Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Monitoring Prisons: A Study of the Ongoing Dialogue Between the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Belgium

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights Behind Bars

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 103))

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the work of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) in relation to Belgian prisons. Over the past three decades the CPT has become utterly important in terms of protecting the human rights of prisoners in Europe. As part of its preventive mandate the CPT visits places of detention in member states of the Council of Europe in order to monitor the treatment of persons who are deprived of their liberty. After each visit the CPT writes a report detailing its findings, recommendations and requests for information which is then transmitted to the authorities of the visited member state. Every visit report is accompanied by an invitation for the state concerned to provide a detailed response to the findings and recommendations of the CPT. According to Article 10 of the Convention every States Party is obliged to fully cooperate with the CPT. When a state fails to co-operate or refuses to improve the situation in the light of the CPT’s recommendations, the Committee can pronounce a public statement in order to bring this failure to the attention of the international community. Belgium has been visited regularly by the CPT since 1993. The last visit took place in 2018. This chapter presents and discusses empirical findings related to the dialogue between Belgium and the CPT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ETS No. 126, 26 Nov 1987.

  2. 2.

    See CPT/Inf/C(2002)1; European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Text of the Convention and Explanatory Report, p. 21; De Beco (2012), pp. 171–196.

  3. 3.

    Murdoch (2006b), pp. 121–142.

  4. 4.

    For discussions on the history and achievements of the CPT, see e.g. Evans and Morgan (1998); Morgan and Evans (1999); Murdoch (2006a); de Lange (2008); Van Zyl Smit and Snacken (2009); Snacken and Van Zyl Smit (2013), pp. 3–26; Bicknell and Evans (2017), pp. 11–35; Bicknell et al. (2018); Daems (2017), pp. 627–643; Daems (2021), pp. 121–140.

  5. 5.

    Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (2017), Report (Doc. 14280): 25 years of the CPT: achievements and areas for improvement (Rapporteur: Mr Jordi XUCLÀ), p. 7.

  6. 6.

    Daems (2017), pp. 630–631; Visschers and Daems (2017), pp. 291–312.

  7. 7.

    CPT (2015), 24th General Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) (1 August 2013–31 December 2014), p. 6.

  8. 8.

    See in particular: Gautier (1976/2003), pp. 229–232; Gautier (1980), pp. 31–38.

  9. 9.

    The findings discussed in this chapter form part of a study of the published reports and the responses provided by Belgian authorities, which is part of a four-year FWO-research project “Punishment and denial” (2017–2021). Katerina Sechidou is preparing a PhD dissertation on the basis of the findings of this project. Tom Daems is promotor of the project (Grant No G067717N).

  10. 10.

    For a full discussion, see Daems (2017), pp. 632–639; the ten responses were also summarized and discussed in Daems (2021), pp. 121–140.

  11. 11.

    See Koskenniemi and Lappi-Seppälä (2017), pp. 104–122. Their typology and the results of their study were also discussed in detail in Lappi-Seppälä and Koskenniemi (2018), pp. 135–159.

  12. 12.

    See Koskenniemi and Lappi-Seppälä (2017), p. 114.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    Ibid. footnote 12, p. 116.

  15. 15.

    See Aizpurúa and Rogan (2019), pp. 1–11.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., p. 3.

  17. 17.

    See Aizpurúa and Rogan (2019), pp. 1–11.

  18. 18.

    See Herzog-Evans et al. (2019), pp. 82–86.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., pp. 83–84.

  20. 20.

    Ibid. footnote 18, p. 84.

  21. 21.

    Ibid. footnote 18, pp. 93–111.

  22. 22.

    This is a total of 22 documents: 10 CPT reports (7 periodic and 3 ad hoc) and 12 responses. All reports and responses have been published and are available on the CPT’s website, see The CPT and Belgium. https://www.coe.int/en/web/cpt/belgium. Accessed 23 Aug 2019.

  23. 23.

    It is noted that the type of response ‘Your recommendation is unclear’ was not found in the case study of Belgium. However, it was identified in the case study for England and Wales, which is also part of the research project. We therefore included this type of response also for our analysis for Belgium in order to enable us to make proper comparisons between Belgium and England and Wales.

  24. 24.

    In some cases a response to a single CPT recommendation consists of multiple arguments which in turn correspond to different types of responses. These multiple arguments are referred to as response elements.

  25. 25.

    For example, in its report related to the 1997 periodic visit to Belgium the CPT found that the medical service was inadequate and retained its previous recommendation that the number of general practitioners in Sint-Gilles prison should be increased (Rec. 20), see CPT/Inf(98)11, Rapport au Gouvernement de la Belgique relatif à la visite effectuée par le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) en Belgique du 31 août au 12 septembre 1997, p. 52. In the interim report the Belgian authorities stated that there is plan to be implemented according to which 100 hours of medical consultation per month will be introduced (‘we fully agree and follow up’). They added, however, that the existing number of doctors is sufficient to offer adequate health care to prisoners, playing down in that way the dimensions of the problematic situation (‘in reality everything works pretty well’), see CPT/Inf(99)6, Rapport intérimaire du Gouvernement de la Belgique en réponse au rapport du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) relatif à sa visite en Belgique du 31 août au 12 septembre 1997, p. 60.

  26. 26.

    For example, in its report related to the 1993 periodic visit to Belgium the CPT found that prisoners at Sint-Gilles prison were placed per three in cells of 10 m2 as a result of prison overcrowding. Thus, the CPT recommended that the Belgian authorities should take urgent measures to put an end to this practice, pointing out at the same time that the size of the cells is only appropriate for single placement (Rec. 21), see CPT/Inf(94)15, Rapport au Gouvernement de la Belgique relatif à la visite effectuée par le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) en Belgique du 14 au 23 novembre 1993, p. 47. In the interim report the Belgian authorities stated that the prison overcrowding doesn’t allow to accommodate all prisoners in individual cells (‘we don’t contest your findings, but we can’t change anything’). They added, however, that this “uncomfortable” situation is only reserved for short term detainees, namely those detained for illegal residence, playing down in that way the seriousness of the problematic situation (‘in reality everything works pretty well’), see CPT/Inf(95)6, Rapport intérimaire du Governement belge en réponse au rapport du Comité européen pour la prevention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) relative à sa visite en Belgique du 14 au 23 novembre 1993, p. 47.

  27. 27.

    For example, in its report related to the 2012 ad hoc visit to Belgium the CPT found that at Sint-Gilles prison a prisoner was kept in strict isolation for more than 14 months, without direct contact with other prisoners and without activities, handcuffed during cell exits, during dental care and during his rare visits. This situation was found to have contributed towards the deterioration of his mental health and was considered to be inhuman and degrading treatment. Thus, the CPT recommended the Belgian authorities to immediately transfer this prisoner to a secure care facility, where he would be able to benefit from treatment, as well as activities and contacts (Rec. 22), see CPT/Inf(2012)36, Rapport au Gouvernement de la Belgique relatif à la visite effectuée en Belgique par le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) du 23 au 27 avril 2012, p. 16. The Belgian authorities stated that the dangerousness of this prisoner was the reason for being placed in strict isolation, since he was responsible for hostage taking of prison staff and other prisoners (‘it’s not our fault’). At the same time, they added that they could not remove him from the psychiatric annex of the prison, because pending his trial and being a remand prisoner he could not have a final assessment of his dangerousness (‘we don’t contest your findings, but we can’t change anything’), see CPT/Inf(2012)37, Réponse du Gouvernement de la Belgique au rapport du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) relatif à sa visite effectuée en Belgique du 23 au 27 avril 2012, p. 9.

  28. 28.

    For example, in its report related to the 2001 periodic visit to Belgium the CPT mentioned that it received allegations that in exceptional circumstances prisoners were placed in disciplinary cells without any clothing at Antwerp prison. Thus, the CPT recommended that the Belgian authorities put an end to this practice which was totally unacceptable (Rec. 17), see CPT/Inf(2002)25. Rapport au Gouvernement de la Belgique relatif à la visite effectuée en Belgique par le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) du 25 novembre au 7 décembre 2001, p. 39. The Belgian authorities stated that punished prisoners placed in disciplinary cells change their clothes and are dressed in pajamas and that undressing could not have been decided as a sanction by prison management (‘you are wrong’). At the same time, they added that in some rare cases prisoners use their clothes to hang themselves and only for these rare cases prison staff with the consent of prison management do not return the clothes to the prisoners in disciplinary cells (‘it’s not our fault’), see CPT/Inf(2003)32, Réponse du Gouvernement de la Belgique au rapport du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) relatif à sa visite en Belgique du 25 novembre au 7 décembre 2001, p. 39.

  29. 29.

    Thus, the number of response elements is not relevant here.

  30. 30.

    For Belgium, see e.g. Daems and Robert (2017), pp. 173–204.

  31. 31.

    It is noted that Table 3 shows the total number of response elements to the CPT recommendations.

  32. 32.

    However, it should be noted that the findings for the 2016 ad hoc visit were quite exceptional (with acceptance levels that were much higher than denial) which had an impact on the overall ad hoc results, which turned out to be in favour of acceptance (see Table 5, in conjunction with Table 4).

  33. 33.

    See Cohen (1995), pp. 23–24; Cohen (2001). For background and discussion, see also Daems (2016); Daems (2017); Cohen (1942–2013); Daems (2020), pp. 1–21; Daems (2021), pp. 121–140.

  34. 34.

    See Koskenniemi and Lappi-Seppälä (2017), p. 115; Herzog-Evans et al. (2019), p. 85.

  35. 35.

    In our view this conclusion still holds, despite the slightly different typologies used in the above countries. Indeed, as explained earlier in the chapter, there are variations in the types of responses distinguished in the case studies of France, the Nordic countries and Belgium. However, these variations are minimal and predominantly further specify the initial typology discerned by Daems. Thus, it seems to us that these few deviations are not sufficient as such to annul the comparative conclusion. Moreover, despite the variations in the types of responses, the general response categories remain the same in the case study of the Nordic countries.

  36. 36.

    See Aizpurúa and Rogan (2019), p. 4.

  37. 37.

    See Koskenniemi and Lappi-Seppälä (2017), p. 116.

  38. 38.

    As David Garland and Peter Young noted, when they pointed at the so-called ‘realm of representation’ as ‘…a separate realm of penal discourse composed of policy statements, political rhetorics, penal philosophies and institutional propaganda. It is in this public realm of signification, quite removed from the less visible practices of the institutions themselves, that public knowledge about penal practice is primarily formed, specific problems are defined, possibilities are constructed and legitimations are offered’, Garland and Young (1983), p. 18.

  39. 39.

    Orwell (1946), p. 261.

  40. 40.

    See CPT/Inf(2017)18, Public statement concerning Belgium, pp. 1–5.

  41. 41.

    See Herzog-Evans (2020), p. 111.

References

  • Aizpurúa E, Rogan M (2019) La situación de las prisiones y los centros de menores en España: Analizando las observaciones del CPT. Boletín Criminológica 182(25):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicknell C, Evans M (2017) Monitoring prisons: The increasingly complex relationship between international and domestic frameworks. In: Daems T, Robert L (eds) Europe in prisons: assessing the impact of European Institutions on National Prison Systems. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 11–35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bicknell C, Evans M, Morgan R (2018) Preventing Torture in Europe. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S (1942–2013). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Available via, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/109348

  • Cohen S (1995) Denial and acknowledgment: the impact of information about human rights violations. Center for Human Rights, Jerusalem

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S (2001) States of Denial. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (2017). Report (Doc. 14280): 25 years of the CPT: achievements and areas for improvement (Rapporteur: Mr Jordi XUCLÀ): 1-19. Available via https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=23521&lang=en

  • CPT (2015) 24th General Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) (1 August 2013 – 31 December 2014): 1-88. Available via https://rm.coe.int/1680696a9c

  • Daems T (ed) (2016) Outside criminology: selected Essays by Stanley Cohen. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Daems T (2017) Slaves and statues: Torture prevention in contemporary Europe. Br J Criminol 57(3):627–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daems T (2020) La sociología de la negación de Stanley Cohen y el estudio del castigo. Delito y Sociedad: Revista de Ciencias Sociales 29(50):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Daems T (2021) Punishment and epistemological politics in Europe. In: Daems T, Pleysier S (eds) Criminology and democratic politics. Routledge, London, pp 121–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Daems T, Robert L (2017) Europe in Belgian prisons: assessing the impact of the Council of Europe anti-torture committee and the European Court of Human Rights. In: Daems T, Robert L (eds) Europe in Prisons: assessing the impact of European Institutions on National Prison Systems. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 173–204

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Beco G (2012) A comparative analysis of European human rights monitoring mechanisms. In: De Beco G (ed) Human rights monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe. Routledge, New York, pp 171–196

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Lange J (2008) Detentie genormeerd. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans M, Morgan R (1998) Preventing Torture: a study of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland D, Young P (1983) Towards a social analysis of penality. In: Garland D, Young P (eds) The power to punish. Heinemann, London, pp 1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Gautier J-J (1976/2003) La proposition de Jean-Jacques Gautier. In: Mischler N (ed), Jean-Jacques Gautier et la prévention de la torture: de l’idée à l’action. Recueil de textes. L’Association pour la prévention de la torture, Genève, pp 229–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Gautier J-J (1980) The Case for an Effective and Realistic Procedure. In: International Commission of Jurists & Swiss Committee Against Torture (eds) Torture: How to Make the International Convention Effective. A Draft Optional Protocol. International Commission of Jurists, Genève, pp 31–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans M (2020) France and European Prison Law: Pretend implementation and actual non-compliance-An empirical research. Eur Crim Law Rev 10(1):93–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans M, Becquet L, Henry M, Perez P, Sacksteder N (2019) Application par la France du droit européen pénitentiaire: “C’est compliqué!”. AJ Pénal 2:82–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi L, Lappi-Seppälä T (2017) Assessing the role of European monitoring instruments and their impact on prison conditions in the Nordic countries. In: Cliquennois G, de Suremain H (eds) Monitoring penal policy in Europe. Routledge, London, pp 104–122

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lappi-Seppälä T, Koskenniemi L (2018) National and regional instruments in securing the rule of law and human rights in the Nordic countries. Crime Law Soc Change 70(1):135–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan R, Evans MD (eds) (1999) Protecting prisoners. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch J (2006a) The treatment of prisoners. European Standards. Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch J (2006b) Tackling Ill-treatment in places of detention: the work of the council of Europe’s ‘Torture Committee’. Eur J Crim Policy Res 12(2):121–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orwell G (1946) Politics and the English Language. Horizon 13(76):252–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Snacken S, Van Zyl Smit D (2013) Distinctive features of European penology and penal policy-making. In: Daems T, van Zyl SD, Snacken S (eds) European penology? Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 3–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zyl Smit D, Snacken S (2009) Principles of European prison law and policy: penology and human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Visschers J, Daems T (2017) Monitoring the implementation gap: a comparative perspective. In: Daems T, Robert L (eds) Europe in prisons: assessing the impact of European Institutions on National Prison Systems. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 291–312

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Katerina Sechidou & Tom Daems

Authors
  1. Katerina Sechidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Daems
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katerina Sechidou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Programme for Studies on Human Rights in Context, Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Clara Burbano Herrera

  2. Programme for Studies on Human Rights in Context, Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Yves Haeck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sechidou, K., Daems, T. (2022). Monitoring Prisons: A Study of the Ongoing Dialogue Between the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Belgium. In: Burbano Herrera, C., Haeck, Y. (eds) Human Rights Behind Bars. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 103. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11484-7_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11484-7_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-11483-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-11484-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation