Human-rights cases

Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Violation of P4-2-2;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

SPT visit report for Benin, doc symbol CAT/OP/BEN/1. Published 19 Jan 2011. Full text at the linked URL.

Violation of Art. 8;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Preliminary objection allowed (exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objections dismissed (six-month period, ratione materiae);Violation of Art. 6-1 (Italy);Remainder inadmissible (France);Damage - award

Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, victim);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Just satisfaction reserved

Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 7-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 7-1

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 7-1

Violation of Art. 5-1;No violation of Art. 3

Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (six-month period, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-c - Reasonably necessary to prevent fleeing)

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1-a;Violation of Art. 5-5;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of P1-3;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The youth confmed to LCJDC are subjected to conditions that violate their constitutional and federal statutory rights. Our investigation revealed systemic, egregious, and dangerous abuses perpetuated by a lack of accountability and controls. LCJDC fails to prevent unconstitutional harms, or minimize the risk of such harms, through undue use ofrestraints, arbitrary imposition ofpunishment, inadequate grievance procedures, failure to report and investigate abuse, inadequate classification systems, inadequate rehabilitative treatment, inadequate medical and mental health care, inadequate suicide risk protections, inadequate environmental safety, inadequate staffmg, and inadequate educational services. We found that: - 2 ­ • Youth are dangerously and routinely shackled to metal beds for discipline and punishment; • Staff have unfettered discretion to immediately administer punishment, and isolation is used excessively for punishment and control; • Suicidal youth are not assessed by mental health professionals despite known risks; • Internal investigations dismiss abuse complaints against staff as manipulative; and • No accoITunodations exist for children with learning disabilities. These systemic deficiencies exist because generally accepted juvenile justice standards are not followed. We found that LCJDC staff members do not receive minimally adequate training and that existing policies and procedures are inadequate to ensure constitutionally adequate care and custody ofthe youth confined to the facility. Staff members fail to report allegations of abuse to the State and appear to routinely violate youths' rights with impunity. The widespread and significant deficiencies at the facility are a result of significant departures from accepted juvenile justice standards and violate the Fourteenth Amendment's mandate that youth in custody be protected from harm. In this letter, we provide

our findings. On April 2, 2008, we notified officials of Miami-Dade Calmty ("County") of our intent to investigate the MDCR corrections facilities pursuant to the Civil Rights oflnstitutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C.§ 1997. CRIP A gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constihltional rights of prisoners in adult detention and corrections facilities. CRIP A requires that we advise you of the findings of our investigation, the facts supporting them, and the minimum remedial steps that are necessary to address the de-£iciencies we have identified. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b. I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS We conclude that that there is a pattern and practice of constitutional violations in the correctional facilities operated by MDCR, and as a result of the unconstitutional operation of the Jail, prisoners suffer grievous harm, including death. As described more fully below, our specific findings include: • MDCR is deliberately indifferent to the suicide risks and serious mental health needs of its prisoners. At least eight prisoners have committed suicide since 2007, and thousands of prisoners have suffered from inadequate mental health crisis services. • MDCR fails to provide adequate acute care, chronic care, outpatient treatment, and - 2 ­ discharge services to prisoners with mental illness. Instead, MDCR inappropriately relies on medication management that fails to consistently incorporate diagnoses or treatment plans, even for prisoners with the most serious mental illnesses. • MDCR is deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of prisoners including access to care for acute medical needs, management of chronic health problems, and record keeping and quality assurance. Prisoners wait weeks and even months to receive consultations for care from HIV, cardiology, and neurology specialists. • MDCR fails to provide adequate intake screening, initial health assessments and acute care for newly incarcerated prisoners. Since 2008, at least five prisoners have died from MDCR's failure to identify and treat prisoners withdrawing from drugs or alcohol. • MDCR is engaged in a pattern or practice ofusing excessive force against prisoners. MDCR corrections officers openly engage in abusive and retaliatory conduct, which frequently causes injuries to prisoners. • MDCR is deliberately indifferent to the serious risk ofharm to prisoners posed by fellow prisoners. Corrections officers fail to supervise prisoners, particularly prisoners known to be violent, resulting in ongoing harm and serious risk ofharm. There is significant evidence to be concerned that the Jail fails to take reasonable steps to protect prisoners from sexual assault. • The conditions of confinement within the Jail expose prisoners to an umeasonable risk of hann from inadequate fire and life safety systems and environmental health and sanitation deficiencies, including umeasonable risk of infection from overcrowding and inadequate laundry, housekeeping, and pest controL II. INVESTIGATION On June 9-13, 2008, June 16-20,2008, and April 7-8,2009, we inspected the facility together with consultants in the fields of corrections, custodial medical and mental health care, suicide prevention, and environmental health and sanitation. We interviewed administrative and corrections staff, medical and mental health care providers, prisoners, and members of the Miami-Dade community. Our investigation also included the review of policies and procedures, incident reports, grievances, medical records, and use of force records and investigations, including documents provided by the County subsequent to our on-site visits. In keeping with our pledge of transparency and providing technical assistance where appropriate, our consultants conveyed their preliminary impressions and concerns to County officials and the MDCR command staff at the conclusio

findings of the Civil Rights Division's investigation of conditions at the Robertson County Detention Center ("RCDF" or "Jail"), conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 ("CRIP A"). The Civil Rights Division commenced its investigation at the request of the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee, after that office received complaints from prisoners regarding RCDF's provision of nutrition and medical care. During our investigation, we assessed RCDF's compliance with the Constitution, which requires the Jail to provide detainees with humane conditions of confinement, including adequate medical and mental health care, food, clothing, and shelter. While we found RCDF's practices with respect to nutrition, medical care, and environmental health and safety adequate or minimally adequate to comply with the Constitution, we found a pattern or practice of constitutional violations in RCDF's provision of mental health care. Specifically, RCDF's mental health practices place prisoners at a substantial and unreasonable risk of serious harm. In the other areas we investigated, we have serious concerns that do not yet rise to the level of constitutional violations, including numerous medical practices that could result in constitutional violations if left unremedied. By implementing the remedies set forth below, the County will fulfill its duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the health and safety of those in its custody. In making these findings, we note that RCDF has been cooperative throughout our investigation and receptive to our preliminary findings and initial recommendations. We are thus I. -2- confident that RCDP will take appropriate measures to remedy the deficiencies we detail in this letter, and look forward to working cooperatively with RCDP as it does so. Summary of Findings and Conclusions We have concluded that Robertson County ("the County") fails to provide mental health care to prisoners at RCDP in violation of the Pourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Addressing these deficiencies should be RCDP's highest priority, as we believe that these lapses, if not corrected, have a strong likelihood of resulting in unnecessary injury and/or loss of life. Our specific findings of practices that do not comport with the requirements of the Constitution include: • RCDP fails to protect prisoners from harm by permitting Licensed Practical Nurses ("LPNs") - individuals with little or no mental health training - to independently manage suicide precautions. The Constitution requires the Jail to provide prisoners with mental health needs with access to medical personnel who are qualified to diagnose and treat mental illness. • RCDP fails to provide prisoners with serious mental illnesses with timely and competent mental health care. Specifically, (a) prisoners with chronic mental illnesses who are not capable of requesting mental health care are effectively denied treatment; (b) prisoners who request mental health care experience delays that violate constitutional standards; and (c) nurses are responsible for providing mental health care beyond their training and qualifications. While we do not find a current violation of the Constitution, we find that certain medical practices at RCDP may pose unreasonable risks to prisoners' safety and health and, ifleft mrremedied, may violate the Constitution. Additionally, we find that while the Jail's nutrition and sanitation meet minimum constitutional requirements, certain ofRCDP's practices in these areas are deficient or cause us concern. II. Investigation On July 13, 2010, we notified you that we were opening an investigation of conditions at RCDP pursuant to CRIP A. Based on the allegations and information we received from the United States Attorney's Office, the initial focus of our investigation was the nutritional adequacy of the diet provided to RC

Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-3

Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-c+6-1

Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5

Violation of Art. 5-1-e;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5

Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13

Violation of Art. 5-3

Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 5-1

Preliminary objection dismissed (victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-c

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domesic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 13;Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domesic remedies);Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 13+2;Pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage - award

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-b - Adequate time;Preparation of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-a - Information on nature and cause of accusation;Article 6-3-b - Preparation of defence;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)