|
United Nations press release
UNITED NATIONS
Press Release
---
---
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
REVIEWS REPORT OF ICELAND
xxxxxxxxxx
Committee against Torture
MORNING
9 May 2008
The Committee against Torture this morning considered the third
periodic report of Iceland on the efforts of that country to give
effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Introducing the report, Kristrun Kristinsdottir, Director at the
Ministry of Justice of Iceland, said that even though the term torture
was not defined in law texts, there was no doubt about what was
included in that term and that it was a punishable offence under
Icelandic law. Given the general principle of Icelandic law that legal
provisions were to be interpreted in harmony with international legal
obligations, there could be no doubt that the term torture would be
interpreted in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. The
Government of Iceland was of the view that Icelandic law contained
satisfactory provisions applying to torture, both physical and mental,
as covered by the Convention. Also, in Icelandic criminal procedure,
there was a principle of a judge's free evaluation of evidence brought
before the court. Police reports which were not supported by
statements made in court had limited value as evidence. Concerning
criminal proof, Icelandic law ensured that a person could not be
convicted on the basis of a confession, if it was established that it
had been obtained by torture.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Iceland, Committee Expert Nora
Sveaass said that one of the positive aspects was that no complaints
of torture had been received. One of the recommendations of the
Committee had been that torture should be defined as a specific
offence. The report said that the term torture was explained in such a
way that there should be no doubt as to what was meant by this term,
even though it was not specifically defined. She recalled that the
Committee had emphasized that a clear comprehensive domestic law
defining torture was of essence in the efforts to prevent such acts.
Xuexian Wang, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the
report of Iceland, said that a clear specific provision in domestic
law indicating that evidence obtained under torture had no value in
court would be welcomed. Also, there seemed to be a high number of
rapes. Was this linked to the fact that they had no specific
definition of rape in Icelandic law? He wondered about the large
difference between the sanctions for someone accused of rape. Rape of
children could lead to 16 years imprisonment, whereas rape of adults
could only lead to one to two years imprisonment, this was thought to
be a rather weak. Further, Iceland should create a criminal offence
for cruel or inhuman treatment. What was the delegation's view in this
regard?
Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said that
concerning so-called "Taser guns", the police association had
expressed their opinion in this regard and had indicated the necessity
of the police to be able to use such guns in certain conditions. No
action had however been taken by the authorities in this regard until
now to authorize such guns.
Also representing the delegation of Iceland were members of the
Permanent Mission of Iceland to the United Nations Office at Geneva
and the Ministry of Justice.
Iceland is among the 145 States parties to the Convention and as such
it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is
implementing the provisions of the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear
the answers of Zambia to the questions posed by Experts on 8 May 2008.
Report of Iceland
The third periodic report of Iceland (CAT/C/ISL/3) notes that Article
7 of the Application of Punishments Act establishes an authorisation
in law for the use of force by prison warders. The general rule is
that prison staff are to carry out their work without using force. The
aforementioned provision provides for the use of force under special
conditions; these are given in an exhaustive list. Specifically,
provision is made for prison staff to use force in the course of their
work only if this is considered necessary in order to prevent an
escape, to defend themselves against an imminent attack, to overpower
violent resistance, to prevent a prisoner from harming himself or
others and to prevent acts of vandalism. Prison staff may also use
force if this is considered necessary to carry out measures in
accordance with orders when it is necessary to carry them out
immediately and the prisoner refuses or neglects to comply with
instructions regarding them. It is stated in the provision that force
may involve physical holds or the use of the appropriate defensive
equipment. It is stated specifically that a doctor is to be summoned
if there is a suspicion that the use of force has resulted in injury,
in cases involving disease or if the prisoner himself requests medical
assistance.
In connection with the third paragraph of Article 6 of the Convention,
it should be mentioned that Article 40 of the Application of
Punishments Act prescribes that foreign prisoners have the right to
contact the embassies or consuls of their countries. In cases where
the prisoner is a stateless person or a refugee, the prison is to
assist him to contact the representative of domestic or international
organisations which defend the interests of such persons. This
provision also applies to remand prisoners. Also, any person who
considers he has been unfairly treated by a government authority is
able to submit a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. In the
period from 2001 to October 2005, the Parliamentary Ombudsman did not
receive any complaints directly involving allegations by individuals
of torture by civil servants. Each year the Parliamentary Ombudsman
receives a certain number of complaints from prisoners in which they
criticise facilities in the prisons, the way disciplinary measures are
imposed and the conduct of prison warders and other persons working in
the prisons, including doctors and health service employees. In many
of these cases, complaints do not result in any measures being taken
by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, though in some cases he has criticised
aspects of the handling of cases by the prison authorities.
Presentation of Report
Kristrun Kristinsdottir, Director at the Ministry of Justice of
Iceland, first made some minor oral corrections to the texts of the
report and their written replies. Concerning the Child Protection Act,
it was wrongly stated that the Minister of Justice could regulate the
methods of coercion or disciplinary actions, this lay with the
competences of the Minister of Social Affairs. Concerning
deportations, no applicant had fallen under the definition of the term
refugee given in the United Nations Convention during the years 2001
to 2005.
Ms. Kristinsdottir, reviewing the main measures and developments, said
that in the new Application of Punishment Act, a large number of
provisions in various acts and regulations had been brought together
in a single piece of legislation defining the rights and obligations
of persons on whom sentence was passed. By this Act, the distinction
between prisons for those serving sentences and remand prisons had
been abolished. In fact, no remand prisons had been in operation in
Iceland for many years.
Regarding the fact that no special rules had been set regarding the
use of force by employees of the Coast Guard, Ms. Kristinsdottir noted
that there had been some developments. A new Coast Guard Act stated
that the Coast Guards shall comply with the Police Act and Law on
Criminal Procedure. On prison warders, one of the requirements for
candidates was that they should not have been convicted of a criminal
offence and the training for prison warders lasted nine months. A
course in human rights and ethics was taught, educating prison warders
on rules on human rights and how to care for people with dignity.
Ms. Kristinsdottir underlined that, even though the term torture was
not defined in law texts, there was no doubt about what was included
in that term and that it was a punishable offence under Icelandic law.
Given the general principle of Icelandic law that legal provisions
were to be interpreted in harmony with international legal
obligations, there could be no doubt that the term torture would be
interpreted in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. The
Government of Iceland was of the view that Icelandic law contained
satisfactory provisions applying to torture, both physical and mental,
as covered by the Convention.
Also, in Icelandic criminal procedure, there was a principle of a
judge's free evaluation of evidence brought before the court. Police
reports which were not supported by statements made in court had
limited value as evidence. Concerning criminal proof, Icelandic law
ensured that a person could not be convicted on the basis of a
confession, if it was established that it had been obtained by
torture, said Ms. Kristinsdottir.
Questions Raised by Committee Experts
NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the
Report of Iceland, said that one of the positive aspects was that no
complaints of torture had been received. One of the recommendations of
the Committee had been that torture should be defined as a specific
offence. The report said that the term torture was explained in such a
way that there should be no doubt as to what was meant by this term,
even though it was not specifically defined. She recalled that the
Committee had emphasized that a clear comprehensive domestic law
defining torture was of essence in the efforts to prevent such acts.
One of the major tools for the prevention of torture was to have a
good oversight mechanism and independent monitoring body. The
parliamentary ombudsperson was engaged in this but the resources were
limited. Had the Ombudsman been able to visit places of psychiatric
facilities? Was it true that he did not have a broad human rights
mandate? What were the plans to strengthen this independent function,
in compliance with the Paris Principles, asked Ms. Sveaass.
What were the legal provisions and measures taken by the State party
to deal with the high number of rapes? Concerning asylum seekers, Ms.
Sveaass noted that there were very few who were granted protection
when applying for asylum. Between 2001 and 2005, the report noted that
there had been 394 applications and 240 deportations. Between 2001 and
2008, 457 persons sought asylum, 24 of them had been granted
humanitarian status and one person was granted refugee status. What
had happened to the 25 reported appeals?
The Icelandic Human Rights Centre was aware of a case where a seven
months pregnant woman had been returned and of a Romanian asylum
seeker who had been returned to the United Kingdom, despite the fact
that he had been gravely ill and suffering from severe post-traumatic
stress. In this regard, was it planned to reconsider procedures?
Information received by the Committee also indicated that there had
been incidents where asylum seekers had not been treated in accordance
with international agreement, said Ms. Sveaass
Concerning the much discussed CIA activities in Europe and the
tendency to turn a blind eye to flights operated by the CIA which had
on occasion been used for extraordinary rendition or the illegal
transportation of detainees, Ms. Sveaass noted that in 2005 the media
had published information that CIA affiliated planes had landed in
Iceland at least 67 times since 2001. There had been calls for an
official investigation relating to a possible complicity. But the
public prosecutor had not taken up the issue. Further, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs had responded that they had not been aware of any such
landings or any such planes in the Icelandic air space. What was the
position of the present Government on these issues?
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the
Report of Iceland, said that it was good that Icelandic peacekeepers
units were harmonized in line with the United Nations peacekeeping
standards. However, the State party should push to have a provision in
its domestic legislation that ensured that peacekeepers be trained in
international human rights and humanitarian law.
Concerning border guards, Mr. Wang welcomed the fact that the law
indicated that they had to respect international obligations. Could
Iceland also take the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination's suggestion to train them on all aspects of protection
of refugees and asylum seekers onboard? Also, the Reykjavik prison had
been termed as being under standard and that there were no separate
toilets. Were these allegations true? What had been done in this
regard? On solitary confinement, the numbers of detainees in solitary
confinement was thought to be quite high. The Committee felt that
prolonged solitary confinement was a form of torture and should be
prevented as much as possible. Also, information received had
indicated that two children were currently held in prison together
with adults. Was this correct?
Mr. Wang said that a clear specific provision in domestic law
indicating that evidence obtained under torture had no value in court
would be welcomed. Also, there seemed to be a high number of rapes.
Was this linked to the fact that they had no specific definition of
rape in Icelandic law? He wondered about the large difference between
the sanctions for someone accused of rape. Rape of children could lead
to 16 years imprisonment, whereas rape of adults could only lead to
one to two years imprisonment, this was thought to be a bit weak.
Further, it was thought that Iceland should create a criminal offence
for cruel or inhuman treatment. What was the delegation's view in this
regard?
Other Committee Experts asked questions and made comments on juvenile
justice, stating that a lot of progress had been made in the
protection of minors, but up until now it looked like there still was
no fully fledged juvenile justice. More aggressive legislation on
domestic violence should be implemented by the State party, noted one
Expert. Were there any numbers available concerning offences of sexual
violence inside marriages and concerning sexual violence against
children inside the family? Concerning trafficking, were there any
provisions ensuring the assistance of victims?
One Expert wondered what exactly happened when an asylum seeker
arrived by plane to Iceland from a Schengen country and was rejected.
Was he sent back automatically to the same country or was he sent back
to a third country? Were travel documents granted by a Schengen member
country recognised by Iceland?
Had investigations of cases of suicide in prisons taken place, asked
another Expert? Were guards educated in this regard? While there was a
parliamentary Ombudsman, there was no systematic control and visits to
prison because, as noted in the report, it was not considered
appropriate to entrust this function to any already existing body. Why
was this considered not to be appropriate? Why could the Ombudsman or
a NGO not take this role?
An Expert underlined that there were specific reasons to have a
definition for torture. Preventing torture would be easier when
calling it by its name. Types of criminal acts should be defined
narrowly.
Further, what was meant under "national security" with regard to
asylum seekers whose requests were refused because they posed a threat
to national security? This seemed to be a very broad term, how was it
defined? A precise definition of terrorism was also needed. Were there
attempts to narrow it down? Historical events sometimes made people
overreact and it was important to review later-on decisions that had
been taken in such periods.
Response by Delegation
Kristrun Kristinsdottir, Director at the Ministry of Justice of
Iceland, said that, on the issue of evidence obtained under torture
and the definition of torture, they would convey the questions back
home and submit the answers to the Committee in written form.
Concerning the asylum seekers being sent back, the delegation noted
that Icelandic authorities were actively participating in the Dublin
groups of experts dealing with the fight against organised crime and
practical methods of extraditions. Icelandic authorities were in good
contact with the other participating States. Regarding the issue of
Dublin and Schengen, the delegation noted that the Dublin scheme and
the Schengen regime were not the same thing. Under Schengen, the
borders were open between Iceland and other Schengen Member States and
free movement was accorded to any nationals from another Schengen
country and any nationals from a third country, residing legally in a
Schengen country. However, under the Dublin regime when a third
country national arrived from a Dublin member country, like the United
Kingdom, he was subject to border control.
Regarding the low number of asylums which had been granted, the
delegation noted that Iceland received a relatively high number of
refugees through their cooperation with the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees and the Red Cross. Iceland received 30 to 40
persons a year which was already a high number, compared to the
population. Also, Iceland was not a country were many asylum seekers
came to seek asylum. Other European countries seemed to be more
attractive in this regard.
Concerning the issue of unaccompanied minors, Iceland was
participating in the Baltic Sea Cooperation which included other
Nordic countries as well as Poland and Russia. An action plan had been
set up in this regard in 2003, said the delegation. Regarding the
question on setting up a definition of rape, this was the same issue
as the definition of torture; it would go against the legal tradition
of the country to introduce such a definition.
Regarding the CIA flights question, the delegation said that the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs had conducted a study and it could not
establish that any flights had taken place. An inter-ministerial
consultation group had been set up later on, to look into the specific
monitoring procedure and if they were sufficient. It came to the
conclusion that this was the case. However, decisions had been taken
to change rules in order to request pilots, flying through Icelandic
air space, to inform whether they had captives onboard.
As regards training for the peacekeeping force, the delegation noted
that members of the unit had to sign a code of conduct before being
deployed. This code of conduct was in line with the United Nations
peacekeeping code of conduct. Further, a new human rights policy to
train all peacekeeping units in human rights and humanitarian matters
was now being set up.
The delegation noted that coast guards and border guards were not the
same. The coast guards were partly border guards and partly police
forces. They also received training in human trafficking and how to
spot out such situations. On minors in prison, it was true that there
were two boys aged 17 currently in prison. It was also true that in
one prison individual toilets were not available to everyone.
Prisoners who had committed minor crimes were placed there and young
offenders were also placed in this prison as it was felt better to
place them with less serious criminals. Even though this prison was
not the most modern one, people preferred to be sent to this prison.
Concerning so-called "Taser guns", the police association had
expressed their opinion in this regard and had indicated the necessity
of the police to be able to use such guns in certain conditions. No
action had however been taken by the authorities in this regard until
now to authorize such guns. Concerning suicides in prisons, they were
being closely monitored. On close up body search of prisoners, the
delegation indicated that there were specific rules for this.
Further Questions by Experts
NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the
Report of Iceland, welcomed the signing by Iceland of the European
Convention against human trafficking. On psychiatrist hospitals and
their independent overview, could more information on this issue be
provided?
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the
Report of Iceland, said, on solitary confinement, the numbers were
quite high. It was a problem as it could also last weeks or years. On
evidence obtained under torture, the State party was invited to adopt
a specific provision in this regard and also one about cruel and
inhuman treatment.
Other Experts asked questions and made further comments concerning the
recording of interrogations. The State party had said that this was
carried out in order to protect the police, but it should rather be
done to protect the detainee. Also, how were victims of trafficking
protected and how were they detected by the border control personnel?
Response by Delegation
Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said that the
actual sentences on rape were normally lower than the maximum
authorized of 16 years. It was also true that the sentence for rape
cases against adults was between one and two years imprisonment. Views
had been recently expressed in the country that this should become
stricter.
Concerning the use of recording during interrogations, the delegation
said that such tapes could constitute additional proof if there were
allegations of ill treatment by the police, and thus the parties would
have a better opportunity to address what happened. During case
hearings, recordings of children's statements in sexual abuse cases
were used in order to protect the children.
____________
For use of the information media; not an official record
|
 |
