Founded 1980
Chair:
Secretary:
Treasurer:
Graham Smith
Jan Thompson
Graham Mumby-Croft
Home
David Kennedy
FOREIGN TIMES
In 2010 I was recruited by the UN to be the Commanding Officer of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia's (ICTY) Detention Unit (UNDU) in The Hague. The ICTY was created following the Yugoslav conflict because the International community did not have faith in the local justice systems to deal with the crimes, allegedly committed by those in power during the conflict. The detainees held by the ICTY were those accused of being in command and control of those who had committed the atrocities. The UNDU is in a purpose-built unit inside a Dutch prison in The Hague (P.I. Haaglanden). The building has its own perimeter and is considered to be UN territory and holds all the "foreign" tribunals based in Holland. When I arrived, the UNDU held about 65 detainees and they were those suspected, under trial or convicted and awaiting transfer to a state for enforcement of sentence. These residents were some of the more difficult cases of the Tribunal and included those who were at the very top of Yugoslav government during the conflict, i.e. Presidents, Chiefs of police and Generals. In a lot of cases, they are still held to be heroes by those of their own ethnic background and some still have political careers in the region. One of the issues for management of these detainees was the psychological conflict between being heroes at home, but war criminals in the international community, add into this their age, lifestyle and health
problems from the conflict and they were an interesting group to deal with. The other major management issue was the length of time the detainees spent in custody before disposal of their case. This would have been an unacceptable period in a national justice system and caused problems to the detainees we are aware uncertainty causes in a remand population. Most of the charges however involved thousands of victims and hundreds of perpetrators and witnesses meaning a speedy resolution was impossible without a guilty plea.
As a stand-alone unit inside the perimeter of a national prison good liaison with the Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen (DJI) and local management was crucial. The Rules of Detention were broadly similar and all complied with UN minimum rules, however, there were some differences between each of the Tribunals and the Host States prison rules. One of the areas where there were rubbing points was what detainees were allowed in possession and could receive through visits or have delivered by post/courier. With three different agencies involved (the establishment front gate was staffed with Dutch prison officers then the unit entry point was staffed by detention officers from the tribunals) and with different screening equipment cooperation was important.
Discipline staff had their salaries paid by the UN and were managed by 4 senior managers employed directly by the UN. Despite attempts to broaden the recruitment pool to represent more member states most of the Officers, Shift managers and Principal Officers were recruited from the Dutch prison service and at the end of their tour returned to the National service. Whilst employed by the Tribunals they wore a distinct uniform and operated under their respective tribunals' Rules of Detention and Operating Procedures.
Other matters were managed via an agreement negotiated between the UN and the Dutch Justice ministry, these included building maintenance, detainee's food and other services. The issues surrounding maintenance and cleaning of the building having to be negotiated with a prison works department suffering from a budget shortfall took up a good portion of the working week. Translation of the agreement appeared to change each month as the various managers tried to cut costs. As some organisations have discovered allowing crucial services such as maintenance to be managed outside of those committed to delivery can lead to higher costs and a deterioration in conditions.
During my time in the UNDU detainee access to IT became a hot issue. This had followed a decision by the President of the Tribunal that the Self-representing accused (SRA's) must have a "level playing field" with the Prosecution. As almost every piece of evidence was held electronically in drives that were physically separate from the UNDU, a secure method of access was required. Secure links had to be created between the UNDU and the Tribunal building, and training provided to detainees with little or no IT skills. As with visits all of the new IT policy needed to be negotiated with the Host prison (whose prisoners did not have access to IT). Methods of getting pc's, drives and other multimedia through the front gate had to be negotiated ensuring none of the content could create a security breach. Any delay was exploited in court and in the best case delayed the hearing but could in the worst circumstances be used as grounds for appeal.
Despite enjoying my time as part of the UN sadly due to family illnesses I had to return to the UK. A couple of months after separation the UN contacted me and asked if I would be available, on short term contracts, to assess some prison establishments in Africa. Never having visited the continent I agreed and initially went to inspect the UN prisons in Mali and Benin holding those sentenced by the Rwandan tribunal. After reporting on the conditions in these two prisons I was then asked to inspect some prisons in Tanzania and Senegal as the UN needed to expand its detention operations in Africa.
Conditions in Africa were a shock. Mali for instance was at the start of the current conflict in the Sahel and combined with a very low GDP committing more funds to prison was impossible. Even without a lack of funds, there are some serious problems in balancing the conditions of an impoverished population with the conditions of a prison population and then further complications created by prisoners being held under UN minimum rules. Prisons and prisoners are not high on the list for African politics and their budgets suffer from this. In the prison in Mali the overcrowding suffered by the local prisoner population was awful, (40 in a room with a standpipe and a hole in the corner with temperatures of around 40 degrees at midday and two meals of porridge a day) this was exacerbated by the presence of a TB active prisoner requiring quarantine and therefore needing one of the 4 available dormitories to himself. Prisoners were restricted to 30 minutes a day fresh air as the exercise yard was small. There was no work apart from a couple of trustees. Treatment for the TB prisoner was going to cost around $50 but even this could not be funded locally. The UN detainees were living in single cells with in-cell electricity and had a significant disposable income making up for the aspects of minimum rules the host prison couldn't deliver. The difference in conditions was stark and although from outside the reasons were understandable one can only wonder how it looked for a prisoner who had stolen money or some food and was being held in these abysmal conditions as he looked across the yard at a detainee who had been convicted for genocide and was living in comparative luxury. The poor conditions also put pressure on already struggling families of prisoners to supplement their relative’s food and other requirements.
In my report, I made a number of recommendations concentrating on the UN detainees, as per my brief, but by arguing that the poor health of the local prisoners could be detrimental to the health of the UN detainees I proposed that improvements in the conditions of the local prisoners was in the best interests of the UN. Despite all my recommendations being implemented, I was most pleased with the implementation of the simplest. I had recommended that a couple of prisoners were to be employed raising chickens bought from the local market, I was told since that this has improved the life and health of the local prisoners, and the chicken "farm" is now employing 6 prisoners and providing meat and eggs to supplement the diet of the general population, all for a tiny initial outlay. I also used the same argument to get the TB active prisoner seen by a nurse and treatment started before I left allowing the overcrowding to be eased a little.
The discussions around the difference in conditions inside and outside prison we have in the UK is amplified in Africa by the conditions normal people suffer. This was then further complicated for my inspections because the UN prisoners were serving their sentences in the comparatively luxurious conditions dictated by UN minimum rules of detention and this was the subject of local media criticism. As bringing those responsible for the Rwandan atrocities to justice was the primary aim of the tribunal any criticism that justice was not being served was felt keenly.
In the, admittedly small, number of prisons I assessed it appeared a semi-military model of management with a hierarchy obvious to all provided the best and healthiest conditions for the prisoners. Benin and Senegal operate on a military model and the atmosphere and feel in those prisons was much better than in the civil models I witnessed. In Benin, some military officers are required to run a prison for a tour of duty (2-3 years) as part of their career plan. These prisons had staff who were more concerned with the welfare of their charges and the establishments appeared healthier on most of the measurements familiar to us from healthy prison inspections. I think that some people can be uncomfortable with the military-type model without realising that along with concentrating on the structure and the objective concern for the welfare of those below you is, generally, the foundation of this model.
Following the publication of the Marty report into atrocities allegedly committed in Kosovo at the end of the Yugoslav conflict the EU committed to creating a court, the Kosovo Specialist Court KSC The process to create the court began in November 2014. The EU contacted me shortly after and asked if I would be interested in opening a new establishment, as the family illnesses had now sadly resolved themselves, I agreed. I spent the next 3 years in Brussels and then a further 2 years in the Hague writing operating procedures for the new establishment and negotiating with the Dutch Justice Ministry for accommodation, staff and the facilities required. These negotiations are still ongoing as the unit has yet to open as no arrests have yet been made. During the period in Brussels, I inspected and assessed 3 Dutch prisons (including a private prison) for the location of a new Detention Unit for the Kosovan court.
During my time with the international community, apart from running my own unit, I inspected and assessed 9 prisons in 4 different countries and noted a couple of common themes. It felt to me that prisons with a well-structured hierarchy appeared to provide the healthiest conditions for prisoners. It was also evident that functions supplied by contract delivery are extremely difficult to manage and take up an inordinate amount of management time. Without encouragement from me, it became plain that every establishment with contracted services suffers the same issues and they are the main bugbear of almost every Governor or Directeur I met. I made a lot of friends in Holland both professionally and socially but well remember a comment made by a Dutch operational manager who had been headhunted from the Dutch Prison Service to deliver services to a cluster of prisons under contract by a private supplier. One evening after work we were discussing his new situation and he explained to me (with some regret) that it had been made clear to him by his superior that his job was to deliver "gebakte luft" (baked or fried air) to his prison cluster. I told him that I had attended lots of meetings were gebakte luft or its English equivalent had seemed to be the main item on the agenda.
DAVID KENNEDY
