In this thorough study, the reader will find a complete analysis of the recent actions and omissions by the Uruguayan state regarding penitentiary matters.

Rooted in his extensive career as a professor and researcher, Arbesún dispenses with the profuse and self-indulgent penitentiary literature produced by the Ministry of Interior and offers an alternative narrative that begins before the declaration of the “humanitarian emergency” in the penitentiary system (March 2005) to the present. Without neglecting or omitting facts, actors or documents, the author dives into the disturbing reality of the penitentiary system which he correctly characterizes as “more confinement, for extended periods of time with new and more sinister rigours”.

This book, undoubtedly a contribution to the future debate on the deprivation of liberty in Uruguay, launches from a premise that I share: the process of change in the jails of our country began in 2010. This means, implicitly, that the declaration of the “humanitarian emergency” within the jails was merely a symbolic act lacking a correlated institutional response in subsequent years (2006-2010).

After the visit in March 2009 to the main detention centres in Uruguay by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, he inevitably concluded, given its conditions, that human rights were systematically violated within the system. In some establishments, like the Libertad penitentiary (which means “Freedom”), conditions were comparable to the worst prisons in the world.

Results of the visit by the Special Rapporteur were unexpected, especially by the leadership at the Ministry of the Interior. The Rapporteur’s subsequent report validated the charges made by civil society and by the Parliamentary Commissioner, proving a failure to keep the campaign promises made in 2004.

In fact, just as Arbesún recalls in the book, the programmatic guidelines put forth by the Frente Amplio political party for the 2005-2010 government prioritised the “creation of a personalised professional treatment plan, applied progressively and in stages, rooted in dignity towards the individual deprived of liberty“. After a poorly executed five-year period (2005-2010), this premise - plus the announcement of a set of comprehensive measures, among which stood out a commitment to provide support post-release, the closure of the existing security centre at the Hospital Vilardebó and the appointment of magistrates charged with sentence Implementation and Monitoring- found itself in 2010 at “square one.”

As mentioned by the author, the first step towards transforming Uruguayan jails was the bipartisan consensus on public security signed in August 2010. This consensus, result of a plural and balanced proposal by the four political parties that held parliamentary representation (Frente Amplio, the Nacional Party, the Colorado Party and Independiente Party), agreed on the premise that public safety must be addressed by public policy, in with criminal policy and penitentiary management should be at the forefront.

The Uruguayan political parties jointly committed in 2010 to an extensive set of goals to be achieved during the incoming administration. Some measures, such as the creation of an institution that would consolidate all the jails in the country under one roof - the National Rehabilitation Institute (Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación, INR) - were achieved. Unfortunately, other goals were not met in spite of the timing, the parliamentary majority and the historically unparalleled economic resources dispensed by the Ministry of Interior.

Thus, of the agreed upon goals of 2010 by all the parties, strengthening of the internal jail security systems, establishing professional treatment for persons deprived of liberty and access to therapeutic interventions for those charged and convicted with problematic dependency to psychoactive substances, are still pending.

Seven years after the hopeful bipartisan agreement (and three years since the Ministry of the Interior announced, [in reckless pre-emptive fashion,] that it had achieved all the goals of 2010) the penitentiary security system has collapsed.

Proof of such implosion lies in the historical peak of violent deaths within jail, which places Uruguay’s penitentiary system among the most insecure in all South America. On the other hand, the prison population does not currently receive adequate medical treatment, and drug use in prison has reached unprecedented levels. Currently, addicts have no real options regarding treatment.

None of these issues is overlooked in the book. The author reviews all aspects of the penitentiary process, including a set of uncomfortable matters for the authorities of the Ministry of the Interior. In this regard, it is important to touch on one of the instances that Arbesún recalls in this work of the impune executions of October 2013 in unit 1 of the Santiago Vazquez detention centre – grave instance that warrants due attention – and the human rights violations that occurred in “las latas de la izquierda” (the cans of the left) for example, in unit 12 of the Santiago Vazquez detention centre and the Libertad penitentiary.

Another passage worth mentioning from the book is the value given to the impact caused by the establishment of the penitentiary Parliamentary Commissioner. Until the creation of the aforementioned office, parliamentary control was restricted to those legislators versed in penitentiary matters. Among them, representative Guillermo Chifflet stands out and deserves recognition. Until 2005, Parliament lacked the tools to evaluate objectively and systematically the implementation of the penitentiary goals assigned to the Executive Branch. Arbesún maintains (an idea that is shared by many) that the aforementioned institution regularly provides technical support to Parliament and has removed the penitentiary information monopoly from the prison administrators. This is a step forward in terms of transparency and institutional quality.

The claim made by the author in favour of the adequacy of the legal basis applicable to penitentiary matters is appreciated.

In fact, the Constitution of the Republic only refers to jails in the second paragraph of Article 26. From here two intrinsically linked aspects of the penitentiary environment emerge. They are custody and social rehabilitation. This provision is complemented, indirectly, by Article 72 of the Charter. Enshrined in it are rights and guarantees “inherent of the human persons that derive from the republican form of government”, which, applies fully to persons deprived of their liberty.

From this generic mandate, the Uruguayan legal system develops a set of ordinary laws, of which we should mention the obsolete law-decree 14.470.

This law is a natural by-product of the dictatorship. Its vision is still extemporaneously reflected in the norms that govern the prison system, as a lingering inheritance from that dark period despite the regime’s de facto end thirty-two years ago. Its replacement is urgently needed so we can leave behind the authoritarian and utterly outdated vision from our past to usher in a modern standard, fully aligned with International Human Rights Law.

In conclusion, this book delves into a lost historic opportunity. After the massive injection of economic resources into the penitentiary system, the country today boasts improved structures and a larger staff than it did ten years ago. Despite this, in the current context of ballooning incarceration, issues of the past continue to manifest themselves in the present. Compulsive leisure, institutional and intra-group violence, elevated drug consumption, corruption, poor resource management, lack of professional treatment and post-release support constitute some of the shortcomings that remain unresolved and whose impact on public safety is indisputable.

In the current state, there is little chance of complying with the ethical and legal mandates set forth by the Constitution regarding its jails. Without an urgent change of course, the promise (made in 2014 by the president during his campaign) to reduce recidivism to thirty per cent remains unfeasible.

Priority shifted within the Ministry of the Interior, starting in 2015: far from maintaining its rhythm, penitentiary reform lost momentum and tone. As taught by the ancient Romans: action is the measure of interest. In the budget law 2016-2020, a scarce and isolated article applies substantially to jails. Its content leaves much to be desired since its only provision is for the creation of a commission mandated to produce an exit timetable for the penitentiary system from the Ministry of the Interior. Since its introduction two years ago, there has been no news of the commission or of the timetable.

As stated in 2004 by the current governing party (promptly noted in the book by Arbesún) “the realm of the Uruguayan penitentiary system gravely violates the fundamental rights of its inmates, contradicting Article 26 of the Constitution and the humanist conception that guides our democratic system of government.” Corsi e ricorsi: twelve years later, the same words apply to the reality of Uruguayan jails, with the same harshness that they had when they were written. The task of transforming the precarious state of Uruguayan jails into dignified spaces is not the sole responsibility of any one party, but constitutes a fundamental ethical and republican mandate. In this regard, any academic input is welcome.

Therefore, it is essential to recognise the work of Arbesún and encourage, from now on, the continued reflection and development of relevant work in this area.

Dr Alvaro Garcé García y Santos