Judiciary Correctional Services partnership

[126]. A connection between Courts and correctional services is of a great importance. A detainee has the right to appear in court within a reasonable time. Thus, the summoning of detainees calls for a full cooperation between courts and correctional services and the scheduling is respected only when it has been timely and adequately communicated to correctional services which must avail detainees and prisoners to the courts. However poor communication leads often to adjournment of cases or to poor performance of duties. The Correctional Service points out several reasons that lead to not bringing the detainee in the court.

Figure 22: Opinions of correctional service officers about reasons for inmates not to appear before the court when summoned

Source: ILPD survey April 2013

[127]. The first cause which leads summoned inmate not to appear before the court is the lack of transport as pointed out by 40% of the respondents. Although the problem is not alarming, it was also raised by the policy makers. The correctional service pointed out that the problem is sometimes the regional distribution of prisons compared to the location of courts such. This is the case of

97 _{Interview with the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, 8 March 2013.} 98

Muhanga prison that serves Muhanga and Karongi. The second cause represented by 30% of the respondents and confirmed by most policy makers is the poor communication between institutions. [128]. However, according to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, he explains that this problem of miscommunication is not there since summons are sent through internet, printed and served to the concerned inmates. But as it was earlier mentioned there is reluctance on the side of prison directors to accept a scanned summon for fear of fraud. The chief Registrar of the Supreme court pointed out rather that the problem of failure for inmates to appear in front of courts while summoned is associated with the fact that after serving the summon sent through internet and get them signed by the concerned inmates, the prisons do not directly get back to the courts. Other reasons include the absence of archives in prisons. When the summons is lost or damaged, it becomes difficult to inform courts on transfer operated or death of inmates. Prison services informed researchers that some convicts take profit of this institutional weakness to modify their identity and taking the description of dead or released inmates. There is no doubt that problems of exchanging information between courts and correctional services need to be addressed. Information and Communication Technology appears to be the sole remedy.

Figure 23: Failure to avail justifying document prior to imprisonment or detention

Source: ILPD survey, April 2013.

[129]. According to the graph above, 90% of prison directors confirmed that before receiving inmates in their respective prisons they are always served with justification documents (committal order). Only 10% of the respondents confirmed documents are served sometimes. Though most prison directors ascertain that documents are availed on time, the interviews conducted with key figures of the Rwanda correctional service revealed that it was not easy to locate cases of persons convicted by Gacaca courts that are managed by the National Commission for the Fight Against Genocide. There is a problem of archiving genocide related files which leads to delays in delivering documents. It follows that courts decisions are not executed on time and this raises a concern especially when it is a decision of acquittal. However, according to the top policy makers, instructions have been given to the directors of prisons in application of the law governing the RCS that in such cases, the inmate is immediately released. The suggestion by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of sending scanned committal order via internet for the prison to print and serve it to the inmates was rejected by RCS authorities whose fear is the eventual fraud that they have experienced in the past.

Figure 24: The time it takes for an inmate to be released after a court decision

Source: ILPD Survey 2013.

[130]. The data summarised in this table show that when a court decision acquitting the inmate who was detained is issued, the inmate is released the same day as confirmed by 90% of the respondents. But when one considers the formalities to go through before any release, such as going through the doctor, court clerk and data entry officer, this may reasonably take like two days as it was confirmed by one of the top policy makers in RCS interviewed by researchers. This is done to avoid any possible identity fraud whereby a person may get released while he is not the real person. According to the respondent, the person may not get released the same day when the decision of the court delays to reach the court. In this case, even though the inmate was acquitted by the court, the prison will always have to wait for the order of the court to release the person.

Figure 25: Reasons leading to late release of inmates after a court decision as viewed by the RCS

Source: ILPD survey April 2013

[131]. The data displayed in the graph show that the emerging cause leading to delay in releasing the inmates after a court decision is the delay of courts to inform the decision to the prison. According to the information corrected from interviews held by RCS policy makers, though the law requires

that the court decision should be written the day of its pronunciation, some judges delay delivering the copy of the court decision arguing that they are still correcting some mistakes. This of course infringes on the right of the inmates and sometimes puts in trouble the prisons authorities pressurised by the inmate who is claiming his/her release. Other reasons for delay in releasing the inmate may include the fact that the court decision is not clear; the case file is lost and administrative formalities.

Figure 26: Opinions of advocates on causes leading to late release of inmates after a court decision

Source: ILPD survey April 2013