Human-rights cases

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

Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8 - 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 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)

Preliminary objection partially joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Positive obligations);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) read in the light of Article 14 - (Art. 14) Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation)

No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iraq);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iraq);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Expulsion);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Inhuman treatment)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

SPT visit report for Poland, doc symbol CAT/OP/POL/ROSP/1. Published 09 Jan 2020. Full text at the linked URL.

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;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);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 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal 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;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

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

No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Russia);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Russia);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Independent tribunal;Tribunal established by law) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Independent tribunal;Tribunal established by law) (Russia);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for home) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for home) (Russia);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for home) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture) (Russia)

Juvenile Justice CRIPA matter — Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc. v. Cannon, South Carolina. Status: Statement of Interest.

conditions of confinement at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women (Edna Mahan), the women’s prison located in Clinton, New Jersey, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, we provide this Notice of the conditions that we have reasonable cause to believe violate the Constitution. We also notify you of the supporting facts giving rise to, and the minimum remedial measures that we believe may remedy, those alleged conditions. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that conditions at Edna Mahan violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and that these violations are pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights protected by the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, we have reasonable cause to believe that New Jersey fails to keep women prisoners at Edna Mahan reasonably safe from staff sexual abuse. These violations are exacerbated by systemic deficiencies that discourage prisoners from reporting sexual abuse and allow sexual abuse at Edna Mahan to occur undetected and undeterred. 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 New Jersey officials have not satisfactorily addressed them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l ). The Attorney General may also move to intervene in related private suits 15 days after issuance of this letter. 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b)(l)(A). We hope, however, to resolve this matter through a more cooperative approach and look forward to working with you to address the alleged violations of law we have identified. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will be contacting the State’s private counsel to discuss this matter in further detail. Please also note that this Notice is a public document. It will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website. If you have any questions, please call Steven H. Rosenbaum, Chief of the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section, at (202) 616-3244 or Michael E. Campion, Chief of the Civil Rights Unit at the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey at (973) 645-3141. Sincerely, s/Eric S. Dreiband Eric S. Dreiband Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division s/Craig Carpenito Craig Carpenito United States Attorney District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice cc: Gurbir S. Grewal New Jersey Attorney General Marcus O. Hicks Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Corrections Sarah Davis, Administrator, Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women A. Matthew Boxer, Esq. Rachel Moseson, Esq. Lowenstein Sandler LLP

findings and legal conclusions binding on, or admissible in, any court, and nothing in this Notice should be construed as such. Accordingly, this Notice is not intended to be admissible evidence and does not create any legal rights or obligations. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, this Notice identifies the Department’s conclusions with respect to multiple constitutional violations, the facts supporting those conclusions, and the minimum remedial measures necessary to address the identified deficiencies. Specifically, the Department provides notice of the following identified conditions: • MDOC fails to provide constitutionally adequate supervision to prisoners in mental health crisis. MDOC prisoners on mental health (or suicide) watch face substantial risk of serious harm because MDOC staff fail to remove instruments they use to commit acts of self-harm. In part, these harms occur because MDOC lacks clear and uniform policies that contribute to inadequate supervision of prisoners in mental health crisis. This is further compounded by MDOC’s failure to provide appropriate training to security staff on how to supervise and protect prisoners from engaging in self-harm. Despite being on notice of the substantial risks of harm facing prisoners in crisis, MDOC is not adequately supervising prisoners to prevent current and future harm. • MDOC fails to provide adequate mental health care to prisoners in mental health crisis. During a time when prisoners are most in need of treatment, MDOC fails to properly treat suicidal prisoners and prisoners who self-harm. And when treatment must entail more than segregation, MDOC instead places prisoners in segregated restrictive housing.1 • MDOC’s use of prolonged mental health watch under restrictive housing conditions, including its failure to provide adequate mental health care, violates the constitutional rights of prisoners in mental health crisis. MDOC’s mental health watch involves restrictive, isolating, and unnecessarily harsh conditions. It is restrictive housing. MDOC subjects prisoners who are in mental health crisis to restrictive housing Restrictive housing, sometimes referred to as solitary confinement, segregation, or isolation, is any type of detentio 1 n that involves three basic elements: removal from the general prisoner population, whether voluntary or involuntary; placement in a locked room or cell, whether alone or with another prisoner; and inability to leave the room or cell for the vast majority of the day, typically 22 hours or more. Porter v. Clarke, 290 F. Supp. 2d 518, 528 (E.D. Va. 2018) (citing U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing 3 (Jan. 2016)). See Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2208 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (referring to the “usual pattern” of solitary confinement as being housed in “a windowless cell no larger than a typical parking spot for 23 hours a day; and in the one hour when [a prisoner] leaves it, he is allowed little or no opportunity for conversation or interaction with anyone”); Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 214, 223-24 (2005) (describing restrictive housing as limiting h uman contact for 23 hours per day). 1 for prolonged periods of time, which places them at a substantial risk of serious harm. For instance, during a 13-month period between July 2018 and August 2019, MDOC held 106 prisoners experiencing a mental health crisis on mental health watch for 14 consecutive days or longer. Because mental health watch is so restrictive and isolating, MDOC policy states that prisoners should only be on mental health watch for a maximum of four days. Contrary to this standard, 51 of those prisoners remained on menta

findings and legal conclusions binding on, or admissible in, any court, and nothing in this Notice of Investigative Conclusions (Notice) should be construed as such. Accordingly, this Notice is not intended to be admissible evidence and does not create any legal rights or obligations. Specifically, the United States provides notice that the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), fails to keep prisoners at Lowell safe from sexual abuse by staff. FDOC has documented and been aware of a pattern or practice of staff sexual abuse of Lowell prisoners since at least 2006. Despite being on notice of this sexual abuse, FDOC and Lowell failed to take timely action to remedy the systemic problems that have enabled corrections officers and other staff to continue to sexually abuse Lowell prisoners. As documented in this Notice, Lowell prisoners have suffered harm from sexual abuse and are at substantial risk of serious harm because existing systems discourage prisoners from reporting sexual abuse and fail to effectively detect and deter sexual abuse. Between 2017 and the present, Lowell sergeants, corrections officers, and other staff have committed notorious acts of sexual abuse, including rape, against prisoners. For example, in July 2020, a sergeant was arrested and charged with sexual misconduct after he admitted to engaging in oral sex with a prisoner in the maintenance room of a prisoner dormitory as recently as April 2020. That same sergeant had been accused in 2017 of sexually abusing a different prisoner, causing lesions on the prisoner’s throat from oral sex, and then retaliating against the prisoner when she refused his sexual advances. Even though FDOC verified the prisoner’s injuries, FDOC never completed the investigation for the 2017 incident, and the officer remained employed until his arrest in July 2020. This recent staff arrest is not an isolated incident. The Department identified evidence that Lowell has a long-standing pattern of criminal charges, discipline, and documented allegations of staff sexual abuse. In 2018, another sergeant allegedly raped a prisoner in a storage area, “pull[ing] [her] pants down and forc[ing] his penis in anally.” Extensive photographic evidence documented the prisoner’s injuries. Another officer allegedly took a prisoner to an outdoor area between two buildings, pushed her down, and forced his penis into her mouth. Prisoners repeatedly told the Department of officers making harassing, sexually explicit comments to them. One prisoner alleged in 2018 that an officer boasted to her that he had a large penis, and made graphic comments suggesting he wanted to perform oral sex on a Black woman. It is common for officers to grope prisoners, including their buttocks and breasts; bribe prisoners with contraband including drugs, cigarettes, food, and makeup in exchange for 1 sex; comment on prisoners’ bodies using crude sexual language and names; compel prisoners into ongoing abusive sexual “relationships;” watch prisoners as they use the toilet or shower, and when changing clothes, without justification; and threaten prisoners with solitary confinement if they report sexual abuse. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, the Department writes this Notice to notify the State of Florida of our conclusions with respect to these constitutional violations, the facts supporting those conclusions, and the minimum remedial measures necessary to address the identified deficiencies. II. INVESTIGATION On April 17, 2018, the Department notified the State of Florida of our intent to conduct an investigation of Lowell pursuant to CRIPA. Our investigation focused on wheth

findings and legal conclusions binding on, or admissible in, any court, and nothing in this Notice should be construed as such. Accordingly, this Notice is not intended to be admissible evidence and does not create any legal rights or obligations. II. Investigation On September 27, 2017, the Department of Justice notified South Carolina of its intent to conduct this investigation. The Department conducted three onsite tours of BRRC and visited DJJ offices around the State. Department attorneys and expert consultants conducted interviews of dozens of staff members including both line staff and DJJ management. Department attorneys and consultants also interviewed youth confined or previously confined at BRRC, and their family members. Further, the Department inspected BRRC to learn about the physical plant. In addition to inspections and interviews, the Department reviewed thousands of documents. Finally, the Department reviewed video, to the extent it was available, related to allegations of abuse. We appreciate DJJ’s cooperation during the course of the investigation. Staff facilitated the visits and made themselves available for interviews. The agency also provided relevant 1 documents and materials before, during and after our visits. Recently, DJJ provided information about initial steps it is taking to respond to concerns that the Department raised on site. We look forward to working with DJJ to remedy the violations of law described below. III. Background DJJ is responsible for the “care and rehabilitation of children who are incarcerated” in the state. Indeed, the DJJ’s stated mission is therapeutic: to “protect the public and reclaim juveniles through prevention, community programs, education, and rehabilitation services in the least restrictive environment.” DJJ’s rehabilitative services division operates five residential programs including the BRRC, a pretrial detention center, and three pre-disposition secure evaluation centers. A. The BRRC Campus The BRRC is located on a 540-acre sprawling campus in Columbia, South Carolina. On the grounds, there are three male dorms, an honor dorm, an isolation unit, an intensive treatment unit, and one female dorm. The three primary male dorms are identical: Each dorm has a central outdoor courtyard with three pods, or living areas, which extend from the courtyard. Each pod is a large room with bolted down chairs and tables in the middle, and 10 bed areas around the perimeter -- cinderblock cubicles that contain a bed and a nightstand. The female dorm is built to resemble a home with a kitchen, a living room with couches, and bedrooms shared by two female youths. There are two housing units for youth who display behavior and safety issues: the crisis management unit (CMU or isolation) and the intensive treatment unit (ITU). The crisis management unit is BRRC’s isolation unit, and it is intended to be used for youth who need to be temporarily removed from the general population if they violated the most serious level of behavioral standards and they are an immediate safety threat to either other young people, staff, or themselves, or are in danger of being harmed by staff, or young people. The CMU consists of three wings of concrete and steel cells. Each cell is 8 feet long by 8 feet wide and has no furniture except a cement bed and a thin mattress. The cells are dark: The only light comes from a solid metal door with a narrow slot at waist level and a small window that is painted over to prevent interaction with staff and youth outside. While confined, youth are completely isolated from the general population and confined to their cells for 23 hours a day. Youth in the CMU do not attend school, or participate in recreation or other programs with youth in the general populat

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

Información recibida en relación con el asesinato del Sr. Cruz Soto Caraveo, integrante del Colectivo de Familias Desplazadas Forzadamente de la Sierra Tarahumara, y la situación de las personas desplazadas de la Sierra Tarahumara, Estado de Chihuahua, por cuenta de la violencia causada por grupos de delincuencia organizada en la zona. Alleged victims: 1 More details...

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal 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;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

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 - Civil proceedings;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 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

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 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

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

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);No 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 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);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-c - Defence in person;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Substantive aspect)

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 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)

No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application);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);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);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 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

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

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;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);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence)