international standards for the protection of human rights and that the victims are incarcerated
in unhealthy and unsafe conditions.
16. The petitioners report that medical and dental care at the prison is poor, and that many
persons deprived of freedom have died for lack of care. In 2002, the then prison warden,
Lieutenant Colonel Josanildo Querino, told the petitioners that the medical care provided was
poor, owing to the fact that the physicians hired were not diligent. He stated further that the
prison did not have onsite dentists and social workers. In July 2006, the petitioners reported
that health services at the prison were still very poor and that medical care there was grossly
inferior. According to the petitioners, a new infirmary was built in the prison, but is not being
used because it is not properly equipped and outfitted. The old infirmary is still providing
outpatient care and has only one bed. The team to provide medical care to the persons
deprived of freedom at “Urso Branco” Prison consists of one physician, one nurse, four nurse’s
aides, a psychologist, a dentist and one social worker.4
17. According to the director of the SEAPEN Health Unit, the lack of daily exposure to the sun,
inaccessibility of running water for personal hygiene, and unsanitary cells increase the
incidence of infectiouscontagious diseases.5 The petitioners assert that many cells have
neither bathrooms nor running water, making personal hygiene impossible. They also claim
that some cells are not properly ventilated and that the temperature and humidity in the cells
is high, making conditions all the more unsafe for the persons deprived of freedom at “Urso
Branco” Prison.
18. The petitioners are protesting the prison’s security system. They warn that lack of control
at “Urso Branco” Prison is serious – the persons deprived of freedom break padlocks and build
underground tunnels that link the various cells. The petitioners6 assert that on average
between 20 and 30 padlocks are broken per week. The number of weapons found in the prison
is also significant. An inspection carried out on April 18, 2006, turned up 24 chuços 7 , two
knives and four iron bars. This same inspection (on April 18, 2006) also turned up clandestine
connections between cells, built by the persons deprived of freedom. 8 One reason suggested
by the petitioners to explain the dangerous conditions at the prison is its overcrowding. They
report that the prison population is almost twice the prison’s capacity. The petitioners also
attribute the lack of security at the prison to the extremely rundown physical structure of the
cellblocks at “Urso Branco” Prison. The petitioners believe that structural and organizational
reforms are needed at the prison. They warn that the cells at “Urso Branco” Prison have been
in terrible structural condition for long, yet the Brazilian State has not taken measures to find
an immediate solution to the problem.
19. The petitioners also report that corruption is rampant in the prison system, a problem
aggravated by the fact that the lowpaid prison guards are not properly trained. According to
the petitioners, all these factors combine to cultivate a climate that corrupts and ensnares,
forming a web that is solid, impenetrable and insoluble. It is corruption that enables drugs, cell
phones and weapons to make their way into prisons. The petitioners note also that prison
guards are at risk, as they are not given security, training and a safe working environment.
20. According to the petitioners, mistreatment of the victims is common practice at “Urso
Branco” Prison. They contend that prior to the weekly visits made to the cells in 2002, at the
beginning of the work day the prison guards frequently threw gas bombs at the persons
deprived of freedom, and then required that they take off their clothes and “run the gauntlet”
to get to the prison courtyard: prison guards would form two rows, facing each other, and the
victims would be forced to run through this corridor of guards, while the latter beat them on
the head and ribs using their billy clubs. There are also reports that after the visits made by
human rights defenders9 the victims in the cells that the team had visited were beaten and
Information obtained by request and sent to the IACHR by the petitioners on May 2, 2006.
Information obtained by request and sent to the IACHR by the petitioners on July 6, 2006.
6
Information supplied by the Judge with jurisdiction over Execution of Criminal Sentences. Document dated July 6,
2006.
7
A handcrafted weapon made with iron bars.
8
Nine interconnected cells in cellblock “A”; nine interconnected cells in cellblock “B”; four interconnected cells in
cellblock “C” nine interconnected cells in each of cellblocks “D”, “E” and “F,” for a total of 44 interconnected cells.
9
This was true of the visit that the Global Justice Center made to the prison on July 15, 2002.
4
5
3