Wednesday, January 04, 2023

Walgreens is the first major pharmacy to say it plans to sell abortion pills as Walmart, CVS, and others consider hurdles and threats of backlash

Ben Tobin and Sarah Braner
Jan 4, 2023,
Boxes of the drug mifepristone line a shelf. Allen G. Breed, File/AP

The FDA authorized retail pharmacies to become certified to carry mifepristone in a ruling Tuesday.
Previously, doctors and mail-order pharmacies could dispense the medication.
Walgreens is the first national pharmacy to say it will offer the pill.

Walgreens is the first national retail pharmacy to say it plans to offer the abortion pill mifepristone in states where it's legal.

"We intend to become a certified pharmacy under the program," a Walgreens spokesman told Insider on Wednesday. "We are working through the registration, necessary training of our pharmacists, as well as evaluating our pharmacy network in terms of where we normally dispense products that have extra FDA requirements and wil dispense these consistent with federal and state laws."

The company didn't provide a timeline of when it will start filling mifepristone prescriptions. The Wall Street Journal reported on Walgreens' decision earlier.

The FDA implemented a regulatory change Tuesday night to allow retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone to people with a prescription. Previously, doctors and mail-order pharmacies could provide the pill.

The Biden administration is working to expand access to abortion, after the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year, and as more states ban or restrict the procedure,

According to the FDA's website, any pharmacy that dispenses mifepristone must be certified. The steps to become certified include being able to receive prescriber agreement forms by email and fax, being able to ship the abortion pill with a shipping service that provides tracking information, designating a representative to carry out the certification process, and ensuring that representative oversees compliance with the federal mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program.

Some other retailers with pharmacies, like Walmart or CVS, are still weighing their options. Due to administrative hurdles and potential public backlash, some retailers may not end up offering the pill.

"The only way this has any impact is if brick-and-mortar pharmacies get on board, and I'm not optimistic the big chains most Americans rely on will become certified," Greer Donley, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Law, wrote in a tweet Tuesday.

Insider contacted seven major retail pharmacies to ask whether they plan to sell mifepristone. None of them said they would carry the pill. Walgreens initially provided a statement that did not include its plans to become certified.

CVS and Rite Aid said they were reviewing the FDA announcement. They declined to say when they may make a decision.

Walmart, Kroger, and Albertsons, didn't respond to requests for comment. Costco declined to comment.

Still, abortion-rights advocates are applauding the FDA's move.

"This change will empower patients who choose medication abortion to have the option of going to a pharmacy for immediate care rather than waiting for a mail order, if that is right for them," Dr. Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a statement.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, condemned the move, saying President Joe Biden's administration "has once again proved that it values abortion industry profits over women's safety and unborn children's lives."

"Abortion activists want to turn every post office and pharmacy into an abortion business, and the Biden FDA is a willing participant," Dannenfelser said in a statement.
U.S. FDA Allows Abortion Pills To Be Sold At Retail Pharmacies

By Ahmed Aboulenein
01/04/23
Signage is seen outside of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) headquarters in White Oak, Maryland, U.S., August 29, 2020. REUTERS

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will allow retail pharmacies to offer abortion pills in the United States for the first time, the agency said on Tuesday, even as more states seek to ban medication abortion.

The regulatory change will potentially expand abortion access as President Joe Biden's administration wrestles with how best to protect abortion rights after they were sharply curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling and the state bans that followed.

Pharmacies can start applying for certification to distribute abortion pill mifepristone with one of the two companies that make it, and if successful they will be able to dispense it directly to patients upon receiving a prescription from a certified prescriber.

The FDA had first said it would be making those changes in December 2021 when it announced it would relax some risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, or REMS, on the pill, that had been in place since the agency approved it in 2000 and were lifted temporarily in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The changes included permanently removing restrictions on mail order shipping of the pills and their prescription through telehealth.

The agency finalized the changes on Tuesday after reviewing supplemental applications from Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, the two companies that make the drug in the United States.

"Under the Mifepristone REMS Program, as modified, Mifeprex and its approved generic can be dispensed by certified pharmacies or by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber," the agency said on its website on Tuesday.

Mifeprex is the brand name version of mifepristone which, in combination with a second drug called misoprostol that has various uses including miscarriage management, induces an abortion up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy in a process known as medication abortion.

Abortion rights activists say the pill has a long track record of being safe and effective, with no risk of overdose or addiction. In several countries, including India and Mexico, women can buy them without a prescription to induce abortion.

"Today's news is a step in the right direction for health equity," Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement.

"Being able to access your prescribed medication abortion through the mail or to pick it up in person from a pharmacy like any other prescription is a game changer for people trying to access basic health care," Johnson added.

NO EQUAL ACCESS


The regulatory change will, however, not provide equal access to all people, GenBioPro, which makes the generic version of mifepristone, said in a statement.

Abortion bans, some targeting mifepristone, have gone into effect in more than a dozen states since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to terminating pregnancies when it scrapped the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling last year.

Women in those states could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

The president of anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said the latest FDA move endangers women's safety and the lives of unborn children.

"State lawmakers and Congress must stand as a bulwark against the Biden administration's pro-abortion extremism," she said in a statement.

FDA records show a small mortality case number associated with mifepristone. As of June 2021, there were reports of 26 deaths linked with the pill out of 4.9 million people estimated to have taken it since it was approved in September 2000.

Retail pharmacies will have to weigh whether or not to offer the pill given the political controversy surrounding abortion, and determine where they can do so.

A spokesperson for CVS Health said the drugstore chain owner was reviewing the updated REMS "drug safety program certification requirements for mifepristone to determine the requirements to dispense in states that do not restrict the dispensing of medications prescribed for elective termination of pregnancy."

A spokesperson for Walgreens, one of the largest U.S. pharmacies, said the company was also reviewing the FDA's regulatory change. "We will continue to enable our pharmacists to dispense medications consistent with federal and state law."


© Copyright Thomson Reuters 2023. All rights reserved.
‘Fight Like Hell’ and the Search for Its Higher Ed Analogue

Books about labor and the university.

Joshua Kim
January 4, 2023
Fight Like Hell: The Untold History of American Labor by Kim Kelly

Fight Like Hell is a working-class history of the American labor movement. Told from the perspective of the marginalized workers who are often left out of the labor narrative, the book chronicles the union organizing efforts across industries as diverse as online shopping (Amazon), agriculture, mining, manufacturing and sex work.

Rather than providing a linear history of labor organizing and the fight for worker rights, Fight Like Hell skips around in time and place through chapters dedicated to specific movements and industries. A fascinating chapter describes the integration and cross-fertilization between the disability rights and labor movements. These two stories are often told in isolation, and it is eye-opening to learn about their intersections.

The tone of Fight Like Hell moves fluently between first-person observation and in-depth reporting. Kelly’s approach is not academic in that the value of unions is assumed rather than interrogated. Those looking for a balanced set of arguments around the efficacy of unionization should look elsewhere.

Early in the book, Kelly mentions the importance of unions in higher education and laments that she will not be able to tell the academic labor story. Like every good book, Fight Like Hell made me curious to learn more. And to especially learn more about unions and higher ed.

My knowledge of unions and universities is pretty much limited to what I read in Inside Higher Ed. The postsecondary labor fights I know about mainly involve attempts by graduate students to organize.

Googling around, I found a 2018 book, Inside the Faculty Union: Labor Relations in the University Setting, and another one from 2021 called Collective Bargaining in Higher Education.

There are lots of books about the adjunctification of the faculty, including The Adjunct Underclass: How America’s Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty, Their Students and Their Mission (2019), The Gig Academy: Mapping Labor in the Neoliberal University (2019), Contextualizing and Organizing Contingent Faculty: Reclaiming Academic Labor in Universities (2018), Gig Economy: Unionizing Adjunct Faculty in America (2018), and Power Despite Precarity: Strategies for the Contingent Faculty Movement in Higher Education (2021).

From what I can tell, there is no higher ed analogue to Fight Like Hell—a book that attempts to cover the full history and breadth of academic labor history. Unless you can point me to that book, I think one of you should write it.

Do (WHITE) doctors believe Black people suffer less pain? A review of one influential study.


For the past week or so Bob Somerby has been writing about whether doctors believe that Black patients are more tolerant of pain than white patients. In particular, he's been writing about a frequently cited study from 2015 which you can read here if you're so inclined.

Now, Bob is practically trolling me here. This kind of thing is right in my wheelhouse: read the study, explain the ins and outs, and discuss the results. But there's a problem: I've probably read this study half a dozen times over the past few years and I read it again last night. And I've never been able to make sense of it.

This is weird because the study itself is the simplest possible kind: it's a survey of medical students and residents. They were asked 15 questions about biological differences between Black people and white people, four of which were true and 11 of which were false. Here are the questions:

  1. On average, Blacks age more slowly than Whites.
  2. Black people’s nerve-endings are less sensitive than White people’s nerve-endings.
  3. Black people’s blood coagulates more quickly–because of that, Blacks have a lower rate of hemophilia than Whites.
  4. Whites, on average, have larger brains than Blacks.
  5. TRUE: Whites are less susceptible to heart disease like hypertension than Blacks.
  6. TRUE: Blacks are less likely to contract spinal cord diseases like multiple sclerosis.
  7. Whites have a better sense of hearing compared with Blacks.
  8. Black people’s skin has more collagen (i.e., it’s thicker) than White people’s skin.
  9. TRUE: Blacks, on average, have denser, stronger bones than Whites.
  10. Blacks have a more sensitive sense of smell than Whites; they can differentiate odors and detect faint smells better than Whites.
  11. Whites have more efficient respiratory systems than Blacks.
  12. Black couples are significantly more fertile than White couples.
  13. TRUE: Whites are less likely to have a stroke than Blacks.
  14. Blacks are better at detecting movement than Whites.
  15. Blacks have stronger immune systems than Whites and are less likely to contract colds.

The problem with the study is that after presenting the results of the survey it immediately dives into a long and messy bunch of weird measurements and unclear statistics. Their conclusion, based on an additional set of questions, is that holding false beliefs doesn't much change assessment of pain in Black people and it doesn't significantly change their recommendation of pain relief to Black and white patients. The only noticeable effect is that people who hold a lot of false beliefs tend to have higher assessments of pain in white people.

That's a pretty weak result. But for our purposes, let's keep things simple and just take a closer look at the survey responses. First, here are the basic results:

There are few things to notice here:

  • Third years and residents generally do much better than first and second year med students on the false beliefs. Very few mark them as true.
  • Second years are more likely to mark something true whether it's true or not. They marked 31% of the statements true, compared to 23% for first years and 17% for third years and residents.
  • The respondents do worse on the true statements than on the false ones:
    Roughly speaking, about 10% of the respondents mark false statements as true. However, about half of all respondents mark true statements as false. Second year students do much better on the true statements and about the same on the false statements (and the pain-related questions).
  • Answers are given on a scale of 1-6. Students are allowed to mark an answer as "possibly," "probably," and "definitely" true or false. With one exception, which I'll get to, virtually every single person who marked a false statement as true said it was only "possibly true." Among the false statements, there were 229 marks of "possibly" and only 9 marks of "probably." There was not a single mark of "definitely."

I said there was one exception, and this is it: I didn't count the marks from the question about the thickness of Black skin. This is the huge outlier, with 41% of first and second-years believing it and even 23% of thirds and residents believing it.

So what can we conclude? Not much, but I'd toss out a couple of things:

  • There does seem to be a problem with the belief that Black skin is thicker than white skin. This is worth addressing.¹
  • Beliefs of white and nonwhite respondents are virtually identical. In particular the score for nerve endings is 1.94 vs. 1.83 (nonwhite students are more likely to believe it) and 1.76 vs. 1.73 for skin thickness. Overall, the belief in false statements is 2.06 vs. 1.98, meaning that nonwhite students are slightly more likely to believe them than white students.
  • False beliefs in general are just not a problem. The percentages are low and they are almost all tentative.
  • However, students are apparently so afraid of saying they believe in any Black/white differences that they do very poorly on the statements that are true.

Overall, this is a dog's breakfast of a study. The authors end up focusing on whether students who harbor more false beliefs also tend to rate pain lower in Black patients. It turns out they don't, but they do rate pain in white patients higher. However, the amount is smallish; it makes no difference in treatment; and the statistics they present seem cherry-picked and gnawed at a little too carefully. I'm not really sure I put much stock in their conclusions.

I'd recommend that no one cite this study—and if you do, at least cite it correctly. The authors don't make this easy, but if you want to play with the raw data go here and click on "Study 2" and then on ""Data - Raw and Cleaned." Be sure to first read the main report carefully, though. For example, you'll want to remove all nonwhite respondents since the study was solely of attitudes from white students and doctors. And you'll want to understand the response scale. Etc.

Overall, though, I'd say you shouldn't bother. It's just a simple survey with weak results. The real question is why no one seems to have done much research on this question since 2015. The treatment of Black patients is an issue of high considerable interest these days, and you'd think there would be more about it.

¹However, it's worth noting that this is an active area of research that has produced some contradictory results. See hereherehere, and here. That said, most pain isn't affected by skin thickness anyway. If you fracture a bone or have a heart attack, there's no reason to think white people will suffer worse pain than Black people.

US issued nearly 1,25,000 student visas to Indians in 2022: Ned Price

Published on Jan 05, 2023

Price said that the US is committed to safeguarding national security while facilitating legitimate travel to non-immigrant travellers. He also said that timely visa processing is important to the US economy and the administration's goal.


ANI |United States embassy and consulates in India have broken their record as nearly, 1,25,000 student visas were issued in the fiscal year 2022, State Department Spokesperson Ned Price said in a press conference.

While responding to a query over the slowdown in clearing visas backlog for Indian tourists, Price admitted that there was a delay but also said, "Our embassy and consulates in India broke their all-time record for the number of student visas issued in the single fiscal year 2022. We have issued nearly 1,25,000 student visas."

"We of course recognize that some applicants may still face extended visa wait times and we are making every effort to reduce visa interview appointment wait times as quickly as possible," he added.

Price said that the US is committed to safeguarding national security while facilitating legitimate travel to non-immigrant travellers. He also said that timely visa processing is important to the US economy and the administration's goal

Highlighting US efforts in processing visas quickly, Price said, "We have doubled the hiring of US foreign and service personnel to do this important work. Visas processing is recovering faster than projected and over the coming years we expect to reach pre-pandemic processing levels."

Earlier, a Senior US Embassy official exuded confidence in India, in November 2022, and said that New Delhi is expected to surpass China in getting the number of visas by 2023 and will be ranked two in the issuance of visas after Mexico.

"We expect that India will surpass China in getting the number of US visas by next year's summer. After Mexico, India is expected to rank number 2 in the issuance of US Visas," a Senior US Embassy official said in New Delhi. The senior US Embassy Official in New Delhi announced that they are opening slots in mid-November.

"For various kinds of visas, we would not have much wait time. Each separate category has some wait time," a senior US Embassy official added.

The US has opened up 100,000 slots for applicants for H and L worker visas. This has already happened which will cut down the wait times.

"India is a number one priority for Washington right now. We have big categories in students, high-tech workers, tourists, and business," the official added.
Singapore-based crypto firm hit by Boxing Day hack, more than $10 million lost

Affected users were advised to update to version 7.3.0 of the BitKeep app, which was put out on Dec 28. SCREENGRAB: BITKEEP

Aqil Hamzah

SINGAPORE – More than US$8 million (S$10 million) was stolen from a Singapore-based crypto wallet provider last Monday after a hacker manipulated files enabling users to download the wallets on their phones.

Thousands of users reported having their funds stolen from their BitKeep wallets on Boxing Day, although it is not clear how many Singaporean users were affected.

According to blockchain security and data analytics company PeckShield, the cryptocurrencies stolen consisted of Binance’s BNB Coin, stablecoins Tether and Dai, as well as Ether.

The Straits Times has contacted BitKeep for more information but multiple attempts to do so via email and social media have gone unanswered.

Efforts to pinpoint its office in Singapore or unique entity number yielded no results, and the firm did not have a listed phone number here.

In a statement on the Bitkeep website last Wednesday, BitKeep chief executive Kevin Como acknowledged the incident and said the hacker had done so by hijacking and installing code on version 7.2.9 of the APK files available for download on the website.

APK files allow Android users to download apps directly onto their devices without going through the Google Play Store.

“With maliciously implanted code, the altered APK led to the leak of users’ private keys and enabled the hacker to move funds,” Mr Como said, adding that users who downloaded the app from Apple’s App Store, the Google Play Store or Chrome Web Store were unaffected.

On its official Telegram channel, affected users were advised to update to version 7.3.0 of the BitKeep app, which was put out on Dec 28.

They would then need to create a new crypto wallet and transfer all their available assets.

Meanwhile, the firm said it is working to recover the stolen funds, with affected users urged to fill in a Google form detailing the amount they lost.

ST understands that BitKeep did not apply for a licence to provide digital payment token services under the Payment Services Act. This means that its cryptocurrency wallet may not fall under the category of a regulated service in Singapore.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

‘I thought crypto exchanges were safe’: The lesson in FTX’s collapse

BitKeep is also not a notified entity, which means it has not been granted a temporary exemption from holding a licence by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

This is not the first time that BitKeep, which claims to have more than 8 million users across 168 countries, has suffered from a hack resulting in stolen funds.

In Oct 2022, more than US$1 million was stolen after hackers exploited a vulnerability that allowed them to perform cryptocurrency token swaps from users’ accounts.


With large prisoner numbers and detention times far in excess of European averages, pre-trial detention is being abused by the Greek justice system


Illustration by Una Rebić/Pod črto

04/01/2023 -  Nikos Morfonios Athens

Abuse of temporary detention measures in Greece has led to an entrenched regime of pre-trial punishment, with large numbers of detainees held for prolonged periods before trial. The Council of Europe's annual SPACE I 2021 report on prisons reveals that the average pre-trial detention rate among all prisoners was 30% over the past decade, while in 2021 one in four pre-trial prisoners were detained for longer than a year.

The report also shows that on 31 January 2021, out of a total of 11,334 prisoners in Greek prisons, 2,669 were in temporary custody (23.5%), with an average duration of pre-trial detention of 13.2 months. Looking at the General Secretariat for Anti-crime Policy data from previous years, the case was the same in 2020, when out of a total of 10,891 prisoners, 2,892 (26.5%) were in pre-trial detention. In 2019 and 2018, the number of remand prisoners in Greek prisons had reached 31.1% and 32.5% respectively, meaning that almost one in three prisoners were in temporary custody.

Pre-trial detention is an advance payment of the sentence

So, why are there such consistently high numbers of pre-trial detainees? "In Greece, pre-trial detention often acts as an advance on the sentence, although this is certainly not mentioned in the law", explains Kostas Kosmatos, professor of Criminology at the University of Thessaloniki. "Thus, when it comes to a serious crime, the gravity of the act – although the legislator says that this alone is not enough – is most often the crucial and decisive criterion used for the imposition of provisional detention."

The worst record of the last decade was registered in 2012 and 2013, with 34% and 34.6% respectively of prisoners across the country held in temporary detention. The average number of remand prisoners in Greece between 2010 and 2020 reached 30%.

CHART
Made with Flourish

The use of pre-trial detention as a “pre-sentence” measure is also discussed by Nikolaos Koulouris, professor of prison policy at the University of Thrace. “An assessment is made by prosecutors and investigators, based – according to the law – on the existence of strong, ‘serious’ evidence that the act of which a person is accused has been committed and she/he is guilty. This is a pre-trial judgment of guilt, which may bias the judges, who can see which defendant comes to trial as a free person or on probation, and whether she or he has been transferred as a temporary prisoner. It is rare for such factors to go unnoticed, precisely because of the conditions laid down in the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure for provisional detention. These conditions, in addition to the presumption of guilt, are also related to the social and criminal situation of the defendant, namely their lack of known residence, their criminal history, their risk of committing other offences and, more generally, anything considered to indicate avoiding the imposition of the sentence and prior judicial involvement by judicial officers."

Pre-trial detention is one of three restrictive measures available to judicial authorities in the treatment of defendants ahead of trial. The other two measures are the common restrictive conditions (attendance at the police station once a month, prohibition to leave the country, etc.) and house arrest with electronic monitoring devices. So, when and under what conditions can judges decide to sentence a defendant to pre-trial detention?    

According to the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure, provisional detention may be imposed in the case of a felony when there are serious indications of guilt, in order to prevent the commission of new crimes or to prevent the accused from absconding. Provisional detention is imposed if restrictive measures or house arrest with electronic monitoring devices are deemed not sufficient, and the accused has no known place of residence or is planning to escape.

The maximum time limit of pre-trial detention for a single case is one year. "In wholly exceptional circumstances" described in the CCP, and when the charge is one that carries a life sentence or a maximum sentence of 15 years, the detention period may be extended by a further six months. However, even this constitutionally guaranteed maximum custodial sentence can be "broken" and extended by another year if a new prosecution for another offence is opened within the three months preceding the expiry of the 18-month period.

Legal requirements or the gravity of the alleged crime are not the only factors guiding judicial discretion. The remand decision, underlines Kosmatos, "can even be connected to the visibility of a case – the visibility of the case in the media and its impact on public opinion. I think public pressure can always influence to some extent the relevant judgement".  

On the other hand, as Koulouris stresses, judicial bodies "with preconceived notions of what a dangerous criminal is, have an unfavourable, discriminatory approach towards people belonging to certain social groups. In other words, there are certain exogenous factors that influence their judgement. If, for example, the accused person is a foreigner or immigrant, or a user of addictive substances involved in their traffic, the decision in favour of temporary detention is more easily taken compared to a case involving a well-off citizen accused of a financial crime. Authorities will argue that the first category presents a greater and very real risk of absconding. However, a forensic reading suggests that certain social characteristics create, let’s say, an unconscious bias, which is also reflected in judgments deciding whether or not to impose provisional detention."

The data in the Council of Europe's report fully supports Koulouris here: out of a total of 2,662 remand prisoners in 2021, foreigners amounted to 1,718, while Greek nationals amounted to 944. Thus, foreign detainees were 64.5% of all remand prisoners in Greece.

"These numbers reflect the criminalisation of poverty and immigration", comments Kostas Papadakis, a long-serving lawyer and former member of the Board of Directors of the Athens Bar Association. Papadakis adds that "xenophobic prejudices contribute to the discriminatory treatment of the foreign population and lead to their disproportionate detention. These people are often treated as third-class citizens, forced to apologise during interrogation and trial without understanding much – if anything – of the case files, with a translator who often translates into an intermediate language, such as English, instead of their native language."

Over a year in prison until trial 

There is another important element here that not only differentiates our country from other European countries, but also further reveals how entrenched pre-trial detention is in the Greek criminal justice system as a form of advance punishment. According to analysis of the Council of Europe data, the average duration of pre-trial detention in Greece is 13.2 months, while the corresponding European median is just 4.5 months. In fact, among the EU countries where data is available, Greece tops the list, followed by Portugal with an average duration of 11.3 months, and Italy with 7.6 months. The European (albeit non-EU) country that surpasses Greece is Serbia, with a median duration of 17.9 months.

CHART
Made with Flourish

"The maximum time allowed for pre-trial detention under the Constitution and procedural law, i.e. eighteen months, combined with the slow administration of criminal justice, is a framework that facilitates prolonged time in prison pending trial, sub-judice", Koulouris says of the report's findings. Kosmatos is in agreement, emphasising that "it certainly has to do with the sluggish administration of criminal justice, and in multi-person trials this is even more difficult".

However, the problem extends to the whole interrogation apparatus as well as the required infrastructure, both in terms of material and personnel. For example, Kosmatos notes, "in order to translate the case file, it has to be sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which can take from 2 to 6 months. In cases involving finance, banking, etc, an expert will be appointed by the panel and will submit his report after months of investigation. The investigative process involves more than gathering witness and defendant testimonies. There is a whole series of investigative operations, involving laboratories, forensic experts, expert witnesses – services that are not under the jurisdiction of the courts."

At the same time, abuse of pre-trial detention has an evident collateral impact on the known problem of chronic overcrowding in Greek prisons. Covid-19 did nothing to alleviate the problem, since the Greek state, unlike most European countries, took no measures to reduce congestion, as the MIIR/IMEdD investigation on the spread of Covid-19 in Greek prisons has shown  . Indeed, the prison population increased by 3.6% in 2021 compared to 2020. Meanwhile, the occupancy rate based on a comparative analysis of the actual prison population and spots in each institution exceeded  111% (111.4 prisoners per 100 spots), the second worst performance in the EU after Romania.


CHART

Made with Flourish


Jailed for 7 months for rioting, while playing basketball

The criteria that prosecutors and investigators typically use to proceed with provisional detention occasionally provoke public outcry, especially when it comes to selectivity. Clearly, the injustice inflicted to defendants subsequently found innocent that yet have been subjected to extended deprivation of liberty and various other consequences, tends to arouse public sympathy.

An emblematic recent example is the unjust 7-months detention of 30-years-old Alexandros M. (also referred to in the media as "Indian") following a mass demonstration against police violence in March 2021 in Nea Smyrni. The march included widespread clashes between protesters and police forces, during which an on-site police officer was assaulted and the episode caught on camera. That evening, Prime Minister Mitsotakis issued a statement about the officer's injury, but not about the police officers' violence. Three days later, Alexandros M. was arrested outside his workplace.

"Alexandros was the embodiment of a scapegoat, produced in order to show the public that the guilty party was found", his lawyer Pavlos Sarakis tells us. On that day, and at the time he allegedly assaulted the supervising police officer, Alexandros was playing basketball in the neighbourhood of Elefsina, an area 35 minutes by car (without traffic) away from where the clashes happened. This was proven by video footage, and known from the first moment by the investigating authorities. Nevertheless, Alexandros was deprived of his liberty for seven full months before he was released from prison. It took 14 months for the Athens Judicial Council to officially exonerate him.

"Alexandros, a man of extremely low means, suffered severely, both physically and psychologically", Sarakis tells us, leaving aside accusations of political expediency against the government and the Ministries of Justice and Citizen Protection, as well as the judicial authorities, since the latter decided on remand "because the alleged victim was a police officer."

One in five prisoners in preventive detention in Europe

According to a recent Civio's investigation for EDJNet  , one in five prisoners in European prisons is in pre-trial detention. A total of 100,000 pre-trial detainees were in European prison cells in 2021, with the European median pre-trial detention rate at 21.6%.

The SPACE I report's general category of "prisoners not serving a final sentence" was used for this analysis, since the legal status is the same in the majority of countries, while several countries do not distribute their data across all categories. For example, Greece and Austria identify prisoners on remand with this category, while France includes prisoners on remand but also includes the small minority of detainees awaiting appeal (7%). A detailed breakdown of the number and percentages of prisoners in preventive detention by EU Member State is shown in the map below.

The maximum legal limits permitted for pre-trial detention vary among European countries, so that no uniform conclusions can be drawn. A common rule, established by the European Convention on Human Rights, is that a person in preventive detention has the right "to be tried within a reasonable time or to be released". The problem is that “reasonable time” is relative. With different systems of criminal assessment, extensions of the permissible limits, as well as variations depending on the when the crime was committed, the maximum time a defendant can spend in pre-trial detention (and sometimes only for certain crimes) is six months in Germany and Croatia, one year in Italy, 18 months in Greece and Bulgaria, and between one and four years in Hungary, Spain and France, depending on the seriousness of the charge.

European Court of Justice review of the detention and shaming of 27 HIV-positive women

Turn the clock back to May 2012, the year when the Greek police, on the orders of the Ministries of Citizen Protection and Health, launched raids against HIV-positive women in the centre of Athens, on the ground of public safety and health reasons. Hundreds of women were brought in and subjected to forced medical testing for HIV, and 27 of these women were taken into custody on charges of intentional grievous bodily harm for knowingly spreading the virus – despite not knowing they were HIV-positive – while being shamed by the publication of their details and photographs. More arrests followed, but did not lead to the release of personal details, due to international outcry and the reaction of several Greek organisations and institutions.

In the following years, the women were acquitted. Meanwhile, several of the accused spent up to 11 months in custody while their personal details and photographs, though removed from the official police website, are still circulating on the internet to this day. One woman committed suicide after her acquittal, while 6 others died for reasons related to hardship, precarious health and lack of a supportive environment.

"One may argue that these deaths are not necessarily tied to the raids and detention. However, these vulnerable women received no support from the state and certainly no redress or reparations for what they suffered due to the actions of state officials and functionaries that scarred them forever", says lawyer Eleni Spathana, who, together with other lawyers from the Lawyers' Group for Refugee and Migrant Rights, defended many of these women. "Actually, these women were imprisoned, vilified, stigmatised for life and after death, and used in a clear operation of political expediency just before the 2012 elections. At that time, under the doctrine of public order and security, and the 'protection of public health' that went along with it, the leaderships of the Ministries of Health and Citizen Protection engaged in a witch-hunt, with Health Minister Loverdos issuing statements about 'health bombs in parts of Athens', ‘immigrants spreading infectious diseases', etc. and the issuing of the despicable Health Ordinance, which forced, among other things, medical examination and hospitalization in designated areas, interfering with the privacy of the person, and illegally interfering with living quarters". Spathana also indicates "the enormous responsibility of the investigating and prosecuting authorities, who co-signed the flimsy indictment that put them in prison".

With the assistance of lawyers from the Lawyers' Group, applications have been filed by 13 HIV-positive women to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for violations of Article 3, for subjection to inhumane and degrading treatment, unlawful deprivation of liberty and conditions of detention, forced HIV testing, as well as Article 8, relating to shaming and invasion of the sphere of personal and family life. Spathana adds that the lawyers have asked the Court "to take action and to include in the sentencing judgments the deceased women, as the Court has done in similar, exceptional cases of human rights violations that have significant, broader consequences for population groups and have been of concern to society and public opinion." The ECHR's decision on the appeals has yet to come.

In addition to recourse to the European courts, legislation in Greece provides for a right to compensation for those who have been unjustly imprisoned. According to the CPC, this amount can range from €20 to €50 for each day of imprisonment, depending on the financial situation of the victim.

"The amounts provided for in the Code are meagre", Papadakis comments. "It only adds to the victim’s sense of shame to ask for tax returns and to make the amount of compensation depend on their financial situation. As if a stay in prison alone is not a loss to be compensated", he adds scornfully. "And apparently no man would consider it a commensurate quid pro quo against the unjust deprivation of his liberty."

Data visualizations: Corina Petridi

Elgin Marbles could ‘soon be returned to Greece’ as part of ‘cultural exchange’


Current laws prevent British museums from legally giving away items considered national treasures

Alana Calvert



The so-called Elgin Marbles could soon be returned to Greece
(PA)

The so-called Elgin Marbles could soon be returned to Greece as the British Museum reportedly closes in on a landmark deal.

George Osborne, chairman of the British Museum and former Tory chancellor, is understood to have drawn up an agreement with Athens as part of a “cultural exchange”, according to The Daily Telegraph.

It comes after the Government rejected Tory peer Lord Vaizey of Didcot’s call for a law change to make it easier for UK museums to deal with restitution requests.

Current legislation prevents treasures from being legally given away by the museum, but Mr Osborne, its chairman, is reportedly seeking to repatriate the antiquities as part of a long-term “cultural exchange”.

However, according to the Telegraph, the loan deal will not end the long-running dispute over the 17 sculptures and part of a frieze that decorated the 2,500-year-old Parthenon temple at the Acropolis.

The 2,500-year-old marbles were taken by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century when he was the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, and have been the subject of controversy over where they should be displayed.

Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has called for the marbles to be returned to Greece on many occasions, even offering to loan some of his country’s other treasures to the British Museum in exchange.

A Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) spokesperson told the PA news agency: “The Parthenon Sculptures in the British Museum are legally owned by the Trustees of the British Museum, which is operationally independent of Government. Decisions relating to the care and management of its collections are a matter for the trustees.”

Last month the museum said in a statement it had “publicly called for a new Parthenon Partnership with Greece” and would “talk to anyone, including the Greek government about how to take that forward”.

It added: “We operate within the law and we’re not going to dismantle our great collection as it tells a unique story of our common humanity.

“But we are seeking new positive, long term partnerships with countries and communities around the world, and that of course includes Greece.”

Singapore-based AlterPacks turns food waste into food containers

Food waste and food packaging take up a significant portion of the world’s landfills. AlterPacks is tackling both issues with technology that turns food waste into takeout boxes and other containers. The Singapore-based startup has raised $1 million in pre-seed funding led by Plug and Play APAC and Seed Capital, with participation from Earth Venture Capital and angel investor Alice Foo.

The new funding will be used for AlterPacks’ commercialization, including production and supply, in markets like Asia, Australia and Europe.

Founded in 2019 to tackle single-use plastics, AlterPacks’ main raw material are spent grains, a by-product of manufacturing foods like beer. Spent grains are usually used for animal feed, fertilizer or disposed of. Through its manufacturing process, AlterPacks turns spent grains into food containers that can be molded into different shapes, are freezer and microwave-friendly and home compostable.

Founder and CEO Karen Cheah told TechCrunch that she became interested in developing alternatives to disposable containers when she was traveling and saw communities struggling with the amount of plastic containers and food waste thrown away. AlterPacks uses spent grains because they are easily available.

AlterPacks founders Steven Tan, Karen Cheah and Herbin Chia

“The properties of spent grains and the volume of grains available globally were two key factors,” she said. “By upcycling the grains, we are creating new economic value and putting what would have been a by-product disposed as animal feed, or headed to landfills and compost, back into the supply chain as food containers that can be used to replace plastic disposables.”

Cheah explained that the process of converting spent grains into AlterPacks’ food containers is similar to paper pulp manufacturing. AlterPacks can manufacture containers at scale with automated machines that clean raw materials, mix its formulation and then press it into different shapes of containers.

AlterPacks’ containers have been available commercially since December. Its go-to-market strategy is a B2B model and includes working with distribution partners that sell supplies to F&B businesses like restaurants and hotels. AlterPacks containers have been on the market since December. The startup is also in the process of developing bio-pellets as a replacement for petroleum-based resins use in manufacturing machines. They are made out of spent grains, and other agricultural waste like coconut shells.

In a statement about Plug and Play APAC’s investment, managing partner Jupe Tan said, “We got to know AlterPacks while sourcing for relevant startups for the Alliance to End Plastic Waste Innovation Program and they have gained significant interest from the members of the Alliance, which is naturally a signal for us to do further due diligence for investments. We are glad that we managed to tap into our partnership with SEEDS Capital to co-lead and invest in our very first sustainability startup in APAC and we hope this will be the first of many other sustainability investments with SEEDS Capital.”