“De Jure” and “De Facto” Situation in the Detention System Case study: Romania
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v4i2.660Keywords:
Detention system, international legislation, Romanian legislation.Abstract
The main purpose of this paper is to point out the major differences that are found between the situation imposed by the law norms in the area of detention and the facts found in the Romanian imprisonment system, using the technique of social documents analysis: specialized books, documents, legal acts and also the comparison method. In the beginning of the article I tried to capture the main legislative documents issued at international level and in Romania in the area of the mandatory conditions of detention. Thus, after making an overview of the internationally and nationally “de jure” situation in the specified field, I researched the “de facto” situation of the Romanian prison system. This analysis is performed in the light of the results of the most important reports issued by the specialized institutions and of several decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the Romanian state was convicted of violating the rights of detainees, thus outlining deficient aspects of the Romanian prison system.
References
Aebi, M. F. & Delgrande, N. (2014). SPACE I – Council of Europe annual penal statistics: Prison populations. Survey 2012. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Association for Human Rights in Romania - Helsinki Committee (2013). The 2013 report, regarding the activity of the Association for the Defense of Human Rights in Romania - Helsinki Committee. Association website: http://www.apador.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Raport-APADOR-CH-2013.pdf .
Chelcea, S., Mărginean, I. & Cauc, I. (1998). Sociological research. Methods and techniques. Deva: Destin Publishing house.
Chiș, I. (2013). Criminal executional law. Bucharest: Universul Juridic Publishing house.
Coraș, L. (2009). Alternative criminal penalties to imprisonment (Sancțiuni penale alternative la pedeapsa închisorii). Bucharest: C. H. Beck .
Council of Europe (1950). European Convention on human rights/ Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Council of Europe website: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.
Council of Europe (1973). Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. Council website:
Council of Europe (1987). European Prison Rules, Recommendation no. R (87)3. Council website: https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1977676&SecMode=1&DocId=692778&Usage=2 .
Council of Europe (2006). European prison rules. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing House.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly (2013). Promoting alternatives to imprisonment. Council of Europe website: http://www.assembly.coe.int/Communication/ajdoc02_2013.pdf .
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Official visits. Committee website: http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/visits.htm .
European Court of Human Rights (2005). Case of Iacov Stânciu against Romania (Application no. 35972/05). Court website:http://www.judecat.ro/jurisprudenta_cedo/1000041_Cauza_IACOV_STANCIU_impotriva_ROMANIEI_nr_35972_05_Hotarare_din_10_iulie_2012 .
European Court of Human Rights (2011). Case of Necula vs. Romania (Application no. 33003/11). Court website:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-140930%22]} .
European Court of Human Rights (2010). Case of Mihăilă vs. Romania (Application no. 66630/10). Councilwebsite:http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-140749%22]}.
Foucault, M. (2005).Discipline and punishment. The birth of the prison. Translated by Bogdan Ghiu. Pitești: Paralela 45.
High Court of Cassation and Justice (2009). Recommendations for individualization of penalties for corruption offenses. National Institute of Magistracy website: http://www.inm-lex.ro/fisiere/d_176/Recomandari%20privind%20individualizarea%20cauzelor%20de%20coruptie%20-%20ICCJ.pdf .
Kalinin, Y. (2002). The Russian penal system: Past, present and future. London: ICPS.
Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences and measures ordered by the court in criminal proceedings. Ministry website:
http://www.just.ro/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=w7Fc9pTwSyk%3D&tabid=2604 .
National Penitentiary Administration (2010). Balance 2010. Administration website: http://anp.gov.ro/documents/10180/18750/BilantANP2010.pdf/20689442-acfe-4a58-8bd6-01204898fed6 .
National PenitentiaryAdministration (2011). The public policy document on improving conditions of detention. Administration website: http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/rom/2011-32-inf-fra-annexe2.pdf .
National Penitentiary Administration (2012). Activity report 2012. Administration website: http://anp.gov.ro/documents/10180/18750/Bilant+ANP+2012/6818a833-3b2e-4af4-8e08-e98f5f354520 .
National Penitentiary Administration (2013). NPA activity report 2013. Administration website:http://anp.gov.ro/documents/10180/2256331/Bilant+ANP+2013+Rom.pdf/16418a7b-9258-4f2d-9320-1baea7a7f61f.
Order no. 433/2010 for the approval of mandatory minimum accommodation rules of persons deprived of their liberty.
Pașca, V. (1998). Safety measures. Criminal penalties. Bucharest: Lumina Lex.
Pradel, J. (1995). Droit penal compare. Paris: Dalloz.
Sima, C. (1999). Safety measures in modern criminal law. Bucharest: All Beck.
United Nations (1948).The universal declaration of human rights. United Nation website:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.
United Nations (1955). Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. United Nation website:http://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justic/UN_Standard_Minimum_Rules_for_the_Treatment_of_Prisoners.pdf .
United Nations (1984). Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights website: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cat.pdf .
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
