Prison cell size matters

How a society treats those who have broken the law tells us a lot about its commitment to justice, human dignity and the rule of law.

Imprisonment is supposed to take away a person’s liberty, not their humanity or as an ex-inmate recently said ‘their dignity’. That principle is at the very heart of modern international human rights law and should continue to guide Malta’s correctional policy, which most of us agree needs a dire revision.
We really need to invest a lot of effort into the development of our correctional services, with a greater focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. We need good leadership in this sector not consultants and political appointees. We need proper experts to lead this next wave of reform because so much is at stake.

Let me just focus on one issue from many that need to be addressed—cell footprint. Do our prison accommodation standards fully reflect contemporary human rights law, scientific evidence and international best practice?
It’s more than just a question of whether prison cells are secure or clean, painted black or blue. The real question is whether they offer adequate personal living space, ventilation, tolerable temperatures, natural light, privacy and sanitation to maintain dignity and lead towards rehabilitation.

These are not matters of comfort or privilege; they are legal requirements with a direct impact on health, institutional safety, the effectiveness of correctional policy but above all the pillar of effective rehabilitation.
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, mandate that prison facilities should be healthy. They should also have sufficient floor space, ventilation, lighting and sanitation. The rules do not specify minimum cell sizes, but the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has filled the gap by recommending a minimum space for single-occupancy cells and living space per prisoner in shared accommodation (excluding sanitary facilities). CPT insists that these are minimum protections, not aspirational goals.
The European Court of Human Rights reiterated these principles in its judgment of the Grand Chamber in Muršić vs Croatia.
The Court made clear that personal living space is only one of the factors to be taken into account in the assessment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. All these have to be considered together: ventilation, temperature, natural light, hygiene, opportunities for exercise, time spent outside the cell, and the overall appropriateness of the detention environment. Compliance, therefore, cannot be measured with an inch tape alone.
This holistic approach is particularly relevant for the increasingly intense summers Malta is experiencing. Scientific evidence shows that prolonged exposure to extreme heat leads to dehydration, cardiovascular stress, sleep disruption, elevated cortisol and reduced executive functioning. Heat also reduces attention, working memory, decision-making and emotional regulation and increases irritability, impulsivity and aggression. These effects are particularly relevant in prisons, where many people already live with chronic diseases, mental health issues or are taking medication that interferes with thermoregulation. The implications are far more than physical discomfort.

Rehabilitation depends on the individual’s capacity to concentrate, to learn, to self-regulate emotions and to participate meaningfully in psychological interventions, education and vocational training.

Excessive heat and poor environmental conditions are the enemy of those very capacities. Rather than encouraging reflection and personal growth, they may inadvertently create conditions that encourage the escalation of behavioural instability and institutional tensions. These are also legally interesting observations.
International standards should offer not only persuasive guidance, but practical yardsticks against which prison accommodation can be assessed.
Malta’s Prisons Regulations regulate healthcare, discipline, visits and welfare, but do not set out objective statutory standards for minimum personal living space, limits on occupancy, acceptable temperatures in the environment or ventilation requirements. This means that there are no clear legal standards against which compliance can be consistently measured.
This is why I recommend that Malta needs to commission an independent review of prison accommodation, headed by the Commissioner for Welfare and Development of Prisoners in conjunction with the Superintendent of Public Health and other relevant experts. Such a review should objectively measure each occupied cell, not only in terms of floor space but also in terms of ventilation, indoor temperatures throughout the year, humidity, air circulation, natural light, sanitary facilities, occupancy levels and opportunities for meaningful out-of-cell activity.

These factors should be considered collectively, in accordance with the approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights and the CPT.
Where weaknesses are identified, they should be addressed through evidence-based policy, targeted investment and legislative reform. Accordingly, prison regulations should be amended to set minimum standards of accommodation so that prison administrators, inspectors and policymakers have clear, measurable legal benchmarks against which to design, operate and evaluate correctional facilities.
Some may say that prisoners should not be given better accommodation when many law-abiding citizens are suffering from housing problems and schools and public offices are not properly ventilated.
Such concerns are understandable but overlook a fundamental constitutional principle. Human rights are not rewards for good behaviour; they are limits to the exercise of state power. The prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment protects everyone because it sets out the minimum standards that are expected of a democratic society under the rule of law. Improved prison accommodation is not about being soft.
Study after study shows that humane prisons result in better mental health, less institutional violence, safer working conditions for correctional officers and better rehabilitation.

Most prisoners will return, at some point, to society. Conditions that promote successful reintegration ultimately promote public safety.
Shortcomings have become systemic problems but Malta has the chance to modernise its correctional framework. A review of the legislative reform would show that the country is not only committed to meeting its international obligations but also to lead through transparency, accountability and evidence-based policy.
A justice system is not measured by how harshly it punishes wrongdoers, but by how faithfully it honours the dignity and rights of those in its custody.