Prison Subculture in Moldova’s Prisons (the CPT)

13. Moldovan prisons have for decades been plagued by informal prisoner hierarchies as a key feature of prison subculture and the related problem of inter-prisoner violence. In the report on its 2015 periodic visit, the CPT called upon the Moldovan authorities to take resolute action to prevent inter-prisoner intimidation and violence in prisons, in particular by taking effective measures to tackle the phenomenon of an informal prison hierarchy with all its negative consequences¹.

14. The authorities met by the CPT’s delegation during the 2018 visit, at both central and local level, acknowledged that the system of informal prisoner hierarchies still existed; however, they mostly appeared to be of the opinion that they had it under control or that they were doing their best to counteract the hierarchies’ influence².

In the course of the visit, the delegation noted that attempts were made in the establishments visited, with varying degrees of success, to address this deep-rooted problem.

In particular at Goian Prison, there was a considerable increase in the interaction between staff and inmates as compared with the previous visit. The delegation observed that genuine efforts were being made in this prison to develop positive relationships between staff and juveniles/young adults and to ensure that no prisoner was in a position to exercise power over other inmates³.

17. Overall, the information gathered during the visit indicates that, in both Chișinău and Soroca Prisons, the root causes of the problem of inter-prisoner violence were far from being addressed and, in the CPT’s opinion, these establishments still largely failed to provide for the most basic requirement of prisoners: a safe environment.

The phenomena of inter-prisoner violence, intimidation and exploitation continued to prevail in these prisons, which were a direct result of the existence of informal power structures among inmates. Once again, a number of prisoners told the delegation that they had been victims of beatings, threats of use of force and racketeering by informal leaders or their close circle.⁴

18. The CPT is particularly concerned about the situation of inmates considered as “humiliated” or “untouchable”. Assigned to the lowest caste in the prisoner hierarchy, these inmates were allegedly often subjected to physical and verbal abuse by other prisoners and were compelled to clean all accommodation areas, including communal sanitary facilities.

The informal “code of conduct” required them to avoid contact with other inmates (and even their belongings) and to take their meals only at designated tables in the canteen.

A number of prisoners met by the delegation including juveniles – indicated that they had to face the constant humiliation that came with being dubbed as “untouchable”.

The situation of the above-mentioned category of prisoners could, in the CPT’s view, be considered to constitute a continuing violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inter alia all forms of degrading treatment and obliges State authorities to take appropriate measures to prevent such treatment, including by fellow inmates⁵.

19. The problem of inter-prisoner violence seemed to be much more accentuated among juvenile (or young adult) remand prisoners. It appeared that many of them felt the need to assert themselves while being held in a facility for juveniles in order to be granted a “rank” within the informal prisoner hierarchy when they eventually got transferred to prisons for adults.

In the course of the visit, the delegation spoke to a number of victims and perpetrators alike, who gave accounts of beatings and other forms of ph ysical violence in the juvenile unit of Chișinău Prison. The delegation also learned of three cases which involved the alleged rape of juvenile s or young adults at Chișinău Prison in the months preceding the visit⁶.

20. It is hardly surprising that prison authorities, in the light of a lack of qualified and welltrained staff and a general approach that prisoner hierarchies are a well-established feature of the system, would consider it either necessary to co-operate with the informal leaders or at least counterproductive to fight this phenomenon, or feel helpless in their endeavours to curb the power of “higher-ranking” prisoners.

Similar to what was observed in the past, it appeared that in both prisons there was a tacit agreement between the management and the informal leaders as regards maintaining order among the prison population, which prima facie seemed to ensure the smooth running of the establishments.

This agreement required, however, that the management and staff turn a blind eye to the plight of the so-called “humiliated” as well as to instances of intimidation and violence against those who did not want to make contributions to an illegal collective fund (“obshchak”). Indeed, several prisoners interviewed by the delegation claimed that prison officers did not always intervene to stop the harassment or beating of “underclass” prisoners⁷.

A particularly striking example of such “collaboration” between the prison management and the informal hierarchy was observed by the delegation at Soroca Prison. While conducting interviews with inmates, the delegation met a prisoner who was responsible for keeping the records of all persons detained in the prison. More particularly, he was in the possession of a register which contained the names, dates of birth, lengths of prison sentences (together with the relevant articles of the Criminal Code) and accommodation section numbers of all prisoners who had been detained at Soroca Prison since 1999⁸.

It quickly became clear that the data concerned was not only available to the prison management but also to the informal prison hierarchy bosses who could immediately receive basic information on every newly-arrived inmate, including the crimes which the person concerned had been convicted of. This, of course, made it very easy to instantly identify prisoners who would fall into the category of “untouchables” based on their criminal record⁹.

21. Tacit collaboration between the management and the informal leaders in prisons has serious erosive effects on the whole criminal justice system. It is only common sense that such arrangements are bound to undermine the respect of the prisoner population vis-à-vis the administration.

In this context, it is also to be noted that inmates belonging to the higher echelons of the informal hierarchy continued to lead an extremely comfortable life inside prison with all possible amenities; in particular at Soroca Prison, striking differences in conditions (mainly in the state of repair and equipment, but also as regards occupancy levels) were once again observed between different accommodation areas¹⁰.

The CPT considers that, in these circumstances, any idea of rehabilitation is derisory, and the deterrent effect of a prison sentence is practically lost. Apart from contributing to an unsafe environment in prison, such a state of affairs perverts the purpose of imprisonment and the role of a prison system. Another point which should not be overlooked is that for other prisoners, in particular juveniles, seeing the “bosses” living a lavish life with all possible privileges and exclusive powers is a strong incentive to engage in the criminal subculture and rise up the ranks by oppressing others¹¹.

23. As already mentioned above, no allegations were received of physical ill-treatment by staff in the prisons visited. In this connection, it would also appear that staff very rarely resorted to the use of force on prisoners. For example, at Soroca Prison, five instances of use of physical force were recorded in 2017, while in the first five months of 2018 only one such case was registered¹².

While these figures can be regarded as positive, given the extremely low staff-inmate ratio at the two adult establishments visited, it is hardly surprising that ill-treatment by prison officers was not an issue. On the contrary, the limited staff presence in prisoner accommodation areas resulted in an insecure environment for prison officers themselves. This also partly explains their apparent reluctance to intervene in cases of inter-prisoner violence¹³.

In these circumstances, one cannot reasonably expect that all prisoners who have been victims of inter-prisoner violence (and indeed any witnesses among inmates) will choose to denounce the perpetrators. It was clear to the delegation that many such cases remained unreported out of fear of risking further violence, which prevailed among the inmates.

According to the complaints register at Soroca Prison, only nine official complaints were lodged relating to interprisoner violence in 2017. For the first five months of 2018, the register did not contain a single entry. However, a number of inmates were regularly found by staff during the roll calls to display visible injuries in their faces or arms. Invariably, these inmates claimed vis-à-vis the management and the examining health-care personnel that they had sustained the injuries accidentally (e.g. as a result of “falling off their beds” or “falling in the bathroom”). In this connection, reference should also be made to shortcomings observed in the recording of bodily injuries by health-care staff in the establishments visited¹⁴.

24. The delegation gained the impression that the Director of Soroca Prison was trying to push back the informal power structures among prisoners and to provide alternatives for those who did not wish to be affiliated with the criminal subculture (who, according to various interlocutors, were a steadily increasing category). However, it is unlikely that these efforts will bring significant results as long as key tasks of the prison management are “outsourced” to prisoners, who are thus put in a position of superiority over other inmates and are basically responsible for controlling life inside the prison¹⁵.

25. The CPT wishes to stress that the problem of inter-prisoner intimidation and violence cannot be solved without the management and staff regaining control over the situation in prison establishments. First of all, prison staff should be in a position to exercise their authority in an appropriate manner. This implies inter alia that the level of staffing must be sufficient (including at night-time) to enable prison officers to supervise adequately the activities of inmates and support each other effectively in the performance of their tasks.

Addressing the phenomenon of inter prisoner violence also requires that prison staff be particularly attentive to signs of trouble and properly trained to intervene in a determined and effective manner, at the earliest possible stage. In this context, the existence of positive relations between staff and prisoners, based on notions of dynamic security and care, is a decisive factor; such relations can help to overcome the habitual reluctance of victims (or witnesses) to denounce the perpetrators of inter-prisoner violence. Further, both initial and ongoing training programmes for staff of all grades must address the issue of managing inter-prisoner violence¹⁶.

---

8. Moreover, staff at Taraclia Prison failed to prevent the informal prison hierarchy from intimidating prisoners not to talk to the delegation and from “de-briefing” prisoners who had done so, despite being aware of the intimidation taking place¹⁷.

48. The problem of inter-prisoner violence and intimidation in Moldovan prisons has long been a source of serious concern for the CPT. In the report on its 2018 ad hoc visit, the Committee called upon the Moldovan authorities to take determined action to address this problem, in particular by taking effective measures to tackle the related phenomenon of an informal prison hierarchy.

The findings of the CPT’s delegation during the 2020 visit showed that the problem of interprisoner intimidation and violence among the adult male inmate population remained as acute as ever and was, as in the past, largely linked to the well-established informal hierarchies in the country’s prison system¹⁸.

49. According to medical files examined by the delegation at Cahul, Chișinău and Taraclia prisons, inmates were regularly found with injuries indicative of inter-prisoner violence, such as haematomas around the eyes and, albeit to a lesser extent, with more serious injuries (e.g. a broken arm).

As had been the case in the past, practically all the cases of inter-prisoner violence remained unreported, due to the climate of fear and intimidation created within the establishments by inmates who were at the top of the informal prison hierarchy, as well as a general lack of trust in the staff’s ability to guarantee prisoner safety. Unsurprisingly, many of the prisoners met by the delegation were very reluctant to speak about the circumstances in which they had sustained their injuries, and some were visibly scared.

On a few occasions, the delegation was followed by prisoners who tried to put pressure on other inmates in order to prevent them from talking freely with the delegation.

Nevertheless, a number of inmates in each of the prisons visited did provide accounts of beatings, threats of violence and extortion by other inmates, as well as sexual assault.

At Chișinău Prison, the delegation heard an allegation that a sex offender had been deliberately placed in a cell with prisoners known for violence toward sex offenders (so called “press-khata”). The prisoner concerned claimed that he had been severely beaten and raped by his cellmates, apparently as a punishment for his sex offender profile. However, the prisoner did not submit a complaint due to fear of retaliation¹⁹.

51. As regards more particularly prisoners considered to be “untouchable” by the informal hierarchy, they continued to live in a state of constant fear and humiliation. Once again, the delegation received many complaints from such prisoners of frequent verbal abuse and demeaning behaviour by other inmates. Some of them even feared that they would be raped as a punishment for the offences they were accused or convicted of.

As was the case in the past, these prisoners were compelled to perform “dirty” work (such as cleaning toilets and collecting rubbish) and were required by the hierarchy’s internal rules to avoid any physical contact with other inmates.

Further, being rejected by the mainstream prison population, they were not permitted to work with other inmates or to access communal areas, such as the gym, library or chapel.

Moreover, with the notable exception of Taraclia Prison, inmates in this category were being held in the most sub-standard conditions to be found in the prisons²⁰.

52. The delegation noted that, in the prisons for adults visited, a certain number of inmates had been separated from the mainstream prison population and placed in designated units at their own request, pursuant to Article 206 of the Enforcement Code. It was clear that for many of these prisoners such a form of self-imposed segregation – which usually entailed an impoverished regime for prolonged periods (in some cases for years on end) – was the only way to escape potential aggressors²¹.

54. According to the Enforcement Code, persons convicted for the first time shall be kept separate from those who have previously been imprisoned. However, the delegation observed that this rule was rarely observed in any of the establishments visited. Those inmates without previous experience of imprisonment were a primary target for exploitation, extortion and manipulation by informal prison leaders²².

55. Further, at Chișinău and Cahul prisons, newly admitted sex offenders, LGBTQI+ persons and those suffering from learning disabilities, were not separated from the mainstream population but were initially held in a “quarantine” (admission) cell with other prisoners and were subsequently placed in the mainstream prison population. Consequently, they were exposed to a particularly high risk of being assaulted by other prisoners. Preventing such acts should be one of the priorities when combating inter-prisoner violence. The solution that is often adopted is to separate such prisoners from the rest of the prison population²³.

57. In the CPT’s view, the continuing failure of Moldovan authorities to ensure a safe and secure environment for prisoners is directly linked to a number of factors, notably the chronic shortage of custodial staff, reliance on informal prisoner leaders to keep control over the inmate population and the existence of large-capacity dormitories. At the same time, there is no proper risk and needs assessment of prisoners upon admission, nor a classification of inmates to identify in which prison, block or cell prisoners should be placed. The increased vulnerability of some prisoners (such as sex offenders, persons with mental health issues or drug dependencies) clearly calls for the need to identify potential risks and vulnerabilities in order to prevent these prisoners from being subject to violence and exploitation by other inmates²⁴.

58. In the light of the above, the CPT once again calls upon the Moldovan authorities to take resolute action, without further delay, to prevent inter-prisoner violence and intimidation throughout the prison system. This will require, in particular, putting in place a system of appropriate risk and needs assessment, classification and allocation of individual prisoners with a view to ensuring that prisoners are not exposed to other inmates who may cause them harm (duly taking into account the risk certain prisoners may pose to other inmates by promoting or imposing the informal prison hierarchy), providing prisoner accommodation based on smaller living units, setting up an effective recruitment and training system for prison staff and ensuring continuous staff supervision (including at night) in detention areas²⁵.

In this connection, certain concrete measures should also be taken as a matter of urgency to address the phenomenon of the informal prison hierarchy, such as:

• putting a definitive end to the practice of using informal prison leaders to maintain good order in prisons. Consideration might also be given in this context to segregating the informal leaders and their close circle from the rest of the prison population, on the basis of a proper individual risk and needs assessment;
• depriving informal prison leaders of the possibility to access newly arrived prisoners and perform their “caste designation”. In this context, it should be reiterated to prison staff that any staff member facilitating such contacts will be sanctioned accordingly;
• putting an end to the practice of prison management relying on input from the informal prisoner hierarchy when carrying out admission procedures;
• ensuring that prisoners who are exposed to the risk of abuse by fellow inmates (including LGBTQI+ persons, prisoners suffering from learning disabilities and sex offenders) and those who do not (or no longer) wish to be involved in the prison subculture receive the management’s full support, including, if they so request, by being accommodated in separate units, offering adequate conditions and regime;

59. As regards the juvenile inmates held at Goian Prison, the delegation noted that the number of instances of inter-prisoner violence continued to decrease. Further, the atmosphere among juvenile prisoners appeared to be generally free of tension. As transpired from the interviews with both staff and inmates, conflicts between the juveniles were infrequent and mainly related to football and other sports matches.

That said, the delegation observed that the prison subculture had not been fully eradicated in this establishment, and the castes of informal prisoner leaders and “untouchables” could still be discerned among the juveniles. Inmates in the latter category were mainly employed to clean the communal toilets and corridors and were only allowed to distribute food to other “untouchable” prisoners. Moreover, it appeared that, just like their adult counterparts, the juvenile “prison leaders” used other inmates to clean their cells and asked for a share of their food parcels, in return for “protection” from other inmates.

The situation described above is of serious concern to the CPT. The Committee recommends that the Moldovan authorities take appropriate steps at Goian Prison to prevent any form of exploitation of inmates and to ensure that no juvenile prisoner is in a position to exercise power over other juveniles. Further, juveniles should be encouraged to report any such practices to the prison management²⁶.

60. At Goian Prison, while there was no apparent participation of the hierarchy in the “classification” of newly arrived inmates, the delegation heard accounts that duty officers would occasionally allow a juvenile “prison leader” to visit admission cells and have a conversation with the newly admitted prisoners concerning their designation according to the informal rules. This would be unacceptable. The CPT would welcome the Moldovan authorities’ comments on this matter²⁷.

---

1. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
2. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
3. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
4. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
5. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
6. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
7. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
8. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
9. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
10. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
11. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
12. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
13. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
14. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
15. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
16. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 5 to 11 June 2018 
17. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 8, P. 11. 
18. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 48, P. 27. 
19. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 49, P. 28. 
20. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 51, P. 28. 
21. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 52, P. 29. 
22. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 54, P. 29. 
23. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 55, P. 29. 
24. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 57, P. 30. 
25. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 58, P. 30. 
26. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 59, P. 31. 
27. Report on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 28 January to 7 February 2020, Para 60, P. 31.