COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF MOLDOVA

CAT
30th session
8 May 2003
Afternoon



The Committee against Torture began its consideration this afternoon of an initial report of Moldova, questioning a five-member Government delegation, among other things, about legal provisions apparently allowing incommunicado detention for three hours and administrative police detention for up to 30 days; about reports that maltreatment by police occurred frequently and that a heavy emphasis was placed in criminal prosecutions on obtaining confessions; and about allegations that the judicial system lacked independence.
Committee Experts said it appeared judges had five- and/or 10-year terms of employment before being given lifetime appointments, and noted allegations that judges had refused in various cases to investigate when suspects appeared in court bearing signs of ill-treatment.
They also noted that the country’s Penal Code contained a definition of torture in line with the Convention against Torture but that a new Penal Code scheduled to take effect on 1 July did not have such a definition, and asked why the definition was being dropped.
Introducing the report, Vitalie Slonovschi, the Moldovan Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, said among other things that mechanisms for implementing and promoting human rights had been defined in the years since the country’s achievement of independence in 1991, with domestic standards based in large part on the standards of international human rights treaties. Article 24 of the Constitution stated that no one should be exposed to torture, and the Constitution’s article 4 noted that domestic legislation must accord with the standards of international treaties, Mr. Slonovschi said; in cases of conflict between domestic law and international treaties, the international agreements took precedence.
The Moldovan delegation included Dumitru Croitor, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Moldova to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Vladimir Botnari, Deputy Minister of Interior Affairs; Valentin Sereda, General Director of Penitentiary Institutions of the Ministry of Justice; and Rodica Postu, Third Secretary of the International Law and Treaties Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Moldova, as one of 133 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must submit periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to prevent ill-treatment.
The Moldovan delegation will respond to the Committee’s questions on Friday, 9 May, beginning at 3 p.m.
At the start of the afternoon meeting the Committee discussed possible modifications to its methods of work, including providing States parties with lists of questions in advance of their presentation of reports.
The Committee will reconvene in public session at 3 p.m. on Friday; it may also hold public discussions on methods of work towards the end of its morning session Friday, although it will begin with a private meeting to draft conclusions and recommendations on country reports.

Initial Report of Moldova
The initial report of the Republic of Moldova (CAT/C/32/Add.4) reviews efforts to implement the Convention against Torture, considering the steps taken on an article-by-article basis in relation to the treaty. It is noted that the Constitution states in its article 24, paragraph 2, that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. National legislation defines torture as an illegal action which implies criminal responsibility; article 101/1 of the Criminal Code stipulates that the term means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person suspected of having committed or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Several articles in the Criminal Code prescribe punishments for officials who abuse their powers or authority.
Cases of torture and inhuman treatment have been reported, among other things by the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, and when checking proves the veracity of such cases, steps are taken to reinstate the rights of the victims. “Regretfully”, the report states, “the authorities responsible for ensuring respect for the law do not give the necessary attention to solving cases of torture or bringing the perpetrators to justice”. The country has problems with prison conditions, the report states – such conditions do not correspond to European norms, and although efforts are being made to improve them a major obstacle is a shortage of resources. The number of convicts with contagious diseases has been increasing, and some 900 suffer from tuberculosis and over 100 have HIV/AIDS; insufficient availability of medicine has kept such diseases from being treated and often the infections spread to other prisoners, the report notes. The authorities are trying to solve such problems and are preparing bills for the purpose of opening new penitentiaries.

Presentation of Report
VITALIE SLONOVSCHI, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova, said that mechanisms for implementing and promoting human rights had been defined in the years since the country’s achievement of independence in 1991, with domestic standards based in large part on the standards of international human rights treaties. No person was to be subject to torture or cruel treatment; the Constitution’s article 4 noted, among other things, that domestic legislation must accord with the standards of international treaties ratified by Moldova. Article 24 of the Constitution stated that no one should be exposed to torture, and the Penal Code contained a definition of torture, acts of which were to be subject to criminal prosecution. In cases of conflict between domestic law and international treaties, the international agreements took precedence.
Acts of torture and other cruel treatment were prohibited in a general sense by a series of special norms of the Penal Code, Mr. Slonovischi said; a new Penal Code which would take effect on 1 July, however, would not contain a definition of torture but would criminalize actions amounting to torture and cruel treatment under a series of its articles. A serious problem in criminal cases was establishing proof; the Penal Code contained provisions prohibiting the use of threats and other illegal acts to produce evidence, and barred the use of evidence obtained contrary to law. The duration of pre-trial detention was set at a maximum of 72 hours, and measures had been called for to improve detention conditions. Prison overcrowding was a problem, and resource constraints were hindering the construction of new penitentiaries, but steps nonetheless were being taken to increase prison capacity, improve standards of incarceration, and use alternative forms of punishment.
Prison staff had been trained in human rights standards, Mr. Slonovischi said. In the case of maltreatment by penitentiary staff, an inmate could complain to prison superiors, to a board consisting of prison personnel, or to the Procurator. Tuberculosis continued to be a serious problem in prisons, with a number of cases representing a strain of the disease that was resistant to drugs. Considerable efforts were being made to control the disease.

Discussion
Serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Moldova was Committee Expert PETER THOMAS BURNS, who said among other things that while he might have asked a great number of questions, he had decided instead to focus on matters of prime concern.
The country’s new Penal Code would abandon the definition of torture contained in the old Penal Code, a definition that had been based on the Convention, Mr. Burns said; as far as he knew, that was the first time such a thing had occurred in a State party to the Convention, and he wished to know why a suitable definition of torture was being abandoned by the nation’s legal system.
Information received indicated that ill-treatment, some of which might amount to torture, was endemic-- commonplace -- in police custody, Mr. Burns said. There appeared to be two regimes for arrest and detention – standard detention and administrative detention. Administrative detention on its face, as it was on the authority of the police and not subject to standard legal protections, created unwelcome opportunities for maltreatment, and if non-governmental organizations were to be believed, much of the apparent abuse occurred during administrative detention. Detention was incommunicado for its first 3 hours, with no access to legal counsel or notification of family; and administrative detention could last 30 days. Mr. Burns asked if over those 30 days there was no guaranteed access to lawyers, doctors, or family. He also asked if, as appeared, during the first hours of standard detention there was no access to a lawyer allowed.
Confession seemed to be the primary form of evidence in criminal cases, Mr. Burns said, and that clearly lent itself to overzealous police interrogation, as the whole purpose of interrogation could be to extract a confession. There also were reports that police officers’ salaries depended on the number of cases sent to court, thus putting great pressure on policemen to obtain confessions. He asked if that was indeed the arrangement, and if, as reported, the Prosecutor’s salary depended on the number of cases he won. Again that seemed to create possibility of maltreatment, and in fact there were reports of suspects appearing in court with bruises and other signs of maltreatment and reports of the Prosecutor deciding that these injuries were the result of resistance to the police rather than injuries resulting from ill-treatment.
Mr. Burns also asked if judges were appointed for five- or ten-year terms before obtaining life appointments, as had been reported and which might predispose them to make judgments favourable to the Government in an effort to protect their jobs and to avoid embarrassment for the Government; and in fact he had heard reports that judges had ruled repeatedly that they had no jurisdiction to investigate when suspects appearing before them showed signs of maltreatment. Mr. Burns asked how judges were appointed; what were their qualifications; and how they could be dismissed; how prosecutors were appointed, what their qualifications were, and how they could be dismissed; and about qualifications for legal practice.
Reports indicated that use of force by police occurred often, Mr. Burns said; there had been allegations of beatings administered to obtain confessions, of the use of electric shocks, and of the use of gas masks to cause partial suffocation; he asked if such reports were true. He asked if investigations of complaints against the police could be carried out by bodies independent of the police, or if police investigations were always carried out internally; if “necessity” ever could be used as a justification for acts of torture under the current or new Penal Codes; and if superior orders could be cited as an excuse for acts amounting to torture.
Mr. Burns asked a series of questions about Moldovan regimes for granting asylum, dealing with extradition requests, and returning foreigners to their home countries; he asked if such activities took account of Convention standards barring the return of persons to countries where they stood a serious risk of undergoing torture.
Government control did not extend to the territory in the east of the country known as Transnistria, Mr. Burns said, but he asked about reports of informal cooperation by the Government with those in power in Transnistria which in some cases had included the transferring of persons from Government-controlled areas into Transnistria, where they then had suffered maltreatment, or were returned to other countries through Transnistria, again into situations where maltreatment appeared likely.
Mr. Burns asked about a reported case where two police cadets, practicing on- the-job training interrogations under the eye of a superior and practicing police officers, seriously abused a detainee without being stopped; and about reports that while the trainees were subsequently prosecuted after a lengthy period of time, the superior was transferred to a new job and promoted.
A great deal of information indicated that police often held a person for the initial three hours incommunicado, then subjected him to administrative detention, maltreated him to obtain a “confession”, and then held the detainee for the limit of 30 days so that the medical signs of maltreatment had abated, Mr. Burns said. He asked how often and how seriously allegations of this pattern of acts were investigated, and if police officers were ever prosecuted for such acts.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Moldova, but speaking second, was Committee Expert OLE VEDEL RASMUSSEN, who said among other things that it was a positive sign that Moldova had hosted two visits of the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture and had publicized the reports resulting from those visits.
He asked, among other things, if there were plans to issue directives on the proper conduct of interrogations, including a total prohibition of torture, as the Code of Criminal Procedure lacked detailed provisions on the subject; if time limits would be set on interrogations; if a practice of making tape recordings of interrogations might be established; if conditions of custody in police stations often included a lack of food and water, as reported; if detainees were informed of their rights from the moment of detention; if persons in police custody were allowed access to a doctor; if detention conditions were spartan and sometimes unhygienic, as had been reported; why responsibility for remand prisoners had not been transferred from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice, as had been scheduled; why prisons continued to have underground cells which were dark, lacked ventilation and created conditions for the spread of tuberculosis; and if prison inspections could be carried out more often and by independent bodies.
Mr. Rasmussen also asked if there had been any specific cases where police had been prosecuted and found guilty of acts of torture or maltreatment; if there had been any specific cases where a confession or evidence had been ruled inadmissible in court because they had been obtained through ill-treatment; where and under what circumstances migrants and migrant children were held in custody; and if juvenile prisoners were kept separately from adult prisoners.
Other Committee members also put questions. They asked, among other things, if the Prosecutor was independent of political authorities in the country; if the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, which according to the report had established some kind of cooperation agreement with the Government, had the right to inspect Moldovan prisons and to contest court rulings; if there was a problem with violence against women in prisons; and why statistics had not been kept on the number of complaints of maltreatment filed against the police.



* *** *