Human rights protect everyone from every walk of life. This protection extends to persons in detention, and conditions of detention should comply with requirements under international human rights law, including Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
While the Corallo v. the Netherlands case centers on the theme of conditions of detention, it also includes the complexities of St. Maarten being an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In addition, the case involves the environmental damage from hurricanes which further deteriorated detention facilities.
We spoke to Leonie Huijbers from the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, a Senior Policy Advisor and coordinator of pending ECHR judgments. Her PhD focuses on process-based human rights review, focusing on the European Court of Human Rights cases and the national decision-making process. Her work at the institute includes racial equality, institutional racism, and equal pay.
Interview with Leonie Huijbers
Introduction
My name is Leonie Huijbers. I work for the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights as a Senior Policy Advisor. When I finished my PhD, I wanted to help put human rights in practice; to ensure the Netherlands protects the rights of all individuals. That’s how I came to be at the Institute. My role focuses on different topics, including racial equality, institutional racism, and travellers’ rights. One of my responsibilities within the Institute is to focus on European Cooperation, which includes monitoring cases pending at the ECtHR and pending implementation before the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. That is how I became connected to the European Implementation Network. My role in the Corallo case was to advise the Institute on whether and when to submit communications to the Committee of Ministers under Rule 9.2.
Background of the case
Between December 2016 and April 2017, Mr Francesco Corallo was detained for over eight months at the Philipsburg Police Station, a detention facility that had been found inappropriate to detain people for long periods. He stayed 114 days in a multi-occupancy cell with 5 to 6 other people in there at times. For the rest of the period, he had been held in a single-occupancy cell of 12 square meters. Mr Corallo remained in the Philipsburg Police Station because in the Point Blanche Prison, where he should have stayed, his safety could not be secured.
The case itself focuses on the poor conditions of the detention facilities in St. Maarten. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The conditions of detention were not in accordance with the Convention.
Before the judgment, in 2015, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) had already mentioned that the detention system in St. Maarten was not in accordance with Article 3 of the ECHR. The CPT report states that “persons should not be detained at Philipsburg Police Station more than three days and in any event never longer than 10 days. The facility is totally inappropriate for holding remand and sentenced prisoners.”
Engaging in Implementation
After the judgment was delivered, the Committee of Ministers began supervising the implementation of the judgment. We argued that the case had to be examined under the enhanced supervision procedure, so it could be more thoroughly supervised by the Committee. We found it relevant to send information to that effect, showing that the case did not stand on its own, but it concerned structural deficiencies and required structural changes. As a result, the Committee decided to classify the case under the enhanced supervision procedure and has been supervising the implementation ever since. The Institute has provided updates on the progress being made at national level.
This was a first positive development. There was a point when we thought that the case was going to be closed by the Committee of Ministers (CM). We believe that our submissions helped prevent that, as we indicated that the problems are far from being resolved. A lot of prisoners are still in the same position as Mr. Corallo.
Improving Detention Facilities
Already in 2010, the government was aware of the poor detention situation in St. Maarten. So far, little had changed. Since the Corallo judgment, however, there seems to be a sense of political will. There are serious efforts to improve detention conditions and ensure that a new prison is built up to standard.
In terms of new facilities, the Netherlands plans to give St. Maarten EUR 30 million for a new detention centre and improvements to address detention conditions. Also, there is an agreement being negotiated between the UN Office Project Services (UNOPS) and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands included this proposal in their 2021 Action Plan, in which the UNOPS would supervise and build three types of detention and correctional facilities that would be Article 3 compliant.
We don’t exactly know what made the government change its position and prompted the financial contribution of the Netherlands to St. Maarten. But I like to believe the supervision of the CM contributed to this. The fact that the CM is monitoring the implementation process, might have created additional pressure leading to these developments.
Challenges to Implementation at the National Level
The situation in Corallo is not an isolated issue. This is the reality of the detention system in St. Maarten: there is not enough space. After the hurricanes in 2017, there was serious damage to the Point Blanche Prison and other facilities, which still need rebuilding.
One implementation challenge derives from the complex relationship between St. Maarten and the European part of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is a signatory to the ECHR and was found to be in violation of Article 3 ECHR. However, according to the division of responsibilities within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, each country is responsible for its own detention system. St. Maarten is an autonomous country, which means that the government of St. Maarten is responsible for its detention system, but, at the same time, it has fewer financial means to improve the situation by building prisons. While the European part of the Netherlands is often willing to provide financial support, it also sets standards or determines in what way money must be spent. This is found by St. Maarten to be contrary to its autonomy – as it does not want external interference. For years now, the government of St. Maarten has shown insufficient urgency to take the necessary measures and ensure their implementation. However, if St. Maarten fails to implement Corallo, the Kingdom, as a signatory to the Convention, will be held responsible. Therefore, an active role for the Kingdom is of utmost importance and in accordance with its responsibilities under the Statute and the ECHR; it is necessary for the Kingdom of the Netherlands to step up and ensure implementation of the judgment of the Court.
The agreement being negotiated with the UNOPS is a positive step in addressing the conditions of detention in St. Maarten, but it also complicates matters. Since there will be another organisation involved in building detention facilities, alongside the Kingdom of Netherlands and St. Maarten, there is more red tape causing a delay in getting the agreement signed.
Challenges in Engaging with the Committee of Ministers
One challenge we face when engaging in the implementation process is the lack of transparency regarding which cases will be orally debated. The Execution Department is open to receiving submissions by civil society organisations since it can’t investigate itself the details of every single case. However, while you know which cases are on the agenda, you don’t know which ones the CM will orally debate. This means you also do not know what impact your submission can have. However, we have the resources, knowledge, and connections with the Council of Europe to understand the process quite well. Therefore, it’s less frustrating engaging in the implementation process as a National Human Rights Institute. In comparison with NGOs, and especially with individual applicants, the process may be more overwhelming and even frustrating.
Recommendations
At national level, the authorities still need to address at least two aspects to improve the conditions of detention: new facilities and training of prison staff. Many facilities need rebuilding because of the damage done by hurricanes in 2017. There have been improvements made to the Phillipsburg Police Station, but authorities still need to build a new prison. Without it, the supervision of the case cannot be closed. Another important area which requires progress is training of new and existing prison staff. It will take some time to implement these measures, but the problems in the St Maarten detention system are known since 2010.
At the Committee of Ministers level, we want the case to be re-scheduled for debate on the agenda of the Committee. We need to see actual changes in practice before this case can be closed, because we are still in the same situation as 2-3 years ago.
Advice to CSO’s
My advice to civil society organisations who want to be involved in implementation, is to engage with other stakeholders and seek out strategic relationships. It is certainly valuable to go on field trips to the CoE and talk to the Department of Executions of Judgments and the EIN. In my experience, through these relationships, you can get a better idea of how things work in Strasbourg. Furthermore, EIN can give you guidance on the implementation process, including about when the CM will examine a particular case and what information would be relevant for the supervision process.
In terms of submissions, my advice is to be sure to explain the main issues you want to be addressed and be concise. Utilising reports from other NGOs, the CPT and other international organisations, will strengthen your argument. The CPT report on the Netherlands, for example, was a very useful resource for us, because the CPT visited the prison, and had data that showed the detention situation in St. Maarten was substandard.
Whichever type of civil society organisation you come from, your main goal is to create a window of opportunity to create lasting change, and once that window is created, make sure you complete your objectives. The supervision process of the Committee of Ministers may be one of the means to that effect. So don’t be afraid to engage with it.
Case Update: Response to the Latest Government Action Plan
In its recent communication, the government explains that there are some additional delays. So, while there are certain steps that are taken in relation to the detention situation at St. Maarten, there is still a long way ahead before changes are made in practice. We will continue monitoring relevant developments, as well as any further delays in implementation.
Relevant Information on Corallo v. the Netherlands
NGO/NHRI Communications
Action Plans
Government Communications
CM Decisions
We always welcome feedback, please let us know how we can improve this series: contact@einnetwork.org
Photo Credit: (1) Leonie Huijbers via the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (2) Photo by Tim Hüfner on Unsplash (3) Photo by Matthew Ansley on Unsplash (4) Photo by Grant Durr on Unsplash (5) Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash.