<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

V. Human Rights Abuses in Libya’s Social Rehabilitation Facilities

I had a case, I served my sentence, but every member of my family is rejecting me.
— A woman held in the Social Welfare Home for Women in Tajoura describing why she continues to be detained, Tripoli, May 4, 2005

Arbitrary Deprivations of Liberty, Due Process, and Freedom of Movement

I’ll leave if someone comes to marry me. That’s the only solution I have. There’s no other answer.
— A woman held in the Social Welfare Home for Women in Tajoura, Tripoli, May 4, 2005

A fundamental principle of human rights law is that states should not subject any individual to arbitrary detention. Article 9 of the ICCPR prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. The prohibition on arbitrariness means that the deprivation of liberty, even if provided for by law, as is the case in Libya, still must be proportional to the reasons for arrest.

The circumstances of detention in Libya’s social rehabilitation centers meet the criteria of arbitrariness established by the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions (“the Working Group”).⁶⁶ According to this U.N. body, a deprivation of liberty is considered arbitrary when:

“(1) it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him); (2) results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 10 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; or (3) the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character.”⁶⁷

The Working Group has also acknowledged that “protection” cannot be used as an excuse to arbitrarily detain women. They have called for protective custody to be used only as a “last resort and when the victims themselves desire it.”⁶⁸

Human Rights Watch maintains that when detainees are held indefinitely for indeterminate and arbitrary periods of time, their detention is arbitrary, even where the initial detention was in accordance with applicable legal standards. Where a detainee has served her sentence yet remains detained, the arbitrary nature of the detention is exacerbated. To the extent that the Libyan government detains women and girls whom it has not charged or convicted, or who have completed their sentences, within these “social rehabilitation” facilities, the Libyan government violates the right to liberty of these persons.

Article 9 of the ICCPR also specifically requires that detainees be informed at the time of arrest of the reasons for their arrest and promptly be told of any charges against them. They are entitled under the Covenant to “take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.”⁶⁹ According to the ICCPR, “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”⁷⁰ The Libyan government is violating all of these standards in its social rehabilitation facilities.

The majority of women and girls interviewed by Human Rights Watch in social rehabilitation facilities were denied any form of legal representation. Awatif al-Sherif, a social worker at the Social Welfare Home for Women in Tajoura, told Human Rights that “the prosecutor decides if she [a woman held in detention] needs a lawyer or not.”⁷¹ One woman held in that facility told Human Rights Watch, “[n]one of us have lawyers since none of us have [ongoing] cases.”⁷² The majority of these women and girls do not have ongoing legal cases against them and are not serving criminal sentences, making their detentions arbitrary and illegal. However, given that they are currently detained, they are entitled to the protections afforded to any detainee, including the right to legal counsel.⁷³ According to the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Body of Principles), a set of international standards promulgated by the General Assembly, detained individuals who cannot afford an attorney should have legal counsel assigned to them by a judicial or other authority without payment.⁷⁴ 

Once women and girls are transferred to these facilities, their freedom of movement is completely denied. At the Social Welfare Home for Women in Tajoura, those who are allowed to leave the building are permitted to work only in the neighboring facility within the locked gates of the compound. One woman in this facility told Human Rights Watch: “I’m not allowed to work outside of the house. I can only work within the social welfare center so that I’m continuously under their surveillance.” Girls detained in the Benghazi Home for Juvenile Girls do not leave their building except for specified field excursions. According to the director of the girl’s facility, “they need a court decision in order to leave the premises.”⁷⁵

These restrictions on freedom of movement are particularly detrimental to children detained in social rehabilitation facilities. It is now widely understood that contact with peers, family members, and the wider community counteracts the detrimental effects of detention on a child’s mental and emotional health, and promotes his or her eventual reintegration into society.⁷⁶ Reflecting this reality, international standards call for the placement of children in the least restrictive setting possible, with priority given to “open” facilities over “closed” facilities.⁷⁷Every facility, whether open or closed, should give due regard to children’s need for “sensory stimuli, opportunities for association with peers, and participation in sports, physical exercise and leisure-time activities.”⁷⁸In this regard, the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles call for detention centers to provide youths with “adequate communication with the outside world;”⁷⁹ permit daily exercise, preferably in the open air;⁸⁰ and integrate their education, work opportunities, and medical rehabilitation as far as possible into the local community.⁸¹

Forced Virginity Testing

All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
— Article 10.1 of the ICCPR

The majority of the women and girls Human Rights Watch interviewed in social rehabilitation facilities had been forced to undergo virginity tests, a gynecological examination undertaken to determine the status of the hymen, prior to being committed to the facilities. At the request of the police or a public prosecutor, a forensic doctor (tabib shara’i) examines women and girls suspected of having had extramarital sex to determine whether their hymens are “intact.” Any physical rupture of the hymen, regardless of its connection to sexual activity, is considered evidence of lost virginity.

This focus on the hymen has no legal or medical basis, and instead reflects a misplaced preoccupation with the victim’s ostensible virginity status and popular misconceptions about the medical verifiability of virginity. Experts have confirmed that the state of a woman’s hymen is not a reliable indicator of recent sexual intercourse and the nature, consensual or otherwise, of any such intercourse. The degree of elasticity, resilience, and thickness of the hymen, its location in the vaginal canal, and consequently its susceptibility to tearing and bruising, vary from person to person.⁸²

Doctors in Libya are required to inform the police if they suspect that a woman or girl has had extramarital sexual relations. In fact, police officers can be found in hospitals ready to hear any reports of unlawful actions. One woman described her ordeal:

I went to the hospital for my heart problem. The doctor wanted to do a complete checkup. He said, “you have a condition called ‘kis’ and you have to stay in the hospital.” They [the hospital staff] called the police who called the forensic doctor who then called the prosecutor. The forensic doctor said it was external penetration. The nurse and the police officer were present [in the room].⁸³

One girl held in the Benghazi Home for Juvenile Girls told Human Rights Watch, “[w]hoever goes to the children’s home gets a virginity examination. They knew I didn’t have any intimate relations. [But] the [forensic] doctor said that I wasn’t a virgin.”⁸⁴

The link between the concept of honor under the law and the discriminatory control of women’s virginity by families, doctors, and law enforcement officials, establishes a context in which a woman’s right to bodily integrity and privacy is subordinate to the family’s interest in maintaining its honor. Thus, often at the request of family members, state physicians perform forcible and invasive virginity examinations on women and girls. One prosecutor in charge of overseeing several social rehabilitation facilities told Human Rights Watch, “[i]f a family complains that their daughter has not come home for a few days, [when she comes back] we take her to the forensic doctor to find out whether she had sexual relations recently. We then move the case to the public prosecutor.  If I do not agree with the conclusions [of the virginity examination], then I send her to another [forensic] doctor.”⁸⁵   

Virginity examinations involve pain, humiliation, and intimidation.  Libyan authorities compel women and girls to subject themselves to the probing hands and instruments of unknown male doctors. Victims attest that being forced to undress and undergo examinations is degrading and intimidating both as a physical violation and for the threatened consequences. These examinations constitute degrading treatment and are a violation of women’s rights to physical integrity and privacy.⁸⁶

A voluntary gynecological examination might be legitimate, for example, in order to collect evidence relating to a rape charge. However, there is no legitimate rationale for forced virginity examination. Human Rights Watch maintains that conducting such examinations is unjustified, that the emphasis on female virginity is itself inherently discriminatory and that, in any case, virginity is irrelevant as evidence of sexual assault.

Prolonged Solitary Confinement

I spent seven days in solitary confinement. It’s like a coffin. It’s so dark; there’s no light. They gave me one sandwich to eat the whole day.
— Girl detained in the Benghazi Home for Juvenile Girls, Benghazi, April 23, 2005

Upon entry into social rehabilitation facilities, staff hold women and girls in solitary confinement while they are tested for communicable diseases. These tests appear to be administered without informed consent. Authorities also can hold women and girls in solitary confinement for up to seven days for “disciplinary reasons.”⁸⁷ They can be kept in solitary confinement for even the most minor transgression, such as “talking back,” or smoking.⁸⁸

The Social Welfare Home for Women in Tajoura contained four solitary confinement rooms. Two of the rooms smelled of paint, and one did not have a bathroom. One woman held in this facility told Human Rights Watch, “[w]hen they brought me to the Social Home, I stayed in solitary confinement for one week. They kept me there to check if I had any diseases. It’s not healthy. There’s no fresh air. I had to put the covers over my eyes because of the burning sensation.”⁸⁹ 

Children held in the Benghazi Home for Juvenile Girls complained that they were handcuffed while held in solitary confinement. This is incompatible with international standards on the treatment of juveniles, which dictate that disciplinary practices should maintain safety in a manner that upholds the child’s inherent dignity and the rehabilitative purpose of detention.⁹⁰ In particular, these standards forbid the use of closed confinement, placement in a dark cell, “or any other punishment that may compromise the physical or mental health of the juvenile concerned.”⁹¹ Instruments of restraint should “only be used in exceptional cases, when all other control methods have failed... should not cause humiliation or degradation, and should be used restrictively and only for the shortest possible period of time.”⁹² Violations of these standards also may rise to the level of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, in violation of the CRC, the ICCPR, and the Convention against Torture.⁹³

Denying Girls the Right to Education

We have social workers and psychologists. We have all the services needed including field trips and religious teaching.
— Fayza Khamis, director, Benghazi Home for Juvenile Girls, Benghazi, April 23, 2005

Our day involves cleaning the entire facility, sewing training, and religious education from a sheikh who visits us.
— Girl detained in the Benghazi Home for Juvenile Girls, April 23, 2005

Libyan authorities deny girls detained in the Benghazi Home for Juvenile Girls the right to an education. The facility provides only religious education and sewing instruction to the detained girls. Staff prohibit these girls from reading anything other than books on Islam. Any non-religious books they possess are confiscated upon entry. One of the girls told Human Rights Watch, “[p]eople donate religious books. No other books are allowed.”⁹⁴  

The right to education is set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, acceded to by Libya on May 15, 1970, and the CRC. Each of these treaties specifies that secondary education, the level relevant to all of the girls in the Benghazi facility, must be “available and accessible to every child.”⁹⁵ The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights defines availability to mean “functioning educational institutions and programmes…to be available in sufficient quantity….”⁹⁶ Educational institutions must be accessible to all without discrimination, “within safe physical reach either by attendance at some reasonably convenient geographic location,” and “affordable to all.”⁹⁷

International standards, as reflected in the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles, provide that youths do not lose their right to education when they are confined. “Every juvenile of compulsory school age” who is deprived of his or her liberty “has the right to an education suited to his or her needs and abilities,” education that should be “designed to prepare him or her for return to society.”⁹⁸ The U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the “Beijing Rules”) call upon government officials to ensure that children deprived of their liberty “do not leave the institution at an educational disadvantage.”⁹⁹