- In recent years, detainees incarcerated for acts related to terrorism have been increasing in number in prisons.
- They are placed in specific quarters in order to be separated from other detainees.
- But their conditions of detention are "likely to infringe, in various ways, their fundamental rights", worries in a report the Controller General of places of deprivation of liberty, Adeline Hazan.
What to do with radicalized prisoners? It is this thorny question that the prison administration has been trying to answer since France is in the sights of terrorist groups like Daesh. Hundreds of indoctrinated young people, arrested after trying to reach Syria or carry out an attack on the territory, have been imprisoned. Faced with this unprecedented situation, the State is trying to separate them from ordinary prisoners by placing them in specific neighborhoods, in order to avoid the spread, behind bars, of their deadly ideology.
But their conditions of detention are "likely to infringe, in various ways, their fundamental rights", worries in a report the Controller General of places of deprivation of liberty, Adeline Hazan. In this interview given to 20 Minutes , the one who has been at the head of this independent institution for six years explains why it is necessary that these prisoners, all extremely watched, be the object of a personalized care and can prepare their release from detention. "Because they will come out at one point or another," she warns.
In 2014, detainees from Fresnes prison convicted of acts related to terrorism were brought together. Since then, write yourself in this report, the prison administration has opted for a "mixed system", "no regrouping, no dispersion". Does this mean that she still does not know how to deal with this type of prisoner?
Yes, one has the impression that she is still groping. I fully understand that the prison administration is looking for solutions to deal with radicalized prisoners. The problem is that after each serious or dramatic event, it changes the tracking and care arrangements put in place. This was the case after the attacks in 2015, or after the assault on a supervisor by an inmate at Osny prison in 2016. It caused insecurity for the guards and the detainees, but also insecurity legal for devices that have been developed without precedents having been seriously evaluated.
You also believe that placing detainees in specific neighborhoods means isolating them completely ...
It is an isolation which does not say its name and which is accompanied by totally exorbitant security and surveillance measures under ordinary law. Strip searches are systematic, cell exits are supervised by supervisors who are often very well equipped ... regardless of the degree of radicalization of the detainee. However, the profiles of these prisoners are very heterogeneous. This goes from the young person who wanted to leave for Syria and who failed to the perpetrator of an attack very anchored in a process of violent radicalization. These prisoners are very different from each other. But they are subject to the same treatment which prevents individualization of their care.
Exactly, why is it important to individualize this care?
They must be able to prepare for their release from prison. Because they will come out at one point or another. However, a 2016 law does not allow prisoners convicted of terrorism to benefit from sentence adjustment measures, parole, placement on an electronic bracelet, reduced sentence, permission to exit… The risk is that, due to lack of hope, they are becoming more and more radical. If they go out without being prepared, it will be dangerous for them and for society. In our opinion, these specific neighborhoods seem to us more to be a tool for managing a population considered to be difficult than a tool allowing real care, the aim of which is to avoid a violent act.
You also point out, in this report, the troubled role of certain stakeholders ...
When common law prisoners liable to be radicalized are assessed, they meet with psychologists, educators, etc. But they do not know the reason why they are asked to see them. So there is an ethical problem that arises. Prisoners in pre-trial detention are asked to speak about the facts that led to their detention. But they do not know that what they say will end up in a report that will end up in a judge's file. It is a problem of transparency, we must warn people when they are the subject of this monitoring.
But if they learn that they are suspected of radicalization, they could change their attitude…
Yes, absolutely ... There is a gray area that is not in line with basic human rights.
You also say in this report that the role of prison intelligence needs to be clarified. That is to say ?
Since prison intelligence has belonged to the intelligence community, it has been very present in detention. Sometimes the local delegate will ask for information from a supervisor without the director of the establishment being aware. So there are things that should be clarified to prevent the management of the establishment from being placed in a somewhat complicated situation.
So what do you think should be done as a priority?
In addition to what I have already said, it seems to me that radicalization prevention programs need to be reviewed. Currently, they are quickly arrested, there is little content, the interveners do not stay long, the prisoners are not very interested ... It is important to act now because the problem of managing radicalized prisoners is acute, but is still there before us? People are detained abroad, especially in Syria. The government decided about a year ago not to bring them back. But these are positions that may not be immutable. From a geopolitical point of view, we do not know what can happen in the future.
Society
LREM offers new "security measures" for terrorists who leave prison
Justice
Terrorism: Senate wants to create new measure to monitor prison leavers
- Justice
- Terrorism
- Jail
- Inmates
- Radicalization