Protection of Prisoner’s Human Rights in Prisons through the Guidelines of Rule of Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Punishing the criminals is one of the criminal justice mechanisms to compensation and reparation for victims and society. In this regards some of the punishments are determined by criminal justice systems in every society. Imprisonment is one of these penalties which specified in this regard and through this punishment the convicted persons are detained in prison. However, the guilty is sentenced to prison and restriction of his or her liberties, but she or he has fundamental rights and freedoms that must be protected even if in prison and has the right to how to be punished. All of these rights and freedoms are protected by the rule of law. This issue means that how to be punished is restricted under the definite principles which have to be exercised when the retribution and punishment is ongoing. This matter of criminal law and criminal justice is considered as right on how to be punished. The area of this right and authority of prison’s heads and its personnel is determined by law. In order to do that and protection of prisoner’s human rights and regulating manner with them and also for prison management, the rule of law provided a set of guidelines. According to these guidelines prison is managed in the legal framework as well as in this context the prisoner’s rights are protected effectively. These guidelines are provided in some of international legal instruments. This article investigates these guidelines and in respect of their human rights aspects which related to the environmental, educational, management, health care, personnel and humanistic dimensions of imprisonment these guidelines and instructions are studied and analyzed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".