Condensed: Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at (a) the appropriate times of the day with (b) food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength; (c) of wholesome quality and well prepared and served;(d) drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it. [1] Health, religion and culture of the detained person should be considered. Examples of violations of the right to adequate food in detention include lack or deprivation of food, extremely poor and unhygienic quality of food, no clean water available and food parcels or food from outside not allowed. Comprehensive: The Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR) state: [2] 1. Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served. 2. Drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it. In the light of the SMR, prisoners should receive their meals of nutritional value at appropriate times, for example three times a day, morning, noon and night.[3] Health, religion and culture of the detained person should be considered.[4] Suspension or restriction on food as a disciplinary measure is prohibited in the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas. (See *disproportionate or health threatening disciplinary measures*). The European Prison Rules provide that ‘the requirements of a nutritious diet, including its minimum energy and protein content, shall be prescribed in national law.’ The provision of adequate food is linked to the manner in which the food is prepared and served. Thus food shall be prepared and served hygienically. Article 26 of the Standard Minimum Rules provides that the medical officer of a detention facility shall inspect and advise on the ‘quantity, quality, preparation and service of food’. The HRC and regional human rights bodies have found lack of adequate food in detention, in combination with other ill-treatment, constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. Cases have dealt with the lack or deprivation of food,[5]
extremely poor and unhygienic quality of food,[6] no clean water available,[7] and food parcels or food from outside not allowed.[8] The right to adequate food applies to all places of detention. The Special Rapporteur noted in his report on a mission to Equatorial Guinea: ‘In all police and gendarmerie custody facilities without exception, food was only provided by the detainees’ families or by fellow detainees and access to water for drinking and washing was severely restricted.’[9]
[1] The SMR gives content to the prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment in detention provided for in article 10 of the ICCPR. See also European Prison Rules art 22; Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas principle XI; ICESCR art 11 (right to food). [2] SMR rule 20. [3] See also European Prison Rules art 22; Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas principle XI; ICESCR art 11 (right to food). [4]European Prison Rules art 22; Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas principle XI [5]Tibi v Ecuador (IACtHR 2004) para 142; Malawi African Association and Others v Mauritania communication 54/91, 61791, 98/93, 164-196/97 and 210/98 (ACHPR 2000) para 115; Titiahonjo v Cameroon communication 1186/2003 (HRC 2007) para 6.3; Karimov and Nurstatov v Tajikistan communications 1108, 1121/2002 (HRC 2008) (HRC 2007) para 2.13; 7.3; Rakhmatov and others v Tajikistan communications 1209, 1231/2003, 1241/2004 (HRC 2008) para 2.2; 6.4; Tekin v Turkey application 22496 (ECtHR 1998) paras 49, 53; Institute for Human Rights and development in Africa v Angola para 51. [6]Mulezi v DRC communication 962/2001 (HRC 2004) para 2.4; 2.5; Achuthan and Another v Malawi communication 64/92, 68/92 and 78/92 (ACHPR 1994) para 7; Rakhmatov vTajikistan paras 3.1, 6.4. [7]Chadee and Others v Trinidad and Tobago communication 813/1998 (HRC 1998) (individual opinion of E Klein & D Kretzmer; Simpson v Jamaica communication 695/1996 (HRC 2001) paras 2.6, 7.2; Ramirez v Guatemala (IACtHR 2005) para 112. [8]Titiahonjo v Cameroon paras 2.3, 2.4; Karimov and Nursatov v Tajikistan para 7.3 [9] Special Rapporteur on Torture, mission to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, A/HRC/13/39/Add.4 (2010) para 30.
Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at (a) the appropriate times of the day with (b) food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength; (c) of wholesome quality and well prepared and served;(d) drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it. [1] Health, religion and culture of the detained person should be considered. Examples of violations of the right to adequate food in detention include lack or deprivation of food, extremely poor and unhygienic quality of food, no clean water available and food parcels or food from outside not allowed.
Comprehensive:
The Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR) state: [2]
1. Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served.
2. Drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it.
In the light of the SMR, prisoners should receive their meals of nutritional value at appropriate times, for example three times a day, morning, noon and night.[3] Health, religion and culture of the detained person should be considered.[4] Suspension or restriction on food as a disciplinary measure is prohibited in the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas. (See *disproportionate or health threatening disciplinary measures*). The European Prison Rules provide that ‘the requirements of a nutritious diet, including its minimum energy and protein content, shall be prescribed in national law.’ The provision of adequate food is linked to the manner in which the food is prepared and served. Thus food shall be prepared and served hygienically. Article 26 of the Standard Minimum Rules provides that the medical officer of a detention facility shall inspect and advise on the ‘quantity, quality, preparation and service of food’.
The HRC and regional human rights bodies have found lack of adequate food in detention, in combination with other ill-treatment, constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. Cases have dealt with the lack or deprivation of food,[5]
extremely poor and unhygienic quality of food,[6] no clean water available,[7] and food parcels or food from outside not allowed.[8]
The right to adequate food applies to all places of detention. The Special Rapporteur noted in his report on a mission to Equatorial Guinea: ‘In all police and gendarmerie custody facilities without exception, food was only provided by the detainees’ families or by fellow detainees and access to water for drinking and washing was severely restricted.’[9]
[1] The SMR gives content to the prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment in detention provided for in article 10 of the ICCPR. See also European Prison Rules art 22; Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas principle XI; ICESCR art 11 (right to food).
[2] SMR rule 20.
[3] See also European Prison Rules art 22; Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas principle XI; ICESCR art 11 (right to food).
[4] European Prison Rules art 22; Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas principle XI
[5] Tibi v Ecuador (IACtHR 2004) para 142; Malawi African Association and Others v Mauritania communication 54/91, 61791, 98/93, 164-196/97 and 210/98 (ACHPR 2000) para 115; Titiahonjo v Cameroon communication 1186/2003 (HRC 2007) para 6.3; Karimov and Nurstatov v Tajikistan communications 1108, 1121/2002 (HRC 2008) (HRC 2007) para 2.13; 7.3; Rakhmatov and others v Tajikistan communications 1209, 1231/2003, 1241/2004 (HRC 2008) para 2.2; 6.4; Tekin v Turkey application 22496 (ECtHR 1998) paras 49, 53; Institute for Human Rights and development in Africa v Angola para 51.
[6] Mulezi v DRC communication 962/2001 (HRC 2004) para 2.4; 2.5; Achuthan and Another v Malawi communication 64/92, 68/92 and 78/92 (ACHPR 1994) para 7; Rakhmatov v Tajikistan paras 3.1, 6.4.
[7] Chadee and Others v Trinidad and Tobago communication 813/1998 (HRC 1998) (individual opinion of E Klein & D Kretzmer; Simpson v Jamaica communication 695/1996 (HRC 2001) paras 2.6, 7.2; Ramirez v Guatemala (IACtHR 2005) para 112.
[8] Titiahonjo v Cameroon paras 2.3, 2.4; Karimov and Nursatov v Tajikistan para 7.3
[9] Special Rapporteur on Torture, mission to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, A/HRC/13/39/Add.4 (2010) para 30.