drugs and cell phones from making their way into prisons be stepped up, among other
recommendations.
26. The State thus acknowledges the violence and other conditions under which persons
deprived of freedom are held at “Urso Branco” Prison. Nevertheless, it contends that it took the
necessary steps to restore normalcy, and to bring the prison system in line with international
human rights standards on the theme. The State alleges that after taking a number of steps,
which will be described below, it regained full control of the prison unit, which was essential to
safeguard the lives of the persons deprived of freedom. To supervise, monitor and coordinate
the measures the State took, a Special Commission of the “Council for the Protection of Human
Rights” was formed.
27. As for the deaths that occurred inside the prison, the State asserts that it firmly intends to
conduct investigations so that all the guilty parties are properly punished. In the case of the
massacre on January 1 and 2, 2002, the State asserts that the judicial procedure is extremely
complex since it involves multiple deaths and multiple perpetrators. Among the hundreds of
judicial acts that were performed, the State notes that the questioning of the witnesses was
completed on May 23, 2006. As for the other deaths that occurred inside the prison (between
the time of the massacre and the date of presentation of this report), all the incidents are
being duly investigated, some prisoners have already been convicted and their sentences have
become final.12 The State therefore contends that the Bureau of Prisons is heavily committed
to investigating the deaths and the death threats that occurred, are occurring or could occur.
28. The State objects to the charge that it has taken no action on the torture cases. It claims
that administrative inquiries13 were instituted to examine the accounts of the persons deprived
of freedom. Those investigations are proceeding normally, following the procedures of the
Brazilian domestic system of justice. It also asserts that the petitioners are making reckless
accusations against the authorities, accusing them of heinous crimes (incidents of torture),
without offering any concrete evidence and without ensuring their right to refute the charges.
The State points out that the right to a presumption of innocence is one of the principles of due
process of law.14
29. As for conditions at the prison, the State defends itself by asserting that it firmly intends to
rid “Urso Branco” Prison of any threat to human rights. To restore order at the prison, the
State sent an Investigation Mission to Rondônia, to negotiate with state authorities with a view
to working out effective measures to ensure the lives and physical safety of the persons
deprived of freedom.
30. To correct the overcrowding at “Urso Branco” Prison, the federal and state governments
have teamed up to rebuild the “Casa de Detenção José Mario Alves”.15 The State contends that
this measure will eliminate the overcrowding problem and will separate accused persons from
those who have already been convicted. It points out that the State is making numerous
efforts to increase the number of vacancies available in prisons throughout the state of
Rondônia.
31. The State asserts that the lack of security prior to 2004, caused by the insufficient number
of prison guards, was corrected when reinforcements were sent to boost the number of guards
and maximize security at the prison. Furthermore, guard staffing was significantly improved;
according to the State, the number of guards per shift16 went from an average of 13 to an
average of 16. Furthermore, the state of Rondônia provides ongoing training for prison guards.
32. The State contends that medical and dental care at the prison has improved significantly.
According to the reports of the SEAPEN Prison Health Unit, in November and December 2004
medical treatment was administered 428 times; in January, 266 times; and in February 379
Attached is the list identifying the dead by name and the status of the court inquiries or police investigations, which
is based on information provided by both parties.
13
As with Case No. 0046/2002 (SUPEN/RO).
14
Federal Constitution of Brazil, 1988, Article 5, paragraph LVII.
15
Information supplied in April 2003; the Brazilian Government’s 13th Report.
16
The Brazilian State’s Tenth Report, December 2004/January to February 2005.
12
5