Prison overcrowding is a widespread global problem. Around 60% of prison systems operate above their official capacity, and overcrowding is one of the most widespread drivers of conditions that can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
But overcrowding is not simply a question of too few prison places. It is the result of decisions taken throughout the criminal justice system — from criminalisation and pre-trial detention to sentencing and release. Sustainable solutions therefore require states to look at the entire system and at the flow of people into, through and out of prison.
Drawing on DIGNITY’s work on torture prevention and partnerships with justice-sector institutions, particularly in Jordan and Morocco, as well as comparative examples from other regions and the prison monitoring of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the submission examines both reforms that have worked and those that have stalled or failed.
Six questions for Therese Rytter
01
Why should prison overcrowding be seen as a torture prevention issue, and how serious is the problem globally?
Prison overcrowding is fundamentally a torture-prevention issue because it can create conditions that expose people to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It is among the most pervasive structural risks to humane detention worldwide. Reported in some 120 countries, overcrowding affects virtually every aspect of prison life—from living space, hygiene and healthcare to safety, access to activities, family contact and the ability of prison staff to uphold humane conditions.
For prisoners, overcrowding can increase ill-treatment, violence and unsafe conditions while restricting access to healthcare, education and rehabilitation. For staff, it increases workloads, safety risks, stress and burnout, while making it harder to maintain order and constructive relationships with prisoners.
UN human rights bodies have recognised that severe overcrowding, particularly when combined with poor material conditions, can violate international law and may amount to ill-treatment or even torture.
02
One of DIGNITY’s central messages in the submission is that states cannot build their way out of prison overcrowding. Why is expanding prison capacity rarely a sustainable solution?
Overcrowding is driven mainly by how many people enter prison, how long they stay and whether effective release mechanisms exist. Expanding capacity may ease immediate pressure, but it does not address these underlying drivers and can sometimes enable further growth in imprisonment.
The submission illustrates this clearly. Türkiye substantially expanded prison capacity, yet its prison population rose from around 49,500 in 2000 to more than 434,000 by September 2026. Egypt likewise expanded its prison estate while overcrowding and prisoner numbers continued to increase.
New facilities may be necessary to replace prisons that are unsafe or unfit for purpose, but replacing inadequate infrastructure is different from expanding the overall use of imprisonment.
The sustainable solution is to address the drivers of imprisonment: excessive pre-trial detention, unnecessary short sentences, overly punitive sentencing policies, insufficient use of early or conditional release, and inadequate rehabilitation and reintegration.
03
What are the most important recommendations DIGNITY is putting forward to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture?
Our recommendation is to treat overcrowding as a whole-of-criminal-justice-system problem, not simply a prison-management issue.
First, states should reduce unnecessary entry into prison. Pre-trial detention should genuinely be a measure of last resort, based on an individual assessment and subject to strict time limits and regular judicial review. Courts should have meaningful alternatives available, including reporting requirements, restrictions on travel, and, where appropriate, electronic monitoring.
Second, states should use non-custodial sanctions more widely instead of short prison sentences, including community service, suspended sentences, and treatment orders.
Third, governments should examine criminalisation and sentencing policy: whether imprisonment is necessary for particular offences, whether sentence lengths are proportionate and whether diversion, restorative justice or non-custodial measures could be used instead.
Finally, states should expand appropriate use of early and conditional release and invest in rehabilitation and reintegration. Reducing the time people spend in prison and the likelihood that they commit new crime and return to prison, is essential to sustainable reductions in overcrowding.
04
DIGNITY recommends legally binding maximum capacity limits for prisons. How would such limits work in practice, and what should happen when they are exceeded?
The basic principle is very simple: there should be an enforceable ceiling on how many people can lawfully be held in each prison.
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has long supported the concept of an absolute upper limit for every prison. DIGNITY recommends that these limits be established in law and be based on recognised minimum standards for living space. The CPT standard is at least 6 square metres for a person held alone and 4 square metres per person in a multiple-occupancy cell, excluding the sanitary annex.
Crucially, capacity should not be increased administratively simply by putting additional beds into the same amount of space. Otherwise, the limit becomes meaningless.
The law should specify measures to take when prisons approach or exceed capacity, including reviewing pre-trial detention, accelerating appropriate release and diverting suitable cases to non-custodial sanctions. COVID-19 showed that prison populations can be reduced quickly when governments are willing to use existing legal mechanisms.
05
We are also seeing a growing European trend towards moving prison capacity across borders, including Denmark’s agreement with Kosovo and Sweden’s agreement with Estonia. What concerns does DIGNITY have about this development, and what human rights risks can arise when imprisonment is moved abroad?
DIGNITY is concerned that externalising imprisonment can create serious gaps in human rights protection and accountability, especially where prisoners are transferred to states with weaker safeguards.
Norway’s experience of renting prison places in the Netherlands illustrates the problem. Although prisoners transferred to the Netherlands remained under Norwegian jurisdiction, Dutch authorities exercised important coercive functions. Norway’s Ombudsman found that Norway could not itself investigate or prosecute alleged criminal conduct by Dutch prison staff, raising concerns about its ability to fulfil its obligations to prevent and respond to torture and ill-treatment. It also identified problems involving restraints, health care, access to education and rehabilitation, parole, and family visits.
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has raised related concerns about the Denmark-Kosovo arrangement, including the allocation of responsibility for offences committed by Kosovo prison staff and questions concerning established principles governing transfers of sentenced persons.
States cannot externalise their human rights obligations by relocating imprisonment. Extraterritorial prison schemes should not be used as a substitute for addressing the structural causes of overcrowding
Where governments nevertheless pursue them, responsibility between the two states must be absolutely clear, independent monitoring and accessible remedies must be guaranteed, and prisoners must not receive weaker human rights protection as a consequence of the transfer.
06
What do experiences from countries such as Jordan and Morocco tell us about the reforms that can reduce prison populations, and what is needed to make those reforms work in practice?
Jordan and Morocco illustrate two sides of the same fundamental lesson: laws matter, but implementation determines whether those laws actually reduce imprisonment.
In Jordan, reforms made pre-trial detention exceptional and introduced alternatives such as electronic monitoring, travel bans, house arrest and bail. Their use rose from 322 decisions in 2022 to 2,176 in 2024. This was supported by judicial training, practical guidance, inter-institutional cooperation and monitoring, with an independent evaluation finding positive effects on pre-trial detention practice. The reforms were supported by cooperation between state institutions and civil society, dialogue among judges and prosecutors, practical guidance, training, justice-sector engagement, and monitoring and evaluation.
Morocco shows a similar pattern. Conditional release had existed since 1959 but remained rarely used until recently, rising from 160 cases in 2022 to 835 in 2025. DIGNITY, together with the Danish Prison and Probation Service, has provided technical support aimed at strengthening that mechanism. Its 2025 reform on automatic sentence reductions went further: once statutory conditions are met, reductions apply automatically. Between 29 January and 15 March 2026, more than 88,000 prisoners reportedly benefited, including 8,947 who qualified for immediate release.
The broader lesson is that alternatives work only when backed by clear rules, workable procedures, reliable data, trained justice professionals, institutional coordination and political commitment.
