Human Rights Council (hrc)

The Human Rights Council was established by the General Assembly on March 15, 2006 in order to provide a body for addressing human rights violations in the international community. It is comprised of 47 member states and replaced the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Human Rights Council recently implemented the Universal Periodic Review, which provides a mechanism to review the human rights situations in every member state of the UN. The Council also created a Complaints Procedure that provides a mechanism for bringing

complaints regarding human rights to the UN, as well as an Advisory Committee that provides expert advice and recommendations on human rights issues. This newly created intergovernmental body provides an exciting opportunity to address human rights from a new perspective. In this committee, delegates will focus on the repercussions for human rights in each topic. Debate will center on creating mechanisms for addressing human rights violations in the international community and strengthening the UN’s commitment to protecting human rights worldwide.
Topic 1: Prisoner’s Rights

Background
Much of the incarcerated population of the world suffers through poor, exceedingly unhealthy conditions in prisons, and they often lack the right to a fair trial. Prisoner rights, although frequently neglected, are vital to upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN reports that approximately 10 million detainees are denied liberties in prisons, undergoing torture and being

deprived of basic needs such as food, water, and clothing. Many, as a result of a corrupt criminal justice system, are completely innocent of any crime. They lack the influence or money to obtain fair treatment within these systems. War prisoners are especially at risk for these inhumane conditions, but even domestic criminals, convicted of a “petty crime,” suffer through unjust treatment. Although the UN has adopted documents such as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, instances of “detainee neglect” in the Afghan Bagram prison are evidence that the problem needs increased international attention. In addition, many nations do not offer physical and mental treatment for prisoners

in need. It is the charge of the UNHRC to promote the protection of human rights for all people, prisoners included. It is the expectation of the chair, therefore, that in coming to a consensus on which issues to devote this committee’s attention and energy, there will be no employment of arguments premised on biases against those who are imprisoned.
History and Relevant International Action

The expansion of international law following World Wars I and II was due, in part, to the prevalent denial of civil rights and liberties on the basis of race, religion, political discrimination, and other factors. The world witnessed man employ his most vicious tactics to invoke mass slave labor, deport millions from their homes, confiscate property, commit genocide, and execute the wanton murder of untold

thousands of prisoners of war. In the decades that ensued, watershed changes began to occur in nearly all aspects of international law. The extension of rights to prisoners was no exception to this broader movement for human rights. Today, there are various instruments in the catalogues of international law that represent the legal and procedural codes by which prisoners are handled. Among

the most important instruments presently in place are the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the European Convention

for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Third Geneva Convention outlines the nature of humanitarian protections for prisoners of war (POW). ¹ The Convention defines prisoners of war as “members

of the armed forces, members of militias, members of the volunteer corps forming part of the armed forces, belonging to a party to the conflict, members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a part not recognized by the detaining power, persons accompanying armed forces but are not members, and inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who take up arms in resistance of an enemy power.”² The rights of POWs secured by this convention includes the right to humane treatment, which holds specific prohibitions to the following: violence causing death, physical mutilation, scientific and medical experimentation, acts of intimidation, acts of reprisal, physical and mental torture, withholding of adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, and sanitary living conditions, and the restriction of religious freedom.³ The Third Geneva Convention guidelines became enforceable in 1924 following World War I, but they were substantially amended in 1949 following the events of World War II.

Finally, it should be noted that the United Nations Security Council is the final international tribunal for all issues relating to the Geneva Conventions, and all signatories of the UN Charter—193 nations in total—are bound to the

aforementioned Geneva Convention regulations. Effective as of March 23, 1976, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights has been a significant element in the development of prisoner’s rights law.⁴ Article 10 of the convention asserts that all prisoners be treated with humanity and dignity. More specifically,

the article establishes a requisite separation of prisoners in pre-trial detention from those already convicted of crimes, as well as obligating the separation of accused juvenile prisoners from adults.⁵ One requisite that is typically ignored by nations is one that calls on prisons to focus on reform and rehabilitation, instead of punishment. The convention set these provisions so that they would affect the operation of not just prisons, but hospitals, detention facilities, correction facilities, and the like.⁶ The purpose of the convention was simple: reinforce the need for greater oversight by governments for the protection of

their citizens’ civil and political rights, including the portion of their citizenry whose liberty has been deprived.

The final three conventions this historical review will cover are more specific in communicating what is meant by the protection of prisoner’s rights. The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners became applicable in 1955. While the standards set out by the UN are not legally binding, they are offered as universal guidelines in international and municipal law with respect to any person, anywhere, in any form of custody.⁷ The standards are generally regarded as being among the most effective principles and practice for the management of custodial facilities. The treaty sets out standards for those in custody which covers registration, personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, food, exercise and sport, medical services, discipline and punishment, instruments of restraint, information to and complaints by prisoners, contact with the outside world, religion, retention of prisoner’s property, notification of death, illness, transfer, and removal of prisoners, institutional personnel, and the inspection of facilities themselves.⁸ There are special provisions for insane and mentally abnormal prisoners, prisoners under arrest or awaiting trial, civil prisoners, and persons arrested or detained without charge.⁹ Many of the guidelines for prisoners under sentence, including treatment, classification, privileges, work, education and recreation, social relations, and after-care, are set forth by this document.¹⁰ The treaty’s relevance to our debate and to the issue of prisoner’s rights, as a whole, cannot be overstated. On March 1, 2002, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment came into force.¹¹ The Convention established the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment. In short, the Committee’s purpose is to visit all places of detention within its jurisdiction and to carry out inspections of these facilities, including interviews with prisoners and persons that the Committee feels may supply

relevant information.¹² To be sure, all of the information gathered by the Committee is confidential. The only exception to this principle of confidentiality is if a state makes some representation based on grounds of national defense, public safety, and serious disorder in detention facilities. While the Convention only works to affect the European community, many international law scholars

believe that this document provides a model for other global regions to enforce similar committees and agencies of prisoner rights protection. Finally, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities became effective on March 30, 2007. Simply stated, the Convention’s purpose is to “promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.”¹³ Article 13 of the Convention touches on the access to facilities and procedures of justice for people with disabilities. Such persons with disabilities are defined as those “who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments, which in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” ¹⁴ The Convention itself provides that in order to “ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, States and Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff.”¹⁵ The Convention has provided protection

for the rights of those who had been previously excluded from any extension of civil and legal safeguard in previous international treaties.

The history of human rights law regarding prisoners and custodial facilities throughout the world is a young history. Only since World War I was there true,

international movement on the issue of prisoners’ rights. Even to this day, many nations, including the United States, do not provide for all of the requirements and protections guaranteed to prisoners under the auspices of international law. The Human Rights Council, if it should resolve to pursue this issue, should be aware of these facts as it recommends the adoption of comprehensive policies that will work to ensure the security and dignity of prisoners everywhere.
Current Problems

According to the World Health Organization, the complaints of many ex-prisoners and their relatives need to be highlighted not as cases of individual suffering, but

as examples of the general systemic malaise that affects the prison system, leading to serious human rights violations. The following are some of the important problems of prisons at large.
Overcrowding

Overcrowding in prisons is seen as the root cause of a number of other problems relating to healthcare, food, clothing and poor living conditions. For instance, India, where the prison population is about 2,240,000 in relation to the total population of the country, has one of the lowest rates of incarcerated citizens per capita in the world.¹⁶ Yet, while some jails are comparatively empty, there are many others that are overcrowded by about three times their capacity. In some of the prisons inspected by one Justice Venkatachaliah of Delhi, the problem of overcrowding is so acute that inmates often have to sleep in shifts of 3-4 hours due to lack of space.¹⁷ Furthermore, overcrowding negatively affects the attempts of prison administrations to empower prisoners with skills that would involve them in gainful employment after release. These attempts come in the

form of workshops where prisoners are taught computer skills, carpentry, printing, binding, etc., however, due to the pressing need for space, more and more workshops are being used to house prisoners. In the State of Madhya

Pradesh in India, currently only 16 out of 120 prisons can afford the luxury of maintaining workshops, and these are also increasingly coming under threat due to the persistent problem of overcrowding.¹⁸ A serious and long term solution to the problem of overcrowding in prisons needs a review of the functioning of the entire criminal justice system, including the system of arrests, sentencing policies, and notions of crime. Police often look upon imprisonment as an easy solution

to the larger problem of socio-economic inequity in many nations, both developed and underdeveloped alike. The liberal use of the power to arrest, while contributing significantly to the problem of overcrowding, also leads to increased expenditure by jails. Thus, one way to deal with the problem of overcrowding is to decriminalize certain offences and find alternatives to imprisonment for petty crimes.
Disease and Mental Health

As far back as antiquity, people have understood that public sanitation can decrease the spread of disease. The Roman Empire, for instance, supported the provision of food, supply of clean water, and bathing facilities in many of its cities. When increasing trade and mobility of populations led to the growth, overcrowding, and unhealthiness of the medieval cities, isolation of the sick and quarantines for those coming from outside the city offered an efficient instrument for controlling the spread of deadly diseases. In more recent times, the discovery of vaccines and antibiotics has brought about spectacular changes, leading, among other things, to the eradication of smallpox and a drastic reduction of infant mortality. Yet despite the long history of advances in the health sciences, worldwide, in the 21st century infectious diseases remain the

leading cause of death. The main reason why individuals are vulnerable is that the source of infection usually lies outside of the individual. Exposure to the environment or to other infected individuals is the key factor in transmission.

Prisoners are at particular risk for contracting these diseases, as they have virtually no control over their environment and usually have no choice over the density and composition of the facilities that house them. The combination of factors of transmission—agents, hosts and routes of transmission—is much less favorable within prisons than outside of them. Agents, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, helminthes, and fungi, are critical links in the chain of infection. The vast majority of the prison population consists of people from poor and marginalized communities with little access to health services. Because of behavior, life circumstances, and material conditions, infectious agents are more prevalent among these people.¹⁹ A typical prisoner is more likely to be a disempowered individual with a history of disease exposure, drug use, and alcohol consumption. He or she is more likely to experience overcrowded premises both before and after imprisonment, and can be exposed to diseases through food and water. Neglected chronic diseases, anatomical defects,

coexisting infectious and non- infectious diseases, a history of inconsistent antibiotic use, high dosage and pro- longed duration of exposure and poor nutritional status negatively influence the frequency of occurrence and severity of

disease in prisons. In the crowded and often insalubrious prison environment, infectious agents can spread in a variety of different ways: directly—through touching, sexual intercourse, direct droplet projection from a coughing

individual or contact with soil—or through several indirect transmission mechanisms. Carrier-borne transmission can occur through food, water, clothing, tattooing equipment, or contaminated syringes; airborne transmission can

occur through the aerosols created in the large, poorly ventilated and scarcely heated rooms; and vectors can be transmitted through flies, mosquitoes, and ticks.²⁰ Besides suffering from physical ailments, the prisoner also undergoes considerable stress and trauma during his stay in prison. About four percent of male and female prisoners have psychotic illnesses, 12 percent of women to 10 percent of men have major depression, and 42 percent (women) to 65 percent (men) have a personality disorder, including 21 percent (women) to 47 percent

(men) with antisocial personality disorders.²¹ Research has also shown that 89 percent of all prisoners have depressive symptoms and 74 percent have stress-related somatic symptoms.²² Thus, imprisonment is clearly associated with

mental health problems among those who are subjected to it. It is, therefore, felt that active counseling must be made available for prisoners to overcome these problems. Counseling should aim not merely at providing temporary relief by pulling prisoners out of their depression, but at instilling hope and a sense of purpose in prisoners, and by equipping them with skills that may prove useful upon release.

According to the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS, endorsed by the 189 countries represented at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on

HIV/AIDS in June 2001, “The vulnerable must be given priority in the response [to HIV/AIDS].” ²³ This statement is particularly relevant to addressing HIV and AIDS in prisons. In many countries, the groups most vulnerable to or affected by HIV and AIDS are also groups at increased risk for criminalization and incarceration, as many of the same social and economic conditions that increase vulnerability to HIV and AIDS also increase vulnerability to imprisonment.²⁴ As a result, in some countries the populations with the highest rates of HIV infection are also

disproportionately represented within prisons. This has significant implications for prison health and rights policy, and must be addressed within a comprehensive response to HIV and AIDS in prisons. Inside prisons, people living with HIV are often the most vulnerable and stigmatized segment of the prison population. Fear of HIV and AIDS often places HIV positive prisoners at increased risk of social isolation, violence, and human rights abuses from both prisoners and prison staff. In prisons, this fear is magnified by three factors: the first is misinformation about routes of transmission (particularly the false belief that HIV can be transmitted via casual contact); the second is the closed nature of the prison environment (particularly shared living, bathing, and eating facilities, coupled with a culture

of surveillance and monitoring); and, the third is stigma and discrimination against vulnerable groups (sex workers, people who use illegal drugs, and homosexuals) within the prisoner population. Creating a prison environment that is more

conducive to supporting, instead of alienating those living with HIV/AIDS is among the most important issues facing this body and the many working professionals seeking to ensure that prisoners are treated in a manner in-keeping with the standards set forth by international law.

There is no land that is beyond the writ of law—that is to say, whatever land a person walks on or is kept on, there are certain inalienable rights guaranteed to that individual by the auspices of international law. The Declaration of

the Rights of Man, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are just a few of the international doctrines that have guided our collective understanding of the limited powers of the state over the individual. Prisoners in detention centers around the world, where prisoner torture is rampant and where sexual

abuse in prisons is second nature, are being deprived of their fundamental human rights on a daily basis. While, admittedly, it is impossible to attach one set of moral codes onto another country, it is possible to agree on a more equitable and humane way of treating prisoners worldwide. From a “health rights” perspective, disease prevention in prisons can be organized at three levels. At the individual level, the health staff members can provide clinical interventions, such as administering antibiotics to prevent infection of wounds or treating scabies to

prevent bacterial complications. Care could be taken to avoid blaming individuals for their behavior leading to disease, since individuals often do not fully control the circumstances. At the institutional level, safe methods of searching and screening can prevent exposure to blood borne diseases, and administrative arrangements for ventilating the indoor spaces can decrease the transmission

of tuberculosis.²⁵ At the population level, health-promoting interventions are organized from a public health perspective and can include regulating the quantity and quality of food adopting standards for quality of water and indoor air, and implementing policies for the exchange of syringes. To prevent the spread of communicable diseases, the weakest links of the agent–transmission–host chain have to be targeted. For example, chlorinating water destroys some

bacterial agents; promoting the use of condoms removes the contact needed for transmission; using repellents, disinfectants, and protective clothing targets the vectors; and vaccination immunizes the host. In choosing the most appropriate strategy, you, the policymakers, need to consider the risks associated with disease, the feasibility of interventions, the costs and benefits of these interventions, as well as considerations of medical equity. Because of the

particular circumstances of prisons, some approaches may be more difficult to apply. Prisons in general and prison health, in particular, are not always high on the agenda of politicians, but the threat of transmission of infectious diseases in prisons and, ultimately, from prisons to general society demonstrates the importance of ensuring better access to health care and health promotion in prisons. Prisons represent both a challenge and an opportunity in controlling the spread of infectious diseases—a challenge because the conditions in prison often increase the risk of transmission, but also an opportunity, because many

individuals have much better access to health services in prison than they normally do outside the prison. A second suggestion is the training of prison staff. There are serious expressions of concern over the extent of dehumanization amongst custodial staff in prisons worldwide.²⁶ In this, I suggest an underlined need for periodic counseling and training of prison staff. Very few states provide institutions exclusively for the training of such staff; in fact, many prison officers are or have also been part of his or her nation’s armed forces—experiences

that do not necessarily prepare one to be a humane handler of prisoners. If the preservation of human rights is to be this committee’s goal, then a potential route to achieve that end can be the persuasion of national governments to establish training institutions exclusively for basic and in-service training of the prison staff. Central to the program of all prison training modules should be a human rights

component. The third and final suggestion is maintaining accountability. As we have seen in earlier sections, the deplorable service conditions of the prison staff and their lack of motivation and self-esteem seem to logically extend into a culture that encourages corruption and malpractice.
Besides improving the service and working conditions of the prison staff, mechanisms that would ensure an element of transparency and accountability in the prison administration should be introduced. Perhaps, giving access to the media and civil society via the involvement of non-governmental organizations would be one way of ensuring a higher level of accountability and transparency

in the prison system. Furthermore, stressing the need to educate prisoners about their rights is a possible route to greater respect for the institutions that protect those rights. Violations, in many cases, occur because of lack of awareness on the part of prisoners about what they are entitled to. Educating prisoners about their rights would empower them. A system that allows for prison visitors could provide an effective mechanism to monitor prison conditions, provided it work viably. Perhaps, visitors could be chosen from amongst those who have an interest in prisons and knowledge of how they should be run. These people could be members of the media, social workers, jurists, and retired public servants. The final pre-requisite to ensuring accountability could be an effective complaint

system that would encourage prisoners to complain against systemic and other failures within the prison system without fear of reprisal.²⁷ There should be a quick and impartial enquiry followed by the provision of redress if the complaint is found to be true. No attempt should be made to suppress wrongdoing, and anyone found guilty of abusing his authority must be suitably dealt with. If

appropriate disciplinary action is taken, not only does the prisoner feel that his or her rights have been upheld, but it also sends a warning to other staff that poor conduct will not be tolerated. An effective mechanism of accountability would benefit not only the prisoners, but also the prison administration. An open system would help the public target their anger or disappointment at the root of the

problem, instead of focus on the cosmetic angles by which the broader issue of prisoner’s rights should be addressed.