Europe in Prisons by Tom Daems & Luc Robert

Author:Tom Daems & Luc Robert
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer International Publishing, Cham

5 National Supervisory Institutions

Since its visit in 1994, the CPT has always inquired about a system of regular inspections of prison establishments by an independent body. In 1994 it stressed the importance of prison monitoring Commissions (Vollzugskommissionen) and suggested that they use their possibilities of visits and that they should publish an annual report of their activities (CPT/Inf(96)28, paras 149–151). With regard to its visit in 1999, the CPT stressed again the important function of the prison monitoring Commissions, raised concerns as to their practical impact and asked to sensitise them concerning their important task (CPT/Inf(2001)8, para 124). In 2004 the CPT considered that the fact that only one visit a year was undertaken by the prison monitoring Commissions (Vollzugskommissionen), significantly limited the effectiveness of this instrument. The CPT stressed that effective inspection procedures constitute a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment in prisons. It recommended that the Austrian authorities develop a system of regular inspections of prison establishments by an independent body (CPT/Inf(2005)13, para 107).

In parallel, the CPT recommended already in 1990 with regard to the institution under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior ‘the Austrian authorities to explore the possibility of empowering an independent body to inspect on a regular basis the conditions of detention in police jails’ (CPT/Inf(91), para 87). In its report transmitted to the Austrian authorities after its second periodic visit in 1994, it recommended establishing without delay a body composed of independent persons to investigate thoroughly the interrogation methods used at the Vienna Security Bureau (CPT/Inf(96)28: para 19). It reiterated its former recommendation to create an independent inspection organ for police jails (CPT/Inf(96)28: para 94).

Only in 1999, the Austrian authorities set up the Human Rights Advisory Board (Menschenrechtsbeirat) (Kriebaum 2004; see also Holzinger 1999: 17, 2000: 16, 2003: 256; Pöschl 2001; Szymanski 2001: 76; Funk 2001: 570; Mahler 2002: 28; Nowak 2002), with a view to introducing a mechanism for inspecting conditions of detention in police establishments and monitoring the observance of human rights by law enforcement agencies (Sections 15a, 15b and 15c of the Security Police Act (Sicherheitspolizeigesetz, SPG) and Ordinance of the Federal Minister of the Interior No. 395/1999 (as amended by Ordinance No.260/2004)). The Council was composed of 11 members and 11 substitute members.11

To ensure an area-wide control of places of detention of the security authorities and of places where the security forces use coercive measures in the exercise of authority, six Commissions had been established. For each Higher Regional Court (Graz, Innsbruck, Salzburg and Vienna), one Commission had been set up on 29 June 2000 with the exception of Vienna, where three Commissions had been installed. The Commissions consisted of five to eight members and had each a secretariat at their disposal (in Vienna two of the Commissions shared one secretariat) (§15 (2) Geschäftsordnung des Menschenrechtsbeirates). The CPT served as a role model for the Commissions (Kriebaum 2004: 91).

Establishments administered by the Ministry of Justice were not covered by the mandate of the Austrian Human Rights Advisory Council. In 2004

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.