GROUP 2

ADMINISTRATION OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS
Chairperson
Co-Chairpersons

Mr. Abdul Aziz Bin Mohamad
Mr. Keiichi Ichinose
Ms. Soo-Hee Kim
Ms.Mildred Bernadette Baquilod Alvor
Mr. Somphop Rujjanavet
Mr. Yasuaki Sugawara
Mr. Hany Mohamad Naseeh Gabr
Mr. Hamish Garae
Mr. Osamu Aoki
Ms. Hatsue Matsubayashi(Malaysia)(Japan)(Korea)(Philippines)(Thailand)(Japan)(Egypt)(Vanuatu)(Japan)(Japan)Visiting Experts

Ms. Christina Rojas Rodriguez
Mr. Michael Spurr(Costa Rica)(UK)

Advisers

Prof. Keisuke Senta
Prof. Megumi Uryu
Prof. Hiroyuki Shinkai(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs
Members

I. INTRODUCTIONThe United Nations Standard Minimum Rules (UN SMR) for the Treatment of Prisoners sets out what
are generally considered as good principles and practices in the treatment of prisoners and the managementof institutions.1 However, since its adoption by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1955, most, if not all countries, still have some difficulties
implementing the basic rules laid down by the UN SMR.
Given this background, the group was assigned to discuss the current situation/practices of the prison
administrations of each participating country, analyse the issues/problems confronting their prison
administrations, and endeavour to find ways to overcome difficulties in the application of the UN SMR. The
group agreed to include in its discussions the following aspects of prison administration as subtopics:
accommodation, separation of inmates, provision of medical services, information to prisoners, contact withthe outside world, discipline and punishment, grievance mechanisms, prison incidents, inspection andcommunity participation.
In keeping with the preliminary observations of the UN SMR that the rules enumerated therein are “notintended to preclude experiment and practices, provided these are in harmony with the principles and seek
to further the purposes [...].” 2, the group considered measures outside of the UN SMR to solve theproblems/issues confronting the prison administrations of each participating country.

II. PRISON ADMINISTRATION
A. Current Situation
Except for the Philippines, the administration of prisons of the participating countries is centrallyadministered either through the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Internal Security, Ministry ofJustice or the Police Department.
In the Philippines, local jails are managed and supervised by the Department of the Interior and Local
Government through the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) and the Provincial Government
while national prison institutions are managed and supervised by the Department of Justice through the
Bureau of Corrections (BuCor). Juvenile institutions are supervised by the Department of Social Welfare and
1 Preliminary Observations 1, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
2 Ibid, Preliminary Observations 3.

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

Development through the Bureau of Child and Youth Welfare. However, the executive department prepareda draft proposal integrating all national prisons and all provincial, city and municipal jails and consolidating
the functions of the Bureau of Corrections and Bureau of Jail Management and Penology under a new bureau
to be known as the Bureau of Correctional Services under the Department of Justice. The bill is currently
pending in Congress.
As regards privatisation of prisons, Korea enacted the “Law of the Establishment and Operation ofPrivate Prisons in January 2000”. The law was enacted to reduce the financial burden while alleviating
prison overcrowding and enhance the effectiveness of rehabilitation. The first private prison in Korean
Correction history will be opened in 2005. The role of correctional staff in private prisons can be limited by
the contract with the Ministry of Justice. In general, the correctional corporation should keep suitablemanpower for reception, management, rehabilitation and other correctional service.
Japan recognizes the need to reorganize the correctional administration in order to maximize thefunctioning of institutional operations and the treatment of prisoners. In this connection, the Corrections
Bureau has decided to contract with a private company to construct an institution with a 1,000 capacity byemploying the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme by 2007. Discussions are still going on as to what
extent the private sector can perform prison functions.
Malaysia and Thailand are studying the possibility of introducing privately managed prisons while
Vanuatu and Egypt are not interested in having private prisons due to present government policy.

B. Problems and Countermeasures
The main problem of prison administrations is the inadequate budget allocated to the prison service. In
some countries, an adequate budget for prisons is given the least priority. Given such condition, the prison
service suffers to a certain extent as prison management tends to focus more on the security aspect rather
than on rehabilitation of prisoners.
To address the problem of inadequate resources, the group considered reorganizing the prison structure
to economize expenditure of funds. It also considered outsourcing certain corrections services to the private
sector (e.g. provision of food), subject to the situation of the market.
Concerns were raised for having private prisons since imprisonment can be considered as an infliction ofpain which must be carried out only by the State. However, severe overcrowding in many countries requires
living space to be provided in a relatively short time. In this regard, some form of private initiative may beconsidered inevitable. Nevertheless, most of the participants agree that the main functions of prison service
such as custody, security and discipline should remain with the government.
The basic function of imprisonment was discussed among the participants. As stated in the UN SMR 58,
it was agreed that the basic function of prison is to protect society against crime and to rehabilitate prisoners
to be law-abiding citizens. Therefore, prison is expected to play multiple roles in managing prisoners. They
include maintaining the safe custody of prisoners, providing welfare to prisoners, protecting community
safety, providing guardianship and social services.

III. ACCOMMODATION
A. Current Situation
Thailand and the Philippines do not have single cells except for disciplinary punishment. They havedormitory style accommodation. The sleeping area for each inmate in Thailand is fixed at 2.25 sq. m. while
Korea provides each inmate with an average area of 1.7 sq. m. The Philippines does not provide a fixed spacefor each inmate.
Egypt, Korea, Vanuatu and Japan have both single and group cells3 while Malaysia has single cells anddormitory style accommodation.
3 A “group cell” means a cell that accommodates three to six inmates, while a “dormitory” means a living space that

accommodates more than twenty inmates.

126127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

B. Problems and Countermeasures
Prison overcrowding creates difficulties in the observance of the UN SMR. Except for Vanuatu, all themembers of the group share a common problem of accommodation due to overcrowding. The problem ofovercrowding can be attributed to, among others, a dramatic increase of drug offences, old/lack of facilities,
frequent use of imprisonment as a penalty and non-custodial measures not being fully utilized as analternative to imprisonment.
In Malaysia, old prison institutions lack ample space for the exercise of prisoners. Overcrowding in
Malaysia results in a shortage of water supply, in-fighting among the inmates and commission of homosexualacts.
In Malaysia and Japan, a single cell is made to accommodate more than one inmate. The Philippines,
Malaysia and Thailand transfer inmates to less congested prison facilities. In effecting the transfer ofinmates, the prison authorities have to consider certain factors: the transfer should not cause problems toother institutions; residence of inmate’s family, rehabilitation programme being undertaken by the inmate,etc.
Full utilization of the early release schemes, amendment of penal laws providing long-term sentences andtransfer of inmates to less congested facilities subject to certain conditions (e.g. transfer should not create
problems for the receiving prison), were some of the measures considered to reduce the prison population.
To reduce the stress level of the inmates due to overcrowding, prison institutions should provide more
recreational activities such as inviting well-known entertainers to perform during weekends.

IV. SEPARATION OF INMATES
A. Current Situation
All the participating countries observe separation of male inmates from female inmates, juveniles fromadult offenders and high risk prisoners from low risk prisoners.
Japan, Korea and Egypt have separate institutions for unsentenced and convicted inmates. The
Philippines and Thailand provide separate correctional institutions for drug offenders where they areprovided with appropriate treatment and rehabilitation programmes.

B. Problems and Countermeasures
Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia cannot provide separate facilities for unsentenced and convicted
inmates due to overcrowding and lack of facilities. However, they are placed in specific sections in the samefacility.
In Malaysia, separation of inmates cannot be fully implemented in certain areas of the prison facilities
such as the dining hall and place of work. Certain rules on separation of inmates are likewise relaxed after
taking into account the security risk involved.
The presence of transsexual inmates creates problems in prison institutions due to the difficulty indetermining their gender. Malaysia identifies the gender through legal documentation. In Thailand, Japanand Malaysia, transsexual inmates are incarcerated in a specific section separate from other inmates.

V. MEDICAL SERVICE
A. Current Situation
The medical officer shall see and examine every prisoner as soon as possible after his admission andthereafter as necessary, with a view particularly to the discovery of physical or mental illness and the takingof all necessary measures; the segregation of prisoners suspected of infectious or contagious conditions; thenoting of physical or mental defects which might hamper rehabilitation, and the determination of the physicalcapacity of every prisoner for work.4

4 Art. 24, UN SMR.

127

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

All the participating countries provide basic medical treatment to the inmates in a specific area inside theprison. Many countries have medical doctors present during the daytime. In other cases, sick inmates are
assisted by medical assistants.
Japan and Thailand have separate medical prisons for specific medical treatment. In all countries, referralis made to a hospital outside the prison in the event that the prison hospital cannot provide the specificmedical treatment. In Malaysia and Egypt, referral is limited to government hospitals. In the Philippines,
Thailand, Korea, and Vanuatu, an inmate may be allowed to be treated at a private hospital at his/her own
expense. In both cases, the inmate has to be escorted by prison guards.
In Thailand, the Ministry of Public Health provides a medical service card to an inmate who has apermanent address and residence registration. The Korean correctional authority is planning to introduce
national insurance to be used for inmates as medical coverage.

B. Problems and Countermeasures
Except for Egypt, the participating countries face the problem of a lack of medical service staff. In somecountries, inmates sometimes overuse or take advantage of the free medical treatment provided by theprison.
In countries where there is a lack of medical staff, discussions must be conducted with the Ministry of
Public Health or medical associations with a view to providing adequate medical staff. Most of theparticipants agree that it is possible to have a medical prison as practiced in Japan and Thailand. Malaysia isstudying the possibility of contracting with private medical doctors for prisons. Although not considered in
the other participating countries, there is a possibility of contracting private companies to provide medicalcare in prison.

VI. INFORMATION TO PRISONERS
A. Current Situation
In all countries, every newly-admitted inmate is informed of the prison rules and regulations, rights andprivileges and daily schedule of the prison.
Thailand, Malaysia, Korea, Philippines and Japan conduct orientation on the prison rules and regulations
to newly-admitted convicted inmates in a separate section. Japan and the Philippines fix the period oforientation at fourteen and sixty days, respectively.
Illiterate inmates are informed orally on the prison rules and regulations. In Egypt, prison staff have toremind the illiterate inmates on a daily basis of the prison rules and regulations.

B. Problems and Countermeasures
Most countries are facing an influx of foreign inmates which causes problems on imparting information toprisoners. Prison institutions in Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Vanuatu may contact the embassy
concerned for interpretation/translation services. Japan usually relies on in-house interpreters/translatorsand volunteers. Inmates who speak the same language may be requested to interpret the prison rules andregulations for the newly-admitted convicted foreign inmates.
In order to overcome the problem, the group agreed on the use of audio-visual aids as a means of
informing inmates of the prison rules and regulations, in addition to strengthening the current practices.
Transfer of sentenced foreign prisoners should be considered especially in countries where there are alarge number of foreign inmates.

VII. CONTACT WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD
A. Current Situation
All the participating countries allow prisoners to communicate with their family, friends, counsel,
diplomatic or consular representative, etc.

128127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

Vanuatu, Egypt, Malaysia, Korea and the Philippines allow inmates to be visited at the weekend. Thailand
and Japan do not have scheduled visitation on weekends. Korea, Philippines and Thailand allow the systemof conjugal visits. Malaysia and Egypt allows a woman prisoner to visit her convicted husband under escort.
Korea is now implementing the video visit system wherein a family member who resides in a place far
from the institution of confinement of an inmate can communicate with that inmate through the Intranet
system installed in the prison located in the prisoner’s family hometown. Inmates and their families respondpositively to the system.
Both Thailand and Korea allow the inmates to receive e-mail from their families by using the prison email address. In 2002, Thailand launched a pilot project which allows convicted inmates in certain prison
institutions to send and receive e-mail messages. A prison staff member censors the messages. An inmate
who wants to reply has to first write the message and the prison officer-in-charge will then send themessage for him/her. In Korea, convicted inmates are not allowed to reply via e-mail. They must reply byordinary mail. In both countries, inmates are not allowed to access the Internet.
Vanuatu, The Philippines, Korea and Thailand allow inmates to make telephone calls under thesupervision of prison officers. In Vanuatu, an inmate is allowed to make phone calls in an emergency. In thePhilippines, an inmate who demonstrates good behaviour earns one telephone call to an authorizedindividual every ninety days. In such a case, the telephone conversation is monitored and cannot exceed fiveminutes. In Thailand, a convicted inmate uses a phone card bearing only five numbers for outgoing calls. In
Thailand, phone calls are recorded while telephone conversations are monitored by the prison officers in
Korea.

B. Problems and Countermeasures
Security problems could arise when prisoners contact someone from outside the prison especially when
the person on the receiving end cannot be fully identified during the telephone conversation. In order tocontrol this problem, participants agreed that prison officers should strictly monitor the phone conversation.
Sometimes visitors bring prohibited articles, especially during contact visits. In Thailand, Egypt,
Malaysia and the Philippines, a body search is performed on the visitors and inmates. In Vanuatu and Korea,
a body search is conducted on the inmate after the visit.
Mobile phones brought by the visitors may cause problems as they can be used by the inmate tocommunicate illegally with others. Recently, the new technology of mobile phones allows recording of
conversations and taking pictures. In many participating countries, visitors are requested to refrain fromcarrying in mobile phones to the visitation area; however, they can still be brought in. In order to counter the
problem, countries install security lockers where mobiles can be deposited. Metal detectors may be installed
in order to detect prohibited articles from being brought in to the visitation area.

VIII. DISCIPLINE AND PUNISHMENT
A. Current Situation
Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines have a collegial body in each prison institution whichhears and decides cases involving violations of prison rules and regulations5. In Egypt, the prison or deputy
warden decides on the punishment to be imposed on the inmate. In Vanuatu, the officer-in-charge of theprison decides on the case of the inmate. Each participating country gives the inmate an opportunity to
defend himself/herself and punishment imposed on the inmate is based on the law or prison regulations.
In Japan, an inmate is assisted by a prison staff member during the hearing of the case while thePhilippines allows the inmate to have a witness/es.
Reprimand or forfeiture of certain privileges may be imposed on an inmate in Malaysia, Vanuatu, Korea
and Thailand. In addition, the Philippines and Thailand impose a reduction or deprivation of Good Conduct
Time Allowance while Malaysia imposes a reduction in stages, forfeiture of remission and a restricted diet.
5 Japan has the Inspection and Investigation Committee for Discipline, the Philippines has the Board of Discipline while Korea

and Thailand both have Committees for Discipline.

129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

The Philippines may change the security status of the inmate to the next higher category6 while Thailand
may downgrade a prisoner’s class.
Except for Malaysia, solitary confinement as a form of punishment is considered as a last resort. In all
countries, solitary confinement is carried out only after the medical prison officer has certified that theinmate is fit to undergo such punishment. The maximum period for solitary confinement in Thailand is threemonths, two months in the Philippines, Korea and Japan, twenty-one days in Malaysia, fifteen days in Egypt
and fourteen days in Vanuatu. In practice, however, all countries impose a lesser period for solitaryconfinement. Its duration depends on the gravity of the offence.
Whipping7 is practiced in Malaysia for prisoners who commit aggravated prison offences such as escapeor attempted escape, destruction of prison property or possession of drugs or weapons. The maximum
number of strokes is twelve. A medical officer must certify that the inmate is medically and physically fit tobe caned. Male prisoners who are more than fifty years old and female prisoners are exempted from thisform of punishment.
In all the participating countries, appeal from the decision of the adjudication board is not available but aninmate may file a complaint with authorities either within or outside the prison.

B. Problems and Countermeasures
Some of the participating countries expressed reservations on the effectiveness of solitary confinement
as a form of punishment, especially where the prison is overcrowded. In an overcrowded prison, to have asingle room might be considered a privilege by some prisoners. However, each participant agreed that there
is a strong psychological effect of solitary confinement and should, thus, be considered as a last resort. In
regard to whipping, although its legality is guaranteed by law, the question of human rights was expressed bysome members of the group.
To ensure transparency of the adjudication process as well as the accountability of the collegial
body/prison authorities, the group considered adopting some features of criminal trial proceedings such as
the composition of the disciplinary panel, the right to counsel and appeal to authorities outside the prison
institution. In Korea, at least one representative from the community sits as a member of the Disciplinary
Board.
The participants discussed the possibility of an inmate being assisted during the hearing of his/her case.
Assistance may be provided either by a lawyer, fellow inmate or a prison officer. All countries expressed
reservations on having an inmate represented by a lawyer. A lawyer might only cause difficulties in thedisciplinary procedure. Japan, Malaysia, Egypt, Vanuatu and Korea did not completely agree with the optionof having an inmate assisted by a fellow inmate due to the concerns of objectiveness and security.
The group agreed on the importance of the role of an independent tribunal such as the tribunal of theexecution of the penalty/sentence in Costa Rica. The tribunal acts on cases/appeals filed by a prisoner,
prosecutor or victim against a decision of the prison administration. The penalty imposed by the prison
administration is suspended while the case is pending with the tribunal. The Judge of the Execution of thePenalty can either vacate or modify the penalty imposed by the prison administration. The importance of
having a “controller of legality” is both to ensure the fundamental human rights of the inmate and thelegality of the decision of the prison administration. The decision of the “controller of legality” must have abinding effect on the prison administration.
Some form of mediation may be considered in case of conflicts between prisoners as one of thealternative measures to disciplinary action as this can ensure peace and stability in prison.

6 In the Philippines, inmates committed at the national prison institutions are classified according to their security status maximum, medium and minimum while Thailand classifies its inmates as excellent, very good, good, medium, bad and verybad.
7 Whipping is a form of punishment with a rattan inflicted on the buttocks of the offender (Rule 131[4], Prison Regulations
2000).

130

127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

IX. GRIEVANCE MECHANISMS
A. Current Situation
In all countries, an inmate is given the right to air his/her grievances against the prison administration or
any of its officers/staff either within or outside the prison administration system. It may be made orally or inwriting depending on the level of authority of the person or body to which the complaint or petition is made.
An inmate may seek remedy outside the prison administration either through judicial or other administrative
bodies. In all the participating countries, judicial action may be initiated by an inmate against the prison
administration and any of its officers/staff.
In Egypt, an inmate can file a complaint to the Prison Director or General Attorney while an inmate in
Malaysia can air his/her grievances to “visiting justices”8 or the officer-in-charge of the prison. In Vanuatu,
the chairperson of the committee composed of prisoners brings general complaints such as food andaccommodation to the Superintendent or Inspector of the Prison. A personal complaint by an inmate in
Vanuatu may also be filed with the Public Solicitors and Ombudsman officers who visit the prison regularly.
In Japan and Korea, a petition may be made by an inmate to the Minister of Justice or the visiting officer
authorized by the Minister to inspect the prison. In both countries, an inmate may request an interview witha warden.
In the Philippines, each national prison institution has an Inmates’ Complaint, Information and AssistanceCentre (ICIAC)9 which receives and acts on complaints, requests for information and assistance of inmates.
An inmate may choose to file his/her complaint or petition with the Director or Assistant Directors of the
Bureau of Corrections or directly to the Secretary or Undersecretaries of Justice.
In Thailand, a prisoner can make a request or file a complaint with the Prison Director or Director
General of the Department of Corrections. Each prison in Thailand has a red box wherein an inmate canplace his/her complaint. Only the Prison Director can open the red box. In addition, Thailand has a Grievance
Section under the Office of the Inspectorate which is responsible for all prisoners’ complaints.
In the Philippines, Thailand and Korea, complaint may also be made to the Human Rights Commission or
the Office of the Ombudsman. In Vanuatu, after the introduction of the Public Solicitors and Ombudsman
officers, the number of complaints decreased.
In all the participating countries, a judicial action may be initiated by an inmate against the prison
administration and any of its officers/staff.

B. Problems and Countermeasures
In Korea, the creation of the Human Rights Committee increased the number of complaints as inmatesbring to the attention of the Committee even small issues which can be considered in the corrections office.
From November 2001 to June 2003, out of the 458 cases filed against the prison administration, only 29
cases were given recommendations while the rest were dismissed or rejected.
Inmates sometimes abuse or misuse the process afforded to them by not using the proper channels forfiling complaints. Oftentimes, wrong information is given to non-government organizations and the media.
The group discussed the importance of having different types of grievance mechanisms in penal
institutions. It is necessary to maintain a good personal relationship between prisoners and staff, so thatmost of the prisoners’ complaints could be made orally to the officers. If inmates are not satisfied with thehandling of the complaint, they should make an official written complaint. There should be more than one
process for prisoners to write complaints, preferably including independent agencies from the penal
administration to ensure transparency.
The group agreed that the increase in the number of complaints shows that the inmates have confidence
in the grievance mechanism. It also diffuses conflict in the prison and shows an increased awareness of the
8 The system will be explained fully in “Community Participation”.
9 It is composed of prison staff and is directly under the Office of the Superintendent.

131

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

inmates of their right to air their grievances.

X. PRISON INCIDENTS
A. Current Situation
The two most serious prison incidences faced by prison administrations in all participating countries are
suicide and escape.
Malaysia had five incidences of escape in 2002 and one in 2003. In Thailand, the number of escapees in2003 was 61, or 0.03% of the prison population. Fifty-five of the inmates escaped from outside the prison
while the other six inmates escaped from inside the prison. In the Philippines, there have been an increased
number of escapes by detention prisoners. In Korea, escape rarely occurs: one case of escape occurred lastyear while the inmate was undergoing treatment in a private hospital.
Suicide of inmates rarely occurs in the prison institutions of all the participating countries. In Malaysia,
the prison administration recorded six suicides of inmates in 2002 and one in 2003.

B. Problems and Countermeasures
1. Escape and Suicide
The group considers the incidence of escape and suicide as serious problems of prison administrationeven if they seldom occur. The group agreed that there should always be a balance between the security ofthe prison and rehabilitation of prisoners. These two aspects of prison administration should be taken into
consideration in order to avoid prison incidents.
Escape creates security concerns in the community, thus diminishing public confidence in the penal
system. Suicide gives the impression that prison conditions are poor and inmates are not treated well.
Security lapses or negligence by prison officers, lack of good physical security systems and the close
relationship of prison officers with the inmates were among the reasons cited for the escapes.
Malaysia cites lack of staff to conduct security inspections and lack of cooperation of the inmatesthemselves during investigations as the problems encountered by its prison administration in its efforts to
reduce the incidence of escape.
To prevent or reduce the incidence of escape, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, aside from
imposing the appropriate disciplinary action, have tightened up security measures, conduct more frequent
inspections and continue to foster discipline among the inmates. Japan added that providing humane prison
conditions and improvement in the treatment of offenders will be better measures in preventing prisoners
from escaping or attempting to escape from prisons.
To address the problem of suicide, Malaysia uses blankets that cannot be easily torn and conducts
frequent searches of cells to look for articles that might be used in committing suicide. All unlawful
item/items that can invite a suicidal act by a prisoner such as ropes, sharp items and blankets that can beeasily torn are confiscated.
In Japan, inmates who are diagnosed with a particular high risk of suicide are placed in a special cell
where a camera is installed to monitor their activities. Japan suggested the necessity of counselling. The
provision of information on prison life can also reduce the tension of imprisonment.
A more strict and sensitive prison officer will be assigned to blocks/workshops to guard prisoners whoare prone to attempting suicide. A prison officer that is found guilty of negligence should be held liable.
Counselling sessions should be increased for prisoners who have a high tendency of committing suicide.
The group agreed to review existing security measures, improve prison conditions and promote better
relationships between the prison staff and prisoners to prevent further occurrences of serious prison
incidents.

132

127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

2. Bribery of Prison Officers
Bribery of prison personnel is a common problem in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. In Japan,
Korea, Egypt and Vanuatu, bribery rarely happens in the prisons. In many countries, bribery usually involves
giving special treatment or allowing inmates to have prohibited articles inside the prison such as cigarettes
and cellular phones.
In all countries, a prison officer found to have committed bribery will be held criminally andadministratively liable. It could result in the removal from office of a prison officer.
Low salary, inadequate welfare benefits and weak ethics were cited as the main reasons why prison
officers commit bribery. Instilling good ethical values in the prison officers, aside from increasing their salaryand benefits, was considered in order to prevent or reduce bribery in prisons.

XI. INSPECTION
A. Current Situation
There are two types of inspection - internal inspection which is conducted by the prison administration,and external inspection which is conducted by independent bodies or persons from outside the prison
service.
All of the participating countries conduct regular internal inspection of their prison institutions andservices to ensure that the institutions are administered in accordance with existing laws and regulations
and to bring about the attainment of the objectives of the penal system.
In Egypt, the Prisons Department has an Inspection Section composed of specialists in prison
administration - high ranking police officers, doctors and psychologists - which inspects prisons under thesupervision of the deputy of the Authority Manager. The result of the inspection is reported to the Authority
Manager.
In Korea, inspection is conducted regularly by the central organization, regional correctional
headquarters and Ministry of Justice. In the Philippines, the Secretary of Justice conducts announced andunannounced inspections/visits of national prison institutions.
As stipulated by law, a senior officer entrusted by the Minister of Justice of Japan has to visit once every
two years prisons with less than a thousand prisoners. For prisons which have a capacity of more than one
thousand prisoners, inspection is performed once every year. Regional correctional headquarters have toinspect prisons once every two years. Consequently, each prison is inspected at least once a year. Judges andprosecutors are also entitled to visit prisons.
In Thailand, the Minister of Justice has the power to appoint a Prison Commission to inspect andexamine the prison administration and give advice to prison officials. The Commission consists of not morethan five members appointed from the judiciary, Ministries of Education, Agriculture and Cooperatives
Finance, Foreign Affairs and a medical officer and public prosecutor.
In Malaysia, the Commission on Human Rights and the “visiting justices”10 conduct jail visits. In thePhilippines, the Commission on Human Rights exercises visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention
facilities. In Korea, the Human Rights Committee, upon receipt of any complaint, conducts an investigationand inspection of the prison institutions.
In Vanuatu, prisons are inspected by the Minister of Internal Affairs or his/her designated representative.
As stipulated by law, at least three persons should visit prison institutions at least once a year. The Ministermay constitute a Prison Visiting Commission where three of its members shall visit each prison at least
once a year.
In Egypt, the Attorney General and prosecutors are entitled to inspect prisons at any time. The Superior
Judges of the City Courts can inspect the prison located within their jurisdiction. The head of the Supreme
10 The role of the visiting justices is discussed in “Community Participation”.

133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

Court can inspect any prison in Egypt at any time.

B. Problems and Countermeasures
Some of the officials mandated by law to conduct inspections/visit are not qualified and experienced
inspectors and they rarely inspect/visit prison institutions. Sometimes they delegate their responsibility totheir subordinates. Further, some of them are not really concerned about the real situation and problems
faced by prison institutions.
Visits by judges and prosecutors in Japan are conducted formally and the information is not fully disclosed
to them.
In Vanuatu, a constant change of government poses a problem as the new government appoints a newminister.
The group agreed that procedural and substantive matters must be considered in the inspection.
Procedural inspection means looking into the procurement procedure for prison supplies, food, etc.
Substantive inspection means looking into the compliance by the prison administration withconstitution/statutory laws and human rights instruments in the treatment of prisoners.
To ensure transparency, the group recognizes the importance of having a third party to conduct
inspection of the prison institutions. In this connection, an opinion was expressed that the inspection teamshould include at least one member from the community. However, some of the participants expressed
reservations on this matter as it could compromise the security of the prison.
The participants agreed that an external inspectorate should be introduced such as Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Prisons in the United Kingdom. It provides independent scrutiny and public assurance andreports in public. The Chief Inspector is appointed by the Home Secretary from outside the Prison Service
although some of the Inspectorate staff are seconded from the Prison Service. The Inspectorate inspects foroutcomes, not processes. It also inspects against published criteria, and focuses on four tests of a healthyprison, namely safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement. The Inspectorate provides infrequent
but in-depth inspection. It carries out a five year cycle of full inspections (three yearly for juveniles),together with a programme of short inspections, usually unannounced, in-between to check progress.

XII. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A. Current Situation
In Thailand, the Ministry of Justice created a Correctional Council Board in every province this year. The
Board consists of fifteen members appointed from the criminal justice agencies and various public andprivate agencies for two years. The Director of the Provincial Prison is appointed as the Secretary of theBoard. It is responsible for giving advice, policy or guidelines to develop work and recruit resources for the
rehabilitation and treatment of offenders. The Board has also the duty to receive a prisoner’s complaints
relating to the misconduct of a prison staff member.
In Korea, at least one community member sits on the Disciplinary Board. Due to the recent amendmentof the Prison Law in 1999, Korean prisons started to invite community members to attend disciplinary
hearings in order to secure fairness of the procedure. The members are usually volunteers who do someother activities in prison such as prison chaplain duties or educational activities. Community members can
express their opinion during the hearing as usual board members but the final decision is made by thewarden.
In Malaysia, visiting justices comprise of people of different professions from the community elected on a
yearly basis by the government. A board of visiting justices is assigned to each prison. They are entitled tovisit prisons each month and hear complaints by prisoners. The law also allows them to inspect prisons. The
comments of the visiting justices are forwarded to the chairman of the board and to the Director General.

B. Problems and Countermeasures
In all the participating countries, community involvement is limited to the implementation of the134127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

inmates’ rehabilitation programmes such as religious and educational activities either voluntarily or uponrequest.
Each participant agreed that the positive attitude and active involvement of the community are
indispensable factors in the successful rehabilitation of prisoners. The group agreed that the extent ofparticipation of the community should be left to each country taking into account their own culture and local
needs.
It was expressed that community participation should be limited to the rehabilitation aspect of prisoners.
Allowing community participation in the other aspects of prison may disrupt the smooth running of theprison administration.
The Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) of the United Kingdom, which replaced the Boards ofVisitors, is worth mentioning. IMBs are composed of volunteer Board members who regularly visit prisons.
While the old Boards operated largely independently, IMBs have a new National Council with the authority
to direct Boards rather than just advise, thus, ensuring greater consistency. IMBs have a particular role inthe complaints process and are bound by law to be satisfied with the treatment of prisoners, including
examination of the complaints records and statistics as well as individual replies. Prisoners may also raisecomplaints confidentially with the IMB.

XIII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Prison administrations are confronted with issues and problems that hinder the full and effective
implementation of the rules laid down by the UN SMR. The group, after taking into account the diverse
legal, social, economic and geographical conditions existing in their respective countries, discussed thepossible recommendations to the problems confronting their prison administrations. The summary of thegroup’s recommendations include:
1)

Full utilization of existing facilities by transferring prisoners can alleviate overcrowding of someinstitutions. However, in order to fully counter the problem of overcrowding, increased use ofalternatives to imprisonment is inevitable;

2)

More recreational activities should be considered to reduce the stress level of the inmates due toovercrowding;3)

Separation of inmates is important in any situation and when separate facilities cannot be provided,
separate sections should, at least, be considered;

4)

Dialogues must be conducted with the health department or private medical organizations/associations to improve prison medical services. Every country must ensure that the healthcare of
the prison population is at least equal to the medical health service provided to the general
population;

5)

Audio-visual aids should be used in imparting information to prisoners. Prison administrations
should consider the use of audio-visual aids in informing the prisoners of their rights, privileges,
responsibilities, application of prison rules and regulations and the conditions of their imprisonment.
The use of audio-visual aids is especially effective in conveying information to uneducated prisoners
as the information is presented to more than one sense (e.g. sight as well as hearing), hence, more
information is taken in and better understood and remembered;

6)

The group acknowledges that maintaining contact with family and friends play an important role in
the rehabilitation process of prisoners. There is a need, therefore, to incorporate the latest
communications technology such as e-mail and a video visit system. However, these forms ofcommunication must be strictly monitored when necessary;

7)

Certain basic features of natural justice as in criminal trial proceedings are to be observed in
disciplinary proceedings to ensure transparency and fairness. Human rights issues should also betaken into consideration in procedures pertaining to prison disciplinary punishment;

135

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

8)Adoption of some form of mediation to settle prison conflicts/disturbances. Mediation could have arole in reducing prison tension and building social and conflict resolution skills for inmates;

9)

Effective prison and inmate management must be employed to reduce prison incidents. Suicide andother prison incidents such as escape, conflicts and disturbances are serious. They are significant
issues that must be addressed by prison management. Inmates having a particular high risk ofcommitting suicide, escaping and causing a disturbance must be given greater attention;10) Establishment of independent bodies to inspect prisons may be considered. Prisons, being closed
institutions, need an independent body or person from outside who will conduct an independent
inspection of all the aspects of prison administration and make necessary recommendations for the
improvement of the treatment of prisoners and the effective administration of penal institutions;11) Active community involvement in certain prison affairs must be encouraged to ensure transparency
and accountability. The prison administration should disclose as much information as possible inorder to gain the confidence of the community; and
12) Outsourcing of certain functions of prison administration to the private sector may be considered
under certain suitable conditions in order to effectively utilize available resources. In somecountries, private companies may be allowed to operate prisons. However, it must be ensured thatthe rules and regulations for prison management are determined by the government, including
disciplinary action.
The Group would like to stress that the recommendations reflected in this paper are not exclusive. Other
measures relevant to the effective administration of penal institutions have to be continually explored andadditional solutions sought through the experiences and practices of other countries.

XIV. CONCLUSION
There is no single or easy solution to the problems confronting the prison administrations. Prison
management must continue to explore and consider measures, both short-term and long-term, in resolving
their problems. In this connection, it is important for prison management to initiate and use forward
planning, this means that management must not be reactive, its plans and programmes must be based on
clearly developed objectives and able to anticipate issues and problems.
To fully realize the objectives of the penal system, changes in the attitude of the people from within andoutside the prison must simultaneously take place. Efforts must be directed not only towards improving theattitude of the prison officers/staff and prisoners but also the attitude of policy and decision makers,
members of the business sector, academia, media and the individual members of the community. Prison
reforms in the administration of penal institutions and the improvement of the treatment of prisoners canonly be achieved through the concerted efforts of all the sectors of society.

136