<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252"?>
<hearing xmlns="http://trc.saha.org.za/hearing/xml" schemaLocation="https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/export/hearingxml.xsd">
	<systype>special</systype>
	<type>Prison Hearings</type>
	<startdate>1997-07-21</startdate>
	<location>THE FORT - JOHNNESBURG</location>
	<day>1</day>
	<names>DR JUDITH VAN HEERDEN</names>
							<url>https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=56372&amp;t=&amp;tab=hearings</url>
	<originalhtml>https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/special/prison/vanheerd.htm</originalhtml>
		<lines count="54">
		<line number="1">
			<speaker>DR BORAINE&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="2">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>Judith you are welcome, can you please do your presentation fairly relaxed and the only thing will be the question of time so can you please go on?</text>
		</line>
		<line number="3">
			<speaker>DR BORAINE&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="4">
			<speaker>DR VAN HEERDEN&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>I would to thank the TRC for this opportunity to present aspects of the physical care of inmates in prison and in this presentation I shall contextulise my submission and discuss my research findings but in the interest of time I will leave out the case studies that were to illustrate conditions of incarceration.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="5">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> To start with the background, on behalf of society the state locks offenders away in prisons so we the taxpayers therefore have a stake in the well-being of inmates.  The public should be aware that persons in closed institutions like prisons, asylums, orphanages, old age homes are prone to abuse that torture only occurs in secret.  There is currently a demand that criminals be treated more harshly to make them suffer the consequences of their vile deeds.  This refutes the principle that convicts go to prison as punishment and not for punishment.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="6">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> The reality is that when convicts are treated brutally they are released into society more angry than ever and the cycle of violence is perpetuated.  The alarming recidivism rate in South Africa as high as 90% at Pollsmoor can be linked to violence often gang related in our prisons.  This cycle will only be broken by finding more creative and humane ways of dealing with those in captivity, by restoring their self esteem and dignity.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="7">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> Human Rights Watch claims that until 1990 the three most striking features in South Africa in prisons were strict secrecy, all information including personal exchanges at visits or in correspondence were forbidden by law.  Segregation where racial groups were housed in separate blocks to prevent Blacks and Whites from being within view of each other and corporal punishment sanctioned by law.  For prison offences, whipping was an arbitrary imposed on inmates.  Due to strict media control the public only had access to prison information related to court evidence or at trials and inquests.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="8">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="9">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="10">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="11">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> Security clearance for all doctors who worked in prisons was one of the thorny issues related to clinical independence.  Over fourteen months many attempts to gain personal experience of health care services inside prisons were subject to obtaining security clearance.  There it is but all these attempts were futile.  Repeated requests notwithstanding the Director of Community Health Services of the Cape, of the CPA evaded questions about the introduction and the later withdrawal of security clearance for prison doctors.  In more recent correspondence the Deputy Director of Surgeons of ... replied that security clearance is a police matter. It raises serious questions about the proclaimed independence of district surgeons and the collusion of hospital administration with the previous dispensation.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="12">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="13">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> In the declarations of the states of emergency the concept was reinforced by the forces being given full powers of search and seizure.  It led to confusion about the allegiance of prison health care staff and their clinical independence.  At prisons an entire infrastructure is in place to provide health care.  All prisons by law have a rudimentary hospital even if it is little more than a sickbay.  Since 1994 regional prison hospitals were introduced where among other things regular specialist consultant clinics are held.  At police stations on the other hand, are manned solely by officials without medical training.  All health care is provided by a district surgeon and depends on the concern of the policeman who calls him out.  Police stations also lack health care facilities, consulting rooms, examination couches, equipment, nursing care, supplies, storage and distribution of drugs.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="14">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> To provide proper care for all inmates in custody a strong argument can be made for the complete separation of health care from custodial care.  The Department of Health should take on responsibility for custodial health care.  It will also do away with the confusion about the role nurses.  Their present custodial role undermines the trust and confidentiality which should exist between patient and nurse.  Abuse and the seventy three deaths of political detainees during the three decades of repression occurred mainly outside prisoner police stations or at interrogation centres.  More alarming are the two hundred and sixty deaths in custody during the first fifteen months of democratic rule.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="15">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="16">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> A major advantage was those that came forward had a clear understanding of human rights, the value of the project and the risks they were taking.  Several, particularly in the Eastern Cape had Robben Island experience, well schooled they used every opportunity in detention to form Committees, to workshop and agitate for their rights, for better prison conditions, visiting, exercise, education, food and health care.  They submitted several detailed petitions to the Commissioner of Prisons and one to the South African Medical and Dental Council.  Their contribution was invaluable.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="17">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> A semi-structured questionnaire was designed to explore how the laws and regulations governing health care were applied.  The Prisons Act states that after a rest the prisoner be informed of his rights.  Emergency regulations further stipulated that detainees be examined as soon as possible after a rest or before release.  That treatment prescribed be carried out promptly and that only the District Surgeon could refer for outside treatment.  Section 29, isolation for the purpose of interrogation stipulated that detainees alleging assault be examined forthwith and that the District Surgeon and Magistrate visit Section 29 detainees every fourteen days.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="18">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> The results will be discussed under the following headings of Medical Rights, Medical Screening, Screening for Illness, you can read it yourself.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="19">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text>The Findings:   A picture of poor quality care and service emerged.  Overall the quality of care was better at prisons than at police stations.  One hundred and twenty three interviews were completed between February and August of 1991, fifty three in the Western Cape and seventy in the Eastern Cape including the Karoo.  It covered experiences in a variety of police stations and prisons in cities and towns around the Cape Province. </text>
		</line>
		<line number="20">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text>Demographics:   The ages varied from fifteen to sixty, the largest number fifty four fell in the twenty to twenty nine age group.  It reflected the general age distribution of detention pattern in the Eastern and Western Cape during the emergency ...  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="21">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text>Duration :   Repression in the Eastern Cape was more severe than in the Western Cape.  The light figures are the shorter periods and the darker columns the longer periods.  A greater proportion in the Eastern Cape were detained for longer periods that elsewhere.  In the Western Cape 96% spent less than twelve months in detention.  In the Eastern Cape 42% spent twenty four to thirty six months in detention.  An advertisement placed in the Eastern Province Herald on the 24th of December 1988 listed the name of eighty seven detainees who were spending their 3rd Xmas in prison, later three more names were added. </text>
		</line>
		<line number="22">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text>Transfers:   Disrupted prison routine increased the anxiety and insecurity of imprisonment.  In the Western Cape 90% were held in one to three places.  In the Eastern Cape 23% were held in four to seven and another 23% in seven to twelve places.  There seems to be a link between the period of detention and the number of moves, possibly the political profile and ability of certain individuals contributed to this.  The many unannounced moves of leaders broke the solidarity amongst detainees.  Moving prisons frequently through the prison system is known as ghosting, it was used to discipline the so-called disruptive prisoners.  Prison monitoring organisations condemned this practice and an intimidation tactic.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="23">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text>Medical Rights:  Only 8% were informed of their medical rights, they were told they could see a doctor if they were ill. </text>
		</line>
		<line number="24">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text>Screening:   Seventy were examined after their arrest, forty nine of them within 48 hours.  The law which states that every detainee shall be examined as soon as possible after arrest makes provision for individuals who are either in at the time of arrest of are injured during arrest.  Sixteen of the respondents who were on treatment, sixteen were on treatment at the time of arrest and only three got treatment within 48 hours.  Of the nine who waited three days to three months for treatment, seven were held at police stations, four never got any treatment.  Only eight of twenty eight who were injured received treatment within seven days.  Respondents were very skeptical about the so-called screening process, they perceived it as a fitness certificate which left them vulnerable to assaults from outside scrutiny.  When screeners were grouped they were lined up with their tops off and a District Surgeon marched past, past like a policeman to inspect eyes and oral cavities.  One complained that his TB treatment had been taken away and the District Surgeon told him that detainees were not allowed their own medicine and that his lawyer could take the matter up.  What astounded him was that the District Surgeon was the same doctor who had treated him at SANTA.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="25">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="26">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> A woman who asked for help because solitary confinement was psychologically damaged said that the District Surgeon did not see solitary as a problem as she had no physical sign, he said she was fine.  She was later admitted to Groote Schuur Hospital.  A schoolgirl of seventeen was depressed and slept badly, the District Surgeon said he could not diagnose, record or treat depression because he was not a psychiatrist.  She rejected the sleeping pills that he could provide by recording sleeplessness.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="27">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="28">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="29">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="30">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> Presenting for the third time with abdominal pain the District Surgeon said, not you again to a man who was later investigated and diagnosed of suffering from peptic ulcers.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="31">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text>Medical Examination:   Fifty seven said that the examination was superficial or rushed, if it occurred at all.  Only twenty two reported satisfactory examinations.  Detainees referred to large numbers that had to be seen in a limited time about standing in queues and tut, tut, tut on the chest wall or having their tummies prodded while standing.  Doctor Orr herself complained about having to see eighty to a hundred patients in two to three hours and she spoke about it amounting to no more than waving a stethoscope around.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="32">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> Detainees also queried diagnosis made by merely asking a few questions.  Examinations done down the line were obviously not private, only thirty three said they were alone with the District Surgeon and were able to speak privately.  Without consulting space examinations on occasion took place in the open.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="33">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text>The Sections of Management:   When asked about the attitude of the District Surgeon, one in three found him caring and several compared the behaviour to &quot;Doctor Good&quot; to that of &quot;Doctor Bad&quot;.  In the Eastern Cape &quot;Doctor Bad&quot; was mentioned by name.  Detainees demonstrated their disapproval by  boycotting sick parade when he was on duty.  They took this action because he wore a gun to the parade.  He was also the doctor who withheld treatment prescribed by &quot;Doctor Good&quot; for more than three months because the Section 29 detainee refused to divulge the name of his assailant.  </text>
		</line>
		<line number="34">
			<speaker></speaker>
			<text> In terms of care one in three were satisfied with management, one in five were given a diagnosis yet nine out of ten were given scripts.  In accordance with the law the treatment shall be carried out promptly.  Ninety five received their medication within forty eight hours.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="35">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>Doctor van Heerden could I please request something, we have got the submission and time being of essence, is it possible for you to answer a few questions?</text>
		</line>
		<line number="36">
			<speaker>DR VAN HEERDEN&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>Sure.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="37">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>From your submission you have case studies and I find in your case studies that most of the cases are of common-law prisoners nature except this one of ... (interrupted)</text>
		</line>
		<line number="38">
			<speaker>DR VAN HEERDEN&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="39">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>They were political prisoners themselves?</text>
		</line>
		<line number="40">
			<speaker>DR VAN HEERDEN&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>They were themselves political prisoners.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="41">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>Thank you.  It is not too clear to draw this distinction between health care and custodial care, more especially in a situation where it seems those who are doing custodial care seem to be more influential and they seem to direct terms on those who do health care and in the end it becomes a little confusing, how health care can be seen as perhaps independent of custodial care.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="42">
			<speaker>DR VAN HEERDEN&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="43">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="44">
			<speaker>DR VAN HEERDEN&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="45">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="46">
			<speaker>DR VAN HEERDEN&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>Beg your pardon?</text>
		</line>
		<line number="47">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>Gangs, gangsterism in prisons.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="48">
			<speaker>DR VAN HEERDEN&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>Well I agree with you, the work the guy did was with political prisoners because I think that the information that one got from the political prisoners was better digested information, they had workshops on these things, they had written petitions, they had thought about the whole human rights issue which is not something that common-law prisoners normally do.  The information that I gathered was used to make recommendations for all people in custodial care.  What did you want me to answer?</text>
		</line>
		<line number="49">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>Gangsterism.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="50">
			<speaker>DR VAN HEERDEN&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="51">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>The more we seem to liberalize the prisons, the more we see prisoners breaking out of prisons and this seems to be on the increase lately.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="52">
			<speaker>DR VAN HEERDEN&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
		<line number="53">
			<speaker>MR MANTHATA&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text>Thank you, over to the Chairperson.</text>
		</line>
		<line number="54">
			<speaker>DR BORAINE&lt;/B&gt;</speaker>
			<text></text>
		</line>
	</lines>
</hearing>