained at the Carmichael Immigration Detention Centre. On the day of the delegation’s visit, 212 people were detained - 172 male and 40 female. In Amnesty International’s view, prolonged, arbitrary detention, the poor conditions observed at the Centre and reports of ill-treatment, amount in many cases to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Layout
The centre comprises a large flat piece of ground of approximately 1 kilometre squared most of which is rough grass surrounded and intersected by 8ft high chain link fences surrounded by rolls of razor wire. Near the vehicle entrance is a hut which provides simple office accommodation for the armed Bahamian Defence Force personnel (of which there are approximately 12) whose function is to provide both perimeter and internal security, and the Bahamian Immigration Service personnel (of which six are normally assigned) whose function it is to process the detainees and meet their general daily living needs.
The accommodation for detainees comprises four identical huts containing dormitories approximately 20ft x 80 ft. Two tier bunks are arranged along the two long walls leaving a central aisle – approximately 66 bunks providing 132 beds in each dormitory - more than 500 in all. Each of the huts is surrounded by a chain link fence surmounted by razor wire. At the time of the visit the huts were, right to left, allocated to: Hut 1 - Haitian males; Hut 2 - international mixed males, predominately Cubans, Jamaicans, Chinese and West Africans; Hut 3 - newly arrived Haitian males (more than 80 arrived on the morning of the visit) and Hut 4 - mixed females and children. Hut 5, of the same size, is said to be used for individual immigration interviews and medical visits. In this building there is a pharmacy store (which the delegation did not see as the room was locked.)
Hygiene and sanitation
To the rear of each hut is a connected block containing two showers, four flushing lavatories and three wash basins. Most of the showers worked, though some had lost their showerheads. The faucets for the wash basins worked. However all the lavatories in the men’s huts were blocked and contained faeces. The lavatories in the women’s huts did not all have doors, providing inadequate privacy. The detainees complained that they had insufficient lavatory paper, soap, toothbrushes or toothpaste, towels and soap powder. None were seen (although some lavatory paper was distributed in our presence).
Photo of huts at Carmichael Detention Centre surrounded by internal barbed wire fence. ©Amnesty International.
Bedding and clothing
Some detainees complained that they had to sleep on the floor and that they were not provided with extra clothing or footwear if they arrived without these. About half the bunks in Hut 3 did not have mattresses - most bunks elsewhere had mattresses and a blanket or two. There were no sheets anywhere.
Food and water
Social Services personnel (normally four, the delegation was informed) cook and distribute all the food required by the fluctuating detainee population. The detainees maintained that they are normally supplied with only two meals per day, although on the day of the inspection three meals were served (which the staff claim is normal).
Detainees eat in their compounds where there are no chairs, tables or storage cupboards. Detainees complained that the quality of meals was poor, consisting typically of bread and cheese or corned beef. The detainees maintain that they are forced to drink the unfiltered water from the ablutions area or to rely on relatives for water provision. Detainees told the delegation that immigration staff had distributed soft drinks on the day of the visit. Immigration officials told us that enough food was available for detainees but that distribution was problematic. Since the delegation’s visit, Amnesty International has received reports suggesting that provision of food has deteriorated. Some detainees are reported to be appearing increasingly emaciated as a result.
It is clear that some detainees do have families or friends who bring in items for them. This appears to be the staff rationale for not supplying more than they do, although some detainees stated that outside visits had recently become restricted.
Allegations of ill-treatment
Some detainees maintained they had been beaten - these were mostly males in the international hut 2. The complaints suggested that the beatings were mostly committed by soldiers from the Royal Bahamas Defence Force using batons or tamarind branches and cited one shift in particular.(33) The fact that several detainees made complaints and that several named the same officer lent these allegations veracity. Other detainees alleged that they had been forced to sit out in the hot midday sun for extended periods and to eat food off the ground, reportedly as a punitive measure for perceived infractions of 'rules'.
Amnesty International brought the allegations to the attention of the Ministry of National Security (which has responsibility for Defence Force personnel) at the end of the visit. The Minister committed herself to ensuring investigation of these, but Amnesty International had not been informed of whether such investigations had taken place, and if so of their outcome, by September 2003. Following its visit further allegations of beatings resulting in injuries were received by the organisation and brought to the attention of the authorities.
After its visit Amnesty International also received some allegations of the sexual abuse of female detainees, including of male staff watching women naked, two allegations of rape and allegations of ‘consensual’ sexual conduct between female detainees and male guards.(34)
In September 2003 no response had been received from the Government to a request for information on the allegations, which are viewed with serious concern. Under international law, rape of a detainee by staff is considered to be torture.(35) Other forms of sexual abuse also violate the internationally recognised prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rape and sexual assault also violate the Bahamas’ domestic criminal laws.
Lack of medical treatment
Confinement in immigration detention centres for extended periods of time can have severe, psychological disabling effects on asylum seekers.
Dr Kevin O'Sullivan, former Visiting Clinical Psychologist at Villawood Detention Centre
The Lancet March 2002
A doctor and a nurse reportedly attend the centre to see any detainee needing their attention on two days a week. The evidence suggests that the medical coverage for the centre, or the responsiveness of immigration staff between medical visits, is less than adequate. The delegation heard many allegations of denial of medical care such as the following:
· A 40 year-old Cuban male stated that he was suffering from diabetes and hypertension. Visible manifestations of illness included a lesion on his leg and a swollen foot. He said that he had not been allowed out of the building for medical treatment, despite repeated requests from the nurse to immigration officials; · Two detainees’ swollen hand and face indicated they needed medical attention that had apparently not been forthcoming; · Two elderly male Cubans stated that they had not received medication to control symptoms of Parkinson’s disease; · Many women stated that they had not been treated for gynaecological problems. These worsened as a result of the lack of adequate access to adequate washing facilities; · A Cuban woman alleged that she had miscarried after being denied medical attention following haemorrhaging.
Reports alleging the denial of adequate medical care are of particular concern given that detention has been shown to have an enormous effect on the physical and psychological wellbeing of detainees. Many asylum seekers are already survivors of torture, fleeing human rights abuses and often leaving family and loved ones at home. They may be extremely distressed by their experiences.
Exercise
No space is provided for games or robust physical exercise, though this could be provided in the field area in which vehicles bring newly arrived detainees.
Contact with outside world
No sabemos si ellos saben que estamos aqui.
We don’t know if our relatives even know we are here.
Cuban detainee interviewed at the Carmichael Detention Centre.
Some detainees the delegation interviewed said that they had had no contact with anyone from the outside world since being detained. Detainees told the delegation that visiting rights had recently been reduced and that family visits were restricted to 5 minutes. The delegation was also told that visiting rights were routinely removed for perceived infractions of the Centre’s rules. A Cuban detainee complained of being denied visiting rights after refusing to translate for officials. Detainees also complained that they were refused permission to contact relatives by phone, with access to the telephone being restricted to those detainees who can pay for phone cards.
Children in detention
There is compelling evidence that when children in detention are separated from their parents, siblings or loved ones, their health deteriorates.
Dr. Kerry Philps, President of Australian Medical Association(36)
Groups of asylum seekers and others arriving without documentation regularly include children. On the day of the organisation’s visit, 7 of the 212 people detained at the Carmichael Detention Centre were under 14; all were accompanied by at least one family member.
The Bahamas has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)(37) and is thus obliged to maintain standards to protect children's rights and to provide all children with certain humanitarian assistance. The CRC requires the authorities, inter alia, to:
· Detain children only as a last resort, and then only for the shortest appropriate period of time. Arbitrary deprivation of liberty is prohibited.(38) · Subject any detention of children to periodic judicial review.(39) · Ensure that all children are treated fairly and without discrimination, irrespective of factors such as the child’s nationality.(40) · Not to separate children from their parents against their will.(41) · Allow detained children separated from their parents the right to maintain contact through visits.(42) · Special care must be taken by states to ensure that refugee children receive humanitarian assistance and protection.(43) · Ensure that all children can exercise their right to receive an education and to play.(44) · Always consider the best interests of the child as the primary consideration.(45) The Bahamas’ treatment of children detained at the Carmichael Detention Centre places it in serious breach of its treaty requirements under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Urgent measures should be taken to improve this situation.
According to immigration officials, the Carmichael Immigrant Detention Centre does not have the capacity to separate families from the general adult detainee group. The delegation was told that children under the age of 14 are detained in the Hut for women and male children over the age of 14 are detained in the Huts designated for adult men. Immigration officials at the Centre told the delegation that children arriving unaccompanied were taken to an Emergency Hostel in Nassau (which the delegation did not visit). Otherwise, the delegation was informed, children arriving with their parents were detained alongside one of them until their claim has been decided. However, at least two mothers detained at the Centre alleged to Amnesty International that they were still in detention several months after the UNHCR had recommended a favourable response to their claim for refugee status.
It appears to be the case that, when children arrived with both parents, contact with both is prohibited. Several detainees told the organisation that women and children are unable to communicate with male relatives detained in separate huts, except by shouting over the wire mesh walls. Several Cuban children housed in the Women’s hut said that they had been unable to talk to their fathers for months since their arrival at the centre. One Cuban woman told Amnesty International that she had been punished by guards for attempting to talk to her husband across the fence.
Detainees told Amnesty International that no education is provided at all for any of the children and that there were no play or leisure areas (which inspection of the compound by the delegation confirmed). They also spoke of limited, if any, contact with the outside world, with restrictions on visits. Detainees told the delegation that televisions and books, previously allowed, had recently been removed. Some detainees also alleged that children had been denied access to adequate medical assistance (see above).
Considerable evidence has shown detention centre environments are inadequate to meet the special needs of any child, let alone children who have suffered human rights abuses and the trauma of fleeing their home. One of the dangers of detaining children in cramped conditions with adults is that many adults may be suffering depression and post-traumatic stress disorder; mental illnesses which may be expected to adversely affect the children detained alongside them. At Carmichael, children are detained alongside other adults in conditions which constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. There are also fears that children housed in detention centres may be at heightened risk of abuse.(46)
Photo: Children detained alongside female detainees line up for roll call. Contact with male relatives in adjoining huts is prohibited. The huts are separated by a barbed wire fence. ©Amnesty International.
The UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol should be incorporated into domestic law.
The Bahamas should ratify the Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, the American Convention on Human Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments.
2. Mandatory Detention and Procedural safeguards
It only takes a cursory examination to conclude that the persons who go [to Fox Hill prison] for any appreciable length of time, or any time, are dehumanised - and they live it whenever they come out. The prison - must be a place of punishment and rehabilitation, but it must not be divorced from human kindness, compassion and Christian charity. Editorial, The Nassau Guardian, 16 November 2002. The Prison Reform Commission will hopefully serve as a vehicle for radical yet practical and affordable prison reform, which might become a beacon for other countries in the region Prison Reform Commission 2003. According to a recent study, 1 in every 200 Bahamians is in prison.(47) The rate of imprisonment in the Bahamas, at 478 per 100,000, is the 8th highest in the world. This is less than the USA (where over two million people are in prison) but almost four times that in the UK and Canada; twice as high as most other countries in the region; much higher that most of Latin America and as high as Eastern European countries. The need for prison reform has been acknowledged by successive Governments, including the present, which outlined to Amnesty International plans which included the construction of a new remand centre to ease overcrowding and other measures. The prison holds male and female populations over the age of 16 in separate accommodation, including both pre-trial and convicted prisoners.
There is much consensus within the Bahamas on what needs to be done to improve the situation for those living and working in this prison. Many of Amnesty International’s observations of the problems there are consistent with those documented in numerous previous reports, some of which were commissioned by Government.(48)
Two significant recent developments must be emphasised. The first is the appointment, in October 2002, of an 18-member Prison Reform Commission, whose members included international experts on prison reform. The Commission was tasked with making recommendations on Governmental proposals for prison reform. It reported in February 2003. Some of its twelve key reform proposals are already being implemented.(49) The second is the current intense debate in the Bahamas around the need for effective solutions to stem crime, particularly violent crime.
Overcrowding
We have to be more serious about the lives of people. They might be prisoners, but they are human beings.
Minister of National Security, Cynthia Pratt(50)
By simply ‘warehousing’ inmates, there will be no significant and meaningful change and recidivism will continue.
Prison Reform Commission Report 2003
International standards state that all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and that all accommodation should "meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation."(51) Nevertheless, parts of Foxhill Prison remain grossly overcrowded and have long been so; as evidenced by the independent inquiry report in early 1990s and other sources. On 11 August 2002 Fox Hill held 1335 prisoners.(52) The recent Prison Reform Commission highlighted four salient factors contributing to overcrowding: lack of legal representation, high numbers on remand, lack of conditional early-release schemes and incarceration for minor non-violent offences.(53) The latter included for example the offences of loitering (3), receiving (15) and vagrancy (39). It recommended that the incarceration be reserved ‘almost exclusively for dangerous, violent, repeat and sex offenders along with drugs and arms traffickers.’(54) Almost all the prison officers who Amnesty International interviewed agreed that prison overcrowding was a serious issue affecting both the living conditions for inmates and the working conditions for staff. Staff also agreed that they would like to see more classes, recreation and out of cell time.(55)
Substantial relief has been afforded to the problem of overcrowding with the opening at the end of August 2002 of a new remand centre, providing 320 places. Whilst this measure can be welcomed as an effort to deal with overcrowding, the organisation fears that in itself it will be insufficient. There is concern that further units could not be built quickly enough to accommodate detainees.
The situation as seen by the Amnesty International delegation was deplorable, particularly in the section of the prison reserved for remand and sentenced prisoners subject to high security and the section for remand prisoners not subject to high security. Their situation was particularly acute because their grossly overcrowded accommodation was not alleviated by the prisoners being outside their cells or dormitories at all throughout the day to be actively engaged in a positive regime.
Solving the high incarceration rate in the Bahamas means addressing a number of managerial measures, that could be both cost effective and of human rights benefit.
Why is overcrowding in prisons such a serious problem?
Severe overcrowding adversely affects all aspects of incarceration:
* It compromises the safety and security of staff and prisoners.
* It worsens conditions of confinement and reduces access to basic hygiene.
* It affects the delivery and implementation of rehabilitation, work and education programmes.
* It limits access to health care and worsens mental and physical health.
* It weakens family ties, already disrupted through imprisonment, as access to visiting rights are curtailed and as incarceration in stressful conditions impacts adversely on prisoners’ mental and physical health.
* It increases pressures on staff thereby aggravating staff shortages and further threatening professional integrity. There may be increases in the levels of inmate-on-inmate assaults and self-harm and suicide.
* Since all of the above can be expected to impact on recidivism, overcrowding challenges the ability of the prison system to prevent re-offending and threatens the functioning of the entire criminal justice system.
Overcrowding in Maximum security
A dormitory in maximum security measuring approximately 14 x 10 metres contained 53 men each of which was allotted the upper or lower platform of two tier bunks. Because of the pressure of personal possessions, buckets of water for washing etc., there was scarcely room to walk between these. The air was fetid - a result of the lack of ventilation, the heat, the pressure of bodies and the items of personal clothing drying on lines which festooned the ceiling. The quality of light was poor - due to the small size of the windows, their outmoded construction and dirty state. There were no lockers for personal possessions, nor space for any. There was no hot water. The small ablutions area screened in the corner of the room was totally inadequate. There was no shower. The two flushing lavatories did not flush.
Provision of approximately 2.5 square metres per prisoner in multi-occupied large rooms is significantly below the provision considered acceptable by all the leading national and international prison standards bodies that have sought to define space standards (the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), the American Correctional Association (ACA) and others), even taking into account the different basis on which space per prisoner is calculated by them.(56)
At least 3.5 metres should be provided for prisoners in large multi-occupied rooms. On this basis the dormitory described above should have held no more than 35-40 men. Even if this had been the case however, conditions would have remained unacceptable because of the lack of hygiene facilities and the inability of some of the prisoners to enjoy an active regime outside the dormitory.
The situation was equally deplorable in the maximum security "F" block. Here the population appeared to include prisoners deemed to be suffering from psychiatric health problems, prisoners with infectious or other communicable diseases, including TB and AIDS, and prisoners who have been segregated as a punitive or security measure. Prisoners were three to a cell in cells measuring approximately 1 by 3 metres. Cells had no natural light and prisoners were in near darkness - the only light source coming from small windows on the corridors opposite the cells. Space was further limited by two large buckets - a slop bucket and a bucket for washing, which all prisoners shared - and by clothing strung up in the cells, aggravated damp. In some cells cardboard replaced mattresses. The deplorable situation is made worse by the fact that the prisoners are confined to their cells for up to 23 hours a day every day.
Overcrowding in Women’s accommodation
Overcrowding in the women’s section of the prison was less severe than in other sections of the prison. Accommodation comprised of a combination of large dormitory style accommodation with bunk beds and individual cells. Showers and toilets were located in a room adjoining these rooms. This area lacked privacy and dignity however, with both showers and toilets being without doors.
Overcrowding in Medium security unit
The medium security unit comprises single floor dormitory accommodation arranged continuously around a sports/exercise rectangle. There are eight dormitories each measuring 22 x 6 metres. Within the one dormitory inspected 36 men were housed on two tier bunks. While this is congested it is just about acceptable (3.7 square metres per prisoner), though there were no lockers for personal possessions. However, all these prisoners are employed and thus outside the dormitory for much of the day. The small ablutions area was reasonably clean and functioned.
Overcrowding in Low security unit
The low security unit comprises a single dormitory building within its own compound. Within this building (approximately 15 x 18 metres = 270 sq metres) there were 82 prisoners on two tier bunks, each therefore enjoying 3.3 sq metres. This is bordering on the acceptable, but given that the prisoners held here are all employed outside the prison, is crowded but not unacceptably so. There were two showers and two lavatories in an ablutions annex - the facilities were clean and functioning.
Overcrowding on ‘Death row’
Cells for those sentenced to death or awaiting trial for murder ("condemned cells") measure 2 x 3 metres and hold prisoners in single cells. In terms of international space standards, this is acceptable. Nevertheless the overall living conditions are unacceptable. The cells admit insufficient natural light – with open bar fronts facing onto a corridor which is lit by exterior windows. The wash basin faucets and lavatories in each cell admit no water and do not flush and prisoners have to carry water in buckets and flush the lavatories by that means. Prisoners are reportedly confined to cells from Friday evenings until Monday mornings without exception. Access to exercise is also reportedly limited to approximately one hour four days a week, with frequent cancellations of this provision. These deficiencies, taken together, amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Prisoners awaiting trial
At least 735 of the 1000 plus prison population at HM Prison Fox Hill are awaiting trial according to prison statistics. Most are detained alongside convicted prisoners in conditions of severe overcrowding, despite the opening of a new cell block exclusively for remanded prisoners in August 2002. This is in breach of international standards which state that prisoners awaiting trial and prisoners who have been convicted should not be held together. (57)
This standard has several important consequences. One is that, with certain exceptions, people awaiting trial on criminal charges should not, as a general rule, be held in custody.(58) The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that "pre-trial detention should be an exception and as short as possible."(59) Nevertheless, in the Bahamas, many prisoners awaiting trial have been detained for inordinately long periods as the table below shows; over five years in several cases. They include children; fourteen males aged between 16 and 17 were detained on remand on the day the delegation visited.
In order to get a fair trial it is vital that untried prisoners are able to keep in contact with legal advisers, family and friends, so as to prepare their defence properly. The recent Prison Reform Commission alleged that 41% of inmates were not represented by legal counsel; a state of affairs confirmed by Amnesty International’s conversations with many prisoners awaiting trial. Amnesty International also interviewed a number of lawyers who expressed concerns about gaining access to their clients.
Photo:Corridor outside cells in the new remand centre. © Amnesty International.
Amnesty International welcomes the construction of a new remand centre as indicative of political will to tackle the extraordinarily high remand population. However, the organisation is concerned that building new units - or new prisons - will not solve the root causes of overcrowding unless other measures to address the excessive use of custody in the Bahamas are also taken.(61)
Detention of children with adults
Our young people are falling through the cracks.
Minister of National Security, Cynthia Pratt, on a visit to correctional facilities in the Bahamas(62)
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as everyone under the age of 18 years. Policy and practice in the Bahamas do not appear to adhere to international standards that state that children should not be detained alongside adults and should only be detained as a last resort.(63)
A total of twenty-two children, including one female, aged between sixteen or seventeen were detained alongside adult prisoners on the day the delegation visited; fourteen were on remand. While most of those on remand were charged with serious violent offences such as armed robbery, one was on remand for the offence of being an "uncontrollable child".
The conditions that children are detained in, described elsewhere in this report, are totally inadequate for adults, much less for children. Quite apart from this, detaining children with adults exposes them to serious risk of harm including sexual abuse.
In December 2002 the Minister of National Security stated that the Government was considering opening a special section of the prison to house young offenders. Such a move is to be welcomed and it is hoped would be speedily implemented.(64)
Overall the provision of exercise facilities to inmates falls below that required by international standards.(65) Female prisoners complained that they were provided with no exercise at all; a situation that the female prison staff did not deny. Prisoners in maximum, medium and minimum security informed us that they normally were allowed to exercise outdoors for approximately one hour each day on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays. There was never any exercise on Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays.
Prisoners also told us that permission to exercise could be cancelled by bad weather, flooding of exercise areas or searches. Prisoners in the remand block maintained more often than prisoners in other parts of the prison that the exercise normally provided on four days a week was frequently not provided.
The senior management of the prison agreed that exercise was not routinely provided on three days a week. Extreme irritation was expressed on being told that the female prisoners had complained that they were getting no exercise at all - simultaneously blaming prisoners (who they suggested were lying) and staff (who they maintained had no excuse for not providing it): they undertook to remedy the situation without delay.
The senior management at Foxhill maintained that problems in the provision of exercise were caused by lack of staff, because of shift change arrangements and staff rotas on Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. To provide exercise on those three days would, the Acting Superintendent asserted, prejudice the security of the prison. He could provide the exercise only if he was provided with the budget to employ the additional staff.
It should be noted that the Prison Staff Association said that exercise could be provided on the other three days a week but that management had failed adequately to discuss the proposition with staff. They also claimed that the lack of medical cover meant that staff got inadequate medical treatment, exacerbating staff absenteeism. The latter assertion was ridiculed by the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Security officials, who said that staff abused sickness absenteeism and that many viewed the 28 days sickness absence permitted per annum as an entitlement.
Photo: Exercise yard. Permission to use the yard may be cancelled in the case of bad Weather. Female prisoners told Amnesty International that they were denied the right to exercise at all. ©Amnesty International. Amnesty International is not in a position to assess how many extra staff should be provided at Foxhill - different members of the prison’s senior management team variously assessed need for the existing complement of approximately 420 uniformed staff to be increased to 500 or 600.
However, if the Bahamian authorities determine that custody - both pre-trial and on sentence - is to be used at a particular level, then they must provide the resources, including staff, so as to be compliant with both Bahamian law and international standards of custodial decency and care.
The lack of exercise is particularly objectionable given that a high proportion of prisoners have no or few opportunities to engage in positive activities and mobility outside their cells.
Shortly after the delegation’s visit, a high court judge ruled that the minimum periods of exercise as stated in the Prison Rules were not being complied with, were mandatory and must be complied with.(66) Amnesty International is unaware whether access to exercise for all prisoners has improved as a result of this ruling of September 2002.
Slopping Out
Even animals in the wild don’t eat and defecate in the same place.
Grand Bahamas Human Rights Association(67)
Amnesty International, together with other international bodies and judicial authorities, takes the view that certain conditions can, either in themselves or cumulatively, amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The organisation believes that the slopping out arrangements (the use of buckets within cells for defecation and urination) at Foxhill are degrading both to the prisoners who have to undertake it and the staff who have to supervise it. The "slopping-out" arrangements at Foxhill also violate other international and domestic standards. Further, the combination of lack of integral sanitation in some parts of maximum security, with slopping out, lack of activity outside cells and dormitories (prisoners being locked in for 23 hours per day) and lack of exercise on three out of seven days a week is inhuman and degrading. In the view of Professor Rod Morgan, the conditions are so serious that they would be considered ‘inhuman and degrading’ by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.
A significant proportion of prisoners at Foxhill are held in cells or rooms without sanitary facilities and are required to defecate and urinate in the presence of their fellow prisoners without privacy in plastic buckets provided for the purpose. At appointed times, they have to dispose of their waste products into external sewer outlets that function inadequately.(68) Many prisoners to whom we spoke complained of the smell that pervades cells as a result. The unhygienic practice is further compounded through lack of running water in cells, furthering risks of disease and aggravating pre-existing medical conditions. The report noted that buckets were being dumped into a pit in the middle of the main prison - a "potential and dangerous source of infection and contamination" - and that inmates working in the kitchen were not screened before handling food.(69)
None of the flushing lavatories in maximum security tested by members of the Amnesty International delegation flushed. Prisoners on death row and in the female section of the prison all affirmed that the lavatories in the cells did not flush nor did the faucets deliver water. Instead, they had to flush their lavatories manually with buckets of water drawn elsewhere and carried back to their cells for the purpose. One prisoner who had occupied various cells on death row for eight years said that he had never enjoyed the use of a flushing lavatory.
The Bahamian authorities should work with all speed to end the practice of slopping out and to renovate the plumbing and drainage system. In the first instance the plumbing of Foxhill Prison requires total renovation so that all existing drains drain, flushing lavatories flush, faucets turn and deliver water, showers have showerheads and so on.(70)
Bedding and Laundry
There are insufficient mattresses and many prisoners were lying on cardboard.(71) Although prisoners on death row and in the female section of the prison all appeared to be provided with mattresses, many remand prisoners and prisoners in maximum security were found not to have them. There were no spare mattresses in the prison stores when the delegation inspected these. Remaining stock had reportedly been allocated to the new remand block where mattresses were in place.
The Senior Management team suggested to the delegation that the prisoners destroyed their mattresses. This explanation was treated with derision and contempt by the Prison Staff Association.
Blanket provision is also meagre and there is no laundry within the prison to launder both blankets and the prisoners’ clothes. The Prison Superintendent suggested that relatives were the main providers of clean sheets and pillow cases. The prisoners explained that they were forced to wash their own clothes in cold water with washing soap (no detergents appear to be distributed). They dried them on lines either within their cells or dormitories or in some areas, such as minimum security, on lines outside in the compound. The Ministry of Health acknowledged that the problem of laundered clothes being hung out to dry on the inside of cells was likely to increase damp in overcrowded cells, restrict lighting and aggravate mould growth.
Amnesty International considers that the absence of hot water, washing and laundry facilities is a basic lack that is not conducive to adequate hygiene.
Food Provision and Preparation
Provision of food appears to fall well below international standards.(72) This situation persists despite plans for reform and official and legal recognition of the severe resulting impact on staff and prisoners.(73)
A temporary kitchen situated some distance from any of the prisoner accommodation was in operation where almost all of the food for prisoners was being cooked before distribution by truck. The unit was small and inadequately equipped and was clearly plagued by flies.
Another dirty and dilapidated kitchen, containing sinks and cooking equipment, was located within the maximum security prison. Amnesty International was assured that this was no longer in use - having been condemned between one and three years previously (the estimates given by accompanying staff varied). However, this condemned kitchen contained uncovered trays of cooked food (turkey legs in a sauce in large metal trays) either about to be distributed or surplus to requirements from the preceding lunch. Further, it was apparent that dirty metal trays which had contained the same food were about to be washed in the several sinks that remained in operation. Prisoner kitchen orderlies were present for that apparent purpose.
The delegation was informed that the new kitchen would take over from the temporary kitchen described above in the near future - variously described as meaning within a few weeks to several months. This comprised a large hanger-type room adjacent to the stores. When complete it would have the potential space to provide a kitchen adequate to meet the entire needs of the prison. However, at the time of inspection the construction was far from complete. The floor was only partially tiled. The door connecting the kitchen to the adjacent stores had not yet been made. No kitchen equipment, shelving, storage or preparation surfaces were yet in place.(74) When the new kitchen comes into operation it will represent a significant advance on the defective culinary situation which has existed at the prison for many years. (Amnesty International is unaware whether this kitchen is now operational).
Medical care
When the court asked if he wanted to say something, Kazik said: "I will not survive these five weeks." He was very sick, exhausted and could hardly stand on his legs. The interpreter translated his words, and the judge only smiled. Those were prophetic words. Kazik died after 39 days of imprisonment because medicines necessary for him to survive were taken away from him and he was refused medical assistance.
Affidavit of fellow crew member and detainee of Kazik Kwasiborski, who died in Fox Hill prison on 28 August 2002.
Concerns regarding the failure to provide adequate medical care and high rates of infectious diseases and other illnesses have been raised for many years by prisoners, former-prisoners and their families and prison staff. The latter stated to the delegation that they were themselves at risk due to the conditions under which they are required to work. (75) The Prison Reform Commission Report 2003 found the medical bay grossly under-staffed and under-represented, in desperate need of complete refurbishment.(76)
To access medical services, prisoners report to prison officers who forward a list to the doctor who is required to visit daily. He informed the delegation that prisoners were normally seen the same day; this contrasted with complaints from prisoners that estimated the time it took to see a doctor at between 2-5 days to nearly impossible. Legislation also imposes a duty on the Prison Superintendent to inform medical authorities of prisoners’ health problems, but it was unclear whether this happened in practice.
Amnesty International viewed the sick bay and spoke with the prison doctor. The delegation was informed that medical staff at Fox Hill currently comprise one prison doctor full-time and another half-time, 8 medical orderlies and two nurses. A psychiatrist from a nearby psychiatric hospital was said usually to provide services on a twice-weekly drop-in basis but currently these services are not available. The medical centre was composed of a reception area, one treatment room, one dentistry room, one area for medicine storage and a sick bay comprising around ten beds. This is totally inadequate given the size of the prison population; a fact which was recognised by both the Ministry of Health and the Prison Management team.(77)
Part of the problem with medical provision appears to be prison legislation which restricts the number of medical personnel that can be employed and which imposes an extensive range of responsibilities on doctors apart from the provision of health care services. These functions include responsibility for environmental, health and safety checks, disciplinary functions and review of prisoners under restraints, on punishment diets or awaiting execution. The 2001 prison review recommended review of this legislation.
It appears that there is no ongoing monitoring of provision and adequacy of healthcare within the prison. Under the Prison Act 1943, the doctor is required to produce an Annual Report. However the prison management and Ministry of National Security were unable to provide us with copies of Annual Reports from the last five years. We were informed that this was incorporated into the main report - however when reviewed it was seen that this merely produced some incomplete statistics detailing incidents of communicable diseases (see page 44). There was no analysis of the adequacy of healthcare.
Communicable diseases
The Prison Reform Commission Report 2003 found no chronic disease management programmes at Foxhill. Detailed statistics quantifying the rate of infection with communicable diseases of the overall prison population were not available. The most recent Annual Report stated that out of the intake population during the period March 5 to May 29 2001 of 471, 152 (32%) tested positive for TB, 41 were HIV positive, 33 had syphilis and 16 Hepatitis B.(78) There were no recent statistics available showing the overall numbers of prisoners affected by AIDS or TB, although the 1994 Annual Report noted several cases of seriously advanced AIDS with at least 7 deaths attributed to advanced AIDS complications. A reported 164 out of a total screened prison population of 815 between 1 January 2000 and 28 February 2001 tested positive for HIV, 101 for syphilis and 88 for Hepatitis B.
Managing a substantial proportion of prisoners affected by one or more communicable diseases is a significant concern; the problems with TB and Hepatitis B in particular were acknowledged by the Prison Superintendent (although Hepatitis A was stated not to be an issue). Problems in managing the significant numbers of prisoners affected by AIDS and HIV are increased by a lack of access to specialist drugs. One untried prisoner who Amnesty International interviewed and who stated that he was HIV positive described how the only medications he had received during incarceration were vitamins and painkillers. He stated that he had been awaiting trial for two years. Other HIV+ prisoners interviewed by the delegation stated that they were detained in cells alongside prisoners suffering from TB.
The wider legal framework also adversely affects the prison’s capacity to effectively care for prisoners with HIV or AIDS.(79) The extent to which this prevents proper HIV management was recently acknowledged elsewhere in the Caribbean and in UN guidelines.(80)
Although the prison doctor informed the delegation that all inmates are screened for TB and HIV upon entry, it is not clear whether this happens in practice.(81) In July 2001 the Ministry of Health announced that all inmates would be tested for tuberculosis; one month later a prison doctor complained to the media that he had been refused permission by the prison authorities to carry out the tests. Similarly, little information was forthcoming on the treatment options available for the range of illnesses, although the Bahamas reportedly participates in a treatment initiative from the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO).
Prisoners with TB or other illnesses are not routinely separated from the mainstream population; during the visit prisoners were seen in the F-Block wearing protective masks (subsequently confirmed to be for protection against TB contamination) sharing a cell with up to 3 other non-TB infected prisoners. Risk of cross-contamination is thus aggravated by overcrowding.
Problems with communicable diseases affect not just prisoners but also those working within the prison. Amnesty International spoke with several prison officers who alleged that there have been a number of cases of prison officers contracting TB and Hepatitis and stated that there was a lack of adequate facilities to protect prison officers from contracting diseases.(82) The Prison Superintendent acknowledged that one prison officer had contracted TB but stated that he had "resigned, been treated and got well." It was not clear whether prison policy requires staff to resign in the case of contracting such diseases.
The wider Bahamian population are also placed at risk of infection from prisoners released without treatment. The Ministry of Health expressed concerns around inmates returning to the community without adequate treatment for communicable diseases such as TB. A health problem in the prison can thus become an issue of public health for the general population.(83)
Female prisoners
Women doctors were not available for consultation and there is no gynaecologist or obstetrician on staff. Women stated that they did not have sufficient access to specialists in women’s health care.(84)
Psychiatric care
Prison is not the right place for people who are mentally ill. Keeping mentally ill people in prison makes life more difficult for everyone in prison: staff and other prisoners, as well as the prisoner who is mentally ill.
UN Human Rights and Prisons training manual, 2000
The UN Standard Minimum Rules require prisons to have at least one medical officer with knowledge of psychiatry and for services to be linked to those available to the general population.(85) Provision of psychiatric care for male and female prisoners, including suicidal prisoners, is desperately lacking however. The prison doctor informed the delegation that there is currently no psychiatrist at the prison and that no staff have mental health training. During the visit of the delegation, some prison officers talked openly of the "difficulties in dealing with the mentally ill." The Ministry of Health recognized the need for a full time psychiatrist and psychologist as well as for prison officers with psychiatric training (although two were reportedly referred for a course.)(86)
The lack of provision of psychiatric services persists despite several reported suicides at the prison in the last few years. The prison was unable to provide the delegation with accurate statistics on suicides for the last five years, and none were available in recent reports.(87) The most recent published Annual Report listed 8 deaths in the preceding year (2000). The cause of death was not given, however media reports indicated that inquests held in the case of one, John Higgs, recorded a verdict of suicide.(88) In April 2001, the Prison Service was reportedly held grossly negligent by a court following the death of a prisoner on death row, reportedly after he slit his wrists. The delegation interviewed one pre-trial prisoner in the F-block in maximum security who stated that he had been placed there because he was suicidal. He was detained in a dark, fetid cell measuring around 2 x 3 metres with two other prisoners. He stated that he had not seen a psychiatrist during his two-month incarceration on remand for a first-time offence.
At present, the medical officer has exclusive responsibility for observing and identifying suicidal inmates. When interviewed by the delegation, the prison doctor was unfamiliar with the Thurston case but stated that suicidal prisoners would routinely be referred to a psychiatrist. The Ministry of Health confirmed that suicide is viewed predominately as a security rather than as a health issue and the prison doctor agreed that there was a need for further support to be given to prison officers in order to identity those prisoners most at risk.
The delegation was informed that alternative psychiatric treatment facilities are provided via the transfer of prisoners to the Sandilands Rehabilitation Centre (Sandilands), the local psychiatric hospital, as provided for under prison legislation.(89) However, it was unclear whether this is routine in practice. We were told that at times more than 50 prisoners have been in-patients at Sandilands, although on the day of our visit, statistics provided to us by the Prison Management indicated that no prisoners were currently receiving treatment there. The Prison Superintendent stated that only acutely psychotic patients were transferred.(90)
Case study: Kazimierz Kwasiborski – Death attributed to medical neglect
Amnesty International has received credible allegations that Kazimierz Kwasiborski, an untried prisoner and Polish national, died in prison on 28th August 2002 after being repeatedly denied requests to access medical, legal and consular assistance.
The reports suggested that Kwasiborski, a severe asthmatic, was denied requests to have his asthma medication with him or administered to him by both the police officers who arrested him and subsequently by prison officers, although oxygen was reportedly administered to him on several occasions. He allegedly slept standing up, leaning against the wall or squatting, for fear of suffocation. On 14th August, his attempt to raise his request for medical assistance in court was reportedly dismissed. He had appeared in court without legal assistance. On the day of his death, prisoners reportedly summoned help after he suffered another asthma attack. However it is alleged that instead of being provided with medical assistance, he was carried by a prison guard to an isolation cell where he was left without observation. The Polish consular authorities appear to have been informed of Kwasiborski’s detention an unexplainable 46 days after his initial detention on 5 September 2002, in violation of international agreements on foreign nationals’ home governments being promptly informed of their detention.(91)
The subsequent investigation into his death appears to have failed to conform to an even minimal degree of international standards. These require that investigations into deaths in custody are conducted promptly, independently and impartially and should include adequate autopsies. Amnesty International requested a forensic expert, Professor Derrick Pounder, to review the report of the autopsy carried out after his death at a local hospital. He concluded that it "failed abysmally to adhere to international law or standards for autopsy procedure. There was no thorough search for injuries or unnatural cause of death and the autopsy failed even to establish the cause of death."(92) The family was unaware that the autopsy was taking place and therefore was unable to appoint an independent medical or qualified representative to observe the autopsy. A request for information from the Government on the case had not been replied to by September 2003.
Proposals to improve provision of medical care
In 2001, a Prison Health Executive Management Committee completed a prison health and environmental assessment(93) and in July 2002, the Committee reportedly presented a healthcare manual for inmate care to Government, who announced that it would be implemented forthwith and distributed to the prison senior management team.(94) However during discussions with the delegation, the senior management team seemed to be unaware of the programme and were unable to provide any information on its implementation.
The Ministry of Health informed the delegation that three more prison doctors were to be employed, pending budgetary approval from the Ministry of National Security, that prison officers were to be trained in nursing (pending reform of prison legislation limiting to 3 the number of nurses that can be employed in the prison) and that the Medical Association of the Bahamas has suggested providing mobile services.
Amnesty International welcomes this and other recent moves to improve the adequacy of prison health care provision and strongly encourages the immediate implementation of such measures.
Contact with the outside world
The Minister for National Security and Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that visiting allowance provided for under Bahamian legislation is inadequate. She expressed concern at the fact that those with criminal records are prohibited from visiting the prison, regardless of the nature of the offence or the amount of time that has elapsed since its commission.(95) The Prison Reform Commission recommended encouraging more family members to visit inmates, with 70% of prisoners being parents. The Prison Rules permits visits every month (for untried prisoners) or every two months (convicted prisoners). However in practice Amnesty International were told by some prisoners that this right is not consistently implemented. Prisoners in maximum security told Amnesty International that visitation privileges could be taken away for infringements of the prison rules. Some female prisoners also complained that visitation rights were insufficient to allow them to maintain adequate links with family. This is of particular concern given that so many female prisoners often still bear the brunt of caring responsibilities.
Despite the prison rules stating that visits shall last two hours, these typically last only half an hour. The delegation witnessed remand visits for remand prisoners in maximum security. The visitation room comprises a large rectangular room into which there are two principal entrances, one at one end for prisoners, one at the other end for visitors. The centre of the room is screened vertically by wooden frames holding a fine wire mesh. The prisoners sit on benches on the inside of this screened area and the visitors sit on benches on the outside. It follows that they cannot touch each other, but they can see and hear each other reasonably well. The officers who supervised the visits were not intrusive and stood at the end of the room.
The delegation also witnessed visits for death row prisoners. Visitors are taken to the cells and a screen of wire mesh is erected between the cells and the corridor. Visitors and prisoners can not touch each other and it is harder in this environment for them to hear each other or see each other properly. In the case of legal advisers, these arrangements do not permit detainees’ right to confidential communications between lawyer and client to be respected in practice. (96)
Arrangements for prisoners’ mail are of serious concern with reports of long delays due to inefficient censoring arrangements: prisoners informed the delegation that their letters might be delayed for as much as two months. If incoming or outgoing mail is delayed for more than a day two, it is an unacceptable practice. Prison staff stated that prisoners were only allowed one sheet of paper a month for letters. Prisoners were also penalised, with a loss of visitation or letter rights, if incoming letters were received without a corresponding outgoing letter in prison records.
Employment and education
We know that sending young men to prison with hardened criminals, with no constructive program for them, does not help the men or society."
Catholic Archbishop of the Bahamas, Lawrence E. Burke(97)
"Aggressively seek to sensitize the community to the needs of ex-offenders if they are to be given a realistic chance at not re-offending."
According to the Prison Reform Commission Report 2003, the recidivism rate in the Bahamas is approaching 70% and the same proportion of the prison population is functionally illiterate. Only 10% of prisoners were estimated to be in employment by the prison administration, including 40% approximately of sentenced prisoners. The Prison Reform Commission found little organized effort aimed at rehabilitation, stating that, "clearly the pre-occupation centred around incapacitation, as inmates were invariably in lockdown for twenty-three hours a day."(98)
The UN Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Prisoners provide, inter alia, that all sentenced prisoners should work, subject to mental and physical health, in employment that assist re-integration after release. Prisoners should receive ‘equitable remuneration’ and be allowed to send part of this to family. Untried prisoners should be offered the opportunity to work, but should not be required to work. (99)
Untried prisoners do not work and have no opportunity to. Some female prisoners told the delegation that they were given no opportunity to participate in work, educational or vocational programmes. The prison administration blamed this issue on staffing. However the Prison Act does not explicitly state that untried prisoners can work, dealing exclusively with sentenced prisoners. A Vocational Institute was due to open on September 30 2002 and it is to be hoped that this will improve provision.
Amnesty International toured the women’s section of the visit and spoke with prisoners and staff. On the day of the delegation’s visit, there were 34 female prisoners. Women make up a minority of those in prison. The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners provide that its standards for imprisonment should be applied without distinction as to sex.(100) However, Amnesty International is concerned that the particular rights and needs of women in prison are not currently being met. The delegation was concerned about the apparent use of punitive isolation or "lock-down" for women prisoners. Amnesty International visited a number of female prisoners confined for up to 24 hours a day in small cells allowing in virtually no natural light or air. The delegation was told that prisoners were placed here for breaching prison rules or because they represented a danger to themselves or others. It was not clear however whether the decision to place women here was sanctioned by a psychiatrist or similarly qualified person. Some women interviewed complained of physical and mental stresses due to the increased isolation. In Amnesty International’s view, these conditions amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment based on the physical conditions inside the cells, inadequate out-of-cell or association time and lack of access to exercise, educational or other programmes. The organisation recommends urgent review of the regime for female prisoners, including an opportunity for those in isolation to have their custody status reviewed so that those not presenting an institutional security risk can have more association with other prisoners. Amnesty International also recommends that no prisoner, male or female, should be confined in long-term isolation.
Allegations of brutality
The delegation was unable to conduct in-depth interview of prisoners outside of the earshot of prison officers. However Amnesty International has received some reports of ill-treatment which, if verified, would violate the Bahamas’ legal obligations as well as international standards prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.(101)
There have been some reports of rape. In October 2001, reports were received of the rape of a 17-year old inmate by three other prisoners. At the time, the Acting Prison Superintendent publicly denied the allegations. He was unable to clarify the outcome of a reported police investigation into the alleged incident, but stated that both the alleged victim and perpetrator had now been released from the prison. A prison outreach worker also stated to the delegation that some former prisoners had disclosed what appeared to be allegations of rape. It was unclear whether the allegations related to guards or other prisoners. In April 2003 a newspaper also printed reports that around twenty mothers of untried prisoners had raised their concerns with the authorities about widespread rape in prison.(102)
When queried, the prison authorities denied that male rape or sexual abuse was a major problem, stating that it was rare to receive complaints from prisoners. However they did concede that in a scenario such as that of a male prisoner charged with child rape offences, the possibility of prisoner-on-prisoner violence could not be discounted. Nevertheless they suggested that prisoners would in time ‘forget’ such allegations and that a prisoner may be ‘put away for his own protection’, although more staff were needed to ensure adequate supervisions.
Such reports are invariably hard to corroborate, largely because of the shame and secrecy which surrounds rape. However, Amnesty International views the existence of such reports with concern and believes that they warrant action by the authorities to ensure that prisoners are not faced with threats of physical or sexual abuse and that all allegations of abuse are properly investigated, with the complainant protected from possible instances of retaliation.
In September 2003, a newspaper reported that a jury had returned a verdict of manslaughter in the case of a prisoner who killed his cell mate, Mario Seymour, on 23 August 2000.
Inspections and Accountability
Accountability arrangements, including those for dealing with deaths in custody, appear generally to be lacking in the Bahamas. In order to ensure that rigorous standards for accountability and transparency are maintained, international standards make clear that prisoners should have an effective right to make a complaint regarding treatment to the director or to judicial authorities or other approved authorities. This should be dealt with (unless extremely frivolous) promptly and, if necessary, confidentially. Prisoners (including illiterate prisoners) should also receive written information on regulations, discipline and access to complaints mechanisms.(103) Apart from the general right to make complaints, other important measures include regular external inspections, with whom prisoners should be able to communicate confidentially.(104)
Visiting committee
The Bahamas Prison Act 1943 stipulates that there shall be a prison Visiting Committee with three functions - grievance ventilation, inspection and discipline.
The Amnesty International visiting delegation did not meet any members of the Visiting Committee but discussed their contemporary functions with members of the prison staff. The delegation also inspected the minute book of the Visiting Committee.(105) The delegation was informed that the Committee’s disciplinary functions had, for all practical purposes, fallen into abeyance: it could find no recent incident of disciplinary proceedings being referred to and dealt with by the Visiting Committee.
Nor could the delegation find within the Visiting Committee Minute Book evidence of the Committee’s inspectoral or grievance ventilation functions. Nothing was recorded regarding the Committee’s conclusions as the state of the prison - cleanliness, overcrowding, the adequacy of facilities or supplies, the provision of work, etc - or of prisoners formally having made complaints as to the Committee and the Committee’s determinations.
The delegation inquired of the Visiting Committee’s Secretary as to the Committee’s Annual Report, required of them by the Prison Act. She knew of no Annual Report. When asked if the Committee ever issues press releases or spoke in the media regarding the conditions in the prison, she said that she knew of no such occasions or appearances.
Amnesty International concludes, therefore, that the Visiting Committee does not fulfil its statutory functions. It appears that disciplinary matters are no longer referred to it. Its members may make tours of the prison but the Committee as a whole appears to do nothing to bring to the attention of Ministers, senior officials or the Bahamian public at large the disjunction between what the Bahamian Parliament intended, according to the Prison Act, should happen in the prison and its current grossly inadequate state. Finally, there is no evidence that prisoners bring to the Committee their complaints or, if they do, that the Committee records and responds to them.
Such bodies are potentially valuable public accountability mechanisms. However, to be effective they have to have appointed to them persons with the commitment to realise what Parliament must have originally intended they should do. The current Committee of Visitors at Foxhill appears not to fulfil the role of watchdog which is so sorely needed. Amnesty International therefore supports the Prison Reform Commission’s recommendation that the Committee be replaced.
Annual Reports
Although Annual Reports are required by law, prison legislation gives no automatic right to the public to view prison Annual Reports which must be prepared at the beginning of each year for presentation to the Government. It is also not clear whether these are in fact produced yearly.(106) The most recent Annual Report available to the delegation was less than adequate in terms of providing Bahamian citizens and commentators with the means of appraising the work of the prison.(107) It follows from the above that the external observer has no means of appraising how effectively the criminal justice system is operating and what the possible solutions to the gross overcrowding at Foxhill Prison may be. The lack of published Criminal and Court Statistics compound this inadequacy.
Corporal punishment and Prison Discipline
Corporal punishment is still a lawful sentence for males in the Bahamas.(108) Amnesty International continues to receive reports of sentences being imposed by the courts, most commonly for rape, and these are carried out within the prison. The Minister of National Security suggested to the organisation that the issue of corporal punishment was one which could be determined by a referendum. An adult male may be flogged with a maximum of 24 strokes of the cat (on the back) or rod (on the buttocks) or by up to 12 strokes of whipping.(109) Male children may be whipped with a light cane but not flogged and the flogging or whipping or women is prohibited (although the Criminal Law (Measures) Act 1991 permits the imposition of a substitute sentence of solitary confinement.(110) Amnesty International considers that judicial corporal punishment constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The organisation believes that its continued use should not be decided on the basis of popular opinion and urges its immediate abolition.
In terms of internal prison discipline, the use of mechanical restraints as a punishment is prohibited under the prison rules. However the rules permit their use to prevent injury to the self or others and disturbances. Leg irons are permitted in order to prevent rioting or escape attempts, to transport prisoners to or from work and in certain other "cases of necessity".(111) Prison authorities stated that these had not been used for at least ten years and the delegation saw no evidence of their use during its visit. However it is recommended that legislation permitting the use of these restraints should be abolished in line with international standards on the use of restraints on prisoners.(112) Amnesty International also recommends that existing prison legislation permitting the imposition of "punishment diets" be repealed.(113)
Prison officers
[Prison officers] are made to endure the same conditions as inmates; in fact, worse, because not only are they placed at risk by health hazard[s], they daily go home, and by that act, place their families and the general public at risk also.
Minister of National Security, Cynthia Pratt(114)
* Amnesty International acknowledges that the work prison officers perform is stressful, at times dangerous and often goes unrecognised.
* The overcrowded, unhygienic living conditions for prisoners at Fox Hill result in poor working conditions for prison officers.
* Amnesty International believes that the conditions described in this report could result in prison officers suffering both physical and psychological problems as a result of pressures of work.
* This adversely impacts upon the treatment of those detained at the prison as well as being of concern to prison officers themselves, their families and wider communities.
* Amnesty International believes that it is vital that the needs of prison officers are not overlooked in plans to reform.
International standards recognise that the work prison officers perform is a social service of great social importance, requiring careful selection and training of personnel.(115) The living conditions for prisoners are the working conditions for staff. A number of prison officers told Amnesty International of their concerns regarding working conditions at the prison.(116) The Prison Reform Commission Report 2003 observed prison officers exposed to airborne diseases, a lack of promotion opportunities and training and inadequate attention being given to staff welfare. It recommended that working conditions for prison officers be improved so as to equal those of their counterparts in the criminal justice system. A number of initiatives have been announced, such as the creation of a new health clinic for prison officers (although this has not reportedly opened).
Amnesty International bel
