CJCCJ
/ RCCJP
April/avril 2006 Volume 48, no. 2
Contents/Sommaire
Prison
Oversight and Human Rights / Surveillance des autorites
correctionnelles et les droits de la personne
Edited by / Sous la direction de Ivan Zinger
Introduction
Human Rights Compliance and the Role of External Prison Oversight
Ivan Zinger
Respect des obligations relatives aux droits de la personne et
roˆ le de la
surveillance externe
Ivan Zinger
Articles
The Litmus Test of Legitimacy: Independent Adjudication
and
Administrative Segregation PDF ARTICLE
Michael Jackson
Obstacles a` la surveillance du syste`me pe´nal
en pays andins :
l’exemple bolivien PDF ARTICLE
Denis Langlois
Le
Comite´ europe´en de pre´vention de la torture :
Me´canisme de controˆ le des e´tablissements de de´tention PDF ARTICLE
Sandra Lehalle, Pierre Landreville et Jean-Paul Ce´re´
Time for Accountability: Effective Oversight of Women’s
Prisons PDF ARTICLE
Debra Parkes and Kim Pate
Creating a Federal Inmate Grievance Tribunal PDF ARTICLE
Jeremy Patrick
Commentary
Gone But Not Forgotten: Should Judges Be Allowed to
Remedy by Re-sentencing? ARTICLE
Mary E. Campbell
Book Reviews / Recensions de livres
April / avril 2006
Books
Received / Livres recus
April / avril 2006
Coming Events / Prochains evenements
The
Litmus Test of Legitimacy: Independent Adjudication and
Administrative Segregation
Michael Jackson
In Canada over the past 30 years there has been a vigorous controversy
as to
the measures necessary to ensure that the use of administrative segregation—
which, in light of its indefinite duration and the severity of the
conditions,
is the most restrictive form of imprisonment — is consistent
with human
rights standards and subject to the rule of law. One of these measures
is
independent adjudication. This article describes the history of independent
adjudication in federal corrections, the underlying issues of legal
principle
and operational reality, and the competing arguments surrounding its
implementation for administrative segregation.
Obstacles a` la surveillance du syste`me pe´nal
en pays andins :
l’exemple bolivien
Denis Langlois
A brief tour of a few penitentiaries in the Andean region of South
America
brings out the stark contrast between the well-equipped prisons of
Canada,
the United States, and Europe and the generally run-down facilities
to
which prisoners in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru are subjected.
Despite constitutional and legislative provisions in line with international
law, prisoners in these countries sometimes face inhumane conditions
and
multiple violations of their most basic human rights. In such a context,
opportunities for any real monitoring of the correctional system come
up against major structural shortcomings. That being said, the work
of
public institutions such as the Defensor del Pueblo (Ombudsman)
helps to mitigate the ongoing arbitrariness of penitentiary administration.
In addition, the fact that there are constitutional tribunals and
that
agencies such as the Defensor del Pueblo and NGOs can seek help from
international prisoners’ rights bodies strengthens actual recognition
of
those rights. The author hopes that the implementation of national
action
plans will prompt the governments concerned to meet their obligations
regarding prisoners’ rights.
Le Comite´ europe´en de pre´vention
de la torture : Me´canisme de controˆ le des e´tablissements
de de´tention
Sandra Lehalle, Pierre Landreville et Jean-Paul Ce´re´
Monitoring detention centres in Europe has become a crucial concern
because of the overcrowding and poor physical living conditions in
some of
these institutions. Since 1987, the European Committee for the Prevention
of Torture (CPT), a unique prevention mechanism, has visited detention
centres in different countries and drawn up recommendations for the
states concerned. Using some concrete examples, this article examines
how
the CPT fulfils its monitoring mission, creates penitentiary norms,
and
influences the practices of correctional systems across Europe. The
analysis
of this mechanism allows us to conclude that the CPT is a good example
and a useful tool for improving living conditions in detention centres
as
well as for protecting prisoners’ rights.
Time for Accountability: Effective Oversight of
Women’s Prisons
Debra Parkes and Kim Pate
Numerous reports and commissions of inquiry have documented the need
for
oversight and accountability mechanisms to redress illegalities and
rights
violations in Canada’s women’s prisons. This article examines
the recent
troubled history of women’s imprisonment in which the calls for
meaningful
accountability and oversight have arisen, outlines the necessary criteria
for
any effective oversight body within this correctional context, and
measures
some of the key recommendations against those criteria. The authors
conclude
that the judicial oversight model and sanction proposed by Justice
Louise
Arbour in 1996 is the proposal that best meets the criteria and therefore
ought to be implemented.
Creating a Federal Inmate Grievance Tribunal
Jeremy Patrick
Federal inmates in Canada currently have access to a wide variety
of
mechanisms that purport to ensure their rights are respected: internal
grievance systems, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Office
of the Correctional Investigator, the court system, and more. However,
for a variety of reasons, each of these mechanisms is inadequate to
import
accountability and the rule of law into the prison system. Instead,
this
article proposes the creation of a Federal Inmate Grievance Tribunal
to rule
on the merits of selected grievances. Key features of the proposed
tribunal
include fairness and independence; timely resolution of cases; and
the
ability to issue binding orders. In addition, the structure of the
proposed
tribunal is discussed.
Commentary
Gone But Not Forgotten: Should Judges Be Allowed to Remedy by Re-sentencing?
Mary E. Campbell
Justice Louise Arbour made 14 omnibus recommendations in her 1996
Report
on Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston. While many
of the
recommendations have been accepted and implemented, one in particular
has been neither conclusively rejected nor accepted. This commentary
will
review the reasons for Recommendation 8, explore possible reasons
for the
lack of uptake, and comment on what its future might now be.
