April 27, 2010

Criminal Justice System and Its Impact on Prison Health

In 2007, the UN Human Rights Committee noted that “[t]o the extent that the State party [Zambia] is unable to meet the needs of detainees, it should immediately take action to reduce the prison population.”[600] Prisoner overcrowding—and the health consequences of that overcrowding—are inextricably linked to failings in the criminal justice system which engage the responsibility of the Zambian judiciary, police, immigration, and prisons authorities. Interviews with inmates, prison officials and NGOs found such problems as police investigation failures, lack of bail, and lack of representation for accused persons keep individuals unnecessarily, and often unlawfully, incarcerated for extended periods of pre-trial detention. For prisoners who have been tried, failures of the justice system such as lack of alternative non-custodial sentences, and delays in the appeals process, continue to contribute to the overcrowding.

Extended and Arbitrary Pretrial Detention

Justice delayed is justice denied. It is better even to be found guilty. When you come out, you’ve spent 10 years in prison. Remandees are kept here a long time. I have [been detained] four years now, but my case is not disposed of. There is no justice.
– Rodgers, 42, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009

Delays and failures within the Zambian criminal justice system lead to unnecessary arrests and detainees being held for long periods of time on remand prior to appearance before a judge and prior to trial, contrary to international and Zambian law. This can have disastrous results for the individuals’ health and lives. The incarceration of pre-trial detainees is clearly a major contributing factor in the prisons’ extreme overcrowding, as remandees are held with convicts in violation of international law. On the day PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch visited Lusaka Central Prison, of the 1145 inmates, 601—more than half—were there on remand.[601] Overall, 35 percent of the Zambian prison population is composed of remand prisoners.[602]

International and regional law provide for the individual right to liberty and prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention.[603] Yet prisoner testimony indicates that problems in police investigation result in many unnecessary and wrongful arrests. According to inmates, police arrest and hold alleged co-conspirators or family members when their primary targets cannot be found. Such detentions, irrespective of provisions in Zambian law permitting them, are arbitrary and unlawful under international law. Catherine, 38, a Lusaka Central inmate, recounted, “the police officers and DEC [Drug Enforcement Commission] officers come here, they bring people here who are innocent. They will pick up a whole family and bring them here.”[604] Angela, 23, also at Lusaka Central, concluded: “The reason the prisons are congested is that they arrest entire families when they just are looking for one person. They will arrest six at a time, even old ladies who can’t walk.”[605] Police officials noted to PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch the need for professional education and sensitization so that officers “don’t go beyond their role” and so that, in the future, “if they detain unlawfully, the person is released.”[606] Such wholesale arrests may, in some cases, even be sanctioned by law, as the Zambian police[607] and drug enforcement officials have expansive powers to detain and arrest.[608] They still, however, violate Zambia’s international human rights obligations with respect to the right to liberty.

Upon arrest, international, regional, and Zambian law provide for the right to be brought before a judge, and to be charged or released.[609] Ninety-seven percent of the prisoners PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interviewed had not seen a magistrate or judge within 24 hours of arrest, even though such review is required under Zambian law.[610] Indeed, far from seeing a magistrate or judge within the first 24 hours after arrest, the prisoners we interviewed had in many cases been detained for months without ever having seen a magistrate or judge to review their detention. On average, male detainees we interviewed in all six prisons spent four months in detention prior to seeing a judge or magistrate for the first time; female detainees spent one month. Yet survey data established that the average length of time at some prisons was even longer: At Kamfinsa, male detainees averaged nine months between arrest and first appearance before a judge; at Mukobeko Maximum Security, male detainees had averaged five months. Additionally, we spoke with inmates whose first appearance before a magistrate or judge was one year and one month after arrest,[611] one year and two months after arrest,[612] two years after arrest,[613] and three years and seven months after arrest.[614]

Table 11: Appearance before a Judge

International law requires that “[p]re-trial detention should be an exception and as short as possible.”[615] The UN Human Rights Committee has made clear that detention before trial should be used only to the extent that it is lawful, reasonable, and necessary. Necessity is defined narrowly: “to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime” or “where the person concerned constitutes a clear and serious threat to society which cannot be contained in any other manner.”[616] International standards provide that except in special cases, a person detained on a criminal charge shall be entitled to release pending trial subject to certain conditions.[617]

Yet for individuals awaiting trial in Zambia, there is insufficient use of noncustodial pretrial alternatives. Among the prisoners we interviewed, 95 percent of juveniles, 88 percent of adult males, and 75 percent of adult females were continuously detained from arrest (not having been released on police bond or bail).

Table 12: Continuous Detention

 

Inmates frequently reported that they were unaware of the right to request bail.[618] Bail is explicitly prohibited for numerous offenses including treason, murder, aggravated robbery, and narcotics violations.[619] Judges also use their discretion to deny bail, saying “bail is not a right, but a privilege.”[620] When bail was an option, inmates frequently reported that they had not been able to obtain bail.[621] In 2008, the Human Rights Commission of Zambia concluded that “there are incidences of individuals in remand for offences for which bail could have duly been granted either because of their socio-economic circumstances or lack of knowledge that they can apply for bail.”[622]

Following their initial appearance in front of a magistrate or judge, prisoners may then in practice be held for years before they face trial. Under international and Zambian law, those charged with a criminal offense are to be tried “without undue delay.”[623] Yet “the long stay of prisoners without trial,” lamented Chishala, 38, “is unbearable.”[624] Researchers spoke with convicted prisoners who—between arrest and conviction—had been held on remand for six years,[625] and one who had been held 10 full years between arrest and conviction.[626] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch also spoke with current remandees who, still awaiting judgment, had been held for up to five years seven months.[627] Among the prisoners we interviewed, the median time since being detained for current remandees was a staggering 36 months (three years) for adult males, with a minimum of one month and a maximum of 67 months (five years, seven months). For juveniles, the median was five months, with a range from eight to a high of 43 months (three years, seven months); for adult females the median was one month, with a range from zero to 28 months (two years, four months).

Table 13: Median Time in Detention for Remandees

Remandee Prisoner Category

Time in Detention (months) Reported by Remandees (median (range))

Adults (19 years and older) (n=27)

10 (0-67)

   Males (n=16)

36 (1-67)

   Females (n=11)

1 (0-28)

 

Juveniles (8-18 years) (n=14)

5 (0-43)

 

All Remandees (n=41)

7 (0-67)

International standards mandate that persons who are charged with a criminal offense be informed of their right to have access to a lawyer.[628] Zambian law provides that individuals sent for trial before the High Court whom the court considers have insufficient means to engage a lawyer, shall be granted legal aid,[629] and individuals in subordinate courts may apply for legal aid.[630] Researchers found, however, that inmates had low levels of knowledge of their right to a lawyer and low levels of representation. Indeed, 60 percent of adult male prisoners and over 70 percent of adult female and juvenile prisoners reported no legal representation whatsoever. Even children appearing before the High Court were rarely represented by counsel. Erick, a teenager, reported:

I had no representation, I stood on my own behalf. It was my first time in a police station or in court. I was just speaking, and I was scared. So I didn’t know what I was saying.... As young people, it is very threatening to see the inside of the court. Even if you are not guilty, you end up pleading guilty.[631]

There is little by way of legal aid capacity, which means only a few defendants benefit from legal assistance, and that assistance may be of poor quality.[632] As the Legal Resources Foundation observed, “the state legal aid is supposed to be providing legal services, but they are not widespread. They are appointed in capital cases and juveniles, but they should be in all criminal cases. The lawyers also do a bad job: they say, ‘just plead guilty.’”[633]

Table 14: Legal Representation

Lack of legal counsel can lead directly to unnecessary incarceration. Anderson, 35, an inmate at Choma, reported that he did not intend to plead guilty, but the magistrate decided he should plead guilty and “checked it on the form”.[634] In another case, an inmate explained:

The victim was willing to forgive me, but friends and family members told me to admit guilt. I had never been in court before, I had no idea how it proceeds.... I plead guilty and was sentenced to one year.[635]

Judicial delays in case transfers between the subordinate and the High Court, turnover between judges (which leads to a trial being restarted), inefficiency among the prosecution service, and sporadic lack of fuel for court transport all conspire to lengthen pre-trial detention. Frequent adjournments delay trials, despite legal provision that in the cases of individuals held in prison, no adjournment shall be for “more than fifteen clear days.”[636] Detainees reported that often when they go to court, the sessions don’t take place, because the court is waiting for the prosecution to proceed,[637] the lawyer or judge is not there,[638] or because witnesses are not present. One inmate reported that he had been appearing in court every three months for two years waiting for a police officer to testify against him, but that the police officer had never shown up.[639] And, sometimes, inmates are unable to go to court because of a lack of fuel or transport from the prison to court.[640] Thus, for myriad reasons, inmates’ cases are frequently not advanced, leaving them bewildered. Banda, age 17, said: “I am here on remand; I came on July 23, 2007. I am done with my trial, just waiting for judgment....The trial didn’t take too long, it is only the judgment that has taken long. It’s been a year and four months since my trial ended. I’ve been back to court four times just for the judgment but it never comes.”[641]

Table 15: Immigration Detainees’ Access to Justice

Prisoner Category

Prisoners Who Reported Seeing a Judge Since Being Detained (%)

Immigration Detainees

38

Non-Immigration Detainee Prisoners

97

Immigration detaineesare frequently detained and await deportation without due process, mingled with convicted and remandee prisoners. Zambian immigration law provides that suspected immigration detainees may be detained for up to 14 days while inquires are made.[642] Immigration service officials informed us that detention is the last resort, but that a docket is prepared and put on file with the court if the case involves someone whom they believe intentionally overstayed their visa.[643] Delays may occur in bringing the detainee before the court if the immigration detainee “doesn’t tell the truth...if people are lying, that is the major source of delays, as the process of verification will take long.”[644] Yet, Hope, 23, an immigration detainee at Lusaka Central, told us “immigration just leaves people here. Some in our group have been here six months without going to court, they don’t take you if you don’t speak the language.”[645] Susan, 36, at Lusaka Central, informed us that “one lady from Rwanda, brought here, has been here for four months has never been to court, just staying here....Immigration brings them and dumps them here.”[646] Among prisoners we interviewed, only 38 percent of immigration detainees had ever seen a magistrate or judge, compared with 97 percent of non-immigration detainees.

Many who were indefinitely detained appeared to have reasonable claims to legal status. Among the immigration detainees we interviewed, we spoke to some who claimed to be Zambian citizens and non-citizens with valid visas, but had been unable to challenge their designation as “prohibited immigrants” in court.[647] One 18 year-old immigration detainee, whose mother is Zambian and father Senegalese, but was raised in the Congo, showed immigration officials his birth certificate when they arrested him, but was told, “‘You don’t speak Bemba, you don’t speak English, you are not Zambian.” He never received a charge document or had the opportunity to see a magistrate or judge to contest his detention.[648] Benjamin, 31, born in Zambia but raised in the Congo by his grandmother, never had a birth certificate: “I thought it was ok because I was born in Zambia and my father is a Zambian.”[649] Laurent, a Congolese detainee who reported he had been in possession of a valid visa when detained, reported:

I entered Zambia on September 29. I had a visa, I was given 26 days. I reached Kitwe and was going to the marketplace when a group arrested me. They said, “give us your passport.” I refused and was taken to the immigration office to be interviewed. I paid 2,000 [Zambian kwacha, US$0.42] in immigration custody. I demanded to know why I was arrested and they said, “We took you in for being arrogant.”  It was a completely illegal arrest, but I am just waiting here for anything to happen because my passport and visa are at the immigration office.[650]

Alfred, 55, who reported already holding refugee status in Zambia, told a similar story:

I’m a refugee in Solwezi Maheba Refugee Camp.... I was arrested because I left the camp with no exit permit. And my children are still there at the camp....I left the camp to visit my brother who was sick with TB. He wasn’t here as a refugee, he was paying a visit. I was in a hurry, it was an emergency situation, he was almost dead, so I didn’t ask about what papers I needed to leave the camp; I just left. I have been here for eight months. I have had no contact with my family, UNHCR, or anyone else, and no visits. I have tried to write letters but they rip them up and don’t send them. They are asking me for one million eight hundred kwacha [$380] to go back to DRC.[651]

Immigration detainees are told to pay for their own deportation and are held until they pay.[652] Jean Marie, 28, detained at Lusaka Central, reported “I’ve been waiting to be deported to DRC. I even offered to pay; I told the officers to call immigration and arrange it but they haven’t. I’m ready to pay; I have money in reception. My biggest problem is that they don’t help us. Some [immigration detainees] have been here for two years waiting.”[653] A Liberian detainee, whose wife and child were Zambian citizens but who hadn’t applied for legal status, lamented “immigration came and told me I had to pay my own transport, and if I don’t I have to stay here maybe five or six years. I don’t have the money to deport myself and the government says they don’t have the money to deport me. I don’t want to leave my family, but in Liberia it would be better than prison.[654] Immigration officials confirmed that “under normal circumstances, we don’t ask for money to deport, but we do when we don’t have the money ourselves...at times it may happen frequently that the budget for deporting runs out.”[655]

We also spoke with immigration detainees who felt unable to return to their country of origin and yet had not had the opportunity to request asylum. A Somalian detainee reported “I left Somalia on March 1, 2009.... When they caught me I told the [immigration officials] that I want a refugee camp, but no one helped me. UNHCR came once to [the prison]; they wrote down my name but nothing happened.[656] A Rwandan detainee who had been an opposition journalist told us, “I am despairing because I see no way out of prison but can’t return home. I’m looking at spending the rest of my life in prison.”[657] Immigration officials, by contrast, claimed that all immigration detainees have an opportunity to claim asylum, but sometimes fail to do so at the appropriate time.[658]

Unnecessary and extended detention for immigration detainees or remandees may have significant financial costs both for the government and for the individual, in addition to the personal toll that such detention may take. Families in developing countries frequently face financial hardship when an income-producing member is detained, particularly when the period of detention is long, and detainees are unable to earn income, provide food for themselves and their families, and pay taxes. [659] Even given Zambia’s grossly inadequate prison conditions, the current cost to the government of incarcerating immigration and remand detainees unnecessarily for extended periods is not insignificant, and savings could likely be generated by increasing the use of bail instead of pre-trial detention. Furthermore, state money expended on holding pre-trial or immigration detainees unnecessarily represents “ a stark opportunity cost,” for the government, as “[e]very bit of state revenue spent on incarceration results in potentially less money for crucial social services, health, housing, and education.” [660]

Non-Custodial Sentences and Parole

The unavailability of non-custodial sentences also contributes to prison overcrowding. Zambian penal law provides for a range of punishments—among which imprisonment is only one option[661]—including the sentence of community service.[662] However, the 2000 law providing for non-custodial sentences has had minimal impact because of the lack of personnel to supervise those on community service orders.[663] Community service orders were placed under the authority of the Prisons Service, but with no additional resources or staff to implement these orders.[664]

The lack of options to complete custodial sentences in the community also exacerbates prison overcrowding. Parole has only recently become practically available. While parole has been “on the books since the inception of the nation, it has been dormant until relatively recently.”[665] The parole system, however, is burdened by the irrational fact that only inmates with longer sentences—those who have been found guilty of more serious crimes—are eligible for parole, whereas inmates with more minor sentences are ineligible. The legal requirement was originally a four-year sentence; in 2001, the deputy commissioner of prisons reported, the Prisons Service took the initiative to lobby for the law to be amended so that those incarcerated for two years and more are eligible for parole. In 2008, parole board members were appointed and prisoners were paroled in 2009[666] and 2010. Yet the number of inmates paroled is low, in some cases because of a lack of resources for follow-up. According to the officer in charge at Mwembeshi:

We submitted a number of names of eligible inmates but only one was chosen. The problem is that offender management can’t do follow up on the parolees because she lacks a motorbike.[667]

Considering the irrationality of the certain sentence limits on parole, to be truly meaningful, the deputy commissioner of prisons reported that the requirement of two or more years needs to be eliminated, so that the only restriction on the availability for parole would be those who are sentenced to death.[668]

Appeals System

Under international law, everyone convicted of a crime has the right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.[669] Yet in Zambia, the appeal process suffers from serious delays, which also results in the unnecessary detention of some inmates. Delays in appeals, as in pre-trial and trial proceedings, can go on for years. One inmate had been informed that his appeal papers had been lost.[670] Howard, 29, an inmate at Mukobeko, told us he had been waiting for eight years for his appeal to be heard—when it comes to the appeals, he said, “We are just hopeless.”[671] Chishala, 38, reported “I have been waiting six years since I put in my appeal, and I have heard nothing in that time.”[672] Paul, 33, a condemned prisoner at Mukobeko, noted that:

My appeal has taken since 2005. I can no longer afford a lawyer to move it through the system. We are 235 in the condemned section. Only 40 have had their appeals heard. 180 are still waiting, some for over 10 years.[673]

Emmanuel, 35, confirmed that people wait over 10 years. Having waited four years already without resolution of his appeal, “I’m doomed,” he concluded.[674]

[600] UN Human Rights Committee, “Concluding Observations: Zambia,” 2007, para. 23.

[601] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with J. Kababa, officer in charge, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[602] Roy Walmsley, “World Pre-Trial/Remand Imprisonment List: World Pre-Trial/Remand Imprisonment List,” King’s College London International Centre for Prison Studies, http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/WPTRIL.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010).

[603] See, e.g., ICCPR, art. 9; African Charter, art. 6.

[604] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Catherine, Lusaka Central Prison, October 4, 2009.

[605] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Angela, Lusaka Central Prison, October 4, 2009. See also PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Susan, Lusaka Central Prison, October 4, 2009. International observers have confirmed these findings. The US State department has found that in practice, police rarely obtained warrants for those offenses for which warrants are required (offenses including treason, sedition, defamation of the president, unlawful assembly, or abuse of office are excluded) and police arbitrarily arrested family members of criminal suspects, as well as arresting criminal suspects on inadequate evidence or as a means of extortion. Additionally, “[a]uthorities sometimes detained, interrogated, and physically abused family members of criminal suspects to obtain their cooperation in identifying or locating suspects.” US Department of State, “2008 Human Rights Report: Zambia.” Furthermore, “[p]olice arbitrarily arrested family members of criminal suspects. Criminal suspects were arrested on the basis of insubstantial evidence, uncorroborated accusations, or as a pretext for extortion.” US Department of State, “2009 Human Rights Report: Zambia.”

[606] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Donald Mwandila, Hospital Admin, Zambia Police Service Medical Directorate, Lusaka, February 4, 2010; PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with K.N. Chikwanda, staff officer medical, Zambia Police Service Medical Directorate, Lusaka, February 4, 2010.

[607]Criminal Procedure Code Act, Laws of Zambia, vol. 7, chapter 88, 1996, http://www.parliament.gov.zm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=49 (accessed February 22, 2010), sec. 26.

[608] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Laws of Zambia, vol. 7, chapter 96, 1996, http://www.parliament.gov.zm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=49 (accessed February 22, 2010), sec. 24.

[609] ICCPR, art. 9; Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 37(d); The Beijing Rules, rule 10.2; Body of Principles, prins. 10, 11 and 37. See also, African Charter, art. 7. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has determined that detaining two applicants, for, respectively, five months and slightly over one month without being brought before a judge violated Charter’s protections on fair trial. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Huri-Laws v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 225/98 (2000), http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/225-98.html (accessed March 4, 2010). See also Constitution of Zambia, art. 3(b); Criminal Procedure Code Act, sec. 30.

[610] In addition to a requirement a police officer making an arrest without a warrant shall send the person before a magistrate without unnecessary delay, Zambian law requires that “[w]hen any person has been taken into custody without a warrant for an offence other than an offence punishable with death, the officer in charge of the police station to which such person shall be brought may, in any case, and shall, if it does not appear practicable to bring such person before an appropriate competent court within twenty-four hours after he was so taken into custody, inquire into the case, and, unless the offence appears to the officer to be of a serious nature, release the person, on his executing bond, with or without sureties, for a reasonable amount, to appear before a competent court at a time and place to be named in the bond: but, where any person is retained in custody, he shall be brought before a competent court as soon as practicable.” Criminal Procedure Code Act, sec. 33(1).

[611] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Rodgers, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[612] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Oscar, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[613] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with CM-03-04, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[614]PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Felix, Mukobeko Maximum Security Prison, September 29, 2009.

[615] ICCPR, art. 9. See also UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 8 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9, U.N. Doc. A/40/40 (1982).

[616] UN Human Rights Committee, Hugo van Alphen v. the Netherlands, Communication No. 305/1988 (1990), para. 5.8.

[617] Body of Principles, prins 38-39; United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (“The Tokyo Rules”), adopted December 14, 1990, G.A. Res. 45/110, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990), paras. 6.1-6.2 (“Pre-trial detention shall be used as a means of last resort in criminal proceedings.”); Martin Schönteich, “Pre-Trial Detention and Human Rights in Africa,” in Jeremy Sarkin, ed., Human Rights in African Prisons, (Cape Town: HSRC Press, 2008), pp. 93-116 (“International standards require that pre-trial detention be used only if there is a demonstrable risk that the person concerned will abscond, interfere with the course of justice, or commit a serious offence. They also mandate the widest possible use of alternatives to pre-trial detention.”).

[618] See, for example, PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Oscar, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[619] US Department of State, “2009 Human Rights Report: Zambia.” All drug offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are nonbailable. Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, sec. 43.

[620] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Robby Shabwanga, projects officer, Legal Resources Foundation, October 14, 2009.

[621] See, e.g., PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Japhet, Mumbwa Prison, October 5, 2009.

[622]Zambia Human Rights Commission, “Constitutionalism and Human Rights: State of Human Rights Report in Zambia,” 2008, pp. 18-19.

[623]ICCPR, art. 14; Body of Principles, prin. 38. See also Constitution of Zambia, art. 18 (“(1) If any person is charged with a criminal offence, then, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.”)

[624] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Chishala, Mukobeko Maximum Security Prison, September 30, 2009.

[625] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Mumba, Mukobeko Maximum Security Prison, September 30, 2009; PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Elijah, Mukobeko Maximum Security Prison, September 30, 2009.

[626] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with KT-06-03, Lusaka Central Prison, February 6, 2010.

[627] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with RS-03-09, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[628] ICCPR, art. 14(3)(d); Body of Principles, prin. 17.

[629]Legal Aid Act, Laws of Zambia, vol. 4, chapter 34, 1996, http://www.parliament.gov.zm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=49 (accessed February 22, 2010), sec. 9(1).

[630] Ibid., sec. 8(1).

[631] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Erick, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[632]Zambia Human Rights Commission, “Strategic Plan 2007-2011,” October 2006, p. 15.

[633] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Robby Shabwanga, projects officer, Legal Resources Foundation, October 14, 2009.

[634] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Anderson, Choma Prison, October 8, 2009.

[635] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Tasila, Kamfinsa Prison, October 1, 2009.

[636] Criminal Procedure Code Act, sec. 202.

[637] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Kalunga, Mumbwa Prison, October 5, 2009.

[638] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Joshua, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[639] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Oscar, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[640] See, for example, PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Samuel, Kamfinsa Prison, October 1, 2009 (“There is no transit to go to court; I miss court hearings.”).

[641] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Banda, Mukobeko Maximum Security Prison, September 29, 2009.

[642]Immigration and Deportation Act, Laws of Zambia, vol. 9, chapter 123, 1996, http://www.parliament.gov.zm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=49 (accessed February 22, 2010), sec. 25(1).

[643] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Denny Lungu, deputy chief immigration officer (administration), Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Immigration, February 5, 2010.

[644] Ibid.

[645] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Hope, Lusaka Central Prison, October 4, 2009. See also PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with KT-04-04, Lusaka Central Prison, October 4, 2009; PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with NCI-03-05, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[646] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Susan, Lusaka Central Prison, October 4, 2009.

[647] Note that, under international law, non-citizens lawfully within a state territory may only be expelled following a decision reached in accordance with the law. ICCPR, art. 13.

[648] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with RS-01-08, Kamfinsa Prison, October 1, 2009.

[649] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Benjamin, Kamfinsa Prison, October 1, 2009.

[650] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Laurent, Kamfinsa Prison, October 1, 2009.

[651] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Alfred, Kamfinsa Prison, October 1, 2009.

[652]See, e.g., PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with George, Kamfinsa Prison, October 1, 2009; PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Mary, Lusaka Central Prison, October 4, 2009; PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Hope, Lusaka Central Prison, October 4, 2009; PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with KT-04-04, Lusaka Central Prison, October 4, 2009; PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with NCI-03-05, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[653] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Jean Marie, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[654] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with RS-03-03, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[655] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Denny Lungu, deputy chief immigration officer (administration), Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Immigration, February 5, 2010.

[656] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with RS-03-01, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[657] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Muntala, Lusaka Central Prison, October 4, 2009.

[658] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Denny Lungu, deputy chief immigration officer (administration), Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Immigration, February 5, 2010.

[659] Martin Shönteich, “The Scale and Consequences of Pre-Trial Detention Around the World,” Justice Initiatives: Pre-Trial Detention, Spring 2008, http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/focus/criminal_justice/articles_publications/publications/pretrial_20080513/Justice_Initiati.pdf (accessed April 6, 2010), pp. 11-43.

[660] Ibid., p. 33.

[661] Penal Code Act, sec. 24.

[662] Criminal Procedure Code Act, sec. 306(A-E).

[663] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Frederick Chilukutu, deputy commissioner of prisons, Zambia Prisons Service, October 12, 2009; PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Chipo Mushota Nkhata, HIV/AIDS and human rights programs officer, Human Rights Commission, Lusaka, October 13, 2009.

[664] Lukas Mutingh, “Alternative Sentencing in Africa,” in Jeremy Sarkin, ed., Human Rights in African Prisons, (Cape Town: HSRC Press, 2008), p. 196.

[665] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Frederick Chilukutu, deputy commissioner of prisons, Zambia Prisons Service, October 12, 2009.

[666] Ibid.

[667] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with officer in charge, Mwembeshi Prison, October 6, 2009.

[668] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Frederick Chilukutu, deputy commissioner of prisons, Zambia Prisons Service, October 12, 2009.

[669] ICCPR, art. 14.

[670] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with CM-03-09, Lusaka Central Prison, October 3, 2009.

[671] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Howard, Mukobeko Maximum Security Prison, September 30, 2009.

[672] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Chishala, Mukobeko Maximum Security Prison, September 30, 2009.

[673] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Paul, Mukobeko Maximum Security Prison, September 30, 2009.

[674] PRISCCA, ARASA, and Human Rights Watch interview with Emmanuel, Mukobeko Maximum Security Prison, September 30, 2009.