| | Introductie | Nieuws | Contact | Steun & Adressen | Teksten | Achtergrond | Dossiers | |
4 Years of Solitary Confinement
On August 3rd, 2002, it has been 4 continuous years that I have spent in
solitary confinement in German prisons; before that I had already been
in solitary confinement from October 1996 to May 1998.
In this treatise I will explain some of the laws concerning solitary confinement (I), look at the situation from a human rights point of view (II) and finally talk about my own experiences (III). I will mainly use the masculine form to make the text more readable; but all this applies to female prisoners as well!
I. Solitary Confinement according to German law ("Strafvollzugsgesetz")
The German Strafvollzugsgesetz ("criminal executive law") regulates in §§ 88 and 89 the so-called "specific safety measures". Collective imprisonment is, as opposed to former times like the end of the 19th century, regarded as normal.
Prisoners in criminal custody are supposed to work and spend their spare time commonly.
If, however, because of "the behavior or the mental state there is a higher danger of flight attempts or of violence against people or objects or of suicide or autoaggression", the leaders of the institution can apply "specific safety measures" against inmates.
§88 (Abs. 2, Nr. 3) deals with short-term isolation, e. g. in an urgent crisis that lasts only a few hours; §89 however allows for the permanent isolation of a prisoner if this is "necessary".
According to the German judicial tradition, the leader of the institution has to check whether less drastic steps are sufficient; furthermore the federal constitutional court demands that the rule of a suitable relationship between the "problem" and the steps taken is adhered to.
Solitary confinement means that the prisoner is separated physically and permanently from the other inmates. Depending on the degree of isolation, he is also denied participation in the daily walk on the yard (lasting 60 minutes) and the weekly religious service. In this case, the prisoner has direct contact only to the staff. Correspondence by letters is not limited, but strictly supervised.
Usually solitary confinement is combined with other safety measures, e. g.: the withdrawal or denial of objects (e. g. instead of being allowed to possess a pair of scissors or a razor, the inmate is handed out these objects for 15 to 30 minutes; after use, they are immediately taken away); the prisoner must be tied up before leaving the cell; shortening of visiting hours (reason usually given: increased number of staff is necessary, therefore only 60 or 90 minutes are possible; the details vary from prison to prison); denial of "dangerous" musical instruments; etc.
If solitary confinement is to last for more than 3 months, then the law demands that permission be asked from the minister of justice of the federal state. I haven't heard of a single case in which this permission was denied.
Often people (including prisoners) assume that solitary confinement must be temporary. Many authors of judicial texts also demand that this way of imprisonment be limited to a maximum of four weeks per year. This was planned in an alternative outline of the "Strafvollzugsgesetz" dating from 1973.
In the present law and its practical execution these demands are being ignored. Prisoners may remain in solitary confinement for 5, 7 or more years. Admittedly this only concerns a small number of inmates.
II. Solitary Confinement from a human rights point of view
Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights which was released in 1950 prohibits torture and inhuman or humiliating treatments or punishments.
More specific regulations relating to solitary confinement are not part of this convention. For that reason prisoners can only relate to this one article when they appeal to the European High Court for Human Rights after having gone through all national judicial levels (in Germany: Land- /Oberlandes- and finally Bundesverfassungsgericht).
In the 1970s the European Commission for Human Rights in Straßburg created basic principles as to what should be regarded as "solitary confinement torture" and what should be regarded as "legitimate" solitary confinement. This was a reaction to appeals of RAF prisoners [RAF = "Rote Armee Fraktion", the translator].
It must be noted that the commission and the European Court have not acknowledged one single case of "solitary confinement torture"; they always judged in favor of the charged states. This will probably not surprise anyone seriously.
In the decision of July 8th, 1978 (Az:7572/76, ua., published in "Europäische Grundrechtezeitschrift", 1978, S.314ff), the abovementioned commission explains that Baader, Ensslin and Raspe were subjected to "unusual conditions of imprisonment", but that these were necessary in order to cope "suitably" with their "dangerousness".
According to the judicial tradition of Straßburg which is still in practice today, a violation of the abovementioned article 3 is only reached when solitary confinement aims at the destruction of the personality, combined with an "isolation of the senses" and a "complete social isolation". There can already be no "isolation of the senses" when the prisoners have, for example, a cell window, books and a radio.
Concerning the problem of social isolation it was only noted that there had been a "relative social isolation", not a "factual cell isolation", because the prisoners were allowed to welcome their lawyers and relatives for visits.
Furthermore, the state can "prove" that it did not aim at the destruction of the personality or the spirit of resistance, so that measures like solitary confinement did not have inhuman or humiliating character.
Seen in relation to these standards and keeping in mind that the European Commission is financed by European states, there is most probably no hope of having acknowledged there that solitary confinement is a violation of arctice 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
III. My own experiences
Because of the suspicion of an increased danger of flight attempts, including the suspicion I might want to take hostages, initiate mutiny or attack institutional lawyers (because of the aversion I was said to have against this state and its justice system), I have been in solitary confinement for several years.
Of the almost 6 years of imprisonment I have spent 5 years and 9 months in solitary confinement, including several years of having to be tied up before leaving the cell, as mentioned above. I have not hurt anyone during my custody; for this reason the institution says it is not reasonable to wait for such an incident. I claim it my legitimate right to fight for my freedom; the judicial system regards such statements as well as statements like "Revolutionary fight is more necessary than ever" as proofs for my "dangerousness" and "lack of reasonability".
In early 2002 I was - once again - taken to the Stammheim prison for "safety reasons". They said my attitudes had not changed in 4 years of solitary confinement in Bruchsal, I had become too much acquainted with the course of affairs, and the safety cells had to be renovated. For 3 months I had to stay in Stammheim, they said; now I sit in that same safety ward in which I had already been from 1996 to 1998.
The effects of solitary confinement which I feel in myself are: a low tolerance for frustration, a high sensitiveness for stress, and latent difficulties with my concentration during visits of comrades and friends. Furthermore, I start losing my feeling for time; without the help of a calendar I can hardy say whether something happened the day before yesterday, a week, a month or a year ago. Man is thrown back on himself, finds himself in a permanent inner dialogue - this makes concentration during visits a lot more difficult, for suddenly awareness must be directed to without instead of within.
In spite of these negative effects I do not suffer from solitary confinement. On the one hand I have regular correspondence with some people in which I receive pleasant solidarity. On the other hand I think of all the imprisoned comrades worldwide which suffer from conditions which would make us shiver.
What they have to bear cannot be compared to the conditions here.
While in the beginning I used to complain heavily about solitary confinement, I have given up on that now. In comparison to other states it would be an illegitimate use of the word "torture" if conditions in Germany were classified as such.
Nevertheless, solitary confinement is an attack on human dignity!
In this treatise I will explain some of the laws concerning solitary confinement (I), look at the situation from a human rights point of view (II) and finally talk about my own experiences (III). I will mainly use the masculine form to make the text more readable; but all this applies to female prisoners as well!
I. Solitary Confinement according to German law ("Strafvollzugsgesetz")
The German Strafvollzugsgesetz ("criminal executive law") regulates in §§ 88 and 89 the so-called "specific safety measures". Collective imprisonment is, as opposed to former times like the end of the 19th century, regarded as normal.
Prisoners in criminal custody are supposed to work and spend their spare time commonly.
If, however, because of "the behavior or the mental state there is a higher danger of flight attempts or of violence against people or objects or of suicide or autoaggression", the leaders of the institution can apply "specific safety measures" against inmates.
§88 (Abs. 2, Nr. 3) deals with short-term isolation, e. g. in an urgent crisis that lasts only a few hours; §89 however allows for the permanent isolation of a prisoner if this is "necessary".
According to the German judicial tradition, the leader of the institution has to check whether less drastic steps are sufficient; furthermore the federal constitutional court demands that the rule of a suitable relationship between the "problem" and the steps taken is adhered to.
Solitary confinement means that the prisoner is separated physically and permanently from the other inmates. Depending on the degree of isolation, he is also denied participation in the daily walk on the yard (lasting 60 minutes) and the weekly religious service. In this case, the prisoner has direct contact only to the staff. Correspondence by letters is not limited, but strictly supervised.
Usually solitary confinement is combined with other safety measures, e. g.: the withdrawal or denial of objects (e. g. instead of being allowed to possess a pair of scissors or a razor, the inmate is handed out these objects for 15 to 30 minutes; after use, they are immediately taken away); the prisoner must be tied up before leaving the cell; shortening of visiting hours (reason usually given: increased number of staff is necessary, therefore only 60 or 90 minutes are possible; the details vary from prison to prison); denial of "dangerous" musical instruments; etc.
If solitary confinement is to last for more than 3 months, then the law demands that permission be asked from the minister of justice of the federal state. I haven't heard of a single case in which this permission was denied.
Often people (including prisoners) assume that solitary confinement must be temporary. Many authors of judicial texts also demand that this way of imprisonment be limited to a maximum of four weeks per year. This was planned in an alternative outline of the "Strafvollzugsgesetz" dating from 1973.
In the present law and its practical execution these demands are being ignored. Prisoners may remain in solitary confinement for 5, 7 or more years. Admittedly this only concerns a small number of inmates.
II. Solitary Confinement from a human rights point of view
Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights which was released in 1950 prohibits torture and inhuman or humiliating treatments or punishments.
More specific regulations relating to solitary confinement are not part of this convention. For that reason prisoners can only relate to this one article when they appeal to the European High Court for Human Rights after having gone through all national judicial levels (in Germany: Land- /Oberlandes- and finally Bundesverfassungsgericht).
In the 1970s the European Commission for Human Rights in Straßburg created basic principles as to what should be regarded as "solitary confinement torture" and what should be regarded as "legitimate" solitary confinement. This was a reaction to appeals of RAF prisoners [RAF = "Rote Armee Fraktion", the translator].
It must be noted that the commission and the European Court have not acknowledged one single case of "solitary confinement torture"; they always judged in favor of the charged states. This will probably not surprise anyone seriously.
In the decision of July 8th, 1978 (Az:7572/76, ua., published in "Europäische Grundrechtezeitschrift", 1978, S.314ff), the abovementioned commission explains that Baader, Ensslin and Raspe were subjected to "unusual conditions of imprisonment", but that these were necessary in order to cope "suitably" with their "dangerousness".
According to the judicial tradition of Straßburg which is still in practice today, a violation of the abovementioned article 3 is only reached when solitary confinement aims at the destruction of the personality, combined with an "isolation of the senses" and a "complete social isolation". There can already be no "isolation of the senses" when the prisoners have, for example, a cell window, books and a radio.
Concerning the problem of social isolation it was only noted that there had been a "relative social isolation", not a "factual cell isolation", because the prisoners were allowed to welcome their lawyers and relatives for visits.
Furthermore, the state can "prove" that it did not aim at the destruction of the personality or the spirit of resistance, so that measures like solitary confinement did not have inhuman or humiliating character.
Seen in relation to these standards and keeping in mind that the European Commission is financed by European states, there is most probably no hope of having acknowledged there that solitary confinement is a violation of arctice 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
III. My own experiences
Because of the suspicion of an increased danger of flight attempts, including the suspicion I might want to take hostages, initiate mutiny or attack institutional lawyers (because of the aversion I was said to have against this state and its justice system), I have been in solitary confinement for several years.
Of the almost 6 years of imprisonment I have spent 5 years and 9 months in solitary confinement, including several years of having to be tied up before leaving the cell, as mentioned above. I have not hurt anyone during my custody; for this reason the institution says it is not reasonable to wait for such an incident. I claim it my legitimate right to fight for my freedom; the judicial system regards such statements as well as statements like "Revolutionary fight is more necessary than ever" as proofs for my "dangerousness" and "lack of reasonability".
In early 2002 I was - once again - taken to the Stammheim prison for "safety reasons". They said my attitudes had not changed in 4 years of solitary confinement in Bruchsal, I had become too much acquainted with the course of affairs, and the safety cells had to be renovated. For 3 months I had to stay in Stammheim, they said; now I sit in that same safety ward in which I had already been from 1996 to 1998.
The effects of solitary confinement which I feel in myself are: a low tolerance for frustration, a high sensitiveness for stress, and latent difficulties with my concentration during visits of comrades and friends. Furthermore, I start losing my feeling for time; without the help of a calendar I can hardy say whether something happened the day before yesterday, a week, a month or a year ago. Man is thrown back on himself, finds himself in a permanent inner dialogue - this makes concentration during visits a lot more difficult, for suddenly awareness must be directed to without instead of within.
In spite of these negative effects I do not suffer from solitary confinement. On the one hand I have regular correspondence with some people in which I receive pleasant solidarity. On the other hand I think of all the imprisoned comrades worldwide which suffer from conditions which would make us shiver.
What they have to bear cannot be compared to the conditions here.
While in the beginning I used to complain heavily about solitary confinement, I have given up on that now. In comparison to other states it would be an illegitimate use of the word "torture" if conditions in Germany were classified as such.
Nevertheless, solitary confinement is an attack on human dignity!