In a clarification sent to MAP on Tuesday, following the publication of a message on social networks by the father of detainee O.R., the management of the local Tiflet 2 prison underlined that these slanderous allegations “are part of an odious campaign targeting, from both inside and outside the country, not only the prison administration and the rehabilitation sector, but also the rest of national institutions, as well as the Kingdom’s image in terms of human rights.”
The management of the local Tiflet 2 prison recalls that it has already informed public opinion that it “has not and will not ban the prisoner concerned from reading and writing,” noting that “he regularly receives books, magazines and other publications during the family visits he enjoys, and more particularly from his father,” author of the slanderous message.
“As much as the prison’s management encourages inmates to read in view of the major role it plays in preparing them for reintegration into society, it remains concerned to apply the law in terms of controlling the books to be given to the person concerned to ensure that they do not contain any content that contravenes the law,” noted the clarification, adding that “the management of this facility has not seized any book intended for the aforementioned inmate.”
With regard to writing, the prison’s management reaffirms that it “has not and will not forbid this inmate to write, since he himself has given up writing for considerations that concern him and have nothing to do with the prison’s management.”
On the subject of medical care, the prison’s management said that the inmate “has already benefited from several medical consultations within the facility and from medication prescribed to him.”
With regard to the prisoner’s dietary, and “contrary to the allegations made in the publication by the inmate’s father,” the prison’s management stated that “the prisoner receives his meals on a regular basis, and that they are cooked in accordance with the prisoner’s diet, following a previous request on his part.”
Furthermore, the facility’s management stressed that “the inmate in question is not placed in solitary confinement, but it is indeed he who has requested to be housed in an individual cell,” assuring that it “has no objection to rehousing him with the rest of the inmates.”
