As part of our efforts to promote gender-sensitive criminal justice systems, we are sharing insights and experiences from national preventive mechanisms as they respond to issues of risk for women deprived of liberty.
Here, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, an independent constitutional institution and Estonia’s National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), answers our questions on their work to limit the use of solitary confinement and address its harmful impacts on persons deprived of liberty.
Solitary confinement is a risky practice that has a particular impact on women. What have you observed during your visits in relation to restrictive detention regimes?
There are nearly 2,100 people in three Estonian prisons: Viru Prison, Tartu Prison, and Tallinn Prison. Around 100 of them are women. Although there is a separate unit for women in Tallinn Prison, women on remand can also be placed in Tartu Prison and Viru Prison. When there are so few women in a prison, and where internal rules and spaces are designed with male prisoners in mind, the opportunities for women to move around and engage in activities is limited. This is especially true for remand prisoners.
The Chancellor of Justice holds that persons in pre-trial detention who are locked in their cells for 23 hours a day are, in effect, held in solitary confinement. Women on remand are often kept alone in a cell and have no one to talk to throughout the day. They are left out of measures aimed at mitigating the negative effects of solitary confinement because the focus is on keeping them separated from the male prisoners.
The situation is even more complicated with juvenile girls, both convicted and held in pre-trial detention. It is very rare these days that juveniles end up in prison, even less often for girls. However, there are one or two juveniles held among the 2,100 adult prisoners. While prisons usually follow strict separation rules, this may not always be in the child's best interests as it often means being held in conditions similar to solitary confinement.
What are your main findings and recommendations with regard to solitary confinement and persons in situations of vulnerability, in particular women and girls?
We have consistently highlighted to the Ministry of Justice the importance of expanding remand prisoners’ opportunities for movement and communication. Without waiting for the relevant amendments to the legislation, the Chancellor has asked prisons to take immediate steps to prevent and alleviate the possible negative effects of solitary confinement on remand prisoners. Among other things, this means that remand prisoners should be offered purposeful out-of-cell activities on a daily basis.
Prisoners in the reception unit are de facto in solitary confinement and usually stay there for the maximum length permitted by law, which is three months. In the Chancellor of Justice’s view, prisoners must be taken to an ordinary unit as soon as possible after an initial risk assessment and a decision on placement.
A persistent problem is that assessment of the need for committing a person to an isolated locked cell is not always clear. The necessity to continue the measure must be reviewed after a specific interval, advisedly not less often than once a month. The isolated locked cell regime is not suitable for a person who, due to mental health issues, is unable to cope well in the general prison community. In this situation, prisons should seek alternatives to using an isolated locked cell, especially when this concerns the detention of prisoners who are self-harming, suicidal or suffering from a mental disorder.
Another problem concerns excessively long disciplinary confinement punishment. The longest disciplinary cell punishments (i.e. 45 days) are often imposed for violating the duty to work. Often, it is the same prisoners that are held: so-called “frequent flyers, who commonly have behavioural and mental health issues. Our office holds that disciplinary confinement may only be imposed in the most serious cases, as a measure of last resort, and for the shortest time possible. The duration of disciplinary confinement imposed on an adult may not exceed 14 days.
The automatic ban on visits associated with disciplinary confinement and the reception regime must be abolished. The choice of reading material for prisoners in a disciplinary cell should not be limited and prisoners should be allowed to use the bedding in a disciplinary cell during the daytime. The prison should also ensure at least two hours of meaningful interaction each day for persons held in solitary confinement.
Prison healthcare practitioners should assess the condition of every person held in solitary confinement on a daily basis. There are problems with the accessibility of mental health services, despite the fact that almost half of the prisoners in Estonia suffer from mental health issues. Penal institutions of the size of Estonia’s three prisons should have their own mental health teams, consisting of psychiatrists, mental health nurses and clinical psychologists.
Have you seen progress in relation to the detention regime of women as a result of your recommendations and actions?
The Ministry of Justice recently prepared a Draft Act that seeks to address some of the problems of solitary confinement raised by the Chancellor. The changes concern, among other things, the maximum length of the disciplinary solitary confinement and the ban on visitors while serving the disciplinary punishment or staying in the reception unit.
Compared to 10 years ago – when disciplinary solitary confinement for months or even years was common – it is now rare for prisons to impose a disciplinary cell sanction for longer than a few weeks. Detainees in a disciplinary cell or an isolated locked cell are subject to a communication program starting on the 11th day of confinement to the cell. Prison health workers also pay more attention to people in solitary confinement.
In addition, the Chancellor of Justice’s statements and recommendations have helped empower prisoners to challenge the situations and conditions of solitary confinement and bring their cases to court. As a result, courts have started to change their approach; for example, on issues like serving solitary confinement punishments consecutively, on the duty to assess prisoners’ health while in solitary confinement, and on the reasoning to extend the imposition of the isolated locked cell.
Mothers in the mother-child unit were previously excluded from rehabilitative programs and recreational activities. They were separated from other women and their main task was to take care of their children 24/7. The Chancellor of Justice stressed that the negative effects of solitary confinement can endanger the mental and physical health of both the mother and child. As a result of our recommendations, children living in the mother-child unit can now attend an ordinary kindergarten outside of the prison. If a child is too young to attend kindergarten, babysitting is organised inside the prison.
The prison also found ways for the juvenile girl to safely interact with carefully selected female prisoners and encouraged regular contact with her family.
Have you documented good practices with regards to women’s and girls’ detention?
We have found that women end up in disciplinary cells or isolated locked cells less often. One of the factors for this is that almost all women are now involved throughout the day in work, studies, or other activities. They spend their time meaningfully. In this respect, the involvement of women in activities should serve as an example for dealing with male prisoners.
The prisons’ cell-based architecture plays a role. Women’s privacy is now much better guaranteed compared to the dormitory-type prison arrangement. In the old prison, women told us in interviews that sharing a cell with many women would be so stressful that sometimes they would deliberately break the rules and choose solitary confinement just to "have time off". This no longer seems to be a problem in a cell-based prison, where a maximum of two women share a cell and very often women have a cell of their own. While there are common spaces to socialise with others, women can spend time alone if they feel like it.
It is extremely important for women to stay in touch with their families and children. The well-being of women, and the well-being of families and children, is affected by the possibility of more calls and visits than the minimum prescribed by law. Visits reduce stress and some of the difficult behaviour that can often lead to solitary confinement. Therefore, contact with the outside world is an important preventive measure against ending up in a disciplinary cell or an isolated locked cell.
