Belgium: prison within prison

Marc Nève. Solitary confinement cells include both disciplinary cells[^cachot] and security cells, which are intended for individuals convicted of terrorism and placed under the specific individual security regime (régime de sécurité particulier individuel, RSPI). These are two very different things, but they are both still solitary confinement cells. Disciplinary cells are used for several purposes which, in my opinion, are not always consistent. Their primary function is, of course, as punishment. It means isolating a prisoner on account of an offence committed in the ordinary prison regime. However, it is harder to determine the reasons for which a prisoner is placed in a security cell. The register that states who is sent to solitary confinement, and why, is not always complete, and therefore not always reliable. It may show that the measure is disciplinary and for enforcement purposes without detailing the specific reasons behind selecting the measure.

Sometimes, the prisoners themselves request to be placed in disciplinary cells. This is why I say they are used inconsistently: in these cases, solitary confinement is not being used solely as a disciplinary measure. Some prisoners make this request in the hopes of having an immediate audience with the prison governor. When solitary confinement cells are in use, the prison governor is required to complete a circuit of the cells every day. Some see disciplinary cells as an opportunity to speak with the governor on a regular basis, which would be inconceivable in an ordinary prison regime.

Lastly, solitary confinement cells are also used to hold prisoners convicted of acts of terrorism. These are not punishment cells: they are security cells, and the prisoners are subject to the specific individual security regime (RSPI).

The two types of cells do not have the same purpose. One aims to discipline, while the other serves to heighten surveillance of a prisoner that belongs to a particular category.

MN. Solitary confinement can have various consequences, both physical and mental. The physical consequences, including falling ill, are often due to being imprisoned in substandard conditions. Some prisons date back to the 19th century, and it shows. The state of a prison facility can play a significant role in the physical health of an incarcerated person. The recently published report from the Central Supervisory Board for Prisons (Conseil central de surveillance pénitentiaire, CCSP) states that air flow in the cells is sometimes insufficient and temperatures may be too low.

Recently, a prisoner dressed in sports clothing (shorts and a T-shirt) was not given access to warmer clothes. As it was cold in the cell, he was forced to protect himself from the cold and damp by wrapping himself in toilet tissue. This is a fairly illustrative case of what those in solitary confinement might experience, and it’s completely unacceptable.

Solitary confinement can also affect a person’s spirits and/or mental health. Let’s take for example maintaining family ties. Although being placed in solitary confinement does not preclude visits, it aims to act as a deterrent for both the prisoner and the prisoner’s family. This is why the procedure for visiting someone in solitary confinement is more complicated than for visits in an ordinary prison regime. There are also more extensive security measures. Communication is only possible through bulletproof glass. Prisoners often ask their families not to visit them, even though phone calls – while possible – are no replacement for being in the same room. Family bonds may break. The prisoner’s deteriorating mental health can be observed over time. Being placed in solitary confinement for disciplinary or security reasons generally leads to consequences for the person’s psyche. This is why people placed under the specific individual security regime are required to submit themselves for psychiatric evaluation.

MN. At this time, Belgium has never been specifically condemned in relation to solitary confinement. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has condemned the Belgian state around 20 times for more general grievances. More often than not, these are over violations of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The ECHR has often pointed out the problem of internment measures. However, I find it interesting to note that in one aspect, a condemnation from the European institutions led to significant change.

Psychiatric annexes are wings specifically intended for treating individuals exempt from criminal responsibility, following the recognition of a mental disorder. But these people are imprisoned in psychiatric annexes rather than in facilities dedicated to mental health. This raises questions about access to healthcare. Belgium was condemned several times for inhuman and degrading treatment following a complaint concerning the psychiatric annexes, to the point that the Court applied the pilot-judgment procedure (judgment in W.D. v. Belgium, 6 September 2016) to establish one case as a guide and avoid having to regularly handle similar cases. This is the idea behind a pilot judgment. The Court granted Belgium two years to make the necessary changes. Since the W.D. v. Belgium judgment, the government announced the construction of future forensic psychiatric centres. These projects were successfully completed, primarily in the north of the country. In the south, construction is still underway. Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction and should be highlighted as such: the obligations imposed by international institutions led to some progress in Belgium, with a not insignificant impact. Granted, there is still room for improvement. Belgium absolutely must stay on this path. For it to successfully fulfil its international obligations, especially after so many condemnations of its imprisonment conditions, it needs time and both financial and human resources.