Child detention centers in Uruguay under scrutiny

INTERVIEW / Luís Pedernera

 

After denouncing physical and verbal abuse, isolation for up to 23 hours and administration of psychiatric substances to underage minors in Uruguayan corrections facilities, Uruguay’s Committee for the Defense of the Rights of the Child is now no longer in the seat of the accuser, but of the accused.

 
Such strong repercussion was generated by its most recent report on the centers for the detention of minors in Uruguay; that Committee researchers were threatened with being sued and committee members turned to international organizations to defend themselves.

 

Issued two months ago, the report’s main conclusion was that in none of the 10 juvenile corrections facilities visited for the report entitled Adolescentes Privados de la Libertad  (Adolescents Detained) has a social-educational plan to guide policy on detained teens. To the contrary, arbitrariness and abuse of authority are the rule in many of the detention centers.

 

Luis Pedernera, a member of the Coordinating team of the Committee for the Defense of Child Rights and the Uruguayan Institute for Legal and Social Studies spoke to Comunidad Segura about the repercussions of the report and the pressing needs of the minors detained at Uruguayan prisons.

 
One of the most alarming conclusions reached by the report was that minors are subjected to physical and psychological abuse. How do you explain this, and what must change?

 

It is one of the key points of our study. The current administration was open to our investigations. In our last visit we presented a list of the gravest problems and names of those potentially responsible for ill treatment, and we are happy that the current administration took steps to discontinue the contact these people had with adolescents and launched its own investigations.

 

Torture however, is much more difficult to prove, especially in a setting in which teens are almost completely isolated. For cases such as these, we need organs that can react quickly and efficiently to protect adolescents. Investigations are, as a rule, very slow, and most often are carried out without taking the adolescent away from where he or she is. But it is not only torture that worries me. I think that to keep a 15 year old locked up for 23 hours with nothing to do is inhumane, and it must be changed.

 
What were the repercussions?

 

We visited the field twice in 2008, and we published the corresponding reports. The first was quite harsh and the strategy we used generated a lot of repercussion, especially on the part of the government – some to be expected, other reactions surprised us, such as disavowing the testimony of youths on the torture they were subjected to.

 

In the heated debate held in the media, which ran for almost two months after the report was released, we were threatened: the corrections centers’ workers’ unions sued us through the penal and the civil system, from being accusers we became the accused. This prompted us to file complaints at the Human Rights branch of the Inter American Commission and other organizations.

 
 What changed from the previous reports?

 

We have been doing this work since 1991. On our last visit, in October 2008, despite the fact that many things we denounced in our March report are still present in a few centers (23 hour periods of solitary confinement, ill treatment, slow investigations, the lack of social and educational plans) we note that one of the worst corrections facilities is currently being closed down. The problem is that although they are shutting this one down, they are transferring the problems to other units.

 
How was the report made?

We are a coalition of non governmental organizations and, for that reason, the work is done by a multidisciplinary team made up of lawyers, social workers, educators, architects, doctors, teachers and sociologists. The work is supported by Save the Children Sweden, and other organizations that have the available human resources.

 
How long did it take to complete the study?

 

We made two day long visits. In these visits we gathered information based on a pre-determined format that we created based on the manual of the Association for the Prevention of Torture and in our own experiences.

 

After that we write up the report that must be ready in the period of two months after the visit. In the last survey we interviewed 130 youths, we spoke to their mothers and fathers, to the directors of the centers, to the technical teams, to employees, educators and other people in contact with the youths.

 

 How were the interviews carried out?

 

Generally those people who interviewed the adolescents have a special feeling for it and are able to establish a good communication with them. But we protect the privacy of teens and interviews are conducted at a private location. We must remind ourselves that while we will go away, they will remain vulnerable.

 

 The report recognizes that efforts have been made by the new administration. What are they?

 

There have been efforts to make the administration more transparent and for issued to be faced. But we are still very far from the complying with the minimum recommendations. There is no policy to speak of. They have good intentions that do not come through for lack of planning.

 

The report also points out that there is no socio-educational program for detained youths in Uruguay. How is that reflected in Uruguayan law?

 

The fact that no previous administrations had any socio-educational program is no excuse. The Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Child and the Adolescent clearly states that socio-educational measure must be in place. Detention centers are not warehouses. 

 

Can you tell us about the use of psychiatric drugs on detained teens?

 
 The environment in the youth detention centers is extremely charged. So drugs help release tension and prevent explosive outbreaks. What happened was that after our first report they changed the way the drugs are given. Before any employee could give detainees medication, now this is being done by medical staff.

 

Does Uruguay use alternative sentencing?

 

There is very little use of alternative sentencing in Uruguay, although it out to be the rule.  The rule is incarceration, and other practices are the exception. According to the Convention on Child Rights, it ought to be precisely the other way around.

 

 

Translated by Lis Horta Moriconi 

 

 

Read Further:

 

The report in Full  (in Spanish, PDF)