36
Concerns in Europe: January - June 2001
AI Index: EUR 01/003/2001
Amnesty International September 2001
allegedly attempted to prevent the police officers
handcuffing her husband by imposing herself between
the police officers and her husband and hitting out at
one of the police officers, a charge which she denied.
She informed AI that she and her husband had been
summonsed to court on the charges of resisting the
police officers. However, Bochum District Court
(Bochum Amtsgericht) eventually rejected the police
counter-complaints in late October 2000, finding Eva-
Maria Osadolor not guilty and dropping the charges
against her husband.
Conditions of detention
AI learned about the intention of the authorities in
Lower Saxony to use metal cages to detain anti-
nuclear demonstrators who were expected to protest
against the transportation of nuclear waste from Le
Hague to Gorleben in Lower-Saxony towards the end
of March. According to media reports arrested
demonstrators would be held in metal cages
approximately six metres by four metres in length and
width and over two and a quarter metres high. In the
past the transportation of nuclear waste through the
territory of Lower Saxony to the Gorleben depository
site had resulted in significant protest activity in past
years, frequently resulting in large-scale arrests. AI
wrote to the authorities seeking clarification about the
conditions of detention in the metal cages and about
their intended overall use. AI was concerned that the
use of such cages to hold detainees may have
amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The organization received a response from the
Lower Saxony authorities in May, providing AI with
the requested information and stating that the mobile
custody cells (mobile Gewahrsamzellen) or mobile
prisoner
assembly
points
(
mobile
Gefangenensammelstellen) had not been employed
during the recent transportation as “a sign of the
willingness of the police to engage in dialogue and
avoid conflict”. However, in future the mobile custody
cells would only be used if it was envisaged that large
numbers of people would be detained, exceeding the
capacities of existing holding facilities, and would
only be used as a last resort. AI was informed that the
mobile custody cells would be placed out of view of
the public in empty buildings, such as gyms and
garages, and would meet international minimum
standards of conditions of detention relating to space,
heating, ventilation, and drinking and eating facilities.
Abusive restraints
In March AI wrote to the Berlin authorities expressing
about concern a 46-year-old Somalian prisoner in
Tegel prison (Justizvollzugsanstalt Tegel) who had
reportedly been attached by his ankles to a fixed point
in his cell by a rein for several weeks at the start of the
year. The prisoner, who was sentenced to 10 months’
imprisonment in October 2000 for violating the
conditions of his probation, began to repeatedly kick
the door of his prison cell over extended periods of
time from 22 November 2000, creating a considerable
disturbance and resulting in him being restrained. AI
was concerned that the practice of attaching a prisoner
to a fixed point in a cell, such as a cell wall or a bed,
by means of a short rein may have constituted cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment.
In late March, AI received a response from the
Berlin authorities, confirming that the prisoner had
been attached by one of his ankles to a fixed point on
the floor of his cell by a one-metre-long leather strap.
The authorities stated that this measure had been
unavoidable due to his disruptive behaviour, whereby
he "had struck the door of his cell for hours on end,
day and night, thereby causing an unbearable and
unreasonable noise in the area of his accommodation
for staff and prisoners". The authorities added that "all
attempts to dissuade the prisoner from his way of
behaviour and to integrate him into the prison had
failed". The prisoner had reportedly been transferred
to several different cells, one of which had been
specially modified to reduce the risk of noise being
caused as a result of his behaviour, but there was no
reported change in the prisoner’s behaviour. However,
the prisoner was transferred to a psychiatric clinic in
Berlin in late February on the basis of expert medical
opinion, which ruled that he was unfit to be held in
prison.
Update
(update to AI Index: EUR 01/001/2001
)
In June 2001 AI received a response from Düsseldorf
District
Administration
(Bezirksregierung
Düsseldorf) relating to allegations the organization
had previously raised concerning the treatment of a
20-year-old Togolese woman in June 2000. She had
alleged that she was arrested after she reportedly
refused to leave a babycare shop in the town of
Geldern in North Rhine-Westphalia after a dispute
with the shop’s management about a returned
pushchair. The woman, who was 17 weeks pregnant
at the time, and her husband also alleged that during
the arrest the police officers ill-treated her and while
on the ground rolled her onto her front, even though
she was obviously pregnant, in order to handcuff her.
The detainee also alleged that she was still handcuffed
when she was sent to hospital where she was to
undergo a gynaecological examination to ensure that
her unborn baby had not been injured. A
gynaecologist at the hospital reportedly initially
refused to conduct an examination of the detainee due
to her handcuffed state.
Düsseldorf District Administration informed AI
that an investigation into the incident had revealed that
the woman had refused to leave the shop and had acted
aggressively towards the police officers, which
resulted in her immediate arrest and a subsequent fine.
The authorities stated that the police officers had acted
with faultless judgement and correctly according to
the situation, and that the detainee herself was to
blame for any injuries she incurred. However, the
authorities omitted to comment on AI’s concern that
the police officers had allegedly refused or neglected
to remove the handcuffs of the pregnant detainee who
was to undergo a gynaecological examination.