The Electronic Newsletter of the International

Centre for Prison Studies

Number 2

June 2005

Welcome to the second issue of Human Rights and Prison Management. We

are very grateful for all the positive comments that we received after the first
issue. If you feel that any of your colleagues would like to receive the
newsletter directly please let us have their e-mail address.

In this edition of the newsletter we focus on prison staff and the administration
of prisons. We have placed a particular emphasis on recent developments in
staff training.

-------------------------------------------------

Contents
(click on the title to go directly to the individual articles)

Introduction

Prison Administration

Ministries of Justice
Armenia

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 1 of 16

 Libya
Central Asia
Russia
California
Chile
Burkina Faso – PRSF

Staff Training

Serbia and Montenegro

Afghanistan
Brazil
Peru
Ethiopia – ICRC
Moldova

International Committee of the Red Cross

Update on African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights

Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture

Handbook in Albanian, Amharic and Armenian

Managing Prisons in a Time of Change

Guidance Notes on Prison Reform

New Director for ICPS

_____________________________________

Introduction
These newsletters are intended to complement the ICPS handbook A Human
Rights Approach to Prison Management. The handbook dealt with all the
major issues of prison management within a human rights context. It was not
possible in a single volume to deal in detail with all the complex issues
involved and we frequently get requests at ICPS for further clarification and
for advice about how to apply the general principles in the daily work which
people do in prison. This series of electronic newsletters will deal with the
issues which correspondents have raised about the topics covered in the
handbook.

It is also clear to us that managing prisons is a lonely business. Very often

people find it difficult to get the chance to exchange views with colleagues in
their own country, far less those in other countries. People grapple with daily
problems, not realising that colleagues in other countries or other regions

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 2 of 16

have faced similar problems and have dealt with them successfully. So, we
also want to take the opportunity to tell readers about the good practice which
goes on in many countries.

The first issue of the newsletter dealt with the judicial and monitoring
processes which help to define how human rights standards are to be applied
in prisons. The current issue explores matters to do with prison staff and with
the administration of prisons.

Back to Contents

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Prison Administration and Human Rights

In any democratic society, work in prison is a public service. Prisons

are places, like schools and hospitals, which should be run by the civil
power with the objective of contributing to the public good. Prison
authorities should have some accountability to an elected parliament
and the public should be regularly informed about the state and
aspirations of the prisons. Government ministers and senior
administrators should make clear that they hold prison staff in high
regard for the work they do and the public should frequently be
reminded that prison work is an important public service.
A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management, chapter 2

Ministries of Justice

National prison systems are usually hierarchical and highly disciplined. This
means that real reform must extend beyond individual prisons and must
include the way the national system is organised. Over the last 30 years the
Council of Europe has grown from 15 member states to its present number of
46, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. In many of the countries
of Eastern Europe prisons were traditionally the responsibility of the Ministry
of the Interior. This was because they were linked closely with the
investigative process and with police, as well as being part of the repressive
mechanism of totalitarian governments. One of the requirements imposed by
the Council of Europe when new member states joined was that the
administration of prisons should be transferred from the Ministry of the Interior
to the Ministry of Justice. The reason for this was to emphasise that prisons
should be part of the civil rather than the military structure, that they should be
clearly separated from the police and that there should be a clear link with the
judicial process. This transfer has taken place progressively in new member
states over the last 15 years.

The same principles apply in other regions of the world and it is now quite
common for prison administration to be located within the Ministry of Justice
or its local equivalent.

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 3 of 16

 Back to Contents

Armenia

Armenia is an example of a country which has made this change in recent

years. Although the transfer to the Ministry of Justice was one of the
conditions of accession to the Council of Europe, it was also part of a wider
programme of prison reform in Armenia. Another essential element of this
change has been the movement to demilitarise the prison system and to
underline its role as part of the public service. One of the other key elements
in the development of a civilian prison system in Armenia has been the
establishment of a public prison monitoring board with support from the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). This monitoring
board, composed of representatives of civil society, started its work in May
2004.

Back to Contents

Libya

In March 2005 the Libyan government re-organised responsibility for its prison
administration. Previously the prison administration came under the Ministry
of Justice and Public Security. A separate Authority of Judicial Police has now
been established with responsibility for prisons. This new authority is part of
the Ministry of Justice and is independent of the police, who remain under the
Ministry of Public Security.

Back to Contents

Central Asia

A major programme of prison reform began in Kazakhstan in 1998. Since then

the rate of imprisonment has fallen significantly. For a number of years there
was lively debate about whether prison administration should be transferred
from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice. Those in favour of
the transfer urged that prisoners should not be under the control of the same
authority which investigated crime and that this was especially important to
protect pre-trial prisoners from undue pressure to confess to the crimes for
which they were under investigation. The prosecuting and investigating
authorities presented the contrary argument that it was essential for the
proper investigation of crime that they should have control over accused
persons. There was an added debate about the practical difficulties of
implementing such a transfer and the added costs which might be involved.
Finally, agreement was reached about convicted prisoners and in January
2002 responsibility for management of prisons and colonies for convicted
people was transferred to the Ministry of Justice. The debate about the pre-
trial prisoners went on for almost two more years, until agreement was
reached at the end of 2003 to transfer responsibility for them also to the
Ministry of Justice.

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 4 of 16

In 2003 responsibility in Kyrgyzstan for places of pre-trial detention and
prisons was transferred to the Ministry of Justice, while the Ministry of Internal
Affairs retains responsibility for temporary detention facilities in police stations.
(Information on Kyrgyzstan reported in the Human Rights Watch World Report
2005 http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/kyrgyz9894.htm)

Back to Contents

Russia

Russia joined the Council of Europe in 1996 and two years later responsibility
for the management of prisons was transferred from the Ministry of the Interior
to the Ministry of Justice. An important feature of the Russian reforms was
that this change did not happen in isolation. Instead, it was part of a much
wider programme of criminal justice reform, which has come to be regarded
as a model for the region. There were important changes in penal legislation
throughout the 1990s, one of the most important of which was the transfer of
decision making, from the prosecuting and investigating authorities to the
judiciary, about whether an accused person should be placed in pre-trial
detention. Prosecutors and judges were closely involved in discussions about
the reforms and they were explained in the press. The Russian authorities
were quite clear that one of the outcomes expected from these reforms was a
significant reduction in the very high rate of imprisonment and this is now
happening. In 1998 the rate of imprisonment in Russia stood at 688 per
100,000 of the population and by the beginning of 2005 it had fallen to 532. A
large proportion of this reduction occurred in the pre-trial prisons where there
had previously been the greatest overcrowding and the worst conditions.

Back to Contents

California

Changes have also been considered in other jurisdictions where there are
different arrangements for prison administration. For example, the Senate of
the State of California has recently passed a Corrections Reform Bill which
introduces a series of reforms to prison administration. One of the main
provisions is a re-structuring of the administration under a new title of
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. An effect of this will be to put
rehabilitation on an equal footing with the custodial aspect of imprisonment.
The introduction of a focus on rehabilitation reflects growing concern at the
failure of the current corrections system with its high rate of re-offending (and
consequent cost to the state budget).

Other proposed reforms include a move away from the political appointment
of prison wardens (directors). Under the new legislation the appointment of
wardens will be subject to confirmation by the independent Inspector General
of Prisons who will also undertake formal review of correctional facilities on a
regular basis.

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 5 of 16

One of the original proposals which aroused significant criticism was a plan to
merge responsibility for youth correctional facilities with the new department.
This was largely seen as a retrograde step which would bring the risk that the
interests of young offenders might be lost in the bigger department. In a late
compromise the bill was amended to give youth operations equal standing
with adult systems in the new administration.

Back to Contents

Chile

The fact that responsibility for prison administration lies within the Ministry of
Justice does not of itself guarantee an observance of human rights in prisons.
It is also necessary to have a clear strategy for their implementation. For the
last four or five years, the government of Chile has been developing a wide
programme for criminal justice reform. This has included work within the
prison administration (Gendarmería de Chile) on drawing up a set of
operational processes to support the implementation of internationally agreed
human rights standards in prisons. A headquarters planning team has
developed a model for action which has been piloted in a number of regions
with a view to eventual implementation throughout the whole country.

Comments from staff involved in the work so far:

We see our work in a different way now that we understand the human
rights standards. We interact with prisoners in a different way.
Captain in a prison in Valparaiso.

This is the first time in my career when all the staff of a prison have
come together to debate the management of the prison based on the
human rights standards. It is very good.
Regional Director when attending the evaluation of the pilot project in
one of his prisons

Back to Contents

Burkina Faso

Another way that prison administrations can improve the observance of

human rights is by working with local and international non-government
organisations which have expertise in this field of work. The French NGO,
Prisonniers Sans Frontières (PRSF), has been working in recent years in
Burkina Faso and in December 2004 the French government awarded its
prize for international cooperation (Prix de Haut Conseil à la Coopération
Internationale) to the PRSF, primarily for this work.

The primary mission of PRSF is to improve conditions of detention and

respect for the human rights of prisoners in the countries of francophone
Africa by working with the prison administrations and by encouraging civil
society’s involvement in the process of humanising prisons.

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 6 of 16

One of the main areas of activity of PRSF has been to establish field teams
responsible for promoting the role of local volunteers in developing prison
agriculture and income generation (craft workshops), both of which also aim
to contribute to the rehabilitation process.

PRSF regards the establishment of management boards for each of these

activities as a key feature of their success. Its model local management board
includes representatives of the prison’s management and staff, the civil
society partner and, importantly, elected representatives of the prisoners.
PRSF stresses the primary importance of political will in achieving prison
reforms.

More details of the work of PRSF can be found at www.prsf.org.

Back to Contents

Staff Training
The full contribution which our prisons can make towards a permanent
reduction in the country’s crime-rate lies also in the way in which they
treat prisoners. We cannot emphasis enough the importance of both
professionalism and respect for human rights.
Nelson Mandela, speaking at the official launch of the re-training and
human rights project of the South African Department of Correctional
Services, (Kroonstad, 25 June 1998)

In many countries prison staff are a forgotten group of public servants. They
carry out their work behind the high walls or fences of prisons, unseen by the
public, with little attention paid to them unless things go wrong. In fact their
work is highly important to the safety of the public and to the future wellbeing
of society. For these reasons, certain principles need to be applied:

To carry out (prison) work in a professional manner requires great skill

and personal integrity. This means first of all that men and women who
are to work in prisons need to be carefully chosen to make sure that
they have the appropriate personal qualities and educational
background. They then need to be given proper training in the
principles which should underlie their work and in the human and
technical skills which are required. Throughout their careers they
should be given the opportunity to develop and expand these skills and
to keep up to date with the latest thinking on prison issues.
A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management, chapter 2

The international standards make a clear link between good prison

management and human rights and the need to make the public aware of this:

The prison administration shall constantly seek to awaken and maintain

in the minds both of the personnel and of the public the conviction that

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 7 of 16

 this work is a social service of great importance, and to this end all
appropriate means of informing the public should be used.
UN Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 46 (2)

All members of the personnel shall at all times so conduct themselves

and perform their duties as to influence the prisoners for good by their
example and to command their respect.
Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 48

In the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect

and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of
all persons.
Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, Article 2

In this section of the newsletter we report on a number of recent

developments in staff training and consider, in particular, various examples in
which prison administrations are working in partnership with
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to develop and
deliver human rights based staff training programmes.

Back to Contents

Serbia and Montenegro

In summer 2004 Serbia and Montenegro opened its first prison training
academy in Nis. This is part of an ongoing prison reform programme and is
one of the areas of priority development for the mission set up by the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Before the OSCE mission was set up in 2001, prison staff did not receive any
specific training. Since 2001 OSCE has worked with the Ministry of Justice to
provide training courses to almost 500 prison guards. The new staff academy
is part of a Prison Training Action Plan agreed between OSCE and the Justice
Ministry. It is run by local trainers using a training curriculum which was
developed by Serbian officials supported by international consultants.

The Head of the OSCE mission in Serbia and Montenegro, Ambassador

Maurizio Massari, praised the Ministry’s efforts in providing the new facilities
and said that “the opening of the new training school demonstrates the
government’s commitments to creating a professional prison service which
respects the rights of prisoners”.

During 2003 the OSCE was also involved in providing training for prison staff
in Montenegro on drug abuse among inmates. More than half the country’s
prison officers completed a ten-day training programme designed to help
them identify and deal with the different types of drugs used by inmates.

Back to Contents

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 8 of 16

Afghanistan

In April 2004 the Afghan Ministry of Justice began a training programme for
prison staff with support from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. UNODC is
the lead agency in implementing reform within the justice and penal system in
Afghanistan.

The four-week training package, aimed at 100 participants each month,

provides a general overview about penal, criminal and penitentiary matters
with a focus on human rights issues.

Back to Contents

Brazil

Prisons in Brazil are among the most violent and lawless in the world. The
national media carries regular reports of murders and riots within prisons. The
challenge which faces staff to bring a degree of safety, humanity and dignity
into prisons seems almost impossible. Yet efforts are underway to improve
the situation.

Prisons in Brazil are administered independently by each state. The biggest

system is in the state of Sao Paolo. Since 2002 the Prison Administration in
Sao Paolo has been involved in a project to improve prison management
through the implementation of the international standards on human rights
which are already enshrined in Brazilian law in respect of prisoners and prison
staff. Four prisons were selected to take part in a pilot project to improve living
conditions for prisoners and working conditions for staff. A series of activity
based workshops were held in the state. Participants included managers and
specialists from four prisons in the State of Sao Paulo, representatives from
the state prison headquarters and from the staff training school in Sao Paulo,
as well as a number of representatives from non-governmental organisations.
Part of the project involved peer evaluation of the pilot prisons against
international standards. In this part of the project the personnel involved went
to prisons other than their own to assess whether the operational practices
were in conformity with international standards. This was a very demanding
exercise which required a great deal of trust among those taking part.
Improvements which had taken place were recorded, as were elements where
operational practice fell short of what was required.

The director of the staff training school and two trainers were involved in the
project and they redesigned training courses and developed new ones which
as a result of learning from the project.

A representative from the National Penitentiary Department (DEPEN) was

also involved and in 2005 the project was extended to transfer the lessons
learned to two other states, Espirito Santo and Rondonia.

Back to Contents

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 9 of 16

Peru

During 2004 the Comisión Episcopal de Acción Social (CEAS) in Peru began
a series of workshops for prison staff based on increasing awareness of
international human rights standards and on developing a practical response
to the problems faced by the country’s prisons. As well as national seminars
CEAS is also developing a more detailed programme in four of the country’s
provinces.

In April 2005 CEAS ran a series of national and regional workshops focusing
on the role of prison staff in the reform process and on conflict resolution.

The work of CEAS has been formally recognised by the prison administration
(INPE). A representative of the Commission has also been appointed to the
recently established ministerial commission set up to review the prison reform
process.

Back to Contents

Ethiopia ICRC

The International Committee of the Red Cross has had a continuous presence
in Ethiopia since 1977. Over the last ten years its work has had a particular
focus on the issues arising from armed conflict with Eritrea and from internal
armed conflict and disturbances.

As part of its work, ICRC has worked with regional prison officials to provide
intensive workshops for prison staff. In August 2004 they completed their
initial nationwide training programme for prison directors, and heads of
security, health, and administration. The training was based on internationally
recognised detention standards and on the ICRC’s own reports on prison
conditions in Ethiopia. In November the ICRC began a second, more
advanced training course.

In addition, at the Federal Prison Administration’s request, the ICRC made

recommendations on prison staff training and the structure of the new Federal
Prison Commission. The Commission will be responsible for improving prison
management, conditions and human resources in the prison system.

In order to help with its work with prison staff in Ethiopia, ICRC arranged for
the handbook ‘A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management’ to be
translated into Amharic.

Sources for this report include:

1. Writenet report for UNHCR www.unhcr.bg/coi/files/ethiopia.pdf

2. US State Department Report on Ethiopia 2004
www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41603.htm

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 10 of 16

3. ICRC annual report on Ethiopia 2003
www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/622EVV/$FILE/icrc_ar_03_ethiopi
a.pdf?OpenElement

Back to Contents

Moldova

In May 2003 the Geneva based Association for the Prevention of Torture
(APT) organised a workshop for officials from the Moldovan Penitentiary
Department and from 12 detention centres.

The main purpose of the workshop was to explore the issues raised in the
report of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture
(CPT) visit to Moldova in 2001. The issues were considered under three
broad headings:

• health care
• staff training
• detention regime.

Following further discussion with the prison authorities and with CPT, the
Association produced a Plan of Action to Improve Prison Conditions in
Moldova which was formally adopted by the Moldovan authorities at the end
of 2003 in Government Decision No. 1624. Many of the issues raised in the
Plan of Action have been incorporated into the government’s ten-year plan for
the reform of the penitentiary system (Plan of Measures for the Reform of the
Penitentiary System 2004-2013).

The Association for the Prevention of Torture returned to Moldova in June

2004 for further meetings aimed at matching the needs of the Moldovan
prison system with potential sources of funding and other technical
assistance.

The Plan of Action developed by the APT sets out five main objectives
including improving the training and enhancing the status of prison staff. This
is seen as crucial if the conditions of detention in the country are to be
improved.

Proposed reforms in the training and employment conditions of staff include:

• extending the initial training of sub-officers to six months

• encouraging on-going training and raising qualifications
• improving the training centre and investing in technical teaching
equipment
• increasing the basic salary and re-introducing other benefits for staff
• improving the selection process for staff
• developing a more pro-active approach for promoting the work of the
prison service.

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 11 of 16

 Back to Contents

-----------------------------------------------------------------

OTHER NEWS
International Committee of the Red Cross
In the first edition of the newsletter we focused on the different international
and national mechanisms for monitoring conditions of detention. In the review
we omitted the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

The Geneva Conventions give ICRC delegates the formal right during
international conflict to visit places where prisoners of war and civilian
detainees are held. The Geneva Conventions also encourage states to allow
similar access to the ICRC during non-international armed conflicts and
situations of internal violence. In practice many states allow this access.

The conditions under which victims of internal violence are detained are often
the same as for other prisoners and the work of the ICRC has a broader
impact than its formal remit suggests, as can be seen in the example of
Ethiopia described above.

Unlike several of the other monitoring mechanisms which we described in

Newsletter 1, the reports of the ICRC are confidential between it and the host
government.

Details of the work of ICRC can be found on its website at www.icrc.org.

Back to Contents

Update on African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights

In our first issue we reported on progress in setting up the African Court on
Human and Peoples’ Rights. Although the protocol had received the
necessary number of ratifications the establishment of the court was delayed
by a proposal to link it with the African Court of Justice. The latter has still not
received the required number of ratifications.

At the end of January 2005 the Executive Council of the African Union,
meeting in Abuja, decided to refer that decision to link the two courts for
further consideration in order to avoid prejudicing the introduction of the
human rights court. The Council agreed that the Permanent Representatives
Committee and Legal Experts should re-examine the issue and submit a
recommendation to the 7th Ordinary Session of the Executive Council for
consideration in July 2005.

Back to Contents

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 12 of 16

Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture
In the first issue of this newsletter, which dealt with the mechanisms for
monitoring the implementation of human rights standards in places of
detention, we discussed the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(OPCAT).

The Optional Protocol was adopted by the UN General Assembly in

December 2002. It provides a framework for international and national
monitoring of conditions in places of detention and will come into force once
20 countries have ratified it or acceded to it.

At the beginning of June 2005 the Optional Protocol had gathered almost half
the necessary ratifications with nine countries having ratified or acceded to it.
Those countries are:

Albania, Argentina, Croatia, Denmark, Liberia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, United

Kingdom.

A further 28 countries have signed the Protocol indicating their intention to

take steps to be bound by the treaty at a later date. At the present time many
of those countries are actively considering the process of ratification in their
national legislative bodies. Several of them expect to be in a position to ratify
the Protocol before the end of 2005.

Once the Optional Protocol comes into force it will trigger the establishment
and operation of the sub-committee which will be responsible for the
programme of international visits to monitor conditions in all places of
detention in the states which are party to the Protocol.

Countries that have ratified the Protocol are required, within twelve months of
it coming into force, to put in place national preventive mechanisms which will
work alongside the international monitoring mechanism. The Optional
Protocol takes a broad view of the form that these national mechanisms might
take but, for the first time, it sets out criteria and safeguards for their
independent operation.

The Association for the Prevention of Torture has done a

great deal of work to bring the Optional Protocol into
being and to promote its ratification. Full details of
OPCAT and of the state of progress towards ratification
can be found on their website (www.apt.ch) together with
comprehensive guides to implementation of the Protocol
and of national monitoring mechanisms.

Their Manual for Prevention, which was produced in

partnership with the Inter-American Institute for Human
Rights (IIDH), is available in English, French, Portuguese

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 13 of 16

and Spanish at www.apt.ch/pub/opcat_manual.shtml

Back to Contents

Handbook in Albanian, Amharic and Armenian

Since we wrote in January we have heard that the ICPS Handbook A Human
Rights Approach to Prison Management has been translated into another
three languages. As we report above, the International Committee of the Red
Cross has commissioned a translation into Amharic to support its work in
training prison staff in Ethiopia.

The handbook has also now been translated into Albanian and Armenian. The
translation into Albanian was produced with the support of the Swedish
Helsinki Committee and was launched in Tirana in early May. The Armenian
translation was sponsored by Penal Reform International.

Each of these translations extends further the availability of the handbook as

a training tool for prison staff.

Back to Contents

Managing Prisons in a Time of Change

Although Andrew Coyle’s book Managing Prisons in a Time of Change is no
longer available in print in English it can now be downloaded as a pdf file from
the ICPS website (www.prisonstudies.org).

The book was first published in 2002 and was based on a project looking at
recent experiences in the management of prisons and prison systems in five
different European prison administrations. The objective of the book was to
describe, explain and analyse successful changes in each of the countries
involved and to identify those which had not been successful. The book
examines the different stages of change in the five prison systems and
considers what lessons can be learned from the way they are managed.

Printed copies in Russian are still available from ICPS.

Back to Contents

Guidance Notes on Prison Reform

In recent years there has been a great deal of work in many countries aimed
at improving the observance of human rights in prisons. Some of this work
has been successful but much of it has not and some has even been counter-
productive.

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 14 of 16

There is a real need for properly focussed projects to deal with the terrible
abuses of human rights which occur in many prisons in the world. However,
when faced with requests to provide assistance, many potential partners who
have no direct experience of working in the prison environment find
themselves at a loss to know where to break into this complex world. The
problems can seem so overwhelming that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Similarly, potential funders often do not have a sound basis from which to
assess whether a project proposal will actually have any impact on the
fundamental problems which need to be dealt with.

To meet these needs, ICPS has produced a series of Guidance Notes to

assist all those who fund, undertake, evaluate or are simply interested in the
process of prison reform.

From our experience in working in prisons around the world and from
discussions with other bodies working in this field, we have come to the
conclusion that there a number of clearly identifiable problems which are
consistently present in the prison setting. In all countries at least one of these
problems will be present; in some countries there will be several of them; a
few countries will face most of them.

The Guidance Notes describe the most common issues which are likely to
trigger prison reform projects. The Notes set out under different headings
what is known about a topic and how best it might be addressed. A wide
variety of sources have been used, including the work of intergovernmental
human rights bodies, many governments, individuals and non-governmental
organisations which have carried out prison reform projects, and evaluations
carried out by universities and other bodies. Wherever possible, examples are
provided, not only of the problems which can be encountered, but also of
good practice from which others can learn. There is also a brief bibliography
of some key reference texts. The Notes are presented in loose leaf format so
that each one can be used on its own.

The 15 Guidance Notes are grouped as follows:-

1-3 cover aspects of project design and measurement

4-6 suggest solutions to three deep-seated prison problems, namely

overcrowding, the conditions of pre-trial detention, and bringing prisons
within the rule of law

7 looks at the important structural question of the prison as a civil rather

a military institution

8-10 cover various aspects of prison management and suggest how they
can be improved

11-12 concentrate on matters external to the prison, that is, inspection,

monitoring and the involvement of civil society

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 15 of 16

13-14 consider projects relating to specific groups of prisoners, namely
women and children

15 looks at developing alternative ways of dealing with sentenced persons

other than by imprisonment

The Guidance Notes try to hit a balance between identifying general principles
which can be applied in all geographical and cultural settings, while at the
same time providing practical examples which can be applied in different
environments. The hope is that they will provide useful reference points for all
those involved in prison reform.

The Guidance Notes were launched in January 2005 by the UK Foreign Office
Minister responsible for Human Rights. They are available from ICPS and can
also be downloaded electronically from our website www.prisonstudies.org.

Back to Contents

New Director for ICPS

We are delighted to announce that on the 1st
March, Rob Allen took up his post as Director
of the International Centre for Prison Studies.
Andrew Coyle has stepped down as Director
and will concentrate on his work as Professor
of Prison Studies. All members of staff will
continue to work closely together on all
aspects of the Centre’s work.

For the last four years Rob was Director of a

grant making foundation in the United
Kingdom. He has extensive experience of
international penal reform, especially in the
field of juveniles and alternatives to
imprisonment.

Back to Contents

Human Rights and Prison Management/June 2005 Page 16 of 16