Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF FOURTH PERIODIC REPORT OF FINLAND
09 May 2005
Share
Committee against Torture
MORNING 9 May 2005
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Finland on how that country gives effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Introducing the report, Arto Kosonen, Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, said Finland's Constitution prohibited torture and other treatment violating human dignity and provided protection against the deportation, extradition or return of a foreigner if in consequence he or she was in danger of death sentences, torture or other treatment violating human dignity. All acts of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention were punishable under the Penal Code, he said.
Mr. Kosonen said that prisoners' right to appeal had been strengthened by the amendments to the Act on the Enforcement of Sentences, which entered into force in 2001. Now, a prisoner might appeal to a district court against a decision on disciplinary measures or suspension of release on parole. An appeal against decisions on other rights or obligations of a prisoner might be made to an administrative court directly under the Constitution.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Finland was Committee Expert Sayed El-Masry who noted that the report was submitted on time and a long list of positive developments could be cited that had taken place in the country since the Committee considered the third periodic report from Finland. He then enumerated the various legal measures adopted by the State party to prevent acts of torture or ill treatment. There had not been a single case of torture reported in Finland, he said.
Mr. El-Masry recalled that the Committee had previously recommended that the definition of the torture as it was defined in article 1 of the Convention should be incorporated in the country's legislation. However, Finland did not seem to be convinced by such a recommendation and had maintained to use general provisions to apply in the event of cases of torture.
Julio Prado Vallojo, the Committee Expert who served as co-Rapporteur to the report, asked about the conditions for presidential pardons and in what circumstances they were exercised. He said the report contained many positive aspects, including the training of law enforcement personnel. The course provided for anger management was also a positive aspect. Among other things, he asked if the Minority Ombudsman had any powers in the area of asylum and deportation.
Other Committee Experts also raised a number of questions on sexual violence in prisons, if the authorities monitored such incidents and if complaints were promptly considered; on conditions of quotas for immigration and asylum seeking and the implementation of the Convention in time of conflict.
Also representing Finland were representatives of the Parliament of Finland, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 May, to provide additional responses to the Committee.
Finland is among the 139 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 4 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to hear the response of Switzerland to questions raised by Committee Experts on Friday, 6 May.
Report of Finland
The fourth periodic report of Finland (CAT/C/67/Add.1) refers to the situation of prisoners and says the number of prisoners had continued to decrease in the country until 2000 when it began to increase again. In 2001, the number of prisoners was 10 per cent higher than in 2000, rising to 3,135. Almost all categories of prisoners had increased in number, in particular persons in pre-trial detention and foreign prisoners. The number of persons convicted of narcotics offences had increased by 20 per cent and the number of young prisoners by 25 per cent. On 1 October 2002, there were 3,256 prisoners in total in Finland. Despite the recent increase, the proportional number of prisoners was still small in Finland when compared, for example, with other European States.
The new Constitution of Finland, in which the provisions on fundamental rights amended in 1995 were maintained as such, entered into force on 1 March 2000. Section 7 of the Constitution prohibits torture and other treatment violating human dignity. Furthermore, the Constitution provides protection against the deportation, extradition or return of an alien if in consequence he or she is in danger of death sentences, torture or other treatment violating human dignity. The reform of the constitutional provisions on fundamental rights carried out in 1995 and the entry into force of the new Constitution have also in other respects strengthened the rights of persons deprived of their liberty.
Within the framework of the yearly refugee quota, Finland receives both refugees who have left their country of origin for fear of persecution on account of political opinions and refugees belonging to a special category, such as the "women-at-risk" group. The quota for the year 2002 was 750 refugees, selected in accordance with government guidelines and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) principles.
Presentation of Report
ARTO KOSONEN, Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, said Finland's Constitution prohibited torture and other treatment violating human dignity and provided protection against the deportation, extradition or return of a foreigner if in consequence he or she was in danger of death sentences, torture or other treatment violating human dignity. All acts of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention were punishable under the Penal Code. The applicable provisions included those on homicide and bodily injury.
Mr. Kosonen noted that prisoners' right to appeal had been strengthened by the amendments to the Act on the Enforcement of Sentences, which entered into force in 2001. Now, a prisoner might appeal to a district court against a decision on disciplinary measures or suspension of release on parole. An appeal against decisions on other rights or obligations of a prisoner might be made to an administrative court directly under the Constitution. Two Government Bills containing an extensive overall reform of the enforcement of imprisonment and remand imprisonment were submitted to Parliament in December 2004. A third Government Bill was also submitted to Parliament on a reform of the structure and organization of the prison service. The reform entailed the establishment of five regional prisons and a national prison health care unit.
The act on the integration of immigrants and reception of asylum seekers had entered into force in 2001, Mr. Kosonen said. Its objectives were to enhance the integration of immigrants and to ensure the subsistence and care of asylum seekers and persons in need of temporary protection. By an amendment, which entered into force in 2002, the special needs of minors and of victims of torture, rape or other physical or sexual violence, as well as of other persons in a vulnerable position, should be taken into account in the provision of services.
With regard to the use of medication in connection with the deportation of a Ukrainian family which had taken place in 2002, Mr. Kosonen said a nurse had given tranquillizing medication to the members of the family against their will, in accordance with instructions given by a doctor on the phone. The doctor had not examined them before the instructions. The purpose of the medication had been to ensure that the deportation could be carried out. The measures taken by the nurse had no basis in the law, and the National Authority for Medico-legal Affairs had issued a written warning both to the doctor and to the nurse in question. The Supreme Administrative Court found that there had been reason to issue a warning and dismissed the appeal against the Authority's decision.
Response to Questions
The delegation responded to a series of written question prepared by the Committee in advance and sent to the State party beforehand.
The delegation said all prisoners would be provided with an individual sentence plan that would cover both the time to be spent and remand imprisonment. Such a plan was meant to support the underlying objectives of reducing crimes. Prisoners had the right to appeal against the most important decisions concerning their rights and obligations. An appeal against a decision of the Criminal Sanctions Agency could be made directly to an administrative court.
Asked about the situation with regard to the separation of minors from adults in prison wards, the delegation said the total number of prisoners in Finnish prisons was 3,922 on 1 March 2005, of whom minors represented only 0.08 per cent. Particular attention was paid to the placement of minors in prisons. It was possible to place minors in the same prison ward with persons who were under the age of 21 if it was in the best interest of the minors.
On the presence of a legal representative of a minor during interrogation, the delegation said in cases where the interrogated person was under the age of 15 years, his or her custodian or legal representative had the right to be present during the interrogation. The police had no special detention units for minors. However, a juvenile offender, who was a remand prisoner, should be separated from other prisoners in prison and other prison facilities.
The delegation was asked to elaborate on the information that under the "accelerated procedure", if the application for asylum was rejected, the decision could be enforced, irrespective of an existing appeal, which would not have automatic suspensive effect, unless enforcement was prohibited by the Helsinki Administrative Court. According to the Constitution, everyone had the right to have his or her case dealt with appropriately and without undue delay by a legally competent court of law or other authority, as well as to have a decision pertaining to his or her rights or obligations reviewed by a court of law. If an application was dismissed in the accelerated procedure, a possible appeal from the decision would not automatically delay its enforcement. The parties to the appeal proceedings might always request the Administrative Court of Helsinki to order interruption of enforcement but such a request would not prevent the enforcement.
The use of force by the police was subject to strict provisions of the law, the delegation said. Police officers had, when carrying out official duties, the right to use necessary forms of force that could be considered justifiable to overcome opposition. The 1995 Police Decree stated that when force was used against individuals, only such means might be used for which the police officer had been trained.
Sedatives and other medication should not be used in order to ensure the enforcement of deportation, the delegation said. The medication of an alien to be removed from the country should always be based on the treatment of health or illness. The medication should not be given against the person's will. Should, however, a specialist in psychiatry ordered involuntary medication, the police might provide assistance for the health care professionals responsible for giving the medication.
On overcrowding of the Kuopio prison and the former Turku remand prison, and the use of solitary confinement, the delegation said in Kuopio prison, the average number of prisoners was 70, whereas there was room for 53. Thus, the used capacity was 132 per cent. In the former Turku prison, there were 382 prisoners for a capacity of 330. When the new prison of South-western Finland was opened in 2007 with room for 260 prisoners, the situation would be ameliorated. Solitary confinement in situations where the prisons were overcrowded was not acceptable and such placement was exceptional.
Concerning the improvement of hygienic conditions in prisons, the delegation said there were still some 750 cells in Finland without sanitary equipment – 20 per cent of all prison premises. The Criminal Sanction Agency had undertaken to assess the possibility of reducing the use of so-called "slopping out". It had been difficult to give individual prisoners access to toilets after the doors of the ward had been closed for the reason of the small number of prison guards at night. In the present situation, inadequate human resources were the obstacle to the provision of access to toilets. The practice of "slopping out" would be replaced by chemical lavoratories that could be placed in prison cells.
On the outcome of the working group on "Roma in Finnish Prisons", the delegation said the group had published its report in 2003 according to which it was indicated that Roma prisoners still faced particular problems in Finnish prisons, relating to placement, employment, educational needs, needs for the rehabilitation of intoxicant abusers, and preparations for release. Following the report, concrete measures to improve the situation of Roma prisoners had been taken.
There had been no investigations concerning acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor allegations that the police had committed such acts, the delegation said. In such cases, a public prosecutor would lead the criminal investigations.
Asked about measures taken to respond to the threats of terrorism, the delegation said a new chapter of the Penal Code entered into force in 2003, concerning terrorist offences. The provisions were designed to improve and clarify the means available to authorities for the suppression of terrorism.
Concerning the prohibition of equipment specifically designed to inflict torture, the delegation said the production, import and possession in public places of electronic paralysing equipment and batons was prohibited under the 2003 Public Order Act. In addition, the 1998 Firearms Act contained provisions on firearms and equipment spreading teargas or other paralysing substances.
Discussion
SAYED EL-MASRY, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur to the report of Finland, noted that the report was submitted on time and a long list of positive development could be cited that had taken place in the country since the Committee considered the third periodic report from Finland. He then enumerated the various legal measures adopted by the State party to prevent acts of torture or ill treatment. Not a single case of torture had been reported in Finland.
Mr. El-Masry recalled that the Committee had already recommended that the definition of the torture as it was defined in article 1 of the Convention should be incorporated in the country's provisions. However, Finland seemed not to be convinced by such a recommendation and had continued to use general provisions to apply in the event of cases of torture. Torture was considered as an aggravated assault, which did not quite correctly reflect the definition.
With regards to article 3 of the Convention on forceful deportation, Mr. El-Masry said a telephone prescription was given by a medical doctor to a nurse to use medication with regard to a Ukrainian family subjected to deportation. He asked about the regulation on the forced use of medication following that incident.
He asked if the use of electric shock was maintained, as well as the use of incapacitating chemicals. As a result of methods of restraint and force, there had been two tragic deaths. What measures had been taken to prevent the occurrence of such incidents?
On the issue of safe county of origin or asylum, Mr. El-Masry said there were no such generalities and that the situation of any country should be examined on a case by case situation. The delegation was asked to comment on a situation in which an asylum seeker would be sent back to the country of his or her origin where he or she might face torture.
Mr. El-Masry asked about the number of asylum seekers in Finland during the last five years; the number of persons granted refugee status; and the number of those expelled after their cases had been rejected.
JULIO PRADO VALLEJO, the Committee Expert who served as co-Rapporteur to the report, asked about the conditions for presidential pardons and in what circumstances they were exercised. The report contained many positive aspects, including the training of law enforcement personnel. The course provided for anger management was also a positive aspect. Did the Minority Ombudsman have any powers in the area of asylum and deportation?
Finland treated prisoners on equal basis without taking into consideration their race, colour and religion, Mr. Prado said. However, what was the legal status of foreigners detained separately. Why were foreigners placed in special units and why were they placed in temporary police cells? In 2002, a temporary unit in the former Helsinki prison had been established. Why were asylum seekers detained for a long time? They were also interrogated in the police stations in order to find out whether their applications were founded.
A minor could be placed alone in a police station, Mr. Prado said, asking for the reasons used to keep unaccompanied minors under police custody. What was Finland's justification for deporting asylum seekers?
On imprisonment of Roma, Mr. Prado said they were reportedly subject to abuse by other prisoners in prison cells or psychiatric hospitals. What measures had been taken in that regard?
Finland should prevent the dissemination of racial superiority carried out by some organizations, Mr. Prado said. In that area, it seemed that Finland should further work to prohibit such organizations from disseminating racial superiority, which was a violation of human rights.
Other Committee Experts also raised a number of questions. An Expert asked if the health condition of an individual involved in an aborted deportation as carried out by the health authorities could ask for compensation.
Addressing the issue of gender, another Expert asked about sexual violence in prisons, if the authorities monitored such incidents and if complaints were promptly considered with regards to inter-prisoner sexual violence. What procedure was used in body searches in prisons?
Questions were raised, among other things, on conditions of quotas for immigration and asylum seeking, and the implementation of the Convention in time of armed conflict.
* *** *
This press release is not an official record and is provided for public information only.
MORNING 9 May 2005
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Finland on how that country gives effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Introducing the report, Arto Kosonen, Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, said Finland's Constitution prohibited torture and other treatment violating human dignity and provided protection against the deportation, extradition or return of a foreigner if in consequence he or she was in danger of death sentences, torture or other treatment violating human dignity. All acts of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention were punishable under the Penal Code, he said.
Mr. Kosonen said that prisoners' right to appeal had been strengthened by the amendments to the Act on the Enforcement of Sentences, which entered into force in 2001. Now, a prisoner might appeal to a district court against a decision on disciplinary measures or suspension of release on parole. An appeal against decisions on other rights or obligations of a prisoner might be made to an administrative court directly under the Constitution.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Finland was Committee Expert Sayed El-Masry who noted that the report was submitted on time and a long list of positive developments could be cited that had taken place in the country since the Committee considered the third periodic report from Finland. He then enumerated the various legal measures adopted by the State party to prevent acts of torture or ill treatment. There had not been a single case of torture reported in Finland, he said.
Mr. El-Masry recalled that the Committee had previously recommended that the definition of the torture as it was defined in article 1 of the Convention should be incorporated in the country's legislation. However, Finland did not seem to be convinced by such a recommendation and had maintained to use general provisions to apply in the event of cases of torture.
Julio Prado Vallojo, the Committee Expert who served as co-Rapporteur to the report, asked about the conditions for presidential pardons and in what circumstances they were exercised. He said the report contained many positive aspects, including the training of law enforcement personnel. The course provided for anger management was also a positive aspect. Among other things, he asked if the Minority Ombudsman had any powers in the area of asylum and deportation.
Other Committee Experts also raised a number of questions on sexual violence in prisons, if the authorities monitored such incidents and if complaints were promptly considered; on conditions of quotas for immigration and asylum seeking and the implementation of the Convention in time of conflict.
Also representing Finland were representatives of the Parliament of Finland, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 May, to provide additional responses to the Committee.
Finland is among the 139 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 4 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to hear the response of Switzerland to questions raised by Committee Experts on Friday, 6 May.
Report of Finland
The fourth periodic report of Finland (CAT/C/67/Add.1) refers to the situation of prisoners and says the number of prisoners had continued to decrease in the country until 2000 when it began to increase again. In 2001, the number of prisoners was 10 per cent higher than in 2000, rising to 3,135. Almost all categories of prisoners had increased in number, in particular persons in pre-trial detention and foreign prisoners. The number of persons convicted of narcotics offences had increased by 20 per cent and the number of young prisoners by 25 per cent. On 1 October 2002, there were 3,256 prisoners in total in Finland. Despite the recent increase, the proportional number of prisoners was still small in Finland when compared, for example, with other European States.
The new Constitution of Finland, in which the provisions on fundamental rights amended in 1995 were maintained as such, entered into force on 1 March 2000. Section 7 of the Constitution prohibits torture and other treatment violating human dignity. Furthermore, the Constitution provides protection against the deportation, extradition or return of an alien if in consequence he or she is in danger of death sentences, torture or other treatment violating human dignity. The reform of the constitutional provisions on fundamental rights carried out in 1995 and the entry into force of the new Constitution have also in other respects strengthened the rights of persons deprived of their liberty.
Within the framework of the yearly refugee quota, Finland receives both refugees who have left their country of origin for fear of persecution on account of political opinions and refugees belonging to a special category, such as the "women-at-risk" group. The quota for the year 2002 was 750 refugees, selected in accordance with government guidelines and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) principles.
Presentation of Report
ARTO KOSONEN, Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, said Finland's Constitution prohibited torture and other treatment violating human dignity and provided protection against the deportation, extradition or return of a foreigner if in consequence he or she was in danger of death sentences, torture or other treatment violating human dignity. All acts of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention were punishable under the Penal Code. The applicable provisions included those on homicide and bodily injury.
Mr. Kosonen noted that prisoners' right to appeal had been strengthened by the amendments to the Act on the Enforcement of Sentences, which entered into force in 2001. Now, a prisoner might appeal to a district court against a decision on disciplinary measures or suspension of release on parole. An appeal against decisions on other rights or obligations of a prisoner might be made to an administrative court directly under the Constitution. Two Government Bills containing an extensive overall reform of the enforcement of imprisonment and remand imprisonment were submitted to Parliament in December 2004. A third Government Bill was also submitted to Parliament on a reform of the structure and organization of the prison service. The reform entailed the establishment of five regional prisons and a national prison health care unit.
The act on the integration of immigrants and reception of asylum seekers had entered into force in 2001, Mr. Kosonen said. Its objectives were to enhance the integration of immigrants and to ensure the subsistence and care of asylum seekers and persons in need of temporary protection. By an amendment, which entered into force in 2002, the special needs of minors and of victims of torture, rape or other physical or sexual violence, as well as of other persons in a vulnerable position, should be taken into account in the provision of services.
With regard to the use of medication in connection with the deportation of a Ukrainian family which had taken place in 2002, Mr. Kosonen said a nurse had given tranquillizing medication to the members of the family against their will, in accordance with instructions given by a doctor on the phone. The doctor had not examined them before the instructions. The purpose of the medication had been to ensure that the deportation could be carried out. The measures taken by the nurse had no basis in the law, and the National Authority for Medico-legal Affairs had issued a written warning both to the doctor and to the nurse in question. The Supreme Administrative Court found that there had been reason to issue a warning and dismissed the appeal against the Authority's decision.
Response to Questions
The delegation responded to a series of written question prepared by the Committee in advance and sent to the State party beforehand.
The delegation said all prisoners would be provided with an individual sentence plan that would cover both the time to be spent and remand imprisonment. Such a plan was meant to support the underlying objectives of reducing crimes. Prisoners had the right to appeal against the most important decisions concerning their rights and obligations. An appeal against a decision of the Criminal Sanctions Agency could be made directly to an administrative court.
Asked about the situation with regard to the separation of minors from adults in prison wards, the delegation said the total number of prisoners in Finnish prisons was 3,922 on 1 March 2005, of whom minors represented only 0.08 per cent. Particular attention was paid to the placement of minors in prisons. It was possible to place minors in the same prison ward with persons who were under the age of 21 if it was in the best interest of the minors.
On the presence of a legal representative of a minor during interrogation, the delegation said in cases where the interrogated person was under the age of 15 years, his or her custodian or legal representative had the right to be present during the interrogation. The police had no special detention units for minors. However, a juvenile offender, who was a remand prisoner, should be separated from other prisoners in prison and other prison facilities.
The delegation was asked to elaborate on the information that under the "accelerated procedure", if the application for asylum was rejected, the decision could be enforced, irrespective of an existing appeal, which would not have automatic suspensive effect, unless enforcement was prohibited by the Helsinki Administrative Court. According to the Constitution, everyone had the right to have his or her case dealt with appropriately and without undue delay by a legally competent court of law or other authority, as well as to have a decision pertaining to his or her rights or obligations reviewed by a court of law. If an application was dismissed in the accelerated procedure, a possible appeal from the decision would not automatically delay its enforcement. The parties to the appeal proceedings might always request the Administrative Court of Helsinki to order interruption of enforcement but such a request would not prevent the enforcement.
The use of force by the police was subject to strict provisions of the law, the delegation said. Police officers had, when carrying out official duties, the right to use necessary forms of force that could be considered justifiable to overcome opposition. The 1995 Police Decree stated that when force was used against individuals, only such means might be used for which the police officer had been trained.
Sedatives and other medication should not be used in order to ensure the enforcement of deportation, the delegation said. The medication of an alien to be removed from the country should always be based on the treatment of health or illness. The medication should not be given against the person's will. Should, however, a specialist in psychiatry ordered involuntary medication, the police might provide assistance for the health care professionals responsible for giving the medication.
On overcrowding of the Kuopio prison and the former Turku remand prison, and the use of solitary confinement, the delegation said in Kuopio prison, the average number of prisoners was 70, whereas there was room for 53. Thus, the used capacity was 132 per cent. In the former Turku prison, there were 382 prisoners for a capacity of 330. When the new prison of South-western Finland was opened in 2007 with room for 260 prisoners, the situation would be ameliorated. Solitary confinement in situations where the prisons were overcrowded was not acceptable and such placement was exceptional.
Concerning the improvement of hygienic conditions in prisons, the delegation said there were still some 750 cells in Finland without sanitary equipment – 20 per cent of all prison premises. The Criminal Sanction Agency had undertaken to assess the possibility of reducing the use of so-called "slopping out". It had been difficult to give individual prisoners access to toilets after the doors of the ward had been closed for the reason of the small number of prison guards at night. In the present situation, inadequate human resources were the obstacle to the provision of access to toilets. The practice of "slopping out" would be replaced by chemical lavoratories that could be placed in prison cells.
On the outcome of the working group on "Roma in Finnish Prisons", the delegation said the group had published its report in 2003 according to which it was indicated that Roma prisoners still faced particular problems in Finnish prisons, relating to placement, employment, educational needs, needs for the rehabilitation of intoxicant abusers, and preparations for release. Following the report, concrete measures to improve the situation of Roma prisoners had been taken.
There had been no investigations concerning acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor allegations that the police had committed such acts, the delegation said. In such cases, a public prosecutor would lead the criminal investigations.
Asked about measures taken to respond to the threats of terrorism, the delegation said a new chapter of the Penal Code entered into force in 2003, concerning terrorist offences. The provisions were designed to improve and clarify the means available to authorities for the suppression of terrorism.
Concerning the prohibition of equipment specifically designed to inflict torture, the delegation said the production, import and possession in public places of electronic paralysing equipment and batons was prohibited under the 2003 Public Order Act. In addition, the 1998 Firearms Act contained provisions on firearms and equipment spreading teargas or other paralysing substances.
Discussion
SAYED EL-MASRY, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur to the report of Finland, noted that the report was submitted on time and a long list of positive development could be cited that had taken place in the country since the Committee considered the third periodic report from Finland. He then enumerated the various legal measures adopted by the State party to prevent acts of torture or ill treatment. Not a single case of torture had been reported in Finland.
Mr. El-Masry recalled that the Committee had already recommended that the definition of the torture as it was defined in article 1 of the Convention should be incorporated in the country's provisions. However, Finland seemed not to be convinced by such a recommendation and had continued to use general provisions to apply in the event of cases of torture. Torture was considered as an aggravated assault, which did not quite correctly reflect the definition.
With regards to article 3 of the Convention on forceful deportation, Mr. El-Masry said a telephone prescription was given by a medical doctor to a nurse to use medication with regard to a Ukrainian family subjected to deportation. He asked about the regulation on the forced use of medication following that incident.
He asked if the use of electric shock was maintained, as well as the use of incapacitating chemicals. As a result of methods of restraint and force, there had been two tragic deaths. What measures had been taken to prevent the occurrence of such incidents?
On the issue of safe county of origin or asylum, Mr. El-Masry said there were no such generalities and that the situation of any country should be examined on a case by case situation. The delegation was asked to comment on a situation in which an asylum seeker would be sent back to the country of his or her origin where he or she might face torture.
Mr. El-Masry asked about the number of asylum seekers in Finland during the last five years; the number of persons granted refugee status; and the number of those expelled after their cases had been rejected.
JULIO PRADO VALLEJO, the Committee Expert who served as co-Rapporteur to the report, asked about the conditions for presidential pardons and in what circumstances they were exercised. The report contained many positive aspects, including the training of law enforcement personnel. The course provided for anger management was also a positive aspect. Did the Minority Ombudsman have any powers in the area of asylum and deportation?
Finland treated prisoners on equal basis without taking into consideration their race, colour and religion, Mr. Prado said. However, what was the legal status of foreigners detained separately. Why were foreigners placed in special units and why were they placed in temporary police cells? In 2002, a temporary unit in the former Helsinki prison had been established. Why were asylum seekers detained for a long time? They were also interrogated in the police stations in order to find out whether their applications were founded.
A minor could be placed alone in a police station, Mr. Prado said, asking for the reasons used to keep unaccompanied minors under police custody. What was Finland's justification for deporting asylum seekers?
On imprisonment of Roma, Mr. Prado said they were reportedly subject to abuse by other prisoners in prison cells or psychiatric hospitals. What measures had been taken in that regard?
Finland should prevent the dissemination of racial superiority carried out by some organizations, Mr. Prado said. In that area, it seemed that Finland should further work to prohibit such organizations from disseminating racial superiority, which was a violation of human rights.
Other Committee Experts also raised a number of questions. An Expert asked if the health condition of an individual involved in an aborted deportation as carried out by the health authorities could ask for compensation.
Addressing the issue of gender, another Expert asked about sexual violence in prisons, if the authorities monitored such incidents and if complaints were promptly considered with regards to inter-prisoner sexual violence. What procedure was used in body searches in prisons?
Questions were raised, among other things, on conditions of quotas for immigration and asylum seeking, and the implementation of the Convention in time of armed conflict.
* *** *
This press release is not an official record and is provided for public information only.
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: