INTRODUCTION
Introduction
This paper is addressed to monitoring bodies responsible
for the external scrutiny of places of deprivation of liberty.
It outlines the risks faced by women deprived of their
liberty of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment
and measures that can be taken to reduce such risks.
The main focus of the paper is the situation of women
in detention in the criminal justice system, though the
discussion is in many cases equally relevant to women
deprived of liberty in other contexts, such as psychiatric
institutions and immigration detention facilities.
(…) is applicable to all categories of women deprived
of their liberty, including criminal or civil, untried or
convicted women prisoners, as well as women subject
to ‘security measures’ or corrective measures ordered by
a judge.’ Moreover, the adoption of the Rules provides
an informative basis for gender-sensitive treatment of
women in detention more broadly.4 For example, the
UNHCR guidelines on standards relating to the detention
of asylum-seekers refer to the provisions of the Bangkok
Rules.5
The paper focuses only on women. It does not include
a discussion of the risks faced by men who may also be
subjected to gendered violations, especially men who are
perceived not to conform to socially accepted gender
roles,1 due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
An examination of the particular risks faced by lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons deprived
of their liberty, in general, is not developed in this paper,
as it is felt that this topic requires a separate discussion.
The paper also does not include a discussion of the risks
women face in the private sphere or in the community,
though the links between the wider context and places
of deprivation of liberty is referred to as relevant, due to
the intricate relationship between the two spheres. It is
hoped that, in this way, the paper will contribute to the
development of a holistic understanding of the issues
that need attention.
Monitoring bodies, while using the Bangkok Rules as a
reference point for their work, should also be aware that
the risks faced by women in prisons6 is often a reflection
of a wider lack of understanding, prejudicial attitudes
and discriminatory practices in society. As noted in
the preamble of the Updated Model Strategies and
Practical Measures on the Elimination of Violence against
Women in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice: ‘Violence against women is often embedded in
and supported by social values, cultural patterns and
practices. The criminal justice system and legislators
are not immune to such values and thus have not
always regarded violence against women with the same
seriousness as other types of violence……’7
The adoption of the UN Rules on the Treatment of
Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for
Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules)2 represents an
important step forward in recognising the distinct gender
specific needs of women in the criminal justice system
and introducing safeguards to respond to women’s risk
of ill-treatment and torture. The Bangkok Rules provide a
key reference point for monitoring bodies in fulfilling their
responsibilities in relation to women in detention.3
It should be noted that the Bangkok Rules were
negotiated and adopted in the context of criminal
justice, which is also reflected in their title. However,
paragraph 14 of the ‘Introduction’ to the Bangkok Rules
states that ‘Section I of the present rules [Rules 1-39]
Thus, the high risk women face of ill-treatment and
torture in places of deprivation of liberty is not an issue
that can be resolved only by focusing on those places.
The root causes of women’s vulnerability in detention
are often to be found outside the prison walls, though
such vulnerability is intensified significantly in places of
deprivation of liberty.
In addition to the particular vulnerability of women
to torture and ill-treatment, especially gender based
violence, women also have gender specific needs,
which are rarely met in places of detention (e.g. special
healthcare needs) or which are exacerbated dramatically
by the mere fact of detention (e.g. women may be
abandoned by their families once imprisoned, due to
the stigma associated with women’s imprisonment).
The children of women prisoners represent an additional
consideration in this context, taking into account that
1. See UN Committee Against Torture General Comment No. 2, CAT/C/GC/2, 24 January 2008, para. 22.
2. Adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21 December 2010, A/RES/65/229.
3. The Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture (SPT) has referred to the Bangkok Rules in a number of its country reports, recommending the States
concerned to ensure that protection measures and conditions of detention in the country’s prisons are compatible with the Bangkok Rules. See for
example CAT Report on Sri Lanka, 8 December 2011, CAT/C/ LKA/CO, para. 14; CAT Report on Belarus, 7 December 2011, CAT/C/BLR/C/O/4, para.
20.
4. It should also be noted that the Bangkok Rules do not address the specific risks faced by LGBTI persons in detention. Please see PRI/ APT, LGBTI
persons deprived of their liberty: a framework for preventive monitoring, second edition, 2015.
5. UNHCR, Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention, 2012,
Guideline 9.3, p37. http://www.unhcr.org/505b10ee9.html
6. Where the word ‘prison’ is used, it is used to refer to all detention facilities, including police lock-ups, pre-trial detention facilities and prisons where
sentenced prisoners are held.
7. A/RES/65/228, Annex, para. 3.
2 |
Penal Reform International | Women in Detention: a guide to gender-sensitive monitoring