|
|
|
CHAPTER V RIGHT TO PERSONAL SECURITY1 1. The present Chapter refers to two highly important aspects of every person’s actual enjoyment of his right to physical security. These two aspects are the prison system, and the use of physical coercion and torture. The Constitution of Argentina guarantees the right to personal security: “The death penalty for political offenses, all kinds of torture and beating are forever abolished. Prisons shall be healthy and clean, used for security and not for the punishment of the prisoners confined therein, and any measure that under pretext of precaution inflicts punishment beyond the demands of security, shall render liable the judge who authorizes it.”2 2. The criminal laws of Argentina contain extremely clear provisions to safeguard the security of prisoners. Thus, the Penal Code, in regulating crimes against individual freedom, establishes different degrees of punishment for those who reduce people to slavery or to a similar condition, and for those who commit crimes or make religious or racial threats, or threats of vengeance, or who cause serious injuries to the person, health or business of the offended party, whenever the victim dies as a result, is detained indefinitely and is not brought before a judge, is placed in detention facilities that are not intended for such purposes, is subject to abuse, brutality or unlawful force, and is subject to any kind of torture. The penalty imposed on those responsible for such acts is raised to the maximum whenever the victim is a political prisoner and dies as a result of the torture inflicted.3 3. During its on-site observation in Argentina, the Commission paid special attention to verifying denunciations received on violations of the right to personal security. In order to do this, the Commission carried out the work it considered necessary, and was provided with the facilities it requested from the Argentine Government. It visited various detention centers, spoke with prisoners in different prisons, obtained direct testimony from victims of violations of the right to personal security, both from those still in prison and those who have been released, and obtained reports from family members and various sectors of Argentine society. As a result of eyewitness inspections, the Commission was able to make an objective assessment of the actual facts. During its stay in Argentina, the Commission received hundreds of letters from persons incarcerated in various detention centers throughout the country. As will be explained in the final section of this Chapter, the Commission reported attacks on the right to personal security, that it had been able to verify, to high government officials and requested information on any punishment imposed on those responsible for these abuses. 1. The prison system in Argentina is regulated by the National Law on Penitentiaries, which is a supplement of the Penal Code. According to the provisions of this law, the purpose of imprisonment is the social rehabilitation of the person sentenced, and the prison system must use any methods of prevention, and any corrective and educational treatment, social assistance and any other type of treatment that may be available to it, based on scientific progress made in this area in accordance with the particular needs of each case. Prison sentences will not include torture or maltreatment, nor acts or procedures that harm or humiliate the person sentenced. Any prison staff member ordering, carrying out, or tolerating excesses of this kind will be liable for the penalties set forth in the Penal Code, in addition to any applicable prison sentences. The operational regulations contained in this law and its further regulations shall be applied to prisoners without discrimination, other than the differences that may result from the individualized treatment they must receive. The prison system applied to the prisoner shall, regardless of the sentence imposed, be characterized by its progressiveness, and shall consist of a period of observation, a period of treatment, and a period of testing. An individual sentenced or subject to security measures and placed in penitentiary facilities shall be designated interno (intern), and shall be called “only by his first name and surname.”4 2. When the present government was installed on March 24, 1976, it issued specific rules for those detained for reasons having to do with l’ordre publique or security of the state, and it reaffirmed the Decree approving the Regulations of the Security Institute, which was subsequently modified and extended to those detained at the disposal of the Executive in any federal penitentiary facility, as part of the national security laws to combat subversion.5 The special laws in question were abrogated in April 1979, when the “Regulations applicable to detainees tried and sentenced for subversive crimes and to DT detainees at the disposal of the Executive,” were approved, along with other regulations including the Operating Rules for the Interdisciplinary Teams.6 The new Regulations are intended for unrestricted application to persons detained, tried and sentenced for crimes classified as subversive, and for those DT detainees, who are classified as “terrorist criminals” (delincuentes terroristas) who are at the disposal of the Executive, “whose dangerous nature and characteristics require that they be imprisoned in maximum security facilities.” “The DT—Article 9—detainees shall be obliged to strictly observe the internal rules in force in the penitentiary unit, the purposes of which are to ensure that they are kept un custody, to regulate their life in common, and to preserve their physical and mental health.” 3. A general analysis of the laws in force for the treatment of persons detained for subversive activities shows that the detainees’ activities schedule is determined by the Director of the Unit. For those who must, according to the regulations, be called “terrorist criminals,” (the National Law of Penitentiaries states, as indicated above, that they are to be called internos, and must only be referred to by their first names and their surname), the law prescribes duties and privileges. Their duties include refraining from singing, whistling, shouting, holding furtive conversations by signs, or other unseemly conversations; raising one’s voice, playing prohibited games and in general, any act or omission that means a change in the prevailing order; they must submit completely to inspections of their person, lodgings and effects, and must remove their clothing for a detailed check whenever required; they must refrain from any other acts of indiscipline, and from political and/or union activities. The “DT” detainees may, on an individual basis, write petitions and/or briefs to the authorities of the prison facility, but any mass petition is a serious violation of discipline; they may file petitions regarding their personal problems, but are prohibited from acting as spokesman for problems of third parties and/or mass problems. Any “DT” female detainee with children below the age of two may keep them with her, and when the child reaches the age of two, if the father or other family members who are obliged to maintain it are not in a position to take responsibility for the child, the Administration of the Penitentiary will allow intervention by the pertinent jurisdictional or administrative authority. For those “DT” detainees who comply with the obligations called for under the rules, the Regulations include privileges such as daily recreation of up to three hours, and the Director of the facility “may authorize sports and gymnastics activities,” i.e., this type of physical exercise is left up to the Director of the prison facility. The failure by a “DT” detainee to observe the rules and obligations will temporarily cause him, by the decision of the Director of the facility, to lose one or all of the privileges granted, but he may always “receive one visit and write one letter per month.” The Regulations establish conditions for medical assistance and food, but the “DT” detainee is in no case allowed to cook in his living quarters nor receive food from outside. They also regulate spiritual counseling, visits from defense lawyers and diplomatic authorities, visits from family members, provided they behave themselves well, and in cases where visitors live more than three hundred kilometers from the facility, they will be allowed six days of consecutive visits, except for Sunday, for one hour per visitor each 45 days. As regards mail, there is prior censorship, while punishment includes progressive measures; a warning, partial or total withdrawal of privileges for up to 30 days, confinement to the individual cell, with a reduction in facilities for up to 30 days, and isolation in a disciplinary cell for up to 30 days. As regards methods of control, there is a prohibition on the use of handcuffs, straightjackets or other such measures of subjection as punishment, except for cases where this is expressly indicated. According to the Regulations, detention facilities must have an Interdisciplinary Team, responsible for examining the “DT” detainee, in order to classify him, describe his conduct, evaluate him, and draw up evaluation reports on applications to leave the country, supervised release, conditional release, pardons and commutations of sentences. The classification is done by taking account of the personality traits of the detainee, on a scale of “adaptable”, “possibly adaptable”, and “adaptable with difficulty”; and the evaluation is done according to his conduct on the basis of the following scale: a. good, b. regular, c. bad, and d. extremely bad. The Regulations also contain provisions on work, education and social assistance, with the following provisions respecting the latter: “facilities shall be provided and encouragement given to the maintenance and improvement of relations of DT detainees with their families, insofar as this may be advisable for them and compatible with the prison regime.”7 The purpose of the Operating Regulations of the Interdisciplinary Team is to classify fully the personality of the DT detainee. They must also produce evaluation reports for applications to leave the country, for supervised release, conditional release, pardons, and commutations of sentence. The Interdisciplinary Teams are responsible for determining the particular regime applicable to the detainee, “in order to make it possible to reorient the terrorist criminal held in detention and make for his complete rehabilitation and re-entry into society.” In order to “assess each DT detainee, the Interdisciplinary Teams shall evaluate their impression of his character, tendencies, morality, dangerousness and other personal conditions, beginning with his overall outward appearance.” Each Interdisciplinary Team is headed by a Unit Director and consists of the chiefs of the services representing the essential aspects of the regime in use, and a delegate from the Military Authorities; in the performance of their specific duties, they are administratively and technically responsible to the Military Representative and the Director of the Penitentiary Unit.8 4. Despite the stated purposes of the special regulations in force, which in and of themselves are rigid, they are not carried out in actual practice in some detention facilities, as the Commission was able to ascertain during its on-site observation. The treatment given prisoners is not uniformly severe and varies according to the detention center, the regime applied and the degree of understanding shown by the authorities of each prison Unit. Thus, as stated in the present Chapter, the Commission was able to see variations in the detention centers it visited. C. Inspections in prisons and other detention centers 1. During its on-site observation, the Commission conducted eyewitness inspections of various prisons and other detention centers in Argentina, in order to make an objective assessment in situ of the conditions in which detainees are and have been held. Following the 1976 military takeover, and until the early months of 1979, the Commission received numerous documents and a great deal of testimony about the situation in various kinds of prisons throughout the country, and was given information about the existence of other special detention centers, secret locations that have popularly been called “concentration camps.” On the basis of the information and testimony received by the Commission during this period, the following official centers or establishments existed and were used in Argentina for imprisonment of persons detained for reasons having to do with l’ordre publique and the national security: in Buenos Aires, the capital, the Villa Devoto prison, for both men and women; the Caseros prison, and the new prison for those held in custody in Caseros, which was still under construction at that time. In La Plata, Unit 9 prison for men, and the prisons of Olmos with separate wings for women and men; the Magdalena prison in the Province of Buenos Aires, a military-type facility. The Sierra Chica prison in Olavarría, a small city approximately 450 kilometers from the capital. The men’s prison and the women’s prison of Córdoba about which increasing numbers of denunciations of human rights violations against detainees charged with having been involved in subversive activities were reaching the Commission. In Tucumán, a mixed prison. In Coronda, in the Province of Santa Fe, a men’s prison. In Resistencia, the Resistencia Prison. In Santa Rosa, capital of the Province of La Pampa, the only prison in the area. In Rawson, capital of the Province of La Pampa, the only prison in the area. In Rawson, a prison of the same name for prisoners whom the government considers require maximum security because of their dangerousness. It should also be noted that the majority of the detention centers mentioned are detention facilities for common prisoners, but that they also hold detainees accused by the Government of subversive activities, the majority of whom are officially called “terrorist criminals” (DT). 2. With regard to clandestine places or centers of detention, the Commission had received information on the following places: In the Capital, Buenos Aires, the Superintendence of federal Security or federal Coordination; the Navy Mechanics School; the Command of the First Army Corps, the Headquarters of Battalion 601 of the First Infantry Regiment and of the Tenth Brigade; the Campo de Mayo, which is several hundred hectares in size, with all types of military installations.
According to information received by the Commission, other places of detention are: in Buenos Aires, the military installation located at the intersection of the Avenida General Paz or Avenida de Circunvalación and the Avenida de los Constituyentes; the Guemes Brigade (Brigada Guemes), a police unit consisting of a number of facilities located at the intersection of the General Riccheri Highway and the Beltway (camino de Cintura) on the road to the International Airport of Ezeiza; a military unit located between the Avenida Garay and the Paseo Colón in the federal capital; the police station located on the Avenida Olivera and the Calle Ramón Falcón in the federal capital; the offices of the Naval Prefecture, on the Costanera Sur on the River Plate; a center for criminal studies near Route 205 and the International Airport of Ezeiza; the Ciudadela Regiment, military in nature, in the town of the same name near Buenos Aires; the motorized army center called the Tablada Regiment, in the place of the same name. The Commission received information on clandestine detention centers in the interior of the country. In La Plata, the headquarters of the 601st Battalion, which as stated earlier, has another center in the city of Buenos Aires; the Seventh Infantry Regiment, of a military nature; Sections Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 of Police Headquarters; the two police stations located in the town of San Justo between Buenos Aires and La Plata. The Marina arsenal in the city of Azul, approximately 30 kilometers from Olavarría. In Puerto Belgrano, Bahía Blanca, said to be the largest naval base in the country, where it was said that prisoners accused of subversion were held in old ships that had run aground and were no longer in use. In Junín, in the Province of Buenos Aires, the military facilities of Junín. In Córdoba, the places called La Rivera and La Perla. The place called Famailla, a wooden structure, in the Province of Tucumán. The center called Chamical, in the Province of La Rioja, under the Air Force. San Martín de los Andes, in the Province of Neuquén, in the south of the country, near the Andes. The Regiment of Covunco, in the Province of Santa Cruz. A farm in the south of the Province of Buenos Aires, near the town of Flores, which it appears from the denunciations received by the Commission, is the place where, in 1977, a number of journalists were taken by helicopter to meet with some persons detained for subversive activities whom the Government said were prisoners who had surrendered voluntarily and were in the process of re-education. The places mentioned were considered clandestine detention centers, i.e., for the temporary detention of persons classified as illegal, because they were not recognized by the Government as official detainees, and were or have been used, according to the information (maps and tentative organization charts) in the possession of the Commission, for interrogation and torture in the stage prior to official detention. Some persons filing denunciations called these places chupaderos (“roughing-up centers”). Statements received during the on-site observation or prior to it, and conversations with certain detainees in various prisons around the country, and with persons both inside and outside Argentina who had been released after short or long periods of detention or after having “disappeared”, referred to places where they alleged they were subjected to interrogation, unlawful coercion and torture. In the majority of cases, the detention centers described showed similarities with some of the clandestine or secret detention centers. During the on-site observation, the Commission visited some of these detention centers. These included the Superintendence of federal Security or federal Coordination in Buenos Aires, where the Commission inspected the narrow dungeons called “tubes”; the Navy Mechanics School, some parts of which are being reconstructed; the police station located in an old tramway terminal, which is not identified outside, on the Avenida Olivera and the Calle Ramón Falcón, where there were many Ford Falcon autos with or without police identification; and the National Penitentiary School, near route 205 and the International Airport of Ezeiza, where the Commission saw the inside of an old adjacent building that is practically abandoned. In Córdoba, the Commission saw the military barracks used by the parachute troops in the place known as La Perla; some old and apparently abandoned buildings on the route to La Perla, and the military prison called La Rivera. During these visits, the Commission made a general inspection, but in none of the places visited did it find evidence or signs of the presence of detainees. 3. Between March and July 1979, the Commission received information indicating that on the occasion of the non-site observation, the Government was relocating prisoners accused of subversive crimes and held under different prison regimes, and concentrating them in certain prisons in the country. These prisons included Villa Devoto and Caseros in the federal capital; Unit 9 in La Plata; the military jail of Magdalena in the Province of Buenos Aires; Rawson prison in the Province of Chubut; and Resistencia prison in the Province of Chaco. These official places of detention, as will be noted below, were visited by the Commission, along with other prisons which, according to the Commission’s information, were intended solely for common prisoners. The Commission also visited the “Resocialization Institute”. 4. On its visits to the prisons or detention centers, the Commission conducted eyewitness inspections of the wings reserved for common prisoners and talked with them; the Commission was able to determine that the conditions and the regime to which they are subjected is considerably superior to the conditions and the regime under which those detained for reasons of public order (l’ordre public), or national security are held. Generally speaking the Commission used the following procedure in its visits to prisons and other legal centers of detention: a. conversations with the authorities of the penal center, asking questions, listening to explanations, and receiving documents; b. overall inspection of prisons and facilities; c. inspection of the wings for common prisoners, and conversations with some of them; d. group interviews, wing by wing, with prisoners detained for reasons related to public order or national security; e. individual interviews with a specific number of prisoners detained for reasons related to public order or national security, on whom the Commission had background information and whose case number is registered in the Commission, and f. interviews with prisoners detained for reasons related to public order or national security, who were selected, on the spot, at the suggestion of the Commission, by the prisoners in each wing, so that they could raise general issues on behalf of the people for whom they were speaking. During these interviews, both the group interviews and the individual talks, the Commission clearly explained the purposes of the visit, and its humanitarian objectives; it collected data on the legal status of the detainees, on the health, the food, the prison conditions and other aspects, and stressed that the conversations should be totally frank and truthful, and that the Argentine Government had committed itself to seeing that no reprisals of any type would be taken as result of the on-site observation.9 The Commission’s assessment of each of the detention facilities visited is given below: a. Villa Devoto prison 5. This prison is located in the capital city of Buenos Aires. It is a large building with spacious facilities of various kinds, which was constructed, according to information received, in 1927. The Commission visited this prison for several hours, and spoke both with the authorities and with the detainees. It is intended for common prisoners, and for female detainees accused of subversive crimes. Villa Devoto has the country’s major prison hospital; the Commission visited the confinement room, the surgical operating theater, the X-ray room, the gynecological consulting room, and the medical files containing the clinical histories of the prisoners. There is a primary school for common prisoners who have not completed the sixth grade, as well as special concrete patios and a chapel for religious services for the prisoners. The women accused of subversive crimes are housed in wings that are totally separate from the sector for common prisoners. Most of the women are at the disposal of the Executive (PEN), some case histories are still open and at the disposal of the Executive, while a smaller number have been sentenced by the regular or military courts and are also at the disposal of the Executive. The reports furnished by the prison authorities indicated that initially there were many pregnant women, and that the children were turned over to family members, or in cases where there were no available family members, the judge of the juvenile court intervened to have them placed in special centers. The detainees are held in different cellblocks, according to the regime under which they are placed. System 1 is the most severe and to come under regime 2 or regime 3, certain conduct requirements must be met. There are so called punishment or emergency cells, which are located in the basement, and are very narrow, where those being punished for what the authorities of the penal institution consider a serious breach, are kept totally incommunicado for up to thirty days. One of the prison authorities explained that, in practice, they are kept in such cells for an average term of up to twelve days. The cells are damp and those being punished are given only a light mattress to sleep on at night. The Commission observed various types of cells at this prison. There are large cells in which several detainees are kept collectively and are allowed to do some cooking. The detainees who are under the strictest regime are in solitary confinement cells. The Commission inspected Cell Block Nº 2, which at that time had 23 cells with a total of 83 detainees. These cells measure approximately 2.5 x 3.5 and contain crudely constructed bunk beds. They are very narrow and are entirely closed off by heavy doors with no openings onto the respective inner passage. Some of these were opened at the request of the Commission. There is a latrine at the floor level and the Commission observed incommunicado detainees eating on the floor. According to their detention regime, the detainees are allowed to receive visits from their families, with whom they may speak through grills that permit no physical contact, and they are allowed to write letters to their families sporadically and to read a limited number of censored books and magazines. From the statements given by the detainees, the Commission concluded that the diet is poor and that they had been given a special meal on the day of the Commission’s visit; medical attention was described as regular, although at times limited to dispensing tranquilizers, and there is no preventive health care; prior to the visit of the Commission some television sets and sewing machines had been provided; the detainees are allowed no physical exercise or sports, and spend 19 hours a day in their cells; they come from different centers and transferred from one place to another; some were considered to have disappeared, or their husbands, fathers or brothers have disappeared, in some cases the entire family; in other cases, their husbands, companions, brother or other family members are detained in other prisons in Argentina, some have requested the option of leaving the country which has repeatedly been denied to them; a high percentage of those who were interviewed, between 70 and 75 percent, were tortured during the first phase of their detention; some cases were dismissed but the individuals remain in detention at the disposition of the Executive (PEN); they are punished by being placed in the punishment cells for trivial infractions such as sewing, or because they are found to have fruit peels from mandarins for example, which the prison authorities claim they use to make fermented drinks. In the lists furnished by the prison authorities the names of six male detainees charged with involvement in subversive activities appeared, although presumably only women were detained at Villa Devoto for activities of this nature. In view of this, before concluding its visit to the prison, the Commission asked to interview these six inmates. The prison authorities stated that two were no longer there; Oscar Luke had been transferred to a psychiatric hospital, Unidad 20, because he was suffering from schizophrenia, and Osvaldo Cambiaso, a prisoner classified as special by the International Red Cross, who had been detained for some time in Rawson, had been transferred the day before because of serious illness to the Ramos Mejía Hospital in the capital. On the same day the Commission visited the prison, Cambiaso’s mother informed the Commission that she had gone to the Ramos Mejía Hospital and had been told that her son was not there; however, a day later, the woman informed the Commission that she had found her son in the above-mentioned hospital. The four other men were interviewed in private by the Commission: Benjamín Taub, owner of the Hotel Liberty of Buenos Aires, who had been in the hospital for twenty months while his wife was detained in Villa Devoto prison, during which time he was not allowed to see her, and whose son was detained in Caseros prison; the Commission noted that he was bordering on insanity; Felleri Vogelius, director and owner of the magazine “Crisis”, had suffered a heart attack and was experiencing severe chest pains; Mario Medina, a former Congressman, and Héctor Matthews, sentenced to 16 years in prison, who stated that he had received good medical attention. In response to a question of the Commission, the prison authorities stated that these men were in Villa Devoto temporarily, and were going to be transferred to another detention center, in contradiction to some of the statements of the men who were interviewed. b. Caseros prison 6. This prison is located in the city of Buenos Aires, and has a capacity for 1,860 detainees in a unicellular system, that is, each detainee has his own cell with sanitary facilities. The Commission inspected this prison and was able to verify that it meets all the necessary requirements of modern penal standards. It is clear and hygienic, has satisfactory medical and diet services, and also meets the technical requirements for carrying out the purpose for which it was built. The Caseros prison opened on April 23, 1979, following the completion of a 1960 project under the supervision of the National Commission of Penitentiaries.10 It consists of several floors where the detainees are held. Due to the design of the building, open air activities are not possible, and for this reason it has large rooms for physical exercise, which the prisoners use twice a day for recreation. In the basement there is a large kitchen, where special diets for the prisoners were posted. Rules for visiting the detainees are set forth in special regulations issued by the military government for reasons of national security, physical contact with the visitor is not allowed, conversations being permitted only through grills. The Director of the prison described it as a maximum security center. The hospital provides dental service, the reading of books is allowed, and the Commission observed that certain books may be exchanged among prisoners. The Commission visited Caseros twice. It spoke at length with the prison authorities and held individual and collective interviews with the detainees. The following can be concluded by the statements made by the detainees: that there are some detainees who are ill as a consequence of prolonged imprisonment in various detention centers, one example being a detainee who has lost 25% of his vision, who has no hearing in one ear and suffers from heart problems; that the detainees have not been mistreated in the prison, except for punishments called for by the disciplinary system; that they consider the treatment in this prison to be better than that in others where they had been held; that medical attention is not entirely sufficient nor is the diet fully satisfactory; that their reading material is censored and that, in fact, among the books which are prohibited are those of Pablo Neruda; that a high percentage of the detainees were tortured while interrogated at other detention centers; that many of the detainees have repeatedly been denied requests to exercise the right of option; that there are several foreign detainees accused of subversion; that some have already completed their sentences but remain in detention as a result of being placed at the disposition of the Executive (PEN); that in 1978 some detainees were placed in punishment cells for having spoken with delegates of the International Red Cross who visited them; that the prison regime for those accused of subversive acts in Argentina has been transformed to physically and mentally destroy those prisoners; that one prisoner while in Sierra Chica prison was left in a cell for seven days with a gun wound in his leg, but that he was later operated on in the hospital of that prison; that the new Prison Regulations are not fully obeyed, and because of this, in some cases, the situation has worsened; and that specifically with regard to Caseros prison, the general complaint is lack of sun, air, exercise and sports, as well as the limited recreation hours, which consist of an hour and a half in the morning and an hour and a half in the afternoon. c. Unit 9 of La Plata 7. Unit 9 is a men’s prison located in the city of La Plata, and in which most of the detainees are held for reasons of public order or national security. Some have been tried or sentenced by military tribunals and others by the regular judicial system, while the majority are held at the disposition of the Executive (PEN). The detainees are held in small cells, generally two persons in each, and the cells are located in separate blocks, each block containing approximately 60 persons. Placement of prisoners in the various blocks is according to their records and conduct, for which reason the various regimes are dissimilar. Indeed, while some have the right to read newspapers and books, to have visits with their families, and to remain outdoors for longer periods of time, others have been denied such elementary rights. The Commission visited Unit 9 twice. It extensively inspected its facilities and interviewed approximately 100 detainees during several hours. Furthermore, the Commission held extensive conversations on the prison conditions with the authorities. The following can be inferred from the interviews the Commission held with individuals detained for reasons of public order or national security: that the prison is relatively satisfactory although the prisoners are kept enclosed for twenty hours each day; that, in general, they have neither books nor newspapers and when these are available they are censored; that following the visit of the International Red Cross, some prisoners were punished in reprisal; that a high percentage of the detainees state that they were tortured in centers in which they were previously detained; that some of the detainees are allowed one day a week to participate in sports and that they have two hours of recreation in the morning and two hours in the afternoon; that some of them have discovered that the block in which they are kept is called the Death Block and they state that it holds prisoners who have been detained for subversive activities and barbarously tortured and beaten, and that some died, while according to the authorities they tried to escape; that the disciplinary system includes punishment for trivial infractions such as having a loose button or for hanging a towel in front of a window; that the prisoners are held in different blocks according to their classification; that there are blocks where treatment is more severe, blocks of intermediate treatment and some that are considered to be privileged; that some prisoners have been in what they call concentration camps, for example, the radio broadcast building in Provincia, near the Olmos prison, La Perla in Córdoba and Los Andes in the Province of Mendoza; that in other centers around the country they met persons who soon after disappeared, that 40 Uruguayans had been kidnapped and were being held at the police headquarters in Quilmes; that there is both physical and moral abuse of prisoners in the punishment cells and this includes cold water baths, but that in recent months these cases have been very sporadic and the situation has tended to improve, including the provision of adequate clothing for the various seasons of the year; that some prisoners are seriously ill and have not received the necessary medical attention. d. Prisons in Olmos 8. The Commission visited two jails in Olmos in the Province of Buenos Aires, identified as Unit 1 for men and Unit 8 for women. The large majority of the inmates in Unit 1 in Olmos are common criminals and it is one of the penitentiary centers with the highest number of inmates in the country. It has a central prison hospital with several medical professionals in various fields of specialization. With regard to those being detained for reasons of public order or national security, the Commission interviewed a prisoner in the hospital, who is being detained at the order of the Executive (PEN), without trial, charged with union activities, who had been brought a few days earlier from Unit 9 in La Plata. The Commission noted that he suffered from serious nervous problems. The prison has twelve blocks and relatively good air and ventilation facilities. The Commission inspected Unit 8 extensively, the athletic field, dormitories of varying sizes with four or six bed in each, collective bathrooms, the library, the school, and a block for mothers, who remain with their children until the child reaches the age of three. The Commission spoke with some of the detainees who are being held for common crimes, and found only one detainee accused of subversive activities, with whom it spoke in private. This woman was pregnant and had been taken to Unit 8 to have the child, following which she would be sent to the Villa Devoto prison in Buenos Aires. The Commission observed that, in general, the prison conditions in this Unit are satisfactory, and that the professional personnel who render services to the detainees treat them efficiently and humanely. e. Magdalena prison 9. This is a military facility located in the Province of Buenos Aires with 240 inmates. The detainees are members of the military who have committed offenses of a military nature and who, during their detention, participate in learning a trade to prepare them for a normal life, administrative tasks, agricultural work such as gardening, and some manufacturing activities. The conditions in Magdalena are those of a model detention center; it has spacious and comfortable facilities including an athletic field, a room for movies, press, library, various kinds of workshops, a system allowing visitors every weekend, support from the clergy and a diet which is considered to be the best of any of the penal centers in the country, as well as an efficient medical service. Each block has its own dining room and bathroom, and the doors of the individual cells are generally left open. Detainees being held for common crimes, or for reasons other than those of public order or national security, have access to the athletic field and enjoy other privileges, among which is permission to leave the facility provided certain conditions are met, a privilege which is not granted to the other class of prisoners. The Commission interviewed this other class of prisoners, and was able to verify that they are receiving generally satisfactory treatment; specifically, in this group the Commission spoke with Jorge Taiana, a medical doctor and university professor and former Minister of Culture and Education, with Diego Sebastián Ibáñez, who had been Secretary General of the petroleum union; and with Julio César Perlinger, military officer, and Jorge Cepernic, former Governor of the Province of Santa Cruz, both detained for several years at the disposition of the Executive. Doctor Taiana is being held in a very large cell with its own bathroom and has been detained for over three years pursuant to the Institutional Act of June 18, 1976. During his imprisonment he has dedicated himself to writing, as he is an internationally recognized scientist. In his conversation with the Commission, he put forward his opinions on the situation of the country and its political development. He has a son who has been detained in Rawson prison. He said that he had not been tortured, that it is necessary that the rule be re-established, and that he shares the opinion of the writer Ernesto Sábato that “there is no violation of human rights that can be justified.” f. Prison of Córdoba 10. The Commission visited the eleven blocks of this institution which are arranged in a circular form. Each block is divided into cells which open onto a common area where the inmates may spend certain hours. The block and cells that the Commission visited were generally clean. This prison has an infirmary with an operating room and X-ray equipment, and also a dental clinic. The prisoners with whom the Commission spoke indicated that the infirmary services were good, but they complained of the diet. The Commission inspected the kitchen and pantry which were clean and neat, and the meat had been put away in refrigerated areas. The prison also has a small library. Furthermore, in a separate area, it has approximately 15 special rooms with private bathrooms which are used for family visits. There is a block set aside for minors in which there were approximately 150 inmates between 16 and 19 years of age. In spite of the age of the building and certain material limitations, the system practiced by the current management of the prison includes some innovations recommended by modern penologists, such as: i) permission to periodically receive wives or girlfriends for an entire day in one of the special rooms where they are afforded privacy; ii) the separation of homosexual inmates from other inmates. iii) Services of psychologists, social workers and priests. During its inspection, the Commission noted the existence of 40 prisoners called “special prisoners”, whose names did not appear on the official list that had been given to it previously. This list showed some prisoners to be at the disposition of the Executive, and others at the disposition of Military Tribunals or military or federal judges, although in some cases, no charges had been brought against them. There were three prisoners identified simply as being at the disposition of “Area 31”, in reference to the military zone. Many of them have been in detention since 1974 or 1975 without being sentenced. Only one of those forty prisoners was serving a sentence. These special prisoners are subject to a much stricter regime for receiving visitors. The Commission was allowed to inspect block 14, the newest block, without restrictions, where detainees accused of subversive activities or “special prisoners” are held. This section consists of individual cells, which during the day are left open, thus allowing the inmates to speak with each other in the common area between the cells. The cells were clean, but they are small and uncomfortable, and their windows had been sealed in such a way that the prisoners could not see outside, but the inmates are allowed out in the sun, in the inner courtyard of the prison during certain hours. All of the men who are included in the group referred to as “special prisoners” indicated their desire to speak with the Commission and were heard in private. Their statements on harassment and other violations are reflected in the corresponding section of this Chapter, but none of them claimed that he had been mistreated in the prison, except for not being allowed to receive magazines, newspapers or other reading material. Furthermore, the Commission visited block 13 where the women belonging to the group of “special prisoners” are held, two of whom had been incommunicado, in an effort on the part of the authorities to keep them from the Commission’s inspection. The Commission, however, finally succeeded in speaking in private with all the detainees in this section, after overcoming obstacles that impeded access to the cells where these two women were being held. g. Campo La Rivera in Córdoba 11. During the stay of the Commission in Córdoba, it visited the military prison called Campo La Rivera, which was mentioned in many of the denunciations as an interrogation and torture center during the first months of the military government. The Commission spoke with the prisoners in a closed patio surrounded with high walls. The prisoners appeared to be well and made no serious complaints, and most of them are being detained for military offenses. However, some of those interviewed mentioned that at one time civilian prisoners were held there. One of those being detained is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and was in detention for having refused to do obligatory military service. h. Rawson prison 12. Rawson prison is located in a place of the same name, in the Province of Chubut, in Patagonia, in the south of Argentina, approximately 2,000 kilometers from Buenos Aires. It is considered the strictest maximum security prison in Argentina, in which detainees charged with involvement in subversive activities are held, whom the government considers to be the most dangerous. The Commission visited this prison for several hours, and spoke first with the authorities who stated: that there are 279 subversive prisoners being held and 65 common prisoners; that the subversives are kept in individual cells, and are not allowed to work; that those who have been imprisoned for subversive activities have been tried, sentenced, or are at the disposition of the Executive; that they have two hours of recreation each day, which is taken in turns by the various blocks, and that at 8.00 o’clock in the evening the lights are turned out and silence must be observed; that visits are governed by regulations pursuant to Decree Nº 780, which permit visits of one hour for six consecutive days every 45 days, and this procedure applies to prisoners who have families who live more than 300 kilometers from the prison; that heating is provided by small stoves placed in the central passageway of each block and that in the middle of winter the temperature reaches two, three and even eight degrees below zero. This penitentiary was originally a penal colony, and in 1974 it was set-aside for prisoners charged with crimes of subversion. The Commission inspected the various facilities of the prison, including those for common prisoners, who are kept in large collective cells. The Commission noted that the disciplinary regime is stricter for the subversives and that they are kept in individual cells. They are kept in eight different blocks containing from 35 to 44 cells each. Each of these was inspected by the Commission, which verified that in the cells, which are very narrow, there are no sanitary facilities with the exception of “chamber pots” and that the prisoners are not permitted to engage in sports, although they are allowed some books, and the local newspaper. Rawson prison is totally isolated, built in an area of constant strong winds. The blocks of the prison can be reached by passing through numerous heavy iron doors covered with bars, chains and locks. The prison authorities informed the Commission that prisoners are allowed to play games such as dominoes, but not in cells or in the blocks, but on small boards nailed to low posts on the patio, where the wind is very strong. In spite of this, the Commission noted that there were typewritten announcements in the blocks of the prison stating that as of August 20, 1979 “games” were prohibited. The Commission held collective interviews, by cellblocks, with the prisoners, many of whom were pale and emaciated. The Commission also held individual interviews with a substantial number of prisoners, chosen for this purpose, at the suggestion of the Commission, to represent their respective cellblocks, in one of the patios of the prison, where, at one point, the emotions of the prisoners were translated into tears and into shaking. The prisoners pointed out the following situations to the Commission that there has been no torture at Rawson, but prisoners are kept in solitary confinement for periods lasting as long as a few weeks; that physical and mental deterioration is caused primarily by the circumstances of confinement which derive from the characteristics of the institution itself and the disciplinary system used therein; that the prisoners are not allowed to have portable radios or newspapers and are often treated aggressively, insultingly and sharply, for pretexts as unlikely as not having appropriately put away their clothing; that during the winter the prisoners suffer from the severe cold; that the prisoners are kept in individual cells for as long as 15 consecutive hours with no activity, staring at the walls of the narrow cells while lying on beds; that almost all of them were tortured during their first months of detention during interrogation, and that they have been imprisoned in various facilities throughout the country; that they have been kept in secret detention centers and that they have close relatives who are also imprisoned; that in some places, such as in Córdoba and La Plata, they discovered that dozens of prisoners were shot; that medical services are not entirely satisfactory, in some cases such services are provided through a grill and not in an examining room, and there is no psychiatric treatment; that meals are very poor in terms of quality and quantity; that some have repeatedly been denied a request to exercise the right of option to leave the country; that until some time ago smoking was restricted but that now they may communicate more with prisoners from other cell blocks; that both in Rawson and other official detention centers where they have been held, the daily inspection procedure is humiliating. i. Resistencia prison 13. The Commission visited Resistencia prison in the city of the same name in the Province of Chaco, classified as a maximum security prison center. This prison is located some distance from the city of Resistencia, and consists of a kind of walled city with a protected area of over approximately a thousand meters from the site of the building. As one approaches the installation, one finds small buildings at some distance along the way, and wire fences that impede access to the prison from places other than those protected by the above-mentioned observation and control building. This penitentiary is built on old structures that have been recently remodeled. Within these buildings the detainees have been separated into two sections: one for common prisoners and one for prisoners charged with crimes of subversion. Two new cellblocks have been added to the prison which house both categories of detainees. The buildings show signs of having recently been painted and repaired. The Commission spoke with prisoners being held for common crimes and interviewed those being held for reasons of public order or national security. Among the problems raised, the prisoners complained of poor diet and lack of medical attention and sanitary facilities, as well as about prolonged periods of enclosure, from 18 to 20 hours daily; the prohibition of engaging in sports and of receiving newspapers, listening to the radio or watching television. Permission for visits from family members is difficult to obtain, and when allowed, they are held in closed rooms impeding physical contact. Visitors are inspected by the prison guards. Prisoners are allowed to send one letter each week and no communication is permitted between one block and another. The cells are small and damp. Treatment of the prisoners is very strict and punishment is imposed for trivial infractions. j. Resocialization Institute (Instituto de Resocialización) 14. During its on-site observation, the Commission visited the Resocialization Institute, identified as Unit 21, which began operation in June 1977. Members of the Commission were transported by military helicopter to the site of this special detention facility near Buenos Aires. During the first part of the visit, which took several hours, the Commission exchanged views with the Director, the psychologist, the lawyer, the chaplain, and the social worker, of this detention center. The Director explained the functions of the Institute, its main objectives and the activities of the detainees. There were thirty detainees, fourteen women and sixteen men. Among these, there were three married couples, as well as four children, sons and daughters of the detainees. The detainees are persons who have been sentenced by the Military Tribunals. They have surrendered voluntarily and therefore their sentences have been reduced to one third; this mitigation is contemplated in Argentine penal law, notably in the law issued by the present government which specifies that such mitigation of sentence is to be granted in cases where subversives surrender themselves voluntarily to the authorities. The Director further explained that the resocialization process was instituted by the Argentine government upon learning that there were persons who had voluntarily ceased engaging in subversive activities. The Government consequently issued a proclamation for them to turn themselves in; the basic objective of the resocialization plan was to reintegrate them into society according to the Government’s guidelines. The Institute’s psychologist explained that therapy is both individual and collective; the detainees have contact visits with members of their families once a week, on weekends from 9 to 3 pm, and during this period, they can interact fully with their families within the facility. For those whose families live more than 300 kilometers away, there is a special regime which allows them three consecutive days per month. The length of time in detention in the institution is determined by the individual’s sentence. The psychologist indicated that the objective is that persons who regret having been involved in subversive activities be given a way out. The institution offers several advantages, there is a minimum security, the guards are not armed, and the regime is mainly one of self-discipline. He mentioned the case history of an individual who had been released from the facility, who upon leaving, was put to work by the Army to assist his readaptation to society. Among the new projects envisioned in the near future, there is one in which the detainees, who are only a few courses short of finishing their studies, may take these courses inside the institution, and pass the respective examinations, so that at the end of their sentence, they can fully reintegrate themselves into society. The psychologist went on to explain that, in practice, at the beginning, there is an attempt to individualize the approach, analyzing the conflicting areas of the individual’s personality, and based on this, to proceed with the work of reeducation. The Commission inspected the facility, visiting first the mess halls and sewing shops and then the men’s wing, the women’s wing, the women’s dormitory, the children’s dormitory, located next to their mothers’, and the three bedrooms for the married couples. Thereafter the Commission held lengthy discussions with the detainees. Those persons wishing to speak alone were also allowed to do so. Among the issues raised the following merit special emphasis: in general, they are well treated, they receive newspapers and magazines on Sundays; there is concern among some that they are not yet allowed to continue with their studies; that their situation is really exceptional but is not indicative of the general situation in the country; that most of them are interested in obtaining parole, this was phrased as “we want freedom of movement.” According to their explanations, this is not possible for those who have been sentenced by Special Military Tribunals according to the current legislation; that the psychological and medical treatment is sporadic, and that they do not receive any legal assistance. Finally, they indicated their concern that since they were sentenced by the Military Tribunals, they have been disenfranchised for life, that is, they have lost their fundamental rights, making them doubt the effectiveness of their reintegration into society once their sentence has been completed. The discussions with the detainees were extensive, and they were told what the objective and purpose of the Commission’s visit was, and they in turn expressed their great hopes in it. Most of the inmates did not give their names, and some spoke about members of their families who are among the disappeared. The Director said that there was only one such center in the country; and the Commission was unable to identify the thirty persons who are confined in this institution. D. Unlawful Use of Force and Torture 1. Both before and during the on-site observation, the Commission had been receiving reports, testimonies and declarations pointing to the practice of unlawful use of force and torture in Argentina, in clear violation of the fundamental rights of man, the Argentine Constitution, and the aims proclaimed by the Military Government Junta of observing Christian morality, the national tradition and the dignity of the Argentine people. The unlawful use of force and torture appear to have been carried out mainly during the interrogation phase, according to complaints presented on behalf of detainees in Argentine prisons as well on behalf of persons who disappeared or who have been kidnapped. 2. There are many ways in which unlawful physical force and psychological and mental torture were practiced in special interrogation centers commonly known as chupaderos (“roughing-up centers”) and in some cases, in the prisons. These torture practices, in many cases, were carried out over several months of interrogation sessions. The Commission has analyzed the large volume of testimony presented about these practices, and has selected the following illustrative examples: a) Brutal beating of inmates, which on several occasions has resulted in broken bones and partial disablement; in the case of pregnant women it has caused miscarriages and according to some allegations, has even resulted in the death of several persons. This type of beating is carried out with different kinds of metal, rubber, wooden and other weapons, and with fists and kicks. Denunciations have been made claiming rupture of the bladder, fractured ribs and sternum, or other serious internal injuries; b) Confinement in punishment cells for several weeks, for trivial infractions, under conditions of desperate isolation and with the application of coldwater baths; c) The chaining of inmates to the headboards of beds, or to the seats of airplanes, or other vehicles in which they are transferred from one place to another, while being subject to beatings and insults; d) Mock executions, and, in some cases, the actual execution of inmates in the presence of other prisoners and relatives, as has occurred according to denunciations in Córdoba, Salta and in the Death Wing in La Plata, among others; e) Immersion by means of the so-called submarine, where the victim’s head is covered with a cloth hood and intermittently forced into a vessel containing water, in order to induce asphyxiation as a means of obtaining information from the prisoner; f) The systematic application of the so-called picana eléctrica (electric rod), whereby the victim is tied to the metal parts of the bed and is subjected to currents of high voltage electricity on various parts of the body, such as the head, the temples, the mouth, the hands, the legs, the feet, the breasts and genitalia; furthermore the body is doused with water so as better to conduct the electrical charges. According to complaints received, in some cases the picana is applied while a physician checks on the victim’s condition after each series of “shocks” administered; g) Burning various parts of the inmates body with cigarettes until they are covered with ulcerous wounds; h) The application of pins and other similar pointed instruments under the finger and toenails; i) The threat or consummation of rape of both women and men; j) Placing prisoners in pens with vicious dogs trained by the captors, until they are almost dismembered; k) Keeping prisoners prostrate and hooded for several weeks, with hands and feet tied while they are beaten; l) Suspending inmates from the ceiling with their hands handcuffed or tied; they are tied to metal or wooden bars, and their feet are kept a few inches off the floor, which is covered with pieces of broken glass. There are also cases where the victims are suspended from their hands or feet, causing fractures of their hips or other bones; m) The victims are kept for many hours in a standing position; n) Giving drugs, serum or injections to detainees while they are unconscious as a result of the lengthy torture; |
