<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

IV. Mistreatment by Guards

There are some [guards] who think, who see that they have sons, who know that tomorrow their sons might end up here.  They’re cool; they understand our situation. . . .  With others, it’s only hitting.  They hit in the face . . .  four or five come to hit me.  This happens daily.
—Alfonso S., fifteen, CAI-Baixada, July 28, 2003

Once children are transferred to detention centers, they often endure violence at the hands of guards.  Contrary to statements by DEGASE director general Sérgio Novo that guards were not generally abusive,⁴⁹ Human Rights Watch heard of repeated cases of abuse that were exacerbated by a lack of an effective system of accountability.

Abusive guards generally enjoy impunity, both in Rio de Janeiro and elsewhere in Brazil.  In a striking exception to this rule in May 2004, a former juvenile detention center director and seven other detention center officials in the state of SÃo Paulo were sentenced to seven to ten years in prison for acts of torture they committed in 2001 against five youths.⁵⁰  And in Rio de Janeiro, DEGASE removed the director of Padre Severino and several guards in October 2004 in response to allegations of detainee mistreatment, although at this writing none had been charged criminally.⁵¹

These examples illustrate that impunity need not be the rule.  Public prosecutors in Rio de Janeiro have already shown a willingness to investigate abusive conditions of detention in Padre Severino and elsewhere.  Their commendable efforts should be reinforced by a committed and sustained investigation of abusive officials, followed by prosecution and punishment where appropriate.

The lack of adequate staffing probably also contributes to abuses against youths.  Padre Severino had on average one guard for every thirty youths, a detention official there told Human Rights Watch.⁵²  In CAI-Baixada, ten staff members, including the driver and the porter, were assigned to each shift to cover a population of 187 youths.  And not all guards were in the detention center on any given day.  Coverage was particularly sparse when several youths have their hearings on the same day.  “We have to send one agent for each one,” CAI-Baixada’s director told us.⁵³

Finally, the dearth of effective training is likely to be a factor contributing to abusive practices.  Many guards have no prior experience with youths apart from the one week training course they receive before they begin to work in a detention center, Peter da Costa, director of JoÃo Luis Alves, told us.⁵⁴  Flávio Moreno, the president of ASDEGASE, a union that represents some of the guards in Rio de Janeiro’s juvenile detention centers, reported that detention center personnel have few training opportunities; those that are offered are superficial, he said.⁵⁵  In the view of Sidney Telles da Silva, former director of DEGASE, the lack of adequate training leads to “detention center officials who are not educators, but instead repressors.”⁵⁶

Beatings by Guards

We heard reports of physical abuse by guards in all detention centers we visited.  “The guards are very violent,” said a volunteer with a nongovernmental organization that works with detained youths.⁵⁷ 

In particular, we heard from many youths that such mistreatment was common in Padre Severino.  “Padre Severino was very bad,” said Jorge N., a seventeen-year-old who had spent one month there in 2002.  “The guards hit the guys.  They spoke rudely to us.  They lacked respect.”⁵⁸  Vitor M., fifteen, told us that he saw guards in Padre Severino punching youths with their fists and hitting them with wooden sticks.⁵⁹ 

We heard accounts of beatings by guards in other detention centers.  For example, Luis A., sixteen, told us that guards in CAI-Baixada beat him and other youths.⁶⁰  Fernando R., seventeen, also reported that guards frequently beat him and other youths in Santo Expedito.⁶¹

Reports of such physical abuse were less common in Santos Dumont, the girls’ detention center.  Mayra J., sixteen, told us that she had not seen any beatings,⁶² while Patrícia K., sixteen, described beatings as rare.⁶³  But other girls gave accounts that were similar to those we heard in the boys’ detention centers.  “They hit with their fists,” eighteen-year-old Flávia L. said of the guards.  “That has happened to me twice.  The first time it was because I didn’t answer.  The second time, the guard yelled at me, and I talked back.”⁶⁴  And Valéria I., fifteen, reported that she was beaten in a way that did not leave marks on her body during her time there.⁶⁵

The accounts of youths themselves were not the only indication we had of abuse.  In some cases, the youths we interviewed showed us cuts and bruises that were consistent with their descriptions of beatings.  And when Human Rights Watch talked to a group of parents of detained children, they described seeing visible signs of abuse while visiting their children.  For example, one parent spoke of a visit to Santo Expedito in May 2003: 

The guards had gone in and hit everybody, beat them up.  The boys were bruised, with broken arms, broken legs, covered with blood.  I saw this.  Fifteen boys called me over to look inside and see how they were.  I saw them inside a bathroom.  They lifted their shirts to show me the injuries.⁶⁶

In addition to physical violence, verbal abuse by guards appears to be very common, based on the number of complaints we heard from youths.  Sixteen-year-old Luis A. told us that guards called him and other children “bandits” and “vagabonds.”⁶⁷  Miguel L., twenty-one, reported that guards routinely referred to him as a “bandit,” “vagabond,” “lowlife,” and “devil.”⁶⁸  Vitor M., fifteen, said that guards repeatedly shouted at him and other youths, “Devils, lower your heads.”⁶⁹

Finally, many of the youth we interviewed expressed fear that they would be beaten for talking with us.  After Gilberto P., a nineteen-year-old in Santo Expedito, described being beaten by guards, he told Human Rights Watch that he expected to be hit later that day because he had spoken with us.⁷⁰  We heard similar remarks from other youths in that detention center.  (After we toured Santo Expedito, we notified the public defender’s office that a large number of youths in that detention center told us that they expected to suffer abuse in retaliation for meeting with us.)

Under international standards, detention center officials may only resort to force restrictively to prevent a youth from inflicting self-injury, injuries to others, or serious destruction of property.  The use of force should be limited to exceptional cases, where all other methods have been exhausted and failed; it should never cause humiliation or degradation.⁷¹  Detention center officials should always inform family members of injuries that result from the use of force.  In cases where the use of force results in serious injuries or death, a family member or guardian should be notified immediately.⁷²

Abusive Disciplinary Practices

Excessive Use of Lockup

In addition to beatings and frequent verbal abuse, many youths reported that they were subjected to excessively lengthy periods of lockup.⁷³  In one extreme example, when the public prosecutor’s office conducted a surprise inspection of Padre Severino in July 2003, prosecutors found thirteen youths confined to a cramped and windowless cell.  Describing the cell as “inhumane,” officials in the prosecutor’s office told us that guards had beaten the youths repeatedly and that many had respiratory and skin problems resulting from the close quarters in which they had been confined.⁷⁴  Refuting these statements, DEGASE director Sérgio Novo told Human Rights Watch that the prosecutors’ claims were “fantasy.”  He added, “All they found were thirteen to sixteen children in a room that differed from other rooms in that the door was locked.”⁷⁵

We heard of instances of lengthy cell confinement in Santo Expedito and Santon Dumont as well.  In Santo Expedito, youths told us that serious infractions led to isolation for one to two weeks in one of two unused wings of the detention center.  “I have a friend who was in Gallery E.  He was there two weeks ago,” Luciano G. told us.  “A guard put him in E, he spent a week in E, because the guard accused him of having dope.” ⁷⁶  Similarly, girls in Santos Dumont told us that they were placed in a punishment cell for one week if they were caught with marijuana.⁷⁷  When we asked Luciano whether there was a hearing or a right to appeal such a decision, he told us he had never heard that youths could take such steps.⁷⁸

Elsewhere, youths reported that they were sent into lockup for much shorter periods.  In those instances, the time spent in lockup was apparently completely discretionary.  When we asked youths in JoÃo Luis Alves what happens if youths fight, for example, youths told us that there was no standard length of time for cell confinement.  “You go into lockup, into confinement.  That’s so you can think about the shit you’ve done,” said Eric T., a fifteen-year-old in JoÃo Luis Alves.  “You stay there as long as you don’t obey the guards.  Some stay for one day.  Others are there for four days.”⁷⁹

Other Punishments

Youths reported the use of other disciplinary measures that may violate international juvenile justice standards.  One such practice was to force youths to stand for long periods of time in uncomfortable positions.  “We had to stay like this, with our hands up,” said Alfonso S., placing his hands on his head to demonstrate.  “We stayed like this for eleven hours.”  He reported that this punishment was imposed in CAI-Baixada after a rebellion by youths in June 2003.⁸⁰  Dário P., an eighteen-year-old in CAI-Baixada, told us that similar punishments were routinely imposed for lesser infractions.  “Sometimes you have to sit in a chair for a long time or stand against the wall with your head against the wall, bent over,” he said.  “It’s generally as a punishment.  I’ve had to do these things various times.  You do it if you get out of the line.  That’s one of the reasons for having to do that.”  When we asked Dário if there were other reasons for imposing these punishments, he replied, “If you take food out of the dining hall.  If they see that you were talking during the meal.”⁸¹  Suspending parental visits was another common punishment, youths told us.⁸²

Legal Standards for Disciplinary Practices

Under international standards, disciplinary practices should maintain safety in a manner that upholds the detainee’s inherent dignity and the rehabilitative purpose of detention.⁸³  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.”⁸⁴

More generally, disciplinary practices should take into account the fact 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.⁸⁵  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.⁸⁶  Every 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.”⁸⁷  In this regard, the U.N. Rules call for detention centers to provide youths with “adequate communication with the outside world”⁸⁸; permit daily exercise, preferably in the open air;⁸⁹ and integrate their education, work opportunities, and medical care as far as possible into the local community.⁹⁰  Consistent with this approach, the “denial of contact of family members should be prohibited for any purpose.”⁹¹

In addition, disciplinary sanctions should be imposed in strict accordance with established norms, which should identify conduct constituting an offense, delineate the type and duration of sanctions, and provide for appeals.⁹²  Youths should have an opportunity to be heard in their own defense before disciplinary sanctions are imposed and on appeal.⁹³

When these standards are not met, particularly when youths are confined in close quarters for extended periods of time, disciplinary practices may rise to the level of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, in violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture.⁹⁴

Impunity

When the kids hit a guard, they take them to the police station.  Why don’t they do the same with the guards who beat our kids?
—Parent of a youth in detention, Rio de Janeiro, August 1, 2003

Human Rights Watch found that most detention centers failed to investigate complaints of abuses; indeed, most centers had no meaningful complaint mechanism.  Abuses persist in part because of the lack of effective and safe complaint procedures, the failure of authorities to investigate reports of abuse promptly, and the resulting lack of accountability for those who commit such abuses.

Exacerbating the lack of a complaint system, DEGASE does not keep centralized records of staff performance and disciplinary actions.  “Right now, [DEGASE] doesn’t know if official A, B, or C has a prior record, a performance history of assaults or other incidents,” Dr. Simone Moreira de Souza, a public defender, told Human Rights Watch in November 2004.  Such records, she said, “do not exist.”⁹⁵

Afraid of retribution, children rarely press charges; the few who do frequently drop the charges soon afterward, Dr. Souza told Human Rights Watch.  In addition, she reported, social workers and defense lawyers are faced with a difficult choice: they either report the physical abuse or they stay quiet to keep the children safe and expedite their release.⁹⁶

A 2002 case reported in the Jornal do Brasil, a Rio de Janeiro newspaper, provides an example of a situation in which the fear of retribution contributed to prosecutors’ inability to secure a conviction.⁹⁷  In that case, the prosecutor’s office brought charges of torture against ten guards at the Centro de Triagem e ReabilitaçÃo, a temporary detention center located next to the DEGASE headquarters.  Prosecutors accused the guards of placing youths in solitary confinement cells strewn with feces and awash in sewage.  The guards reportedly beat the youths and threatened to force the youths to eat the feces.  In addition, the guards also instigated fighting among the youths, placing bets on the fights.⁹⁸

The prosecutors’ inspection report detailed the evidence they found to corroborate the accounts of these abuses, including “broom handles and wooden sticks with the extremities covered in cloth” to prevent leaving marks when hitting the children.  In addition, the prosecutors reported, “Many of the detainees presented physical lesions that they alleged were caused by beatings from the guards.”⁹⁹ 

Although the guards were initially removed from work, they were all eventually acquitted.¹⁰⁰ Erika da Rocha Figueiredo, the public prosecutor who filed the initial charges, explained, “No one wanted to testify, and the excuse given [for youths’ bruises] was that they slipped.  If there is no proof, there is nothing that can be done.”¹⁰¹

In other situations in which investigations do take place, their slow pace may hamper resolution of the cases.  Dr. Souza recounted a 2004 case in which five guards faced criminal charges for abuses they were accused of having committed.  The five were acquitted for lack of evidence, she said.  “That means that none of the youths was found.  The process took so long that by the time it reached the evidence-gathering stage, the youths had been released, so it was much more difficult to find them.”¹⁰²

Punishment for abusive guards is supposed to range from receiving a warning to being suspended, fired, and imprisoned.¹⁰³  Such sanctions are rarely imposed in practice, although the director and several guards were removed from Padre Severino in October 2004 after they were accused of committing abuses against detained youths.¹⁰⁴  And the sanction may not preclude these officials from taking a similar position at another juvenile detention center.  When guards are found to have physically abused youth they are “fired” by being transferred to other centers, another official in the public defender’s office told Human Rights Watch.  “To be fired means to be transferred from one center to another,” he told us.  In one case in which a youth had been beaten by a guard, he reported, the youth was sent to Padre Severino for his protection, and the “fired” guard was transferred to the same detention center several months later.¹⁰⁵

No guard has been criminally sanctioned for abusive conduct.  “There is no history of condemnation of torture [by guards] in Rio de Janeiro,” Dr. Souza told Human Rights Watch in February 2004.  “To this day, no guard has been imprisoned for torture.  Pretrial detention is sometimes ordered but later revoked under habeas corpus.”¹⁰⁶  When we spoke with her in November 2004, she confirmed that no guard had ever been convicted for abuses committed against youths in detention.  “I have never heard of an actual conviction” in such a case, she said.¹⁰⁷

International standards call for the establishment of effective complaint mechanisms in each detention center.  At a minimum, in addition to providing the opportunity to present complaints to the director and to his or her authorized representative, each detention center should guarantee the following basic aspects of an effective complaint process:

• The right to make a request or complaint, without censorship as to substance, to the central administration, the judicial authority, or other proper authorities.¹⁰⁸
• The right to be informed of the response to a request or complaint without delay.¹⁰⁹
• The right to regular assistance from family members, legal counselors, humanitarian groups, or others in order to make complaints.  In particular, illiterate children should receive the assistance they need to make complaints.¹¹⁰

In addition, international standards recommend the establishment of an independent office, such as an ombudsman, to receive and investigate complaints made by children deprived of their liberty.¹¹¹

But as the 2002 case illustrates, the mere existence of complaint mechanisms is not enough.  State authorities must also conduct thorough and independent investigations of complaints.  The perpetrators of violence should be appropriately disciplined by measures that should include the possibility of dismissal and criminal charges, where warranted.  Cases of death, grievous bodily harm, or allegations of retaliation, in particular, should be referred to judicial authorities for investigation and, as appropriate, prosecution and punishment.