tortured. Between June 23 and 27, 2002, 308 persons deprived of freedom were put on a
punishment regime and given water only sporadically. They were forced to take care of their
physiological needs in open air. During the day, these people were left in the heat of the sun
(Porto Velho’s temperature during those days ranged from 30 to 38º C). They were also
beaten over the course of this period, and had their heads shaved.
21. The petitioners point out that despite the evidence of torture within the prison, various
inquiries and investigations undertaken to look into the torture of persons deprived of freedom
at “Urso Branco” Prison were never concluded.10
22. The petitioners assert that contrary to what the State alleges, the socalled “safe cells”
–overcrowded and unfit cells that housed persons being threatened by other inmates were
never actually decommissioned. The “safecells” were replaced by the “birdcage”. In other
words, the persons deprived of freedom were transferred from the “safe cells” to another area
that was just as unfit to house persons and just as overcrowded. According to the petitioners,
the “birdcage” is just as unhealthy: there is no bathroom; the heat inside is excessive; the
area is not adequately protected from the elements (when it rains the cell floods); it is infested
with flies, and piles of paper are used as mattresses and beds. Later, the petitioners allege,
those threatened within the prison were transferred to the “boxes” – cells called that way
because of their structure. They are concrete units, with holes in the walls to allow for
breathing. The socalled “boxes” measure about five square meters. The holes in the walls are
the only source of ventilation. The persons deprived of freedom in these cells have told the
petitioners that they are constantly threatened by the “leaders” of the pavilions and that they
are not being adequately protected.
23. The petitioners’ position is that the State seeks to misrepresent the facts, without actually
correcting the serious conditions at the prison. For the petitioners, the ideal solution would be
to build a proper facility that conforms to international standards for the protection of human
rights, to house those who are threatened and later transfer them to another prison.
24. In sum, the petitioners point to the Brazilian State’s failure to act on the deaths that
occurred inside ”Urso Branco” Prison and on the prison conditions that the victims are
enduring. The petitioners assert that conditions at the prison are dangerous to the health of
the persons deprived of freedom and prison staff alike, and are not up to the standards
prescribed by the Law on Execution of Criminal Sentences 11. They also allege that prison staff
lacks proper working conditions.
B.
The State
25. In a communication sent to the IACHR on April 22, 2003, the State acknowledges that, in
fact, “Urso Branco” Prison was overcrowded, unsafe and unhealthy, that medical care at the
prison was inadequate and that the prison population was to a large extent idle. In this regard,
by a Joint Recommendation from the Court with jurisdiction over Execution of Criminal
Sentences and the Prosecutor from the 10th Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Brazilian State
immediately recommended the following: (1) that the prison overcrowding issue be resolved ;
(2) that a new prison facility be put into operation; (3) that investigations be carried out
regarding torture and beatings involving prison guards and military police; (4) that periodic cell
inspections be conducted; (5) that the establishment be equipped to provide medical and
dental care to all persons deprived of freedom; (6) and that security controls to prevent arms,
The petitioners allege that the Administrative Inquiry opened in the wake of the slaughter of January 1, was closed
on September 4, 2002, having reached the following conclusion: “The Office of the Magistrate of the Prison System
concluded that neither malice nor negligence on the part of any prison system employee caused the tragedy that
occurred on January 1; quite the contrary, their conduct reveals a desire to save the lives of the inmates, even those
lives that were so violently and inexplicably snuffed out that day.”
Similarly, according to the petitioners Disciplinary Administrative Inquiry No. 0046/2002COGESP/SUPEN was closed
by Directive No. 815/2002/GAB/SUPEN. This inquiry was conducted in the wake of the alleged torture of inmates
following the visit made by members of the Global Justice Center. The petitioners claim that in the administrative
proceeding, the Permanent Investigative Commission heard only from police officers; the warden of “Urso Branco”
Prison at the time, MP Colonel Josanildo Querino, did not allow the Commission into the prison to question the inmates
allegedly tortured.
11
Law on Execution of Criminal Sentences, No. 7210/84, Articles 1 and 10 to 36.
10
4