Mistreatment of Adult Prisoners within Correctional Institutions in Papua New Guinea

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

CHAPTER 1 Facts and history of PNG and its law and order problems
1.1. History, diversity, government and the economy of Papua New Guinea.
1.2. Law and order Problems in Papua New Guinea

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review
2.1. Justification for Punishment
2.1.1. Deterrence
2.1.2. Restitution
2.1.3. Incapacitation
2.1.4. Rehabilitation
2.1.5. Retribution
2.2. Papua New Guinea’s reason for punishing
2.2.1. Correctional Institution Service

CHAPTER 3 Treatment of Convicted adult prisoners in PNG
3.1. Housing of prisoners
3.1.1. International laws on the housing of prisoners
3.1.2. National Laws on the housing of Prisoners
3.1.3. Cases on poor housing of prisoners
3.1.4. Reports on poor housing of prisoners
3.2. Food for prisoners
3.2.1. International standard of food quality and quantity for prisons
3.2.2. National laws on minimum standard of food quality and quantity
3.2.3. Cases on mistreatment on food quality, quantity and preparation
3.2.4. Reports on food quality, quantity and preparation within correctional institutions in PNG
3.3. Health, hygiene and sanitation
3.3.1. International laws that provide for the health of prisoners
3.3.2. National laws that provide for the Health of prisoners
3.3.3. Case on the deprivation of the right to health and hygiene of prisoners
3.3.4. Reports on the deprivation of the right to health and hygiene of prisoner
3.4. Punishment of prisoners
3.4.1. International laws that provides for the standard and rules for punishment
3.4.2. National laws that provides for the standard and rules for punishment
3.4.3. Cases on excessive and inhumane punishment of prisoners
3.5. Classification of Prisoners
3.5.1. International laws that provides for the classification of prisoners
3.5.2. National laws that provide for the classification of prisoners
3.5.3. Case on transferring and visitation
3.6. Visitation and transferring of prisoners
3.6.1. International laws that provide for the visitation and transferring
3.6.2. National laws that provide for the visitation and transferring of prisoners
3.6.3. Cases on deprivation of prisoners visitation and transfer
3.7. Psychological trauma
3.8. Women prisoners in PNG Correctional Institutions
3.8.1. International laws that provide for the rights of women in prison
3.8.2. National laws that provide for the rights of women in prison
3.8.3. Cases and reports on the mistreatment of female prisoners

CHAPTER 4 Discussion

CHAPTER 5 Conclusion

PREFACE

This paper was written by the author in his final year of Law School at the University Of Papua New Guinea. In order for the author to be eligible to graduate at University of Papua New Guinea, he had to research and write on any issue of legal nature that was affecting the country (PNG). The course was to run for almost a year and the author had to do almost eight (8) months of research into the paper. The Author received the Highest Distinction (HD) for the Paper. Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten Collin Mark, LLB (UPNG)

ABSTRACT

The paper is focused on the Administration of Justice specifically the Correctional Institutions and the laws both National and International that govern the institution and its practice. The paper will focus on adult prisoners who have been incarcerated and sentenced and the type of treatment given to both male and female and will equate if such treatments and current practises by the Correctional Services and the Administrations Justice in Papua New Guinea is in compliance with various National and International laws.

The issue of abuse and mistreatment of prisoners is a topic of considerable relevance for the Papua New Guinea Law and Justice sector. The unique environments and the cultural diversity in which the Administration of Justice and other various government institutions operate are likely to confront these challenges with particular dilemmas that will require a range of funding’s to mitigate the problems associated with mistreatment and abuse of Human Right.

The paper will discuss the treatment of adult prisoners within Correctional Institutions in Papua New Guinea and will attempt to identify various theories as to why prisoners are punished, the paper will also attempt to address or identify some of the National and international laws that prohibits the use of torture and mistreatment in Correctional Institution, outline current issues on torture and mistreatment of prisoners within correctional institutions using articles, journals, reports and case laws.

Introduction

There are roughly 10.1 million people formally imprisoned worldwide, according to the latest estimates by the International Centre for Prison Studies’ World Prison Brief.^[1] There are many others who are detained in military detention facilities, held in some form of administrative detention, or detained by police and other security forces with little or no legal process and frequently are abused by the authorities. A majority of the world’s prison systems do not function at the level of the United Nations’ Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.^[2] In some countries, relevant International obligations and standards are deliberately disregarded.

Papua New Guinea is no exception to such deviation as it is apparent form International human rights groups, there is a real concerns as to the type treatment given to convicted prisoners in correctional institutions associated with the abuse of human rights. After forty-one years of independence; problems of law and order remain the single most important issue on the agenda of public debate in Papua New Guinea.

The impression is one of rising crime and social disorder, on the one hand, and an ineffective crime prevention capability on the other, which in this instances, one can understandably correlate to the rehabilitation process of prisoners in correctional institutions as a mean of prevention of future crimes. Against that background, this paper offers an exploratory and illuminative account about the nature of deficiency of human rights and delinquency in Papua New Guinea. A general descriptive analysis of mistreatment of prisoners in Papua New Guinea is offered, with examination of the prevalence of law and order problems in different parts of the country.

The paper advocates that the increasing law and order problem in Papua New Guinea is a manifestation of a dysfunctional administration of the Correctional Services which materializes as a result of inadequate funding form the National Government and a consistent reluctance in the recognition by the authorities in charge in the Administration of Justice to the rule of law which governs their practice and that same rule of law that give right to a person as a human being which is the prehistoric pillar that holds together a world of one nation in one fold, the Independent State of Papua New Guinea.

International human rights groups have repeatedly called for an inquiry into Papua New Guinea’s jails, citing concerns about overcrowding, limited access to medical treatment and delays in court proceedings.^[3] Unfortunately these incidents, tragic as they are, happen all too frequently in Papua New Guinea as there is poor accountability in the administration of Justice as one may argue.

This paper will discuss the mistreatment of adult prisoners within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea. Incarcerated persons within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea are often mistreated, abused and deprived of their basic rights. Incarcerated persons are often deprived of: ^[4] (a) basic health services, (b) legal and other information while incarcerated, (c) prisons and living conditions are very unhygienic, prisoners are kept in inhabitable living conditions with very poor housing and accommodation, (d) authorities often use excessive forces and tend to abuse prisoners.

This paper will attempt to address the above mentioned issues within correctional institution in Papua New Guinea. Some of the more specific issues that this paper will address include; (a) health and hygiene of the prisoners, (b) housing of prisoners, (c) excessive forces and abuse by the authorities, (d) inhabitable living conditions and; (e) deprivation of legal and other information while incarcerated The paper will identify various theories as to why prisoners are punished and identify current issues surrounding prisoners using articles, journals, reports and case laws.

It must be understood that the paper is focused around the mistreatment of adult prisoners within correctional institution in Papua New Guinea, that include both men and women who have already been convicted and are serving their sentence.

This paper will identify some of the main law and order problems within Papua New Guinea and outline some relevant facts and data about the country. It is commonly understood that law and order problem is gripping every society in the world, as mentioned Papua New Guinea is no exception however the country’s’ law and order problems are somewhat peculiar given its extensive cultural diversity.

The latter sections articulate the relevance of the information provided by the case study in the wider context of mistreatment of adult prisoners, and the conclusion promotes a perspective that a great deal more investment will be required by all stakeholders to respond to the challenges of managing this serious law and order problem hence, abuse of prisoners.

CHAPTER 1 Facts and history of PNG and its law and order problems

This chapter will discuss some of the law and order problems in Papua New Guinea, provide a brief introduction of the problems associated with the correctional institution and will briefly discuss the history, government and the economy of Papua New Guinea based on reports and articles. This chapter will also provide figures and trends of prison populations in Papua New Guinea since the 1970s.

1.3. History, diversity, government and the economy of Papua New Guinea

Papua New Guinea shares borders with Australia to the south, Indonesia to the west, Solomon Islands to the east and the Federated States of Micronesia to the north with a total landmass of approximately 465,000 km2.^[5] Comparatively Papua New Guinea is the largest and most populous of all the Pacific Island Countries.^[6] Papua New Guinea is one of the most heterogeneous nations in the world. There are hundreds of ethnic groups indigenous to Papua New Guinea. The majority are Non-Austronesian, whose ancestors arrived in the New Guinea region thousands of years ago. The others are Austronesian, whose ancestors arrived in the region less than four thousand years ago.^[7] The country has an extremely diverse socio-cultural profile, with a multi-faceted and complex culture. It is estimated that more than a thousand different cultural groups exist with most having their own language.^[8] There are also other nationalities in Papua New Guinea including Asians, Europeans, Polynesians and Micronesians. While Papua New Guinea has a considerable cultural diversity the country is classified under Melanesia.

Papua New Guinea is a constitutional, federal, multiparty, parliamentary democracy with a population of approximately 6.3 million and more than 800 indigenous tribes.^[9] However the population distribution is uneven with 38 per cent of the total population in the interior highlands and an average growth rate above 2 per cent per year.^[10] Fertility remains high and as a result, the population has a very broad-based age-sex structure with about 40 per cent of the population being under the age of 15. This implies a very high level of youth dependency as well as a high child-woman ratio and low median age of less than 20 years.^[11]

The economy of PNG is highly dualistic, with a natural resource-based export economy supporting a small number of people, and a subsistence/semi-subsistence rural economy supporting the livelihoods of more than 80 per cent of the population. The labor force is currently growing by 53,000 persons per year and this is projected to increase to 66,000 by 2020.^[12] A large proportion of the labor force is engaged within the village economy producing their own subsistence on customary land along with a range of cash crops, including coffee, tea, copra, cocoa, and palm oil. Rural areas remain underprivileged in terms of physical infrastructure and access to financial and public services, which hinder agriculture growth and prospects in rural areas.

1.4. Law and order Problems in Papua New Guinea

Papua New Guinea is regarded as a third world country with law and order problems.^[13] Human rights abuses during the year 2010 included: ^[14] arbitrary or unlawful killings by police, severe police abuse of detainees, poor prison conditions, mass escapes of prisoners, police impunity, lengthy pretrial detention, infringement of citizens' privacy rights, government corruption, violence and discrimination against women, sexual abuse of children, trafficking in persons, discrimination against persons with disabilities, intertribal violence, violence against Asians, and ineffective enforcement of labor laws.

It is apparent that the government has not taken sufficient steps to address gender inequality, violence, corruption, or excessive use of force by police^[15] which has been the center of controversial debates in PNG in 2016 leading up to 2017. Rates of family and sexual violence are among the highest in the world, and perpetrators are rarely prosecuted.^[16] In the 1970S and 1980s a series of special committees to consider law and order problems were set up;^[17] however these committees have not been very functional. Prison breakouts are common, for instance, in 2016 a large group of almost 90 men escaped from Buimo prison in Lae, Papua New Guinea. Many of those who escaped were awaiting trial. 12 men were consequently shot dead by apprehending guards. At least 18 others were wounded and apprehended.^[18] The vast majority of those who escaped prison, including those shot or injured by the authorities had not been convicted of any criminal offence or was on remand. Reportedly some of these people have been on remand for several years. ^[19]

The most visible manifestation of PNG’s ‘law and order’ problems is the growth of so-called raskol crime in the main urban centres.^[20] Serious outbreaks of inter-group conflict have also occurred in parts of the Highlands. The spread of lawlessness has tended to follow larger patterns of development. Hence the concentration of organised crime in the expanding urban centres, armed hold-ups along the arterial highways, and inter-group conflict in the vicinity of large-scale resource development projects. The incidence of corruption, fraud and ‘white-collar’ crime has also increased significantly in recent years. Quantifying the extent of these problems is difficult given the paucity and partial coverage of available statistics. Criminal justice data is largely confined to the urban areas, where less that 15% of the total population live. They nevertheless suggest a marked growth in crime, with a 65% increase in the number of serious offences reported to the police over the last decade.^[21] Port Moresby, the national capital, accounts for 40% of all reported serious crimes. Mount Hagen (Western Highlands) and Lae (Morobe) rank second and third respectively. With a conservatively estimated population of over 313, 000. Port Moresby has been described as one of the most dangerous cities in the world. ^[22] Between 1996 and 1998, the capital alone accounted for a recorded total of 232 murders; 3,361 robberies; 2,131 break and enters; 556 cases of causing grievous bodily harm; 816 serious sexual assaults; 585 drug offences; and 307 cases of illegal use of firearms. Media and anecdotal accounts draw attention to the violent and predatory activities of raskol gangs. Although they tend to be concentrated in urban centres, criminal gangs are found in many rural areas as well. Sexual assaults against women and girls appear to be widespread, and are by no means confined to gangs.^[23] At a macro level, urban raskolism has developed in an environment where access to legitimate economic opportunities is severely restricted. A recent survey estimated that 18% of the Port Moresby population rely on crime as their principal source of income.^[24] Raskolism has become, in effect, the largest occupational category in the informal urban economy. Rampant corruption among the political elite has also fuelled the rise of raskolism, providing a powerful rationalisation for street criminals.

Falling commodity prices, deteriorating government services and infrastructure have contributed to rural poverty and the spread of raskolism from urban centres to rural areas. These developments, in turn, have placed enormous pressure on an already weak criminal justice system. As well as the devastating impact on individual victims, concerns about lawlessness have undermined commercial and investor confidence. They have become major constraints to the achievement of national and local development objectives. Employers in PNG recently ranked theft and crime, followed by corruption and then poor infrastructure, as the most significant obstacles to doing business.

Papua New Guinea has a relatively high proportion of its population in prison (140 per 100, 000), but the prisons are badly run. There are inadequate staffs for custodial duties, and poor management and administration,^[25] although a Community Order Act was passed in 1978 and a probation service was recommended in 1979, these cost-efficient and more constructive services have not been developed or used.^[26] According to the US State Department Human Rights Country Report 2013 on Papua New Guinea , there has been little decrease in the prison population since the year 1973 to 2000, however according table two, there has been an increase in the prison population from the year 2000 to 2012. Table 1. Papua New Guinea Prison Population Trend up to 2000 ^[27]

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 2. Papua New Guinea Prison Population Trend up to 2012 ^[28]

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

At the end of 2013, there were 3,863 inmates. According to the correctional services commissioner,^[29] three of the 19 prisons in the country experienced overcrowding during the year as opposed to previous years, when overcrowding was a problem in most prisons. The capacity of the country’s prisons was 4,166 inmates. Of the total number of inmates, one-third was pretrial detainees. There were 233 female inmates. Within the inmate population, there were 2,634 convicted prisoners, 1,229 pretrial detainees, and 142 male juveniles, consisting of 63 convicted prisoners and 79 pretrial detainees.

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review

This chapters will review the general theories on punishment including the Papua New Guinea’s reasons for punishing its wrong doers. It will go on to review the main reasons of punishment in Papua New Guinea and will review legislations and international laws that support its view on punishment in brief.

2.2. Justification for Punishment

Scholars define punishment as the imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, meted out by an authority in contexts ranging from child discipline to criminal law as a response and deterrent to a particular action or behavior that is deemed undesirable or unacceptable. ^[30] The meaning of the term punishment is seemingly clear; in simplicity one can say that punishment is the infliction of pain on someone for his or her wrongdoing by an authorized person or an authority. As mentioned there are different reasons as to why different jurisdictions (State) punish the wrongdoers. The intention varies from state to state however, this paper has identified five theories as to why authorities or States punish. Numbered below are five theories as to why different state or government punish convicted prisoners, the theories are as follows;

1) Deterrence the threat of punishment deters people from engaging in illegal acts.
2) Restitution the felon is required to take some action to at least partially return the victim to the status quo ante
3) Incapacitation a felon in prison cannot commit crimes and is imprisoned. An executed felon cannot commit a crime ever again.
4) Rehabilitation the punishment changes the felon in order to make him better citizen afterwards. (The punishment can include mandatory vocational training, counseling, drug treatment etc.)
5) Retribution the felon harmed society; therefore society will return harm to the felon (for the direct victims are entitled to inflict harm in return).

2.2.2. Deterrence

The theory of deterrence that has developed from the work of Hobbes, Beccaria, and Bentham relies on three individual components: severity, certainty, and celerity.^[31] They argue that the more severe a punishment, it is thought, the more likely that a rationally calculating human being will desist from criminal acts.

Deterrence is one of the reasons for punishing prisoners with the aim that punishment will deter people from engaging in illegal acts, hence, deterrence is the belief that society can stop crime by making punishment more severe than the benefits gained from criminal acts. There are two types of deterrence, Specific Deterrence and General Deterrence.^[32] Specific deterrence is aimed at individual offenders. By making the punishment so harsh, a particular offender should not recidivate in the future. On the contrary General deterrence however, is aimed at the general public. By making “an example” of an offender, the general public will learn to not commit a similar crime.^[33]

In R v Radich ^[34] the New Zealand court of appeal said that; “that one of the main reason of punishment is to protect the public from the commission of crime by making it clear to the offender and to the person with similar impulses.” The simple justification of deterrence can be a measure to prevent people from committing an offence, deterring previous offenders from re-offending, and preventing those who may be contemplating an offence they have not committed from actually committing it. This punishment is intended to be sufficient that people would choose not to commit the crime rather than experience the punishment. The aim is to deter everyone in the community from committing offences.

The fact that punishment does not prevent all similar crimes should not obscure the cogent fact that the fear of severe punishment does and will prevent the commission of many that would have been committed if it was thought that the offender could escape without punishment or only as light punishment.

2.2.3. Restitution

The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery.^[35] It is to be contrasted with thelaw of compensation, which is the law of loss-based recovery. Obligations to make restitution and obligations to pay compensation are each a type of legal response to events in the real world.^[36] The process of negotiation and the payment to the victim has become known as the process of compensation.^[37]

In primitive cultures the victim of crime punished the offender through personal retaliation or revenge. He inflicted physical injury or damage and took what he wanted from the offender as reparation for the commission of the crime.^[38]

The transition or evolution from private revenge to compensation has apparently occurred in many primitive cultures or societies as they have settled down and become economically stable. For instance, about one hundred years ago in the rural areas of Arabia it was noted that blood vengeance was practiced among the nomadic tribes outside the towns, while those living in the towns utilized the compensation process as the means of redressing criminal wrongs in order to avoid the socially disintegrating effects of retaliation.^[39]

The ancient concept of compensation or reparation to the victim has in modern times become incorporated into the civil law of torts. Nevertheless, remnants of the reparation concept are present in modem systems of criminal justice.

2.2.4. Incapacitation

Incapacitation is another way in which states can punish. Under the incapacitation ideology, offenders are kept under tight state control so as to minimize their ability to commit future criminal acts.^[40] The theory dictates that a felon in prison cannot commit crimes while imprisoned; hence, an executed felon cannot commit a crime ever again. Curtailment can be done in many ways, such as house arrest, intensive supervision probation, imprisonment, and death. A person who has been executed cannot victimize other inmates or escape and harm innocent citizens and, therefore, poses no future danger to those in prison or general society.^[41] Additionally, there is a belief by many that life imprisonment, even without a chance of parole, does not actually mean life. Some people believe someday that the vicious murderer sentenced to life will be released again to prey upon innocent citizens and therefor it is important and for the good of the general public that they are locked up.^[42]

In conclusion it can be said that Proponents of the incapacitation theory of punishment advocate that offenders should be prevented from committing further crimes either by their (temporary or permanent) removal from society or by some other method that restricts their physical ability to reoffend in some other way. Incarceration is the most common method of incapacitating offenders; however, other, more severe, forms such as capital punishment are also used. The overall aim of incapacitation is to prevent the most dangerous or prolific offenders from reoffending in the community.

2.2.5. Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is the re-integration into society of a convicted person and the main objective of modern penal policy, to counter habitual offending, also known as criminal recidivism. ^[43] Some punishment includes work to reform and rehabilitate the culprit so that they will not commit the offence again.^[44] This is distinguished from deterrence, in that the goal here is to change the offender's attitude to what they have done, and make them come to see that their behavior was wrong. The punishment changes the felon in order to make him better citizen afterwards. (The punishment can include mandatory vocational training, counseling, drug treatment etc.).

On the contrary it must be understood that there is a good deal of uncertainty as to how this can best be affected, what kind of offenders can be rehabilitated and whether some of the class offenders can be rehabilitated at all. Furthermore it is difficult for a judge or magistrate to on the information which is before the court, to assess these factors, although he may be assisted in this respect by a pre-sentencing report.

Rehabilitation is normally a dominant consideration in case of first time offenders and youthful offenders. In the case of R v Jones ^[45] a youth of 19 had been sentenced to five years imprisonment was given a lesser sentence of three years because of the fact that he was a youth and was to go into effective rehabilitation.

In conclusion it can be seen that rehabilitation is the re-integration into society of a convicted person and the main objective of modern penal policy, to counter habitual offending, also known as criminal recidivism.

2.2.6. Retribution

Retribution sometimes referred to as ‘just deserts’ is a complex punishment ideology that there must be punishment for wrong doers and that the punishment must be proportionate to the harm caused by the criminal act.^[46] This ideology is founded on the principle of lex talionis , which holds that the punishment must fit the crime. For example, in the Christian Bible, in Leviticus 24: 17-20, “And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth ... .” under this ideology is based upon ancient punitive reasons.^[47] The theory of retribution somewhat seemingly attached with the idea of death penalty for a person who commits crime. It is the idea that if a person takes a life, then he or she must sacrifice his or her own life. Thus, under this ideology murder is generally the only crime that should be punished by the death penalty.

Retribution is probably the most emotional of the punishment ideologies and support for the death penalty is frequently based upon emotions. For many people, the ideology of retribution is based upon the idea of revenge by the victim’s family and society in general, that sentencing someone to death relieves the anger and hurt brought forth by the act of violence. Retribution, including emotional retribution, is a frequent reason provided by those who support this theory.

2.3. Papua New Guinea’s reason for punishing

The principle role of the corrective institutions in Papua New Guinea is to detain securely those persons subjected to legal detention by the judicial system and, where possible to rehabilitate them.^[48] Rehabilitation of prisoners is not guaranteed however it is taken into paramount consideration when sentencing wrong doers by the court. In State v Buku ^[49] his Honor KAWI, J highlighted four objectives of sentencing and they are;

a)rehabilitation, b) restitution, c) retribution, and d) deterrence.

His Honor went further to make the following remarks;

…. in my view of these four sentencing objectives the two that will feature prominently in this sentence are the objectives of deterrence andrehabilitation.

Section 7 (1) (b) of the Correctional Service Act 1995 provides that the functions of the Service are inter alia to provide secure, efficient and humane facilities and to manage and maintain them in accordance with the Correctional Service Act and to develop and provide meaningful educational training and rehabilitation program for the benefit of detainees .

It must be understood that the detention or imprisonment (removal of freedom) is the main form of punishment for serious offences in PNG, and after fines, the main form of punishment for minor offence, consequently the primary function and principal responsibility of correctional institution is to confine detainees in such a way that they do not mix with or harm society.^[50]

Correctional service institutions in Papua New Guinea are in place to correct and rehabilitate detainees so that on return to society, they will be more useful and law abiding citizens than before, i.e. to reduce the incidence of recidivism.^[51] It must be further noted that rehabilitation is a varied and complex theory. It covers all those factors that can increase a prisoners change of becoming a law abiding citizen on his or her release, thus, reducing the incidence of repetition in crime, which in turn will reduce or at least hold steady the cost of maintaining corrective institutions.^[52]

On the contrary the worst types of cases the possibility of rehabilitation of the offender is not given much weight. In an appeal case, Kalabus v The State, ^[53] a 37-year-old male with a history of psychological sexual problems and a previous conviction for rape, took a nine-year-old female child from her home and raped and assaulted her in circumstances suggesting sexual sadism. The victim later died from her injuries. The accused pleaded guilty and the trial judge, after finding that the case was one that fell into the worst type of category of offences for which the penalty of life imprisonment should be reserved, sentenced him to life imprisonment. The offender appealed on the ground inter alia that the trial judge erred in failing to consider or properly consider the rehabilitation aspect of sentencing. However the court was of the view that the gravity of the offence did not warrant the court to consider rehabilitation. His Honor made the following remarks in relation to rehabilitation;

“In my view, there are three main areas of consideration in determining punishment in a case such as this — deterrence, retribution and the protection of the community.”

In a nut shell it can be seen that the reason for punishing in Papua New Guinea may depend on the type or the gravity of the offence committed by the offender. However as mentioned, the main reason for punishing offenders in Papua New Guinea is to rehabilitate the offender so that he becomes a better person and contributes meaningfully to the society upon release.

Prison experience is neither normal nor natural, and constitutes one of the more degrading experiences a person might endure.^[54] Instead of being rehabilitated in prisons, research all over the world as shown that people in prison experience mental deterioration and apathy, endure personality changes, and become uncertain about their identities.^[55] Subsequently, these prisoners find social adjustment and social integration difficult upon release; hence rehabilitation of prisoners is not achieved.

It is very important that the treatment of prisoners within Correctional Institutions in Papua New Guinea is given paramount consideration by the government and other stakeholders to fully rehabilitate prisoners. It must be understood that rehabilitation is a very complex issue and needs to be balanced, that is to say that the purposes of rehabilitation as opposed to other reasons for sentencing should by weighed thoroughly, hence punishment should not be too lenient so as to firstly cause a disservice to the community by failing to deter such offenders and secondly not adequately correspond to the gravity of the offence and having the desired resultant impact on the rehabilitationof the offender.^[56]

2.3.1. Correctional Service Institution in PNG

The PNG Correctional Service is governed and empowered by the PNG Correctional Service Act, No. 6 of 1995. The functions of the Corrective Institutions Service are governed by the legislation embodied in the Corrective Service Act and Regulations and the Criminal Code which define the powers and duties of the Commissioner, Officers and Assistant Correctional Officers.

In a nutshell the Correctional Service Act main functions are to;

(a) Established the Department of Correctional Service and including Correctional Officers and declared the department as a State Service under Section 188 (2) of the National Constitution;
(b) Provided for the functions and powers of the Correctional Service and its members and declared Correctional Officers to be a discipline force under Section 207 of the National Constitution;
(c) Established Correctional Institutions and provided for their administration and for security and control of detainees held in custody;
(d) Provided for the custody, status, care, welfare and discipline of detainees.

The core business of Correctional Service under Section 7 (1) (a, b, c, d) of the Correctional Service Act of 1995 is in:

1. Taking custody and control of all persons committed and sentenced to Correctional Institutions by warrant or order from the Courts; or, custody of persons by any other competent authority under any law in force in the country;
2. Providing secure, efficient and humane containment facilities for detainees according to the Correctional Service Act of 1995;
3. Developing and implementing meaningful educational, training and rehabilitation programs for detainees in order to transform them to become better citizens when they are released back into the society;
4. Developing and implementing core support training programs to pursue capacity excellence for Correctional Service Officers to perform their responsibility efficiently.

In summary the empowered legislation simply provides that the PNG Correctional Service endeavours to enhance the safety and security of the society through secure containment and rehabilitation of detainees, thus contributing to a Just, Safe and Secure PNG.

At the operational level, PNG Correctional Service manages and operates 20 Correctional Institutions and 2 community correctional centres (Rural Lock-ups). The institutions can accommodate between 3000 to 4000 detainees at any one time and are operated and managed by staff strength of 1404 uniformed and civilian officers.^[57]

As an organization in compliance with international standards and Human right laws, PNG Correctional Service is responsible for the provision of effective containment and management services for the detainees by ensuring to provide humane and secure containment facilities and services for its detainees. One of the core objectives of the PNGCS is to provide effective rehabilitation and re-integration programs through Community Corrective Centres (CCC) so that the community participates in the rehabilitation and reintegration of detainees back into societies .^[58]

It is the sole responsibility of PNG Correctional Service to provide rehabilitation and re-integration services to the detainees through effective provision of spiritual, educational, life skills, agriculture and vocational training which are focused on rebuilding, equipping and transforming the detainees into becoming better citizens in the communities.^[59]

PNG Correctional Service has been inadequately funded apart from other Law and Justice Sector Agencies. Most of its infrastructures were erected in the 1950s with minimal or no maintenance done until present. The technical assistance in the provision of corporate and operational capacity is very minimal. The entire prison fences in most of the institutions are on the verge of collapse, thus secure and efficient containment is not guaranteed. And so, security of this country is a now major concern if not addressed immediately.^[60]

The bellow diagram illustrates the Organisational structure of the Papua New Guinea Correctional Service Institution. The structure is not that complex compared to other institutions established by the Administration of Justice however; the Papua New Guinea Correctional Service Institution simply lacks the capability to fully function and to achieve its goals in compliance with national and international laws.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

CHAPTER 3

This Chapter will discuss the mistreatment, torture and deprivation of basic human rights of prisoners within the correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea.

Treatment of Convicted adult prisoners in PNG

It must be understood that the mistreatment, torture and deprivation of basic human rights of prisoners occur in all countries of the world where there are law enforcement officials and prison officials carrying out duties of arrest and detention.^[62] It is only with significant efforts on the part of governments, law enforcement agencies, corrections authorities and others that the risk of mistreatment or ill-treatment and torture can be reduced.^[63]

As mentioned PNG’s law and order problem is very serious especially with the correctional service institutions, however to suggest that the correctional institutions of Papua New Guinea are not working is not in itself a condemnation, however the current situations based on reports and case analysis of mistreatment of adults within the Correctional Institutions in PNG tends to suggest that there are major reforms needed. This part of the paper will highlight some of the acceptable treatments that should be given to adult prisoners within the correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea.

To better understand the practice of the correctional institution in Papua New Guinea the following issues will be addressed;

1. Housing of Prisoners
2. Food
3. Health and Hygiene of the prisoners
4. Punishment of prisoners
5. Classification of prisoners
6. Visitation and transfer of prisoners
7. Physiological trauma
8. Women prisoners

3.1. Housing of prisoners

Poor housing conditions are associated with a wide range of health conditions, including respiratory infections, asthma, lead poisoning, injuries, and mental health.^[64] Features of substandard housing, including lack of safe drinking water, absence of hot water for washing, ineffective waste disposal, intrusion by disease vectors (e.g., insects and rats) and inadequate food storage have long been identified as contributing to the spread of infectious diseases.^[65] Crowding is associated with transmission of tuberculosis^[66] and respiratory infections.^[67] Poor housing of prisoners may also adversely affect mental health of prisoners, although the evidence is more tentative. Excessive indoor temperature has been linked with irritability and social intolerance.^[68] Damp, moldy, and cold indoor conditions may be associated with anxiety and depression.^[69] A study in Glasgow demonstrated that dampness was significantly and independently associated with poorer mental health. It is very important that all human beings are provided with proper housing as it is an essential need for survival. In this part, the paper will address some of the problem associated with the housing of prisoners within the correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea.

3.1.1. International laws on the housing of prisoners

All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.^[70] International Conventions goes further by providing that all persons deprived of their liberty shall have the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, drinking water, accommodation , clothing and bedding.^[71] Accommodation for prisoners shall provide adequate cubic content of air, floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation.^[72] International laws are considerate about health issues associated poor accommodation; hence international laws provide that accommodation for prisoners shall provide adequate cubic content of air, floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation.^[73]

International laws also provide that despite a person deprived of his liberty, he shall be treated with dignity, respect and humanely. Prisoners shall be provided with a decent sleeping accommodation. The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , ^[74] in Part 1 (9) and (10) provides that: (1) Where sleeping accommodation is in individual cells or rooms, each prisoner shall occupy by night a cell or room by himself. If for special reasons, such as temporary overcrowding, it becomes necessary for the central prison administration to make an exception to this rule, it is not desirable to have two prisoners in a cell or room. 10. All accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation

It must be understood that, despite the fact that Papua New Guinea is not a member of the conventions, the rules of such international conventions is still applicable in Papua New Guinea jurisdiction because of the fact that it is classified under international customary law, ^[75] thus Papua New Guinea needs to take into account such international conventions and the standard under the international laws.

3.1.2. National Laws on the housing of Prisoners

Papua New Guinea national laws do provide for proper accommodation for prisoners within the correctional institutions, however according to cases and reports which are discussed in the descending paragraphs shows the correctional institutions and authorities in Papua New Guinea are not in compliance with international standards and national laws.

Section 36 (1) of the Constitution provides that ;

No person shall be submitted to torture (whether physical or mental), or to treatment or

Punishment that is cruel or otherwise inhuman, or is inconsistent with respect for the inherent

Dignity of the human person. Furthermore section 37 (17) of the Constitution provides that; all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Taking into consideration section 36 (1) and section 37 (17) of the Constitution it must be understood that, despite a person is deprived of his or her freedom, he is must be treated properly such as proper prison housing so that they can serve their time.

Section 122 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 provides for the accommodation of prisoners in correctional institutions in PNG. The provision provides as follows;

(1) All accommodation provided for the use of detainees, and in particular all sleeping accommodation, shall meet all requirements of health and climatic conditions as are consistent with local living conditions.

(2) Where sleeping accommodation is–

(a) in dormitories–they shall be occupied by detainees selected as being suitable to associate with one another in such conditions and there shall be regular supervision by night in keeping with the nature of the correctional institution; and (b) in individual cells or rooms–each detainee shall occupy by night a cell or room by himself.

(3) The sanitary arrangements shall be adequate to enable a detainee to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner.

(4) Adequate bathing and shower installations shall be provided so that a detainee may be enabled and required to have a bath or shower, at a temperature suitable to the climate, as frequently as necessary for the general hygiene according to season, but at least once a week.

(5) All parts of a correctional institution regularly used by a detainee shall be properly maintained and kept scrupulously clean at all times.

3.1.3. Cases on poor housing of prisoners

In Re the Visiting Justice Inspection of Bomana Corrective Institution,^[76] A Judge made a Visiting Justice inspection of the Bomana Central Corrective Institution and found out that the state of the B compound ablutions was totally unhygienic. There were shower facilities without washers, and water running. The toilets were filthy and stank. There was no evidence of disinfectant or other cleansing materials being made available to clean these facilities. There was no fly wire and consequently the food preparation area attracted many blue flies, there was a total absence of beds. There were no beds at all in the juvenile section. There was a shortage of beds in proper repair in the Remand Section. Plywood was needed, in some cases, to repair metal bed frames, which rendered them in-serviceable.

The visit of the Judge revealed that there was a direct mistreatment of prisoners in correctional institutions, hence, a breach of international conventions and Correctional Service Act and Regulation.

3.1.4. Reports on poor housing of prisoners

One of the grave concerns within the correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea is the housing or accommodation for adult prisoners; prison windows in some Highlands areas are simply barred openings in the walls.^[77] A report or correctional services in PNG outlined that the standard accommodation for prisoners is a 50 man dormitory type block,^[78] with many adult cells having unsanitary night toilet. Many still have buckets for their use within the building and prisoners in many institutions complained about the smell. Most of the highlands institutions lacked beds as a result adult prisoners sleep on the dirt or the concrete floor. Given the fact that the temperature is very cold during the nights up in the highlands most of the prisoners are cold at night. Such practice is injurious to health of a human being.

Accommodation is essential for the health and wellbeing of human beings, adult prisoners should be accommodated in houses or facilities that are conducive and humane taking into consideration the climate of that particular place or area, for instance night temperature are colder up in the highlands of Papua New Guinea whereas it is humid in the coastal areas. Adult prisoners up in the Highlands should have proper blocks with prober bed and blankets to sleep at night, proper night sanitary, free of bad smell and adult prisons should not be over crowded.

Similar consideration should be given to prisoners in the coastal areas where the climate is humid and malaria is a threat, mosquito nets are necessary however this issue has not been addressed.^[79] Most correctional institutions around the country lack proper mess facilities, kitchens are not fully equipped, and a large amount of cooking equipment is needed for most institutions around the country given the number of prisoners.^[80] As mentioned toilet arrangement in many institutions is inadequate. Toilet blocks are not situated away from dining and cooking areas. For example, in Daru Toilet bowels a re so close that the atmosphere at times is quite nauseous).^[81] A report titled Country Reports on Human Rights Practices ^[82] revealed that despite minor improvements to existing cells and increased capacity, prison conditions remained poor, and the prison system continued to suffer from serious underfunding. Neither prisons nor do police detention centers have proper medical care facilities. Overcrowding in prisons and police cells remained a problem in some facilities.

Despite the Australian assistance used to upgrade prison facilities there is still a great need for the housing of prisoners. Two prisons, in Tari, Southern Highlands, and Daru, Western Province, remained closed during the year due to tribal conflicts and unresolved health problems, respectively, and a third prison in the Eastern Highlands Province was temporarily closed due to water-related health problems.^[83] Death in prisons or pre-trial centers was not prevalent; prisoners had reasonable access to potable water however a number of prisons experience problems with lack of adequate ventilation and lighting.^[84] The current practice is somewhat different to international conventions and national laws in relation to the housing of prisoners. Papua New Guinea prison buildings lack maintenance and the working conditions are far from satisfactory.^[85]

3.2. Food for prisoners

It is apparent that human beings need food to survive as food is essential for human beings on a daily basis. It is common to assume that adult prisoner’s work force performs hard labor and that this should be compensated for by increasing their daily calories intake and the food being served should be nutritious and should be served three times a day.^[86]

Image downloaded form http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prisoners-demanding-calorie-counts-can-7546945

Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and it must be well prepared and served.

3.2.1. International standard of food quality and quantity for prisons

Part 1 (20) of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ^[87] provides for the minimum standard of food quality and quantity in prisons: (1) Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served.

(2) Drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it.

Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides that all prisoners should be provided with adequate food and drinking water. All prisoners shall be provided with wholesome and adequate food at the usual hours and with drinking water available whenever needed.^[88]

It must be understood that international laws are in place to provide guideline for member states to enact national laws to give right to prisoners.

3.2.2. National laws on minimum standard of food quality and quantity

Section 37 (17) of the Constitution provides that; all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Taking into consideration section 37 (17) of the Constitution it must be understood that, despite a person is deprived of his or her freedom, he must be treated with humanity and with the respect for the inherent dignity of human person, that is to say that prisoners deprived of their liberty must be treated and fed properly and accordingly.

Section 123 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 provides that:

(1) A detainee has a right to be provided with food that is adequate to maintain the health and wellbeing of the detainee.

(2) Where practicable, a detainee shall be provided with special dietary food where necessary on account of the health or religious beliefs of the detainee.

(3) The Regulations and Standing Orders may make provision for the scale of daily rations and for the purchase, preparation, distribution and disposal of foods.

(4) Where the management of a correctional institution is not jeopardized, the Commanding Officer may authorize the provision of food to a detainee at the detainee’s own cost

Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served.

Section 70 of the Correctional service regulation Act (1995) provides;

The schedule of detainee meals shall ensure that the food provided to each detainee residing in a correctional institution satisfies minimum nutritional standards by providing food from each of the following food groups in the amounts and proportions provided in Standing Orders:–

(a) protein; (b) staple; (c) fruit; (d) vegetables; (e) dairy. Furthermore Section 71 of the Act ^[89] provides that:

A schedule of meals shall take the following requirements into account:–

(a) nutritional needs; (b) usual daily activity of the detainees; (c) budget; (d) seasonal variations; (e) facilities available for preparation and storage of food; (f) availability of local produce.

3.2.3. Cases on mistreatment on food quality, quantity and preparation

Despite national and international laws that provide for the quality, quantity and preparation of food, cases and reports shows that the Papua New Guinea correctional institutions are not in compliance with the law. The practice is somewhat different in the Papua New Guinea, there have been a number of reports as to the mistreatment of adult prisoners in Papua New Guinea in relation to the quantity and the quality of the food that is being served on a daily basis considering that PNG has rich earth where growing crops should not be an issue. However this is not the case, there a number of reported cases that the quantity and the quality food served to the adult prisoners in correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea is somewhat contrary to international laws and not in line with the national laws.

In Re the Visiting Justice Inspection of Bomana Corrective Institution, ^[90] A Judge made a Visiting Justice inspection of the Bomana Central Corrective Institution, the inspection made by his Honor found that food preparation and food quality was not in correspondence to Section 123 of the Correctional Service Act 1995.

3.2.4. Reports on food quality, quantity and preparation within correctional institutions in PNG

A very small percentage of food consumed is produced in corrective institutions and that manual trades and educations are so little fostered, mainly through lack of finance and trained professionals.^[91] Food ration is a major problem in the corrective institutions in PNG, many adult prisoners tend to be malnourished, inadequate proper ration and more hard labor is common in most corrective institutions in PNG.^[92]

A report titled Law and Order in PNG ^[93] revealed that Papua New Guinea prisons are worse than the average across the world because they are poorly staffed and badly administered. Middle management is practically non- existent. Prisoners often suffer from malnutrition; the report concluded that the quality of food is a major problem in the Papua New Guinea and needs address. Furthermore when female prisoners especially the ones pregnant or breast feeding small children are sentenced, these women and their children are severely disadvantaged given the quantity and the quality of the diet served. The report also found out that women and children do not have Maternal and child health checks while in the institution.^[94]

A Report done on the Optic Neuropathy^[95] revealed that since 2000, ophthalmologists providing clinical services in Madang, Papua New Guinea, have become aware of local adult prisoners presenting with gradual vision loss. An informal assessment conducted in Beon Jail in 2007 indicated that at least 40 local inmates had a significant level of visual impairment. This was most commonly associated with atrophy of the optic nerves, a result of optic neuropathy (ON) and suspected to be caused by nutritional deficiency.

Nutrient intake data generated from the 24 –hour recall suggested that less than 25% of prisoners met the estimated average requirement (EAR) for vitamin A, folate, vitamin C, vitamin E, potassium and calcium. Biochemical assessment indicated that over half of the prisoners fell below the cut-offs values of deficiency for biochemical indicators of vitamin A, folate and vitamin C. An elevated plasma homocysteine concentration was also found in 79% of prisoners. Blood concentrations of tocopherol, thiamin, B12 and selenium predominantly fell within normal ranges (<5% below recommended cut-offs).

The apparent cluster of cases within the jail, in particular in long-term prisoners, the gradual onset, and bilateral presentation of the ON observed suggested the disease to be a result of a nutritional or toxic cause. Crude dietary histories of the prisoners indicated that the prison diet was unbalanced and almost completely lacking in fruit and vegetables. Nutritional deficiency was suspected as the most probable cause of the ON found in Beon Jail prisoners.

3.3. Health, hygiene and sanitation

Maintaining personal hygiene is necessary for many reasons; personal, social, health, psychological or simply as a way of life. Keeping a good standard of hygiene helps to prevent the development and spread of infections, illnesses and bad odor.^[96] Prisoners need to be well and healthy despite the fact that they are being incarcerated.^[97]

3.3.1. International laws that provide for the health of prisoners

The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health is a human right.^[98] It is a basic requirement that all prisoners should be given a medical examination as soon as they have been admitted to a prison or place of detention.^[99] Any necessary medical treatment should then be provided free of charge.^[100] Prisoners and all detained persons have the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.^[101] Prisoners should have free access to the health services available in the country.41 Decisions about a prisoner’s health should be taken only on medical grounds by medically qualified people.^[102] The medical officer has an important responsibility to ensure that proper health standards are met. He or she can do this by regularly inspecting and advising the director of the prison on the suitability of food, water, hygiene, cleanliness, sanitation, heating, lighting, ventilation, clothing, bedding and opportunities for exercise.^[103]

Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 22 (1) and (2) provides that every prison should have proper health facilities and medical staff to provide for a range of health needs, including dental and psychiatric care. Sick prisoners who cannot be treated in the prison, such as prisoners with mental illness, should be transferred to a civilian hospital or to a specialized prison hospital. All prisoners shall have access to a qualified dental practitioner.^[104]

Medical personnel have a duty to provide prisoners and detainees with health care equal to that which is afforded to those who are not imprisoned or detained. ^[105] International laws also provide that all prisoners shall be provided with facilities to meet the needs of nature in a clean and decent manner and to maintain adequately their own cleanliness and good appearance,^[106] and shall have at least one hour’s daily exercise in the open air if the weather permits.^[107] Health is very important for the living and wellbeing of every human being, Part 1(15) and (16) of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , ^[108] provides for personal hygiene of prisoners:

15. Prisoners shall be required to keep their persons clean, and to this end they shall be provided with water and with such toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness. 16. In order that prisoners may maintain a good appearance compatible with their self-respect, facilities shall be provided for the proper care of the hair and beard, and men shall be enabled to shave regularly.

Part 62 of the Convention goes further by providing that:

62. The medical services of the institution shall seek to detect and shall treat any physical or mental illnesses or defects which may hamper a prisoner's rehabilitation. All necessary medical, surgical and psychiatric services shall be provided to that end.

Part 1 (17) goes further by providing that “Every prisoner who is not allowed to wear his own clothing shall be provided with an outfit of clothing suitable for the climate and adequate to keep him in good health. Such clothing shall in no manner be degrading or humiliating.”

3.3.2. National laws that provide for the Health of prisoners

Health is very important and needs to be taken into serious consideration by authorities in charge of prison facilities. The international laws and standard and the national laws in relation to the health of prisoners is very clear and on point as to the standard in which prisoner’s health should be considered.

All clothing shall be clean and kept in proper condition. Underclothing shall be changed and washed as often as necessary for the maintenance of hygiene . Section 124 Correctional Service Act 1995 provides for the proper regulation of clothing for prisoners in correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea, the provision provides as follows

(1) A detainee shall be issued with clothing that is–

(a) suitable for the climate and for any work that the detainee is required to do; and (b) adequate to maintain the health of the detainee.

(2) Regulations and Standing Orders may provide for–

(a) the clothing issue of detainees; and (b) standards of personal appearance to be maintained, taking into consideration normal patterns of dress and behaviour and appearance and the security and good order of the correctional institution.

Hygiene is very important and as such it is proper for prisons to keep their persons clean, and should be provided with water and with such toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness.

In order for prisoners to maintain a good appearance compatible with their self-respect, facilities shall be provided for the proper care of the hair and beard, and men shall be enabled to shave regularly. Section 125of the Correctional Service Act 1995 provides for hygiene , the provision provides that the Regulations may prescribe standards of hygiene.

Section 96 of the Correctional Service Regulation Act 1995 provides that:

(1) A detainee shall be required to keep his person clean, and to this end shall be provided with water and with such toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness.

(2) A detainee’s hair is to be kept short, neat and tidy and male detainees are required to be clean shaven.

(3) A detainee shall not make any change to the detainee’s own or any other detainee’s physical appearance whilst in the custody of the Commissioner.

Section 79 of the Correctional Service Regulation Act 1995 also provides that: (1) A detainee has a right to be in the open air for at least one hour each day.

(2) A detainee has a right to exercise necessary for the maintenance of health.

Furthermore Section 141 of the Act provides that;

(1) A detainee has a right to reasonable medical care and treatment consistent with community standards and necessary for the preservation of health including, with the approval of the Departmental Head of the Department responsible for health matters but at the expense of the detainee, a private medical practitioner.

(2) The Commissioner shall appoint a medical officer with the prescribed qualifications to each correctional institution.

(3) The Regulations and Standing Orders may make further provisions in relation to the health of detainees

As provided above the main purpose of function of correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea is to provide secure, efficient and humane facilities and to manage and maintain prisoners in accordance with the Correctional Service Act and to develop and provide meaningful educational training and rehabilitation programs for the benefit of detainees so that when they go out to the society they can be law abiding citizens and contribute meaningfully to the society therefor section 127 of the Correctional service Act 1995 provides for work generally and states that;

(1) A detainee under sentence shall, subject to his physical and mental fitness as determined by the medical officer, be required to work.

(2) The work provided for a detainee to do under Subsection (1)–

(a) shall be sufficient work of a useful nature to keep the detainee actively employed for a normal working day; and (b) shall not be of an afflictive nature; and (c) shall be such as will maintain or increase the ability of the detainee to earn an honest living after release.

(3) Vocational training in useful trades shall be provided where possible for a detainee (especially a young detainee) who is able to profit thereby.

(4) Within the limits compatible with proper vocational selection and with the requirements of institutional administration and discipline, a detainee shall be able to choose the type of work he wishes to perform.

3.3.3. Case on the deprivation of the right to health and hygiene of prisoners

According to reports and cases, international standard of maintaining the health of prisoners have been ignored by the authorities and health issues in Papua New Guinea have been related to many different factors which include inter alia poor accommodation, lack of proper food preparation and food quality and quantity, lack of proper toilets facilities, transmitted diseases.

In Re the Visiting Justice Inspection of Bomana Corrective Institution,^[109] A Judge made a Visiting Justice inspection of the Bomana Central Corrective Institution. An examination of kitchen and ration-store facilities revealed that inmates were not been fed in accordance with the scale of rations set out in the Corrective Institution Regulations.

The state of the B Compound Ablutions in the facility was totally unhygienic. There were shower facilities without washers, and water running. The toilets were filthy and stank. There was no evidence of disinfectant or other cleansing materials being made available to clean these facilities. The condition of the kitchens in ‘B’ Block was poor. There was no fly wire and consequently the food preparation area attracted many blue flies. The general condition of the food preparation area was filthy. The paintwork were decayed and covered in soot. These facilities were most unhygienic.

3.3.4. Reports on the deprivation of the right to health and hygiene of prisoners

One of the grave concerns within the correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea is the housing or accommodation for adult prisoners. Prison windows in some Highlands areas are simply barred openings in the walls that leave prisoners vulnerable to mosquito’s bites that cause malaria.^[110] The standard accommodation for prisoners is a 50 man dormitory type block which leaves prisoners vulnerable to communicable diseases. The report^[111] brought in to light that a major problem with many adult cells was the unsanitary night toilet; many still have buckets for this use within the building.

Unpleasant is common in most prisons reports also found out that most of the Highlands institutions lacked beds and most of the adult prisoners slept on the dirt or the concrete floor. Most of the prisoners were cold at night given the fact that the temperature is very cold during the nights up in the highlands; such practice is injurious to health.

Most correctional institutions around the country lacked proper mess facilities, kitchens were not fully equipped,^[112] large amount of cooking equipment is needed for most institutions around the country given the number of prisoners. Toilet arrangement in many institutions is inadequate. Toilet blocks are situated to dining and cooking areas.^[113]

An informal assessment conducted in Beon Jail in 2007 indicated that at least 40 local inmates had a significant level of visual impairment. This was most commonly associated with atrophy of the optic nerves, a result of optic neuropathy (ON) and suspected to be caused by nutritional deficiency.^[114]

The apparent cluster of cases within the jail, in particular in long-term prisoners, the gradual onset, and bilateral presentation of the ON observed suggested the disease to be a result of a nutritional or toxic cause. Crude dietary histories of the prisoners indicated that the prison diet was unbalanced and almost completely lacking in fruit and vegetables^[115]. Nutritional deficiency was suspected as the most probable cause of the ON found in Beon Jail prisoners. There are no proper medical care facilities within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea. A report titled Country Reports on Human Rights Practices ^[116] revealed that there is no proper medical facilities in prisons and medical officers are often absent for medical checkups. Death in prisons or pretrial centers is not prevalent; prisoners do not often have reasonable access to potable water. A number of prisons experienced problems with lack of adequate ventilation and lighting.^[117]

Female prisoners especially the ones pregnant or breast feeding small children when sentenced, are severely disadvantaged given the quantity and the quality of the diet served. The report also found out that women and children do not have Maternal and child health checks while in the institution.^[118]

3.4. Punishment of prisoners

Punishment in criminal law is defined as any pain, penalty, suffering, or confinement inflicted upon a person by the authority of the law and the judgment and sentence of a court, for some crime or offense committed by him, or for his omission of a duty enjoined by law.^[119] In a wider sense ‘Punishment’ is defined as the imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, meted out by an authority in contexts ranging from child discipline to criminal law as a response and deterrent to a particular action or behavior that is deemed undesirable or unacceptable. ^[120] The definition applies to the reason as to why people are punished, however in this part of the paper we will be looking at the minimum standard of punishment for prisoners who have already be incarcerated with the correctional institution of Papua New Guinea.

3.4.1. International laws that provides for the standard and rules for punishment.

The Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea and other legislations such as the Correctional Service Act 1995, Correctional Service Regulation 1995 and other legislations sets the minimum standard or requirement on how prisoners should be treated in correctional institution in PNG. As mentioned there are number of international conventions that sets the requirement or the standard in which prisoners in corrective institutions should be treated, hence, Papua New Guinea tries enacting legislation corresponding to the international conventions.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There are no exceptions.^[121] Torture is defined as any act by which severe physical or mental pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person, other than that which is inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.^[122] Ill-treatment is defined as other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture.^[123] International laws strictly dictates that no prisoner shall be subjected, even with his or her consent, to any medical or scientific experimentation which may be detrimental to health Like torture and ill-treatment, enforced disappearances and summary executions are completely prohibited.^[124] International laws provide that all law enforcement officials shall be fully informed and educated about the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment.^[125]

International and Human Rights law take into account the type of punishment imposed on prisoners within correctional institutions very seriously, as discussed there are number of international conventions that prohibit the use of excessive force, torture and degrading and immoral punishment on persons who have been incarcerated.

Part 1 (27), (28) and (29) of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , ^[126] provides that: 27. Discipline and order shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life. 28. (1) No prisoner shall be employed, in the service of the institution, in any disciplinary capacity.

(2) This rule shall not, however, impede the proper functioning of systems based on self-government, under which specified social, educational or sports activities or responsibilities are entrusted, under supervision, to prisoners who are formed into groups for the purposes of treatment. 29. The following shall always be determined by the law or by the regulation of the competent administrative authority:

(a) Conduct constituting a disciplinary offence; (b) The types and duration of punishment which may be inflicted; (c) The authority competent to impose such punishment. Section 1 of the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners ^[127] provides that all prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings. Furthermore the convention provides that, all prisoners shall have the right to take part in cultural activities and education aimed at the full development of the human personality. Prisoners shall have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation. With the participation and help of the community and social institution, and with due regard to the interests of victims, favorable conditions shall be created for the reintegration of the ex-prisoner into society under the best possible conditions.

3.4.2. National laws that provides for the standard and rules for punishment.

Section 36 of the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea provides for freedom from inhumane treatment, section 36 (1) provides that; No person shall be submitted to torture (whether physical or mental), or to treatment or punishment that is cruel or otherwise inhuman, or is inconsistent with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Section 36 of the Constitution is clear and sets the foundation in which prisoners should be punished. International conventions^[128] provide that discipline and order shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life. Section 37 of the Constitution provide that no prisoner shall be punished unless he has been informed of the offence alleged against him and given a proper opportunity of presenting his defense. The competent authority shall conduct a thorough examination of the case. In correspondence with the international conventions Section 156 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 provides:

(1) The Discipline Officer may, after carrying out an investigation under Section 155–

(a) if satisfied that an offence has been committed, but that it was of a trivial nature–reprimand the detainee and take no further action; or (b) if satisfied that an offence has been or is likely to have been committed, and that the alleged offence is of such a serious nature as to require an official hearing–charge the detainee with the offence and notify the Commanding Officer of the charge; or (c) dismiss the allegations and take no further action.

Section 156 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 is clear, however authorities in charge certainly do not take note of the mention provision, hence, they often take matters into their own hands inflicting pain and imposing excessive punishment on prisoners.

3.4.3. Cases on excessive and inhumane punishment of prisoners

Maltreatment of adult prison officer in charge is common, prisoners often suffers degrading punishment for attempting to smuggle articles (often cigarette butts) into the compound, prisoners are often punched, and sometimes forced to stand naked.^[129] Corrective institutions or most corrective institutions around in Papua New Guinea tend to lock adult prisoners in their cell blocks as early as 5.pm which seems excessively cautious or inconsiderate.^[130]

In Amaiu v Commissioner of Corrective Institutions and The State ^[131] an applicant was a prisoner confined in the “B” Division of the Bomana Corrective Institution, and he filed an application enforcement of his constitutional rights and for damages. The prisoner complained inter alia of having been kept in solitary confinement, of being punished by doubling up, and of alleged infringements of constitutional rights in being deprived of visitors, newspapers, sport, radio, etc.

The punishment of the prisoner was a breach of the Correctional Service Act 1995 and a breach of international convention, doubling up is not a method of punishment permitted by the Act or Regulations and is therefore illegal, and deprives the prisoner of the “full protection of the law” guaranteed to him as a prisoner by Section 37(1) of the Constitution, hence, the punishment was excessive.

In Pauta and Susuve v Commissioner for Corrective Institutions, His Servants and Agents ^[132] two persons, one aged seventeen years of age, were arrested following the killing of a policeman. One was charged with unlawful use of a motor vehicle, convicted and sentenced to three months. The seventeen year old was charged with murder and detained on remand. Both were held in the B division of the Bomana Corrective Institution, a division maintained for dangerous prisoners and for prisoners whose safety is in danger. Both detainees alleged they had been severely assaulted by prison warders whilst so being detained and sought orders restraining such conduct and compensation.

It was held that such conduct by prison warders constituted cruel and inhuman punishment and treatment and was inconsistent with the inherent dignity of the human race within the meaning of Section 36(1) and section 37(17) of the Constitution.

From the above mentioned case it can be seen that the two prisoners has been mistreated, therefore had been deprived of their constitutional rights, the officers and the Correctional Service Commission of Papua New Guinea has been in breach of the Correctional Service Act 1995 specifically Section 60, Section 156 and Section 111 of the Act.

Furthermore In the Matter of Enforcement of Basic Rights Under the Constitution Section 57 ^[133] a Judge conducted an official visit of a correctional institution and inspected the conditions in which prisoners and remandees were being detained. The Judge, having inspected the separate confinement cells in which four prisoners who had committed internal disciplinary offences were being detained, expressed concern about whether the conditions of detention complied with constitutional requirements or guaranteed human rights. The Judge heard from the four prisoners and, having heard the views of the Gaol Commander, indicated to the Commander that consideration would be given to making an order regarding the future use of the cells, using the powers of the National Court on its own initiative under Section 57 of the Constitution . It was held that the use of the separate confinement cells at Beon correctional institution to punish detainees and/or to impose discipline within the gaol is in breach of the human rights guaranteed to all persons under Sections 36(1), 37(1) and 37(17) of the Constitution.

From the above mentioned case it is apparent that the conditions in which the four prisoners were being detained in dark, confined spaces without natural or artificial light or an appropriate supply of fresh air for lengthy periods was in direct breach of the Correctional Service Act, Regulation, constitution and international conventions against mistreatment and torture of prisoners, the officials acts amounted to physical and mental torture and treatment that is cruel and inhuman and inconsistent with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

In Buimo Corrective Institution, Re ^[134] a Judge conducted an official visit Buimo Corrective Institution at Lae. During the course of the inspection a number of breaches of the Corrective Institutions Act and Regulations were noted, together with other matters that may or may not constitute breaches of the law or violations of the Constitution.

During the inspection it was noted that in two of the cell blocks visited, a number of detainees were held in the security cells. Some of the detainees complained that they had been locked in the cells for trivial reasons, amounting to minor breaches of discipline. None of the detainees interviewed had been charged with any offence under Pt VI (Corrective Institutions and Lock-up Offences) of the Corrective Institutions Act.

International and Human Rights law take into account the type of punishment imposed on prisoners within correctional institutions very seriously, as discussed there are number of international conventions that prohibit the use of excessive force, torture and degrading and immoral punishment on persons who have been incarcerated.

3.5. Classification of Prisoners

Classification of prisoners is very important in ever institutions around the world, different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate institutions or parts of institutions taking account of their sex, age, criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment.

3.5.1. International laws that provides for the classification of prisoners

Part 1 (8) of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , ^[135] provides that different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate institutions or parts of institutions taking into account of their sex, age, criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment. The article reads;

(a) Men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate institutions; in an institution which receives both men and women the whole of the premises allocated to women shall be entirely separate; (b) Untried prisoners shall be kept separate from convicted prisoners; (c) Persons imprisoned for debt and other civil prisoners shall be kept separate from persons imprisoned by reason of a criminal offence; (d) Young prisoners shall be kept separate from adults. Accommodation

International Laws prohibit the practice of categorizing prisoners in one a general confined cell or block, international law tends to set the minimum standard and requirement of how prisoners should be classified, categorized and confined.

3.5.2. National laws that provide for the classification of prisoners

Section 60 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 provides for the classification on the committee’s recommendation. The provision reads as follows:

The Classification Committee shall make recommendations to the Commanding Officer on–

(a) the security needs of the detainees; and (b) the management requirements of the detainees; and (c) the health, welfare, psychological, religious and vocational needs of the detainees; and (d) the most appropriate placement of the detainees; and (e) the supervision requirements of the detainees; and (f) the involvement of the detainees in welfare and rehabilitation programmes; and (g) a rating according to the classification rating system provided in the Standing Orders.

Incarcerated persons are often mixed in one block as a result the vulnerable ones are often sexually assaulted, beaten, bullied, or often killed by other prisoners, as mentioned prisoners should be categorized according to the health, welfare, psychological, religious and vocational needs of the detainees. As discussed the justification of punishment by the Papua New Guinea government (State) is to rehabilitate prisoners so that they can become good and law abiding citizens upon release, however when prisoners are not categorized, as mentioned prisoners are often traumatized and physiologically disturbed by the experience while imprisoned, hence, they often take years to cope with the rest of the society. Section 108 of the Correctional Service Act provides for the separation of one detainee form other detainee, section 108 provides;

(1) In addition to Section 107(2) and subject to Subsection (2), the Commissioner or a correctional officer authorized by him may, in writing, order the separation of a detainee from other detainees where–

(a) the separation is necessary or desirable for the safety of the detainee or other persons, or the security, good order or management of the correctional institution; and

(b) the detainee is only separated from other detainees while the safety of the detainee or other persons, or the security, good order or management of the correctional institution is at risk.

Despite the National and international laws providing guides or rules to the classification of incarcerated persons within correctional institutions is Papua New Guinea; the practice is somewhat seemingly of the contrary. Based on reports and cases it is apparent that, prisoners, especially vulnerable ones are often confined with the rest of the prisoners (general and dangerous confinement areas and facilities).

3.5.3. Case on transferring and visitation

In Amaiu v Commissioner of Corrective Institutions and The State ^[136] an applicant filed an application. The applicant was a prisoner confined in the “B” Division of the Bomana Corrective Institution. The application was for enforcement of his constitutional rights and for damages, the prisoner complained inter alia of having been kept in solitary confinement, note that division B is where prisoners who have committed very serious offences are detained.

In Buimo Corrective Institution, Re ^[137] a Judge conducted an official visit Buimo Corrective Institution at Lae. During the inspection it was noted that in two of the cell blocks visited, a number of detainees were held in the security cells. Some of the detainees complained that they had been locked in the cells for trivial reasons, amounting to minor breaches of discipline. None of the detainees interviewed had been charged with any offence under Pt VI (Corrective Institutions and Lock-up Offences) of the Corrective Institutions Act. It became apparent that warders at Buimo were using their delegated powers under reg III(3) of the Corrective Institutions Regulations (Separation of Detainees) to punish detainees against whom offences were alleged, without charging the detainees before a visiting justice, as is required by Pt VI of the Act.

A report titled Country Reports on Human Rights Practices^[138] revealed that despite minor improvements to existing cells and increased capacity, prison conditions remained poor, and the prison system continued to suffer from serious underfunding. Overcrowding in prisons and remained a problem, as a result of overcrowding prisoners are not categorized or classified accordingly.

3.6. Visitation and transferring of prisoners

Once convicted, many prisoners have limited access to counsel or others who can monitor or defend their rights. International laws including national law allows for visitation. Papua New Guinea laws allow for visitation, this includes visitation of family member, friends, and legal councils. Visitation is a mitigating factor towards full rehabilitation of prisoners, making them that they are part of the society, hence, upon return to the society they tend to become good citizens, it also helps towards the health of prisoner’s addition, food-gift administered to the prisoners to account for additional foods contributing to the prisoners’ diet via food gifts from visitors.^[139] Incarcerated persons who have already been sentenced also have a right to legal advice and visitation form lawyers.

3.6.1. International laws that provide for the visitation and transferring of prisoners

All prisoners shall be provided promptly with written information about the regulations which apply to them and on their rights and obligations.^[140] The families, legal representatives and, if appropriate, diplomatic missions of prisoners are to receive full information about the fact of their detention and where they are held.^[141]

Part 37 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , ^[142] provides as follows;

Prisoners shall be allowed under necessary supervision to communicate with their family and reputable friends at regular intervals, both by correspondence and by receiving visits.

3.6.2. National laws that provide for the visitation and transferring of prisoners

Section 75 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 provides; (1) A lawyer, acting in the course of the lawyer’s practice, may visit a correctional institution or detainee at any time.

(2) A lawyer may visit a detainee at such times and in such places as the Commanding Officer or the Commissioner approves.

(3) The Regulations may make provision for the procedures relating to legal documents in a correctional institution. Furthermore as mentioned, family and friend are also allowed to visit prisoners as per Section 72 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 . Section 72 provides that a detainee may receive at least one visit weekly of no less than half an hour by a relative or friend. The Correctional Service Regulation 1995 provides for visitation subjected to certain conditions. Section 62 of the Regulation provides that wherever practicable, a detainee shall be granted a visit immediately after receiving a sentence or after being transferred.

Furthermore Section 96 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 gives the commissioner the transfer a prisoner from one institution to another. Section 96 of the Act provides:

The Commissioner may, by instrument in the prescribed form, authorize the transfer of a detainee or a class of detainees–

(a) from one institution to another; or (b) from place to place within an institution

3.6.3. Cases on deprivation of prisoners visitation and transfer

In practical term, the situation is somewhat of the contrary in Papua New Guinea. Prisoners are often deprived off of their rights of being visited by the outside world. It is apparent form cases and reports that prisoners within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea are often locked up prisoner to the extent that they do not have ample time for visitation. Sometimes prisoners are locked up in solitary confinements that they miss out on visitation hours.

Corrective institutions around that country tend to lock adult prisoners in their cell blocks as early as 5.pm. The report concluded that it seems excessively cautious or inconsiderate. ^[143] In In Amaiu v Commissioner of Corrective Institutions and The State ^[144] an applicant filed an application. The applicant was a prisoner confined in the “B” Division of the Bomana Corrective Institution. The application was for enforcement of his constitutional rights and for damages, the prisoner complained inter alia of having been kept in solitary confinement, of being punished by doubling up, and of alleged infringements of constitutional rights in being deprived of visitors.

Visitation cannot be easy for family and friends if the prisoner is transferred to another province. The transferring of a prisoner away from the home province or district may become a hindrance to visitation, hence, rehabilitation. Most often prisoners are deprived from being visited by lawyer, family and friends when they are being transferred to another province or district.^[145] However, it must be understood that this power can be challenged in court if the prisoner wishes to stay close to family and friends, In the Matter of Applications by John Ritsi Kutetoa, George Taunde, Titus Soumi and Andrew Amid ^[146] an applicant filed an applications for enforcement of constitutional rights by four convicted prisoners who were seeking orders that they not be transferred away from the area in which their relatives reside. They were detained at the Buka police lock-up. The Police Force and the Correctional Service were making plans for their transfer to the Kerevat Gaol, East New Britain, and oppose the applications. The applicants argued that they have a right to be imprisoned close to where their relatives reside and that their forced transfer to Kerevat will breach that right. The term ‘constitutional rights’ refers to the rights conferred on all citizens, and in some cases non-citizens, by Division III.3 (basic rights) of the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, which is referred to in this judgment as ‘the Constitution ’ or ‘the National Constitution ’, to distinguish it from the Constitution of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville or ‘the Bougainville Constitution ’. The matters came to light during an inspection made of the police lock-up during the National Court circuit in Buka earlier that month. The Judge inspected it using the powers as a Judge under Sections 144, 145 and 148 of the Correctional Service Act. The conditions under which about 50 detainees were being kept appeared to breach many constitutional rights. The place was overcrowded and unhygienic. Despite the poor conditions, the inspecting judge was informed that the general consensus amongst the detainees, most of who are Bougainvilleans, was that they did not want to be transferred to Kerevat or anywhere else. They wanted to stay close to their relatives. The inspecting judge told them that they should consult their lawyer, who could consider the possibility of making an application to the National Court to address this issue Similarly in Komidese v Kuabaal (Commissioner of Correctional Services )^[147] an applicant filed an application for judicial review under the National Court Rules Order 16, seeking declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled by virtue of Section 37(20) of the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea to be incarcerated in a corrective institution nearest to their relatives.

It was held that a transfer of female “offenders” to an area away from that in which their relatives reside as a result of the directive of August 1984, other than for reasons of security or other good cause, constituted a violation of the fundamental right contained in the Constitution, Section 37(20).

3.7. Psychological trauma

The justification of punishment in Papua New Guinea is to rehabilitate prisoners so that they can become good and law abiding citizens in the society upon release. This part of the paper will look at the Psychological issues that prisoner within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea often faces in the prison and upon release.

The experience of being locked in a cage has a psychological effect upon everyone made to endure it.^[148] Sociologist Donald Clemmer^[149] noted in his classic book, The Prison Community that the prison experience is neither normal nor natural, and constitutes one of the more degrading experiences a person might endure.^[150] Several researchers found that people in prison may be diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorders, as well as other psychiatric disorders, such as panic attacks, depression, and paranoia.^[151] A prison experiment in the early 1970s attests to the psychological damage caused by the experience of incarceration is common in almost every correctional institution.^[152]

As discussed above, prisoners are often inter alia beaten, sexually abused by others and tortured, this often leave prisoners Psychologically destabilized , thus, makes it very hard for them to cope with the rest of the society. ^[153] Capital punishment is provided under Section 18 (a) of the Criminal Code Act of Papua New Guinea but it is has not been implemented; the code also provides that a person liable to death may be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for any shorter term^[154].The fact that someone is being sentenced to death without knowing when to die can really destabilize a person psychologically. ^[155]

Papua New Guinea has recently extended its legislation on death penalty to cover more criminal offences. Previously, the death penalty was applicable to treason, willful murder, piracy, and ‘attempted piracy with personal violence’ in PNG, but it has not been used in practice for more than 50 years. Consequently, Amnesty International, which describes the death penalty as ‘the ultimate denial of human right, the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice’ currently, classifies PNG as ‘abolitionist in practice.^[156] However prisoners can be sentenced to death, hence, psychologically defeats the prisoner to appreciate life and think positively.

Prisons are institutions that are in place to punish people, however in Papua New Guinea the punishment is seen to be somewhat excessive and unregulated by the authorities. Human Rights Watch has learned that abusive officers do not operate in a vacuum. More typically, a culture of brutality has developed in which correctional officers know they can get away with excessive, offended unnecessary or even purely malicious violence.^[157] Prisoners are often sexually abused or raped by authorities and more often by other prisoners. In R v Billam ^[158] the effect of rape was described in the following manner; Rape involves a severe degree of emotional and psychological trauma; it may be described as a violation which in effect obliterates the personality of the victim. Its physical consequences equally are severe: the actual physical harm occasioned by the act of intercourse, associated violence or force and in some cases degradation…. Rape can cause psychological trauma, as mentioned sexual assault and inhuman and degrading treatment can also cause a person to be psychologically unstable, which might take time for that person to recover. Solitary confinement is a common form of punishment for serious offenders within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea, solitary confinement and inhuman conditions and treatment can also cause a person to experience psychological trauma. In State v Nangil ^[159] the court took into account the kind of treatment and condition that the prisoner was faced with as mitigating factor before sentencing them for escaping the Beon Jail. In that case the court came to realize that some prisoners did not like the type of treatment they were receiving from the warders as well as other inmates. Prisoners were said to be subjected to inhumane treatment, including exposure to their own wastes because of lack of proper toilet facilities. The treatment was very degrading and deplorable; prisoners were also locked in solitary confinement also known as “Dark Cell” without knowing when to be released. The practice of sexual assault, solitary confinement, death penalty, degrading and deplorable treatment of the prisoners can cause psychological trauma and can be very difficult to rehabilitate a person.

3.8. Women prisoners in PNG Correctional Institutions

There are number of international conventions which supports the right of women around the world which Papua New Guinea is a member of those treaties or international conventions that recognize the right of women. This part of the paper will discuss the right of women prisoner under international laws and national laws.

3.8.1. International laws that’s provide for the rights of women in prison

Women are entitled to the equal enjoyment and protection of all human rights in the political, economic, social, cultural, and civil and all other fields.^[160] International laws provide that women prisoners shall not suffer discrimination and shall be protected from all forms of violence or exploitation.^[161] Women prisoners shall be detained separately from male prisoners.^[162]

International laws in relation to the treatment of women prisoners provide that women prisoners shall be supervised and searched only by female officers and staff.^[163]

Pregnant women and nursing mothers who are in prison shall be provided with the special facilities which they need for their condition. Whenever practicable, women prisoners should be taken to outside hospitals to give birth.^[164]

3.8.2. National laws that provide for the rights of women in prison

Papua New Guinea ratified in 12 January 1995 and became a member is the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Despite international conventions, women are abused every day in Papua New Guinea, women in PNG prisons are prone to abuse and mistreatment especially within correctional institutions.

Section 107 (2) (a) of the Correctional Service Act provides for the separation of female detainees;

(2) The separation of detainees shall be in accordance with the following provisions:–

(a) male detainees and female detainees shall be detained so far as possible in separate correctional institutions;

(b) where a correctional institution is used for the detention of both male detainees and female detainees, the part of the correctional institution allocated to the female detainees shall be entirely separate.

3.8.3. Cases and reports on the mistreatment of female prisoners

In visits to the selected institutions, a study followed two lines of approach, an examination of the living conditions of the female prisoners under the responsibility of the correction service institution and questioning of the prisoners. This consisted of written questionnaires filled out by the female detainees and the wardresses, and personal interviews with them.^[165]

Situation in the prison system has not changed much during the last decade (see the interviews with long-term women prisoners), especially where female prisoners are concerned.^[166] Most of the female prisoners do not have the slightest clue about law and correctional institution. Women in correctional institutions often wait for months on hand appear before court but still have no idea what will going to happen to them.^[167] They often feel that they might die in prison as nobody was able to tell them what might happen to them; why they were not tried, and so on.^[168]

The wardresses' experience is that prisoners are somewhat similar to the warders. Wardress know that "VJ" (Visiting Justice) only attends institutions irregularly, thus they tend to breach the rules more often as the chances are high that nothing will be done to punish them. The wardresses, fearing a subsequent increase in disobedience, have adopted the practice of imposing punishments themselves. Sometimes prisoners are isolated pending a decision by the Visiting Judges^[169].

In Baisu the decision had been taken to move the long term prisoners from their dormitory and house them with the remandees. The reason being that one prisoner had been placed in isolation for corresponding by letter with a male prisoner. Because of one offender, a group of 60 women and children had to live in deplorable conditions, all of this because of the irregularity of the visits of the Visiting Judge.^[170] This practice is common within all female corrective institutions, where female prisoners are often mistreated by wardress.

Reports have revealed that, Papua New Guinea prisons are below average standard, a report titled Law and Order In PNG ^[171] revealed that Papua New Guinea prisons are worse than the average across the world because they are poorly staffed and badly administered. Middle management is practically non- existent. Senior administration staff do not shift work at all, robbing the service of effective leadership. Record keeping is poor, communication grossly inadequate, security is minimal and escape frequent. Disciplinary and supervision seems lax. Prisons are not able to conform to the Human Rights provisions of the constitution or with number of United Nations minimum standard rules for the treatment of prisoners.

The report^[172] revealed that at Bomana, one of the main corrective institutions in PNG, women’s compound is managed from 4.00 p. m to 5.30 pm by civilian employee- the wife of a warder. She then locks the female in their dormitories. Apart from patrol around the surroundings by the male officers on shift, the women are cut off and without communication in locked quarters for more than 12 hours every day. The report concluded that the whole correctional service institution is without well-equipped and trained staff, simple tasks are left undone. Records are not kept, or not updated.

Visitation is very rare within the female correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea. Women prisoners are not happy with the small number of visits they receive or the limited time allocated for them. The problem of lack of visits takes on a different aspect when we consider long-term prisoners.^[173] This is often seen in the case of most women who are in for the murder of another woman, knowing that they are left by the husband for a new wife thus they will rarely or never get a visit from him or the children. Those women end up being totally isolated from their families and are desperate for some news of their children.^[174]

Prisons are institutions that are in place to punish people, however in Papua New Guinea the punishment is seen to be somewhat excessive and unregulated by the authorities. Human Rights Watch has learned that abusive officers do not operate in a vacuum. More typically, a culture of brutality has developed in which correctional officers know they can get away with excessive, offended unnecessary or even purely malicious violence.^[175] Prisoners are often sexually abused or raped by authorities and more often by other prisoners which leaves can cause a prisoner to suffer from psychological trauma. The issues is very serious and it is affecting the corrective institutions is Papua New Guinea.^[176]

CHAPTER 4

Discussion

The Correctional Institution Service of Papua New Guinea has been facing problems of organization, administration, training, lack of community support and finance.^[177] So far, it has asked for and received advice and financial help from the Australian government to surmount these difficulties. The invited organizations and specialists have presented several reports with many recommendations to improve the situation. But up until now few of those recommendations have been implemented.

Papua New Guinea is a member of the United Nations, hence, a member of the international community. Papua New Guinea is also party to a number of international Human Rights treaties and is also obligated under international laws to adhere to those international treaties and conventions that recognize the right of a human being despite a person being incarcerated.

There are a number of International Conventions that prohibit the mistreatment of adults directly or indirectly within correctional and penal institutions around the world, such international conventions include the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment^[178] (CAT), Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,^[179] Optional Protocol To The Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhumane Or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,^[180] Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners .^[181]

It must be understood that the above mentioned international treaties, protocols and conventions sets the guide line or standard for member states to enact national legislations corresponding to those international conventions, standards and treaties.

Article 2 (1) of CAT provides that each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. The mentioned international conventions tend to set share a common purpose and that is the prohibition of torture, ill treatment or mistreatment of human beings despite them being convicted, deprived of liberty and imprisoned.

In Papua New Guinea prisoners are mistreated on a daily basis by authorities and other prisoners, lack of government funding as resulted in correctional institutions being rundown, houses are in deplorable conditions. Despite Part 1 Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , ^[182] which calls for countries such as Papua New Guinea to make sure that the housing of prisoners is of average standard, thus sleeping accommodation is in individual cells or rooms, each prisoner shall occupy by night a cell or room by himself. If for special reasons, such as temporary overcrowding, it becomes necessary for the central prison administration to make an exception to this rule, it is not desirable to have two prisoners in a cell or room.

All accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health and due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting and heating. It is apparent form reports, case laws, articles, and journals that the practice of treating prisoners within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea is somewhat different or contrary to international conventions. Reports have indicated that prisons in Papua New Guinea are below average world standard. The housing of prisoners is of unimaginable conditions where prisoners sometimes sleep next to their own or someone else’s feces, with nothing to cover on bare dusty cements as a result of overcrowding. It is apparent that such treatment is in violation to the International Human Rights treaties including national laws. Section 122 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 provides for the accommodation of prisoners in correctional institutions in PNG and provides that all accommodation provided for the use of detainees, and in particular all sleeping accommodation, shall meet all requirements of health and climatic conditions as are consistent with local living conditions. As mentioned it can be seen that Papua New Guinea has not complied with international laws and national laws in relations to the average standard of housing prisoners, hence, prisoners within correctional institution in Papua New Guinea are being mistreated. Food is also essential for human beings on a daily basis, it is common to assume that adult prisoners work force performs hard labor and that this should be compensated for by increasing their daily calories intake. Part 1 (20) of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners^[183] provides for the minimum standard of food quality and quantity in prisons, the part provides that every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served. The practice is somewhat different in the Papua New Guinea; there have been a number of reports as to the mistreatment of adult prisoners in Papua New Guinea in relation to the quantity and the quality of the food that is being served on a daily basis. Reports have indicated that Very small percentage of food consumed is produced in corrective institutions and that manual trades and educations are so little fostered, mainly through lack of finance and trained professionals. Food ration is a major problem in the corrective institutions in PNG, many adult prisoners tend to be malnourished, inadequate of proper ration and more hard labor is common in most corrective institutions in Papua New Guinea. Section 123 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 provides that a detainee has a right to be provided with food that is adequate to maintain the health and wellbeing of the detainee.

It is apparent that prisoners within correctional institutions are mistreated by being underfed, malnourished which makes them vulnerable to diseases that can cause death.

Furthermore, according to reports and cases, international standard and of maintaining health of prisoners have been ignored by the authorities, health issues in Papua New Guinea has been related to many different factors which include inter alia poor accommodation, lack of proper food preparation and food quality and quantity, lack of proper toilets facilities, transmitted diseases has increase since the 1970s. The Constitution of the independent state of Papua New Guinea and other legislations such as the Correctional Service Act 1995, Correctional Service Regulation 1995 and other legislations sets the minimum standard or requirement on how prisoners should be treated in correctional institution in PNG, as mentioned there are number of international conventions that sets the requirement or the standard in which prisoners in corrective institutions should be treated, hence, Papua New Guinea tries enact legislation corresponding to the international conventions. Section 36 of the Constitution prohibits mistreatment and torture in Papua New Guinea.

Reports and cases have indicated that the maltreatment of adult prison officer in charge is common. Prisoners often suffer degrading punishment for attempting to smuggle articles (often cigarette butts) into the compound and prisoners are often punched, and sometimes forced to stand naked.^[184] Corrective institutions or most corrective institutions around that country tend to lock adult prisoners in their cell blocks as early as 5.pm which seems excessively cautious or inconsiderate.^[185] Prisoners are often being detained in dark, confined spaces without natural or artificial light or an appropriate supply of fresh air for lengthy periods was in direct breach of the Correctional Service Act, Regulation, constitution and international conventions against mistreatment and torture of prisoners, the officials acts amounted to physical and mental torture and treatment that is cruel and inhuman and inconsistent with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Article 11 of CAT provides that, each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture. Papua New Guinea as a member of the international community needs to seriously consider legislate laws or amend them to put a stop a to the mistreatment and torture of prisoners within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea. Despite the National and international laws providing guides or rules to the classification of incarcerated persons within correctional institutions is Papua New Guinea; the practice is somewhat seemingly of the contrary. Based on reports and cases it is apparent that, prisoners, especially vulnerable ones are often confined with the rest of the prisoners (general and dangerous confinement areas and facilities). As a result the vulnerable ones are often sexually assaulted, beaten, bullied, or often killed by other prisoners, as mentioned prisoners should be categorized according to the health, welfare, psychological, religious and vocational needs of the detainees. As discussed the justification of punishment by the Papua New Guinea government (State) is to rehabilitate prisoners so that they can become good and law abiding citizens upon release, however when prisoners are not categorized, as mentioned prisoners are often traumatized and physiologically disturbed by the experience while imprisoned, hence, they often take years to cope with the rest of the society.

Incarcerated persons who have already been sentenced also have a right to legal advice and visitation form lawyers as per Section 75 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 which provides that lawyer, acting in the course of the lawyer’s practice, may visit a correctional institution or detainee at any time. Furthermore as mentioned, family and friend are also allowed to visit prisoners as per Section 72 of the Correctional Service Act 1995 .

The practice or approach is somewhat different in Papua New Guinea; prisoners are often deprived of their rights of being visited by the outside world. It is apparent form cases mentioned above including reports that prisoners within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea often lock up prisoner to the extent that they do not have ample time for visitation. Sometimes prisoners are locked up in solitary confinements that they miss out on visitation hours.

Prisons are institutions that are in place to punish people; however excessive punishment can destroy a person for life. In Papua New Guinea the punishment is seen to be somewhat excessive and unregulated by the authorities. Human Rights Watch has learned that abusive officers do not operate in a vacuum. More typically, a culture of brutality has developed in which correctional officers know they can get away with excessive, offended unnecessary or even purely malicious violence. Incarcerated person are often raped, abused, and tortured which leads to psychological trauma.

Women are regarded as inferior being in Papua New Guinea with no right, however just imagine if they are sent to a place where their inferred right has been taken away. Women in Papua New Correctional Institutions are mistreated in the most deplorable manner despite international laws that recognize women rights in Papua New Guinea, as discussed above, women are subject to abuse and mistreatment within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea.

Chapter 5 Conclusion

In conclusion it can be seen that mistreatment of adult prisoners is common around the world. Correctional Institutions in Papua New Guinea are amongst other countries are below the average standard. Incarcerated persons within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea are often mistreated, abused and deprived of basic rights, prisoners are often deprived of basic health services, prisons and living conditions are very unhygienic, very poor housing and accommodation of prisoners, authorities often use excessive forces and tend to abuse prisoners, prisoners are kept in inhumane living conditions and are often deprived of legal and other information while being incarcerated, prisoners are often treated in inhumane manner which tend to leave them psychologically unstable and women are often denied basic rights and mistreated.

Despite the fact that Papua New Guinea punishes people to rehabilitates them, it can be seen that the practice is of the contrary, prisons and the authority depict a somewhat of different picture, prisoners often suffer from psychological trauma as a result of abuse, torture, deplorable treatments. Despite international laws and national laws housing for prisoners is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Food in correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea is also a major issue that needs to be addressed it is apparent that the Papua New Guinea has not complied with international laws and national laws in relations to the average standard. Mistreatment, torture and abuse of prisoners in correctional institutions have to be taken seriously as it is in violation with a number of international conventions. Maltreatment of adult prison officer in charge is common. Prisoners are often being detained in dark, confined spaces without natural or artificial light or an appropriate supply of fresh air for lengthy periods was in direct breach of the Correctional Service Act, Regulation, constitution and international conventions, hence that matter needs to be taken addressed with full force. Furthermore classification of prisoners is very serious problem within the Papua New Guinea Correctional institutions, despite National and international laws providing guides or rules to the classification of incarcerated persons within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea; the practice is somewhat seemingly of the contrary. Prisoners are often categorized in one holding block. Classifications of prisoners have to be taken seriously and classified accordingly.

Incarcerated persons who have already been sentenced also have a right to legal advice and visitation form lawyers. Family and friend are also allowed to visit prisoners however the practice is different in Papua New Guinea; prisoners are often deprived of their rights of being visited by the outside world. Visitation and transferring of prisoners needs serious reforms as discussed above.

Women in Papua New Correctional Institutions are mistreated in the most deplorable manner despite international laws that recognize women rights in Papua New Guinea, as discussed above, women are subject to abuse and mistreatment within correctional institutions in Papua New Guinea. Women rights have to be recognized in correctional institution in the country.

It is apparent that adult prisoners within correctional institutions are mistreated in the most deplorable and degrading manner one could possibly think of, despite the fact that Papua New Guineas justification of punishment (Rehabilitation) prisoners are not fully rehabilitated upon release to the community

REFERENCES

1. Articles

ü Adrian Grounds & Ruth Jamieson, No Sense of an Ending: Researching the Experience of Imprisonment and Release Among Republican Ex-Prisoners

ü Bruce R. Jacob, Reparation or Restitution by the Criminal Offender to His Victim: Applicability of an Ancient Concept in the Modern Correctional Process. 1970. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology volume 61 | Issue 2 Article 3.

ü DONALDCLEMMER, THEPRISONCOMMUNITY(1940)

ü https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa34/3600/2016/en/

ü https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220434.pdf

ü http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/papua-new-guinea

ü https://marisluste.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/deterrence-theory.pdf

ü https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restitution

ü https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447157/

ü https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447157/

ü https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Psychological-Murder

ü http://www.amnesty.ie/ Human Rights concerns with PNG reinstating the death penalty

ü http//www.Prisoner Abuse: How Different are U.S. Prisons? May 13, 2004 8:00PM EDT

ü https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_(penology)

ü https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447157/

ü http:// www. REHABILITATION PROGRAMMES IN THE PRISON TO PREVENT PRISONERS’ RECIDIVISM: THE ACTUAL SITUATION, PROBLEMS AND COUNTERMEASURES

ü http://www.hygieneexpert.co.uk/importancegoodpersonalhygiene.html

ü http//www.Prisoner Abuse: How Different are U.S. Prisons? May 13, 2004 8:00PM EDT OSWALD SCHOPFLE and AHERN (1987)

ü Hugo, Adam Bedau (February 19, 2010). "Punishment, Crime and the State Stein L. A study of respiratory tuberculosis in relation to housing conditions in Edinburgh; the pre-war period.Br J Soc Med.1950;4:143–169

ü McAnany, Patrick D. (August 2010). "Justification for punishment (Punishment)

ü Mood EW. Fundamentals of healthful housing: their application in the 21st century. In: Burridge R, Ormandy D, eds. Unhealthy Housing: Research, Remedies and Reform. New York, NY: Spon Press; 1993:303–337

ü Mika’il DeVeaux, The Trauma of the Incarceration Experience

ü raig Haney & Philip Zimbardo, The Past and Future of U.S. Prison

ü S. SCHAFER, fViolnt Crimes, 61 Nw. U. L. Rmv. 72, 76, 77, 78 (166). Samuel G. Kling, The Prison Community, 54 HARV. L. REV.722, 722 (1941)

ü Twenty-Five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment, 53 AM

ü Virgo, Graham(2006). The Principles of the Law of Restitution. New York: OUP

ü www.internetjournalofcriminology.com

ü 2013 United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Prison and Detention Center Conditions

2. Reports

ü C. William., Morauta. L & S. Barry, “LAW AND ORDER IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA”. Volume 1, Report and Recommendations

ü https://www.org//Full text of "PNG Government CEDAW Report”

ü PNG Correctional Service 2012 ANNUAL REPORT

ü INA/IASER REPORT by Clifford, Morauta, Stuart

ü Nutritional Optic Neuropathy in Papua New Guinean Prisoners by Camilla Alice Gould A thesis submitted for the degree of: Master of Science at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand (2012)

ü OL KALABUS MERI A Study of Female Prisoners in Papua New Guinea BY ANNE BORREY OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 21 1992

ü PAPUA NEW GUINEA US department of State 2010 Country Report. international humanitarian law\154398.htm

ü Report on International Prison Conditions United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

ü REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF REVIEW INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE IN PNG, 1979, The Honourable Delba, M.P

ü The office of the minister for correctional service and liquor licensing REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF REVIEW INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE IN PNG Prepared by The Law and Justice Sector Working Group December 1999 THE NATIONAL LAW AND JUSTICE POLICY AND PLAN OF ACTION TOWARDS RESTORATIVE OF JUSTICE.

ü United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Prison and Detention Center Conditions

ü World Bank 1999 Papua New Guinea

3. International Conventions

ü Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

ü Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987

ü Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

ü Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990

ü International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

ü International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS), Also found at: http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb

ü Principles on Detention or Imprisonment

ü Standard Minimum Rule for Treatment of Prisoners

ü UNITED NATIONS OFFICE of the HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (OHCHR) Regional Office for the Pacific Thematic study (2009)

ü Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR)

4. National Legislations

ü Correctional Service Act

ü Constitution of the independent State of PNG

ü Correctional service regulation Act 1995

ü Criminal Code

5. Cases

ü Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 320, 18 L. Ed. 356; Featherstone v. People, 194 111. 325, 02 N. E. 084; Ex parte Howe, 20 Or. 181, 37 Pac. 530; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 129, 49 Am. Rep. 218.

ü Komidese v Kuabaal (Commissioner of Correctional Services) [1985] PGNC 15; [1985] PNGLR 212 (1 August 1985)

ü Re the Visiting Justice Inspection of Bomana Corrective Institution, 28th September 1989 [1989] PGNC 25; N786 (11 November 1989)

ü Amaiu v Commissioner of Corrective Institutions and The State [1983] PNGLR 87 (15 April 1983)

ü Pauta and Susuve v Commissioner for Corrective Institutions, His Servants and Agents [1982] PNGLR 7 (19 February 1982)

ü In the Matter of Enforcement of Basic Rights Under the Constitution Section 57 [2006] PGNC 29; N2969 (2 February 2006)

ü In the Matter of Applications by John Ritsi Kutetoa, George Taunde, Titus Soumi and Andrew Amid [2005] PGNC 139; N2819 (23 March 2005)

ü Buimo Corrective Institution, Re [1988] PGNC 20; [1988-89] PNGLR 266 (27 July 1989)

ü R v Billam[1986] 1 WLR 349; [1986] 1 All ER 985

ü State ats Teptep [2004] PGNC 148; N2612 (13 May 2004

ü State v Nangil[2005] PGNC 131; N2823 (25 February 2005)

[...]

---

^[1] International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS), Also found at: http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb

^[2] Report on International Prison Conditions United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, P. 2

^[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/mass-jail-break-prisoners-killed-papua-new-guinea-officers-shot-17-inmates-buimo-lae-serious-crime-a7736251.html

^[4] 2013 United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Prison and Detention Center Conditions

^[5] https://www.org//Full text of "PNG Government CEDAW Report”

^[6] ibid

^[7] ibid

^[8] ibid

^[9] PAPUA NEW GUINEA US department of State 2010 Country Report. international humanitarian law\154398.htm

^[10] http://www.org//Full text of "PNG Government CEDAW Report"

^[11] ibid

^[12] ibid

^[13] PAPUA NEW GUINEA US department of State 2010 Country Report. international humanitarian law\154398.htm,

^[14] ibid

^[15] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/papua-new-guinea

^[16] ibid

^[17] C. William., Morauta. L & S. Barry, “LAW AND ORDER IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA”. Volume 1, Report and Recommendations, page iii.

^[18] https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa34/3600/2016/en/

^[19] ibid

^[20] Raskols is the term popularly used to describe members of criminal gangs. See, further, Harris, B.M. 1988 The Rise of Rascalism: Action and Reaction in the Evolution of Rascal Gangs Discussion Paper 54, Institute of Applied Social and Economic Research: Port Moresby; Goddard, M. 1992 Big-Man, Thief: the Social Organization of Gangs in Port Moresby Canberra Anthropology 15(1): 20-34 and Dinnen, S. 2001 Law and Order in a Weak State: Crime and Politics in Papua New Guinea University of Hawai’i Press: Honolulu.

^[21] World Bank 1999 Papua New Guinea – Improving Governance and Performance World Bank: Washington, DC at p 108.

^[22] ibid

^[23] Borrey, A. 2000 Sexual violence in perspective: the case of Papua New Guinea in S. Dinnen and A. Ley (eds.) Reflections on Violence in Melanesia Hawkins Press and Asia Pacific Press: Sydney.

^[24] Pacific Economic Bulletin 13(1): 98 – 105.

^[25] ibid

^[26] ibid

^[27] https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220434.pdf

^[28] http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/papua-new-guinea

^[29] ibid

^[30] Hugo, Adam Bedau (February 19, 2010). "Punishment, Crime and the State

^[31] https://marisluste.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/deterrence-theory.pdf

^[32] ibid

^[33] ibid

^[34] [1954] N.Z.L.R. 86

^[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restitution

^[36] Virgo, Graham(2006). The Principles of the Law of Restitution. New York: OUP. p.6.ISBN978-0-19-929850-1.

^[37] ibid

^[38] S. SCHAFER, fViolnt Crimes, 61 Nw. U. L. Rmv. 72, 76, 77, 78 (166).

^[39] Bruce R . J acob, Reparation or Restitution by the Criminal Offender to His V ictim: Applicabilit y of an Ancient Concept in the Modern Correctional Process. 1970. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology volume 61 | Issue 2 Article 3. P, 154.

^[40] www.internetjournalofcriminology.com,p. 7

^[41] ibid

^[42] ibid

^[43] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_(penology)

^[44] McAnany, Patrick D. (August 2010). "Justification for punishment (Punishment)

^[45] [1976] Crim L.R 314

^[46] www.internetjournalofcriminology.com,p. 6

^[47] ibid

^[48] The office of the minister for correctional service and liquor licensing REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF REVIEW INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE IN PNG, p.1.

^[49] [2011] PGNC 291; N6060 (11 May 2011)

^[50] Ibid

^[51] ibid

^[52] prepared by The Law and Justice Sector Working Group December 1999 THE NATIONAL LAW AND JUSTICE POLICY AND PLAN OF ACTION TOWARDS RESTORATIVE OF JUSTICE .p. 12

^[53] [1988] PGSC 17; [1988-89] PNGLR 193 (27 October 1988)

^[54] Samuel G. Kling, The Prison Community, 54 HARV. L. REV. 722, 722 (1941).

^[55] Lorna A. Rhodes, Pathological Effects of the Supermaximum Prison, 95 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 1692, 1692 (2005); P, 7

^[56] Police v Bira [2010] PGDC 14; DC941 (23 April 2010),Kuami M

^[57] PNG Correctional Service 2012 ANNUAL REPORT,p.6

^[58] ibid

^[59] Ibid

^[60] PNG Correctional Service 2012 ANNUAL REPORT,p.7 There are no sources in the current document.

^[61] PNG Correctional Service 2012 Annual report

^[62] A Region-Wide Assessment of Laws on the Prevention of Torture and Other Ill Treatment of Detainees UNITED NATIONS OFFICE of the HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (OHCHR) Regional Office for the Pacific Thematic study (2009), p.1.

^[63] Ibid

^[64] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447157/

^[65] Mood EW. Fundamentals of healthful housing: their application in the 21st century. In: Burridge R, Ormandy D, eds. Unhealthy Housing: Research, Remedies and Reform. New York, NY: Spon Press; 1993:303–337 See also Ibid No 45

^[66] Stein L. A study of respiratory tuberculosis in relation to housing conditions in Edinburgh; the pre-war period.Br J Soc Med.1950;4:143–169 see also Ibid No 45

^[67] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447157/

^[68] Ibid

^[69] ibid

^[70] International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 10, para. 1.

^[71] 6 UDHR, article 25; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [hereinafter “ICESCR”], article 11; Convention on the Rights of the Child [hereinafter “CRC”], article 27; Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa [hereinafter “Robben Island Guidelines”], paragraph 34.

^[72] SMR, rule 10.

^[73] SMR, rule 9 (2)

^[74] Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

^[75] The recent Tongan Supreme Court case of Nifai Tavake v the Kingdom of Tonga 20 illustrates this point. The case was centered on assault, ill-treatment and alleged torture of the plaintiff by Tongan law enforcement officials. During the hearings, the plaintiff’s counsel described his client’s treatment as “torture” but also acknowledged that Tonga was not a party to the CAT. The Chief Justice, who presided over the case, stated that ‘it is now accepted by most international jurists that the prohibition against torture is part of customary international law, and, furthermore it is a jus cogens rule from which States cannot derogate – whether they are a party to the various treaties which prohibit it or not’.

^[76] 28th September 1989 [1989] PGNC 25; N786 (11 November 1989

^[77] REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF REVIEW INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE IN PNG, 1979, The Honorable Delba, M.P. the minister for correctional Service and liquor Licensing. P. 4

^[78] ibid

^[79] ibid

^[80] ibid

^[81] ibid

^[82] for 2013 United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.Prison and Detention Center Conditions

^[83] ibid

^[84] ibid

^[85] http:// www. REHABILITATION PROGRAMMES IN THE PRISON TO PREVENT PRISONERS’ RECIDIVISM: THE ACTUAL SITUATION, PROBLEMS AND COUNTERMEASURES

^[86] 123 of the Correctional Service Act

^[87] Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

^[88] SMR, rule 20.

^[89] Correctional service regulation Act 1995

^[90] 28th September 1989 [1989] PGNC 25; N786 (11 November 1989

^[91] REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF REVIEW INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE IN PNG, 1979, The Honourable Delba, M.P

^[92] Ibid

^[93] INA/IASER REPORT by Clifford, Morauta, Stuart, P. 9`

^[94] ibid

^[95] Nutritional Optic Neuropathy in Papua New Guinean Prisoners by Camilla Alice Gould A thesis submitted for the degree of: Master of Science at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand (2012)

^[96] http://www.hygieneexpert.co.uk/importancegoodpersonalhygiene.html

^[97] S37 (17) of the Constitution of the independent state of Papua New Guinea

^[98] 6 ICESCR, article 12.

^[99] Principles on Detention or Imprisonment, principle 24; SMR, rule 24.

Principles on Detention or Imprisonment, principle 24.[100]

^[101] UDHR, article 25; ICESCR, article 12.

^[102] BPT, principle 9.

^[103] SMR, rule 26.

^[104] SMR, rule 22 (3)

^[105] 1 Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [hereinafter “Principles of Medical Ethics”], principle 1

^[106] SMR, rules 12 to 16.

^[107] SMR, rule 21. 56 B

^[108] Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

^[109] 28th September 1989 [1989] PGNC 25; N786 (11 November 1989

^[110] REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF REVIEW INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE IN PNG, 1979, The Honourable Delba, M.P. the minister for correctional Service and liquor Licensing. P. 4

^[111] ibid

^[112] ibid

^[113] ibid

^[114] Nutritional Optic Neuropathy in Papua New Guinean Prisoners by Camilla Alice Gould A thesis submitted for the degree of: Master of Science at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand (2012)

^[115] ibid

^[116] 2013 United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.Prison and Detention Center Conditions

^[117] ibid

^[118] REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF REVIEW INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE IN PNG, 1979, The Honorable Delba, M.P. the minister for correctional Service and liquor Licensing. P. 4

^[119] See Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 320, 18 L. Ed. 356; Featherstone v. People, 194 111. 325, 02 N. E. 084; Ex parte Howe, 20 Or. 181, 37 Pac. 530; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 129, 49 Am. Rep. 218.

^[120] Hugo, Adam Bedau (February 19, 2010). "Punishment, Crime and the State

^[121] UDHR, article 5; ICCPR, article 7; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [hereinafter “CAT”], preamble and article 2; Code of Conduct, article 5.

^[122] CAT, article 1

^[123] CAT, article 16.

^[124] Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance [hereinafter “Declaration on Enforced Disappearance”], article 1; Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions [hereinafter “Principles on Summary Executions”], principle 1.

^[125] CAT, article 10.

^[126] Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

^[127] Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990

^[128] B`ody of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment [hereinafter “Principles on Detention or Imprisonment”], principle 1; Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners [hereinafter “BPT”], principle 1.

^[129] REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF REVIEW INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE IN PNG, 1979, The Honourable Delba, M.P. the minister for correctional Service and liquor Licensing. P. 4

^[130] Ibid

^[131] [1983] PNGLR 87 (15 April 1983)

^[132] [1982] PNGLR 7 (19 February 1982)

^[133] [2006] PGNC 29; N2969 (2 February 2006)

^[134] [1988] PGNC 20; [1988-89] PNGLR 266 (27 July 1989)

^[135] Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

^[136] [1983] PNGLR 87 (15 April 1983)

^[137] [1988] PGNC 20; [1988-89] PNGLR 266 (27 July 1989)

^[138] for 2013 United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.Prison and Detention Center Conditions

^[139] Nutritional Optic Neuropathy in Papua New Guinean Prisoners by Camilla Alice Gould A thesis submitted for the degree of: Master of Science at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand (2012)

^[140] Principles on Detention or Imprisonment, principle 13; SMR, rule 35

^[141] Principles on Detention or Imprisonment, principle 12; Principles on Summary Executions, principle 6.

^[142] Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

^[143] REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF REVIEW INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE IN PNG, 1979, The Honourable Delba, M.P. the minister for correctional Service and liquor Licensing. P. 4

^[144] [1983] PNGLR 87 (15 April 1983)

^[145] Matter of Applications by John Ritsi Kutetoa, George Taunde, Titus Soumi and Andrew Amid [2005] PGNC 139; N2819 (23 March 2005)

^[146] [2005] PGNC 139; N2819 (23 March 2005)

^[147] [1985] PGNC 15; [1985] PNGLR 212 (1 August 1985)

^[148] Mika’il DeVeaux, The Trauma of the Incarceration Experience , P. 259

^[149] DONALDCLEMMER, THEPRISONCOMMUNITY(1940)

^[150] Samuel G. Kling, The Prison Community, 54 HARV. L. REV.722, 722 (1941)

^[151] Adrian Grounds & Ruth Jamieson, No Sense of an Ending: Researching the Experience of Imprisonment and Release Among Republican Ex-Prisoners, p. 169.

^[152] raig Haney & Philip Zimbardo, The Past and Future of U.S. Prison

Policy: Twenty-Five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment, 53 AM

^[153] Ibis No 130

^[154] S 19 (1) (aa) of the Criminal Code

^[155] https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Psychological-Murder

^[156] http://www.amnesty.ie/ Human Rights concerns with PNG reinstating the death penalty

^[157] http//www.Prisoner Abuse: How Different are U.S. Prisons? May 13, 2004 8:00PM EDT

^[158] [1986] 1 WLR 349; [1986] 1 All ER 985. (applied in State ats Teptep [2004] PGNC 148; N2612 (13 May 2004)

^[159] [2005] PGNC 131; N2823 (25 February 2005)

^[160] UDHR, article 2; ICCPR, article 3; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [hereinafter “CEDAW”], articles 1, 2 and 3; Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women [hereinafter “Declaration on Violence against Women”], article 3.

^[161] CEDAW, articles 1, 6 and 7; Declaration on Violence against Women, articles 2 and 4.

^[162] Principles on Detention or Imprisonment, principle 5; SMR, rule 8 (a).

^[163] SMR, rule 53.

^[164] SMR, rule 23 (1). 108 UDHR, article 1 and article 25, para. 2; CRC, preamble; ICCPR, preamble

^[165] OSWALD SCHOPFLE and AHERN (1987)

^[166] ibid

^[167] OL KALABUS MERI A Study of Female Prisoners in Papua New Guinea BY ANNE BORREY OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 21 1992,p. 42

^[168] ibid

^[169] ibid

^[170] ibid

^[171] INA/IASER REPORT by Clifford, Morauta, Stuart

^[172] LAW AND ORDER IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA INA/IASER REPORT by Clifford, Morauta, Stuart

^[173] OL KALABUS MERI A Study of Female Prisoners in Papua New Guinea BY ANNE BORREY OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 21 1992, p. 34

^[174] ibid

^[175] http//www.Prisoner Abuse: How Different are U.S. Prisons? May 13, 2004 8:00PM EDT

^[176] ibid

^[177] ibid

^[178] Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987.

^[179] Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

^[180] Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 57/200 of 18 December 2002

^[181] Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990

^[182] Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

^[183] Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

^[184] REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF REVIEW INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE IN PNG, 1979, The Honorable Delba, M.P. the minister for correctional Service and liquor Licensing. P. 4

^[185] Ibid