Human-rights cases

Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)

Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)

conditions of confinement for children (i.e., youth under the age of 18) at Manson, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. (CRIPA), and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (Section 12601). The investigation focused on three issues: (1) whether Manson’s isolation practices violate the constitutional rights of children; (2) whether Manson’s mental health services for children are constitutionally inadequate; and (3) whether Manson violates the IDEA rights of children with disabilities. The Department conducted an onsite tour of Manson in January 2020. During this tour, Department attorneys and expert consultants conducted dozens of interviews of administrators and staff members, including security staff, counselors, mental health clinicians, teachers, administrators, as well as children confined at the facility. Additionally, Department attorneys and expert consultants reviewed over 31,000 pages of documents, including incident and use of force reports, policies and regulations, training materials, mental health records, education records, meeting minutes, lesson plans, shift rosters, unit logs, and investigative files. 1 Following the January 2020 tour, and throughout the pandemic, we continued to receive and review additional and updated documents and records from Manson. In February 2021, we conducted several additional interviews via videoconference. We appreciate the State’s cooperation and professionalism throughout the course of this investigation. Facility administrators and staff provided relevant documents and materials before, during and after our visit and facilitated our on-site visit as well as a number of videoconferences. III. BACKGROUND Manson is a State correctional facility operated by the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) which houses approximately 200 to 300 male youth under the age of 22 years, including children under the age of 18 (“children”) who have been transferred from juvenile court to the adult criminal court system.1 Our investigation focuses exclusively on the children at Manson. During our investigation, Manson housed between 30 and 51 children. The majority of the children (approximately 75 to 80 percent) were being held pending trial and, therefore, had not been tried for (or convicted of) the crimes with which they were charged. Almost all of the children at Manson have at least one mental health diagnosis. Almost two-thirds have also been identified as eligible for special education services. The majority of children at Manson (approximately 75 to 85 percent) are identified as Black or Latinx. Manson’s under-eighteen population is housed separately from the older youth on two units, Units I and J. One wing within the J unit is used as an isolation unit. The individual cells on the isolation unit contain beds, and a sink/toilet. Children assigned to this unit are not permitted to keep personal possessions in their cells. IV. CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED We find that Connecticut is violating the constitutional and federal rights of children in three areas. First, Manson’s isolation practices harm children. Second, the State does not provide adequate mental health care to children. Third, qualified children with disabilities are not receiving the special education services to which they are entitled. 1 Under Connecticut law, children under the age of 18 who are charged with certain felonies are automatically transferred from juvenile court to the adult criminal court if the child was at least 15 years old when the alleged offense occurred. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-127. Prosecutors may also petition t

findings of fact and conclusions of law under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131−12134; 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(c). We also notify you of the minimum remedial measures that we believe may remedy the alleged violations. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that Alameda County and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office violate the ADA and engage in a pattern or practice of constitutional violations in the conditions at the Santa Rita Jail, and that Alameda County violates the ADA as interpreted by Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 607 (1999). Specifically, we have reasonable cause to believe that: (1) Alameda County violates the ADA by failing to provide services to qualified individuals with mental health disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs by unnecessarily institutionalizing them at John George Psychiatric Hospital and sub-acute facilities; (2) Santa Rita Jail fails to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to prisoners with serious mental health needs, including those at risk of suicide; (3) Santa Rita Jail’s use of prolonged restrictive housing under current conditions violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of prisoners with serious mental illness; and (4) Santa Rita Jail violates the ADA by denying prisoners with mental health disabilities access to services, programs, and activities because of their disabilities.1 We thank Alameda County, Alameda Health System, and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for accommodating our investigation and providing access to facilities, staff, documents, and data. We are obligated to advise you that 49 days after issuance of this Notice, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit under CRIPA to correct the alleged conditions we have identified if Alameda County officials have not satisfactorily addressed them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(1). CRIPA also authorizes the Department to move to intervene in a related private suit 15 days after issuing the Notice. 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b)(1). We hope, however, to resolve this matter through a cooperative approach and look forward to working with Alameda County leadership and staff to address the violations of law we have identified. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will, therefore, contact Alameda County to discuss options for resolving this matter amicably. Please also note that this Notice is a public document. It will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website. 1 The Department of Justice (Department) opened this investigation to examine five issues: (1) whether the County’s reliance on psychiatric institutions to provide mental health services to adults with mental health disabilities violates the ADA; (2) whether the conditions of confinement and practices at Santa Rita Jail deprive persons with serious mental illness of their constitutional rights; (3) whether the conditions at Santa Rita Jail violate the rights of persons with mental health disabilities under the ADA; (4) whether the practices at John George Psychiatric Hospital violate the rights of persons with mental health disabilities under the ADA to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs; and (5) whether the conditions at John George Psychiatric Hospital deprive persons with serious mental illness of their constitutional rights. This Notice Letter applies to the first four issues. With regard to the remaining issue, the Department did not reach a conclusion as to whether there are systemic unconstitutional conditions at John George Psychiatric hospital and is closing its investigation. 2 3 If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please call Steven H. Rosenbaum, Chief of the Special Litigation Section, at

Juvenile Justice CRIPA matter — Charles H. v. D.C., District of Columbia. Status: Statement of Interest.

conditions of confinement at the San Luis Obispo County Jail (the Jail), conducted under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. We thank Jail leadership, administrators, and staff for accommodating our investigation and providing access to the Jail’s facilities, staff, documents, data, and prisoners. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that conditions at the San Luis Obispo County Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, we have reasonable cause to believe that the Jail violates the constitutional and statutory rights of prisoners by its: (1) failure to provide constitutionally adequate medical care to prisoners; (2) failure to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to prisoners; (3) use of prolonged restrictive housing under conditions that violate the constitutional rights of prisoners with serious mental illness; (4) failure to prevent, detect, or correct use of excessive force that violates the constitutional rights of prisoners; and (5) denial of equal access to prisoners with disabilities in violation of the ADA. We are obligated to advise you that 49 days after issuance of this letter and the enclosed Report of Investigation, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit under CRIPA to correct the alleged conditions we have identified if Jail officials have not satisfactorily addressed them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l). We hope, however, to resolve this matter through a more cooperative approach and look forward to working with the County to address the violations of law we have identified. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will therefore contact San Luis Obispo County Counsel to discuss options for resolving this matter amicably. Please also note that this letter and the Report of Investigation are public documents. They will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please call Steven H. Rosenbaum, Chief of the Special Litigation Section, at (202) 616-3244 or Karen Ruckert, Chief, Civil Rights Section, Civil Division, at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California, at (213) 894-2879. Sincerely, /s/ Kristen Clarke Kristen Clarke Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division /s/ Tracy L. Wilkison Tracy L. Wilkison Acting United States Attorney cc: Rita L. Neal, Esq. San Luis Obispo County Counsel Encl: Report of Investigation of the San Luis Obispo County Jail 2 INVESTIGATION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL (SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA) United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division United States Attorney’s Office Central District of California August 31, 2021

conditions of confinement at the Cumberland County Jail (the “Jail”), conducted under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. We thank Warden Smith and the Cumberland County Jail staff for accommodating our investigation and providing access to the Jail’s facilities, staff, documents, data, and prisoners. Consistent with CRIPA’s statutory requirements, we provide this written notice of the conditions that we have reasonable cause to believe violate the Constitution of the United States. See id. § 1997b(a). This letter and the attached report serve to notify you of the supporting facts giving rise to, and the minimum remedial measures that we believe may remedy, those alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that conditions at the Cumberland County Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Specifically, we have reasonable cause to believe that the Jail violates the constitutional rights of inmates by failing to take constitutionally adequate measures to prevent inmate suicides and provide adequate mental health care. These alleged violations are found in the failure to: (1) adequately address the heightened risk of self- harm and suicide for inmates experiencing unmedicated opiate withdrawal; (2) provide sufficient screening to identify inmates at risk of self-harm or in need of mental health care for a serious mental health condition; and (3) provide sufficient mental health care to inmates with a clear need for care. Although the CCJ is currently providing Medicated Assisted Treatment (MAT) Commissioner Director Derella January 14, 2021 Page 2 for inmates experiencing opiate withdrawal, its funding for future MAT services remains uncertain. We are obligated to advise you that 49 days after issuance of this Notice, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit under CRIPA to correct the alleged conditions we have identified if Jail officials have not satisfactorily addressed them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l). We hope, however, to resolve this matter through a more cooperative approach and look forward to working with the County to address the violations of law we have identified. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will therefore contact Cumberland County Counsel to discuss options for resolving this matter amicably. Please also note that this letter and the attached Findings Report are public documents. They will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please call Steven H. Rosenbaum, Chief of the Special Litigation Section, at (202) 616-3244 or Michael E. Campion, Chief, Civil Rights Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of New Jersey, at (973) 645-3141. Sincerely, /s/ John B. Daukas___ John B. Daukas Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division /s/ Rachael A. Honig__ Rachael A. Honig Acting United States Attorney cc: Richard T. Smith Warden, Cumberland County Jail John G. Carr, Esq. Cumberland County Counsel Encl: Report of Investigation of the Cumberland County Jail

Information received concerning the alleged intentional killings of Mr. Yerimia Zanambani, a reverend and Mr. Rufinus Tigau, a catholic church worker, by Indonesian security forces and injuries to a child through excessive use of force as well as the reported lack of access by internally displaced persons to essential services, the use of a school by the army and the destruction of a health facility. Alleged victims: 3 More details...

No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Effective domestic remedy;(Art. 35-2-b) Matter already submitted to another international procedure;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Free expression of the opinion of the people;Stand for election);Violation of Article 18+5 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures)

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses)

Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Witnesses) read in the light of Article 6 - (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-d - Witnesses)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Prohibition of torture)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)

Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-d - Witnesses)

SPT visit report for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, doc symbol CAT/OP/GBR/RONPM/1. Published 08 Dec 2020. Full text at the linked URL.

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)