<html>
<body>
<font size=3>
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/casella07122010.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.counterpunch.org/casella07122010.html<br><br>
</a></font><font size=2 color="#990000">July 12, 2010<br><br>
</font><h1><font size=4><b>US Prisons are Challenged in European Court of
Human Rights...and Lose the First Round <br><br>
<br>
</i></font><font size=5 color="#990000">Supermax Takes a Hit
</b></font></h1><font size=4>By JEAN CASELLA and JAMES RIDGEWAY <br><br>
</font><font size=3>The Federal Penitentiary Administrative Maximum
("ADX") in Florence, Colorado, where conditions may violate the
European Convention on Human Rights' prohibition against "torture or
inhuman and degrading treatment"<br><br>
For years, four British nationals have been fighting against their
extradition to the United States to face various terrorism charges,
arguing that such a move would place them at risk of human right
violations, as defined by the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
When courts in the UK ruled against the four men, they took their cause
to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.<br><br>
Among other things, the British suspects have argued that if extradited,
they could face a lifetime of solitary confinement under “special
administrative measures” (SAMs), most likely at ADX Florence, the
notorious federal supermax prison in Colorado. Such confinement, they
contend, would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human
Rights, which states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment.”<br><br>
The UK sought to have the suspects’ complaint dismissed. But today, the
European Court of Human Rights “declared admissible” the portions of the
complaint dealing with supermax conditions, as well as with life
sentences without the possibility of parole.<br><br>
A press release issued earlier today by the Registrar of the European
Court summarized the case (Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom)
this way:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>The applicants alleged in particular that, despite the diplomatic
assurances provided by the United States, they were at risk, if
extradited, of being subjected to an unfair trial–due to the use of
evidence obtained through torture and/or of coercive plea bargaining–at
the conclusion of which they could be designated as enemy combatants.
They also alleged that, once extradited, they were at risk of
extraordinary rendition and life imprisonment without parole and/or
extremely long sentences in a “supermax” prison such as ADX Florence
where special administrative measures would be applied to them. They
relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or
degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a
fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14
(prohibition of discrimination).<br><br>
</dl>Based on promises made by the United States, the Court ruled that if
extradited, the British suspects would not be at risk of extraordinary
rendition, of being tried as enemy combatants, or of unfair trials or
discrimination. It had also received assurances that the suspects would
not face the death penalty. When it came to confinement for life in
Florence ADX, however, the Court found a credible case could might be
made that such punishment would violate the European Convention.
<br><br>
The Court requested further briefing on a number of questions, including
the following, before it issues its final ruling:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Given the length of the sentences faced by [three of the four
suspects] if convicted, would the time spent at a “supermax” prison, the
US Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum, Florence, Colorado (“ADX
Florence”), amount to a violation of Article 3?<br><br>
<dd>Does the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment”), as interpreted by the
federal courts, provide protection equivalent to Article 3 of the
Convention?<br><br>
</dl>The four British terrorism suspects are represented by the firm of
renowned British human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce (who wrote about the
<a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n09/gareth-peirce/americas-non-compliance">
case here</a>). The information presented to the European Court on Human
Rights on their behalf reads like a rundown of evidence for the torturous
nature of solitary confinement in general, and lockdown at ADX Florence
in particular.<br><br>
Following are the relevant paragraphs from the Court’s decision.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>90. The applicants relied on a series of newspaper articles on ADX
Florence, including a Time magazine article of 5 November 2006 described
spartan cells and almost no contact between prisoners and other people,
since food, mail and laundry were passed through a slot in the cell door.
Prisoners were strip-searched before they were allowed to exercise. There
were also staff shortages which caused irregular meal times, reduced
telephone calls and exercise time. A television interview with a former
warden also described frequent force-feeding as a result of hunger
strikes by prisoners in protest at their conditions.<br><br>
<dd>91. The applicants also provided a report by a psychiatrist, Dr Terry
Kupers, which had been prepared specifically for the present proceedings.
He considered that a supermax prison regime did not amount to sensory
deprivation but there was an almost total lack of meaningful human
communication. This tended to induce a range of psychological symptoms
ranging from panic to psychosis and emotional breakdown. All studies into
the effects of supermax detention had found such symptoms after sixty
days’ detention. Once such symptoms presented, it was not sufficient to
return someone to normal prison conditions in order to remedy them. If
supermax detention were imposed for an indeterminate period it also led
to chronic despair. Approximately half of suicides in prison involved the
6-8% of prisoners held in such conditions. The effects of supermax
conditions were worse for someone with pre-existing mental health
problems. Dr Kuper’s conclusions were supported by a number of journal
articles by psychologists and criminologists, which the applicants
provided.<br><br>
<dd>92. The applicants also provided a copy of the Istanbul statement on
the use and effects of solitary confinement, which was adopted at the
International Psychological Trauma Symposium in December 2007. Its
participants included the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.
The statement included the following on the effects of solitary
confinement:<br><br>
<dd>“it has been convincingly documented on numerous occasions that
solitary confinement may cause serious psychological and sometimes
physiological ill effects. Research suggests that between one-third and
as many as 90 per cent of prisoners experience adverse symptoms in
solitary confinement. A long list of symptoms ranging from insomnia and
confusion to hallucinations and psychosis has been documented. Negative
health effects can occur after only a few days in solitary confinement,
and the health risks rise with each additional day spent in such
conditions.<br><br>
<dd>Individuals may react to solitary confinement differently. Still. a
significant number of individuals will experience serious health problems
regardless of the specific conditions, regardless of lime and place, and
regardless of pre-existing personal factors. The central harmful feature
of solitary confinement is that it reduces meaningful social contact to a
level of social and psychological stimulus that many will experience as
insufficient to sustain health and well-being.<br><br>
<dd>The use of solitary confinement in remand prisons carries with it
another harmful dimension since the detrimental effects will often create
a de facto situation of psychological pressure which can influence the
pretrial detainees lo plead guilty. When the element of psychological
pressure is used on purpose as part of isolation regimes such practices
become coercive and can amount to torture.”<br><br>
<dd>93. The applicants also submitted a report from the Civil Rights
Clinic at the University of Denver, which had acted for a number of
prisoners at ADX Florence. The report noted that conditions were even
more severe for those prisoners who were subjected to special
administrative measures. For example, such prisoners could only
communicate with his “attorney of record”. This made it impossible to
contact an attorney to request representation to challenge special
administrative measures. Requests made directly to the court to have an
attorney appointed were denied. There had been no successful challenges
to designation to ADX Florence and challenges could only succeed where
confinement in supermax affected the prisoner’s date of release or where
he was severely mentally ill. The report accepted that the step-down
programme could take a minimum of three years but prisoners could be
removed from it and returned to “general population” if they were found
guilty of misconduct or for “administrative reasons”. The report
highlighted the cases of several Muslim prisoners who had fulfilled all
of the criteria for admission to the step-down programme except for the
requirement that the original reasons for placement at ADX Florence be
“sufficiently mitigated”. However, several prisoners had only been
transferred from lower security prisons to ADX Florence after 11
September 2001 (despite no evidence of their involvement in the attacks)
and thus it was difficult for them to demonstrate that the reason for
their placement had been mitigated. Two Muslim clients of the Civil
Rights Center had spent respectively five and ten years in general
population units but had not been admitted to the step-down programme.
Another had spent five years in a general population unit and had only
been admitted after retaining the Center in a lawsuit.<br><br>
<dd>94. Both the applicants and Government made reference to a letter
dated 2 May 2007 from Human Rights Watch to the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons which followed a tour the organisation had been given
of ADX Florence. The letter expressed concerns that a number of prisoners
convicted of terrorism offences had been sent to the prison based on the
nature of their crimes and, despite good conduct since their arrival, had
remained in general population units and thus outside the step-down
programme for up to nine years. The letter made suggestions for
improvement in respect of recreation, mail, telephone use, the library.
It also noted that progress was to be made on better meeting prisoners’
religious needs, such as the provision of a full-time imam and commended
the educational programmes available through the prison’s television
system. The letter urged the prison authorities to investigate reports of
retaliation against prisoners who were on hunger strike in the form of
transfer to harsher cells. The letter also said that Human Rights Watch
was extremely concerned about the effects of long-term isolation and
highly limited exercise on the mental health of prisoners and criticised
reports of rushed consultations between prisoners and psychologists, as
well as the fact that evaluations were carried out via closed circuit
television.<br><br>
<dd>95. The applicants obtained a second letter from Human Rights Watch,
dated 21 August 2008, which stated that Human Rights Watch considered
conditions at ADX violated the United States’ treaty obligations under
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United
Nations Convention Against Torture. It was unremarkable that “minor
adjustments” had been made to the regime but it remained in essence one
of “long-term and indefinite incarceration in conditions of extreme
social isolation and sensory deprivation”.<br><br>
<dd>96. Human Rights Watch’s second letter also provided extracts from
two United Nations reports from 2006 on supermax detention. In the first,
the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated:<br><br>
<dd>“The Committee reiterates its concern that conditions in some maximum
security prisons are incompatible with the obligation contained in
article 10 (1) of the Covenant to treat detainees with humanity and
respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. It is particularly
concerned by the practice in some such institutions to hold detainees in
prolonged cellular confinement, and to allow them out-of-cell recreation
for only five hours per week, in general conditions of strict
regimentation in a depersonalized environment. It is also concerned that
such treatment cannot be reconciled with the requirement in article 10
(3) that the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment the essential
aim of which shall be the reformation and social rehabilitation of
prisoners. It also expresses concern about the reported high numbers of
severely mentally ill persons in these prisons, as well as in regular in
[sic] U.S. jails.<br><br>
<dd>The State party should scrutinize conditions of detention in prisons,
in particular in maximum security prisons, with a view to guaranteeing
that persons deprived of their liberty be treated in accordance with the
requirements of article ID of the Covenant and the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.”<br><br>
<dd>97. The second report was from the United Nations Committee Against
Torture, which stated:<br><br>
<dd>“The Committee remains concerned about the extremely harsh regime
imposed on detainees in ‘supermaximum prisons’. The Committee is
concerned about the prolonged isolation periods detainees are subjected
to, the effect such treatment has on their mental health, and that its
purpose may be retribution, in which case it would constitute cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 16). The State party
should review the regime imposed on detainees in ‘supermaximum prisons’,
in particular the practice of prolonged isolation.”<br><br>
</dl>For more on ADX Florence, see 60 Minutes,
“<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/60minutes/main3357727.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody">
Supermax: A Clean Version of Hell</a>” and the ADX page at
<a href="http://www.Supermaxed.com">Supermaxed.com</a>.<br><br>
Jean Casella</b> and James Ridgeway</b> edit
<a href="http://www.solitarywatch.org">Solitarywatch</a>, where this
article originally appeared. <br><br>
<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>