Results of the Study:

I dokument Objectives of the Study (sidor 149-153)

The study aimed at providing a realistic depiction of places of detention in Yemen, including the reality of the spatial environment of buildings and services, the extent of compliance with national laws and international rules pertaining to detainees and detention procedures and the provision of moral and physical rights to detainees, in order to contribute to any future procedures related to reforming the human rights environment in Yemen, starting first and foremost, with the structure and policies of the penal institutions, thus allowing them to fulfill their legal role and preventing them from becoming a tool for human rights violations in Yemen.

In order to achieve this, the study adopted a descriptive approach in analyzing the data collected through two different forms of questionnairesand relied on national laws and international rules relating to the regulation of the work of places of detention in the analysis of data. The study produced a number of conclusions and recommendations.

Study on the Situation of Detention Centers in Yemen

150

during the various stages of detention and investigation. Furthermore, the study recorded a high incidence of detention based on considerations related to the current conflict, and a high incidence of placing detainees in unofficial places of detention under the authority of the different factions affiliated with the numerous parties to the ongoing conflict in the country most notablyAnsar Allah group (Houthis), Emirati forces in Yemen, military coalition supporting the authorities of President Hadi led by Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, resistance factions within the forces loyal to the internationally recognized authorities and the Arab coalition, and the Hadrami elite forces.

Informal places of detention were distributed among residential buildings, bathrooms, private buildings, as well as civilian, military and government buildings, with cases of detention without any charges.

• There was also a general tendency of not respecting the right of detainees to have access to lawyers during their interrogation by people in charge of places of detention and their right not to answer without the presence of their lawyers. There were also cases of interrogation of detainees by persons or in the presence of people who did not belong in places of detention. Furthermore, the obligation to refer detainees to the Public Prosecutor’s Office during the legal period (24 hours) was only respected in few cases.

• The study showed that places of detention in Yemen did not meet international and national standards, with regard to the spatial environment, the specifications of the buildings, and the basic services needed to be provided in places of detention. The vast majority of these places was not spacious and comfortable for the detainees, was not clean enough and did not have good ventilation and adequate lighting during the day and at night. General water and electricity services were available in a constant manner only in a few cases, as a considerable number of these places rely on alternative sources of electricity and water for their inmates, while some cannot provide alternative sources of these essential services.

Widespread access to clean and adequate toilet facilities and clean water for washing were not available to detainees who in most cases did not have access either to mattresses and blankets. In very rare cases only, they had access to personal hygiene items such as soap and shaving tools.

• The study showed a general tendency of not respecting the physical and moral rights of detainees. Some detainees did not get enough regular sleep; most did not receive free meals and beverages, and often did not receive meals and beverages when they needed them, even if they paid for them. The vast majority of detainees did not have access to writing papers or books to read when needed, and most of them were unable to get in the sun regularly. Most of them did not have either the ability to call a doctor when needed except in rare cases.

• There are many instances of conduct by officials in places of detention that contradict human rights principles and national laws during interrogation of detainees, which constitute serious indicators given their nature. It was also revealed that many detainees were also subjected to pressures during interrogation and some were forced to sign interrogation minutes.

Detainees were subjected to torture using harsh methods, such as the use of electricity and burns, beatings with electric wires, suspension, kicking, beating with sticks and hands, blindfolding, breaking ribs and fingers, and physical and verbal abuse. Others were deprived of eating and sleeping as punishment after interrogation.

• There was a general tendency not to respect the right of detainees to communicate with the outside world. Allowing families and friends to visit was limited, but it was better than allowing human rights organizations to visit places of detention. The visits were extremely rare to a point that their rate was close to the rate of inability of detainees to use their phones to make calls, access the Internet or watch television. Most of the detainees didn’t have the ability to make calls, access the internet or watch televisions and they weren’t allowed to receive visits from human rights organizations.

Study on the Situation of Detention Centers in Yemen

152

• The study showcased instances where detainees were unable to file complaints against people in charge of places of detention to higher authorities, and therefore violators of national laws and international rules for dealing with detainees were not held accountable. This was reinforced by the limited regular inspections of places of detention conducted by the public prosecution and the competent authorities. Regular inspections only occurred regularly in rare cases and most places of detention were not inspected by the prosecution at all.

• The release of detainees often occurred with the submission of a commercial guarantee, sureties, under the direction of the person in charge of the place of detention, or under the direction of higher officials.

Releases by the competent court or general prosecution were rare, with cases of detainees being released through prisoner exchanges; deaths in places of detention, and in many cases, release orders were not carried out on time. The reasons for the failure to execute the orders when they were issued were the procrastination of officials or their request for payment, but these cases did not represent a general trend.

• Most of the people in charge of places of detention in police stations were graduates of the police academy or college, and most of them have also received training on the laws relating to their work. However, most have not received training in dealing with detainees. The study confirmed that there are standards for appointing officials in police stations and places of detention but these standards are often not applied.

• Most police stations and places of detention did not receive any operational budget from the government, and when they did receive them, these operational budgets were not sufficient to cover their expenses.

• Most places of detention in police stations do not provide special places for the detention of women and juveniles.

• There is a wide discrepancy between the responses of detainees and people in charge of places of detention with regard to the physical and

moral rights of detainees, while the answers with regard to the spatial environment of places of detention converged among the two parties.

I dokument Objectives of the Study (sidor 149-153)