Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF UKRAINE
08 May 2007
Share
Committee against Torture
8 May 2007
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Ukraine 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, Valeriya Lutkovska, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, said Ukraine had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and had established a national mechanism as provided for in that instrument. A law had been adopted in accordance with which a prisoner had the right to have access to correspondence without censorship, and contacts with the High Commissioner's office were also possible without interference. As of 2005, mobile teams for monitoring citizens' rights and freedoms, which could inspect temporary places of detention, had been established in every region.
As of 2006, a programme had been established to renovate prison facilities and to bring them into line with European regulations, Ms. Lutkovska continued. A hotline had also been established for military staff wishing to bring individual complaints. Ukraine was working to align its legislation with European guidelines for ensuring human rights standards.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Ukraine, Committee Expert Felice Gaer welcomed Ukraine's ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which was one of the most important preventive measures that could be taken. She was concerned, however, that the definition of torture in Ukrainian law did not meet all the requirements of the Convention: it did not include mental suffering; it appeared to be applicable only to law enforcement officers, and not to other State agents; and deliberate inaction or acquiescence in the torture was not covered. Regarding the case of the 11 Uzbek asylum-seekers who had been deported back to Uzbekistan in 2006, the delegation's explanation that those individuals had refused lawyers, that they had made no complaints, and that they had wanted to go back voluntarily appeared unlikely given that, upon their return, several of those individuals had lodged complaints that they had been tortured.
Alexander Kovalev, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Ukraine, said he would appreciate further details on training of military and law enforcement personnel on human rights; crowd control, other than the use of clubs and tear gas; training of trainers; and whether the Istanbul Protocol was used as a guideline for medical practitioners in order to determine whether torture had occurred.
Other Committee Experts then asked questions and made comments on a number of topics, including the involvement of non-governmental organizations and civil society in measures to combat torture in Ukraine; the need for independent monitoring bodies, in particular for the police; apparent impunity for officials who committed acts of torture or ill-treatment, given the low conviction rate for such cases; lack of sufficient judicial oversight of conditions of detention; and whether there was a guideline on interrogation techniques, both for law enforcement agents and for the armed forces.
Also representing the delegation of Ukraine was Valerii Bidnyi, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Ukraine, and representatives from the Legal Military Service; the State Department; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the Ministry of Justice; the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights; and the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to United Nations Office at Geneva.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 May, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.
Ukraine is among the 144 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 the Netherlands to the questions posed by Experts on Monday, 7 May.
Report of Ukraine
Ukraine’s penal corrections policy underwent fundamental changes during the reporting period, according to the fifth periodic report of Ukraine (CAT/C/81/Add.1). Ukraine’s Criminal Code, which entered into force on 1 September 2001, provides for a number of alternatives to incarceration (short-term rigorous detention, restricted freedom, community service). The list of circumstances under which an act cannot be considered unlawful is considerably broader than the Ukrainian Criminal Code of 1960, and the new Code for the first time includes a stand-alone section on relief from criminal responsibility. Moreover, the Penal Corrections Code of Ukraine that entered into force on 1 January 2004 is geared to humanizing and democratizing the enforcement and serving of sentences. The Ukrainian penal corrections system is guided in its operations by the European Prison Rules. The reform of the penal corrections system that has been carried out in recent years has permitted substantial moves to humanize the serving of sentences, strengthen the rule of law, and stabilize conditions at custodial institutions. Unfortunately, current law and judicial practice are still geared primarily to handing down sentences that involve incarceration. This seriously exacerbates the problems of housing and employing convicts and detainees in proper conditions in penal correction facilities. To overcome those problems, additional capacity is being installed and brought into use at remand centres and correctional colonies.
In terms of training for prison staff, more attention has recently been paid to training junior prison officers. The Dniprodzerzhinsk College trains guards who work in remand centres and with juveniles and the Bila Tserkva College offers basic and advanced training for junior officers with supervisory responsibilities. The training courses and curricula are being developed and tested, and teaching staff at the Bila Tserkva College are being trained with Swiss assistance under a general “Model Institutions” programme. Five training seminars for Bila Tserkva instructors have been held since April 2002. As recommended by the Committee against Torture, the training curricula at the institutions have been reviewed and completely reworked. Much training time is devoted to learning about the legal system and to psychological and social training and developing interpersonal skills. The curriculum also includes international law as it relates to the treatment of prisoners.
Presentation of Report
VALERIYA LUTKOVSKA, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, presenting the fifth periodic report of Ukraine, welcomed this opportunity to hold a dialogue with the Committee against Torture. Ukraine had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and had established a national mechanism as provided for in that instrument. A law had been adopted in accordance with which a prisoner had the right to have access to correspondence without censorship, and contacts with the High Commissioner's office were also possible without interference. As of 2005, mobile teams for monitoring citizens' rights and freedoms, which could inspect temporary places of detention, had been established in every region.
As of 2006, a programme had been established to renovate prison facilities and to bring them into line with European regulations, Ms. Lutkovska continued. A hotline had also been established for military staff wishing to bring individual complaints. Ukraine was working to align its legislation with European guidelines for ensuring human rights standards.
Replies by the Delegation to Written Questions by Experts Submitted in Advance
Responding to written questions, the delegation said that, with regard to the incorporation of the definition of torture as set out in the Convention, there had been changes in the definition of torture in Ukrainian law. Added to the definition were aggravated penalties if acts of torture were carried out by law enforcement officials. It was Ukraine's provision that with the new amendments to its Criminal Code, the definition of the crime of torture in Ukraine was fully in line with that set out in Article 1 of the Convention.
Regarding poor treatment of prisoners, in particular foreigners, the changes in Ukrainian law also covered activities of law enforcement officials regarding those in detention, including the calling of immediate medical assistance if necessary, and the guarantee of prisoners rights from the moment they entered custody, including access to a lawyer.
On the basis of the Constitution of Ukraine and its laws, prosecutors carried out inspections on how sentences were enforced and with regard to the rights of individuals in prison, with particular attention paid to women in prisons. The Prosecutor's Office was also checked the legality of measures carried out by staff in such facilities, including isolation measures. Following investigations of such complaints during the reporting period, three officials had been convicted.
The issue of military hazing was dealt with by three sections of the Criminal Code, the delegation said. There was a whistle-blowers provision that allowed for officers who identified that the rules had been broken were protected. There was also a provision for obligatory disciplinary measures to be taken in the case of commanders who could not control the activities of those in their command. In addition, a hotline had been set up, and there were private telephone lines set up in the Ministry of Defence itself. Following the implementation of these preventive measures, there had been a marked drop off in the number of such complaints brought. In 2005, 125 cases had been brought for military hazing; in 2006, 83; and in 2007, 40 cases, only two of which involved bodily harm.
Regarding the commission to inspect law enforcement agencies and protect prisoners' rights, that had been in operation since 2004 and required heads of departments to inspect their premises to ensure there were no instruments of torture, the delegation said. In addition, unit staff were instructed not to tolerate violence towards suspects, and if violence was uncovered, they could be held collectively liable.
A foreigner could be extradited to a foreign State for the execution of justice, in accordance with the Constitution and the European Convention for the Extradition of Criminals and its Additional Protocol, the delegation said. There were no special appeals provisions for extradition orders; appeals to such decisions were provided under the regular law. In 2006, courts considered over 35 complaints related to extradition.
Following the May 2005 amendments to the law on asylum, expulsion orders could be appealed in court, and such appeals would effectively stop the expulsion process, except in cases involving national security.
In terms of measures to prevent torture, as of 2005, a certification Committee, which included representatives of non-governmental organizations, had been set up for law enforcement staff.
In accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol, Ukraine was ensuring that national inspection bodies were in place to examine conditions in places of detention, the delegation said. The Constitution called for obligatory monitoring of the manner in which sentences were carried out, and Article 24 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences provided for the right of an observation commission to visit places of detention to monitor conditions there. Moreover, the Ombudsperson also had the right to inspect places of detention.
With respect to preventing illegal acts against prisoners, including illegal detentions, the Ministry of the Interior had issued three decrees from 2004 to 2006 which provided, among other things, that staff in places of temporary detention had to inform the families of prisoners of the detention, and had to ensure that detainees received proper medical care.
In that connection, the delegation said that the current system for legal aid was not ideal. For that reason, a bill had been put forward to provide free legal aid with the help of non-governmental organizations. A pilot project had already been set up in three districts.
Regarding juveniles in detention, they were provided with educational opportunities, including courses on current affairs, the delegation said. They had access to television and sports facilities.
In terms of time limits for detentions, detention could not last more than 72 hours, the delegation said.
Inspections of isolation cells were carried out regularly, as set out in the law. No complaints regarding cases of solitary confinement had been received, the delegation said.
On the issue of human trafficking, in 2006 there had been 376 complaints, resulting in 81 criminal prosecutions against 122 accused on 315 charges. Of those, some 66 individuals had been remanded to custody and the remaining cases were still under investigation. The Ombudsman for Human Rights could be contacted on a confidential basis by detainees to address their complaints. Military personnel were also able to bring confidential complaints before the Ombudsman.
In 2006, there had been 144 complaints alleging harm from illegal acts of officials while in detention. The courts had satisfied those claims in many cases. In 49 cases, the decision had been appealed and the award granted had been decreased. The delegation underscored that State funds were set aside to compensate victims of illegal actions by law enforcement personnel.
In conclusion, the delegation noted that, while the situation in Ukraine regarding torture and legislation on that subject might not be perfect, they were witnessing a positive trend, a level of transparency and openness, and real efforts were being made to prevent the crime of torture.
Questions Raised by Committee Experts
FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Ukraine, noted the many changes that had taken place in Ukraine relating to the Convention against Torture since it had presented its previous reports. In that connection, she welcomed Ukraine's ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which was one of the most important preventive measures that could be taken.
On the definition of torture, Ms. Gaer was pleased to see the changes in Ukrainian legislation, including the new Criminal Code. However, she was concerned that the definition of torture in Ukrainian law did not meet the requirements of article 1 of the Convention. Some items appeared to be missing. There was reference to violent acts, but not to mental suffering. It also appeared that the definition in Ukrainian law only applied to law enforcement officers, and not to other State agents, and that deliberate inaction or acquiescence in torture was not covered.
Regarding detainees right to access to a lawyer, the delegation had said in its presentation, and it had been stated in the report, that access to a lawyer was available from the moment of detention. However, it was unclear what that meant. Did that mean from the moment of apprehension? From the moment of entry into a detention facility? Or from the moment that charges were laid?
While by law detention in Ukraine generally required a court order, there were exceptions to that rule, and information received from other sources had indicated that that norm was often disregarded and that detention on the basis of a court order was the exception. Ms. Gaer was further concerned that there had also been allegations that detainees had not been allowed to contact their families or a lawyer.
Could the delegation provide any statistics on how long suspects were held in custody before they came before a judge, Ms. Gaer asked. Furthermore, she would appreciate any information on when it was expected that the Parliament might take a decision on the new draft Code of Criminal Procedure.
On women and sexual violence, the delegation had said that, of 506 complaints brought by female prisoners, only six were substantiated and of those there had been only three convictions. That seemed inadequate, and she wondered what impact such a low finding would have on female prisoners wishing to bring complaints.
Ukraine was to be congratulated on the measures it had taken to address hazing of junior staff in the military. Ms. Gaer, however, was concerned by the way in which such complaints had been followed up: acts of torture appeared to be prosecuted under lesser charges.
Regarding the case of the 11 Uzbek asylum-seekers who had been deported back to Uzbekistan in 2006, Ms. Gaer found the delegation's explanation unlikely. The delegation had said that those individuals had refused lawyers, that they had made no complaints, and that they had wanted to go back voluntarily, and had signed statements to that effect. The whole process had been undertaken under a procedure for administrative expulsion, from which there was no possibility of appeal, had taken 7 days and had presented no problems. However, upon their return, several of those individuals had lodged complaints with non-governmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch, that they had been tortured. She would appreciate the delegation's explanation of how this proceeding was in conformity with the Convention, and whether it was true that no appeal could be made from such administrative expulsions. Furthermore, she wished to know if there had been any official follow-up on the status of those individuals following their return.
ALEXANDER KOVALEV, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Ukraine, said he would appreciate further details on training of military and law enforcement personnel on human rights; crowd control, other than the use of clubs and tear gas; training of trainers; and whether the Istanbul Protocol was used as a guideline for medical practitioners in order to determine whether torture had occurred.
Noting the new human rights monitoring bodies that had been put in place in Ukraine, Mr. Kovalev said he would appreciate more detailed information on the Observation Commission charged with inspecting conditions in detention. What was its mandate and its composition? Similarly, the mobile groups for monitoring citizens' rights and freedoms that had been set up at the local level, how did they work, and how many convictions had been brought as a result of their activities?
Regarding the right to a lawyer, Mr. Kovalev said it appeared that resources were lacking to provide lawyers in many areas of the country. How then did Ukraine ensure this right to those facing criminal prosecution?
Mr. Kovalev would appreciate statistics on prosecutions undertaken in cases of testimony received as a result of torture.
On the Roma, Mr. Kovalev read out a statement published in a Ukrainian newspaper that said Roma were not human beings and that they should get out of the country. He was concerned to know what measures Ukraine was taking to protect the Roma from violence.
Other Committee Experts then asked questions and made comments on a number of topics, including the involvement of non-governmental organizations and civil society in measures to combat torture in Ukraine; the need for independent monitoring bodies, in particular for the police; apparent impunity for officials who committed acts of torture or ill-treatment, given the low conviction rate for such cases; lack of sufficient judicial oversight of conditions of detention; whether there was a guideline on interrogation techniques, both for law enforcement agents and for the armed forces; and whether there were any Roma on the police force.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
8 May 2007
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Ukraine 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, Valeriya Lutkovska, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, said Ukraine had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and had established a national mechanism as provided for in that instrument. A law had been adopted in accordance with which a prisoner had the right to have access to correspondence without censorship, and contacts with the High Commissioner's office were also possible without interference. As of 2005, mobile teams for monitoring citizens' rights and freedoms, which could inspect temporary places of detention, had been established in every region.
As of 2006, a programme had been established to renovate prison facilities and to bring them into line with European regulations, Ms. Lutkovska continued. A hotline had also been established for military staff wishing to bring individual complaints. Ukraine was working to align its legislation with European guidelines for ensuring human rights standards.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Ukraine, Committee Expert Felice Gaer welcomed Ukraine's ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which was one of the most important preventive measures that could be taken. She was concerned, however, that the definition of torture in Ukrainian law did not meet all the requirements of the Convention: it did not include mental suffering; it appeared to be applicable only to law enforcement officers, and not to other State agents; and deliberate inaction or acquiescence in the torture was not covered. Regarding the case of the 11 Uzbek asylum-seekers who had been deported back to Uzbekistan in 2006, the delegation's explanation that those individuals had refused lawyers, that they had made no complaints, and that they had wanted to go back voluntarily appeared unlikely given that, upon their return, several of those individuals had lodged complaints that they had been tortured.
Alexander Kovalev, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Ukraine, said he would appreciate further details on training of military and law enforcement personnel on human rights; crowd control, other than the use of clubs and tear gas; training of trainers; and whether the Istanbul Protocol was used as a guideline for medical practitioners in order to determine whether torture had occurred.
Other Committee Experts then asked questions and made comments on a number of topics, including the involvement of non-governmental organizations and civil society in measures to combat torture in Ukraine; the need for independent monitoring bodies, in particular for the police; apparent impunity for officials who committed acts of torture or ill-treatment, given the low conviction rate for such cases; lack of sufficient judicial oversight of conditions of detention; and whether there was a guideline on interrogation techniques, both for law enforcement agents and for the armed forces.
Also representing the delegation of Ukraine was Valerii Bidnyi, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Ukraine, and representatives from the Legal Military Service; the State Department; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the Ministry of Justice; the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights; and the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to United Nations Office at Geneva.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 May, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.
Ukraine is among the 144 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 the Netherlands to the questions posed by Experts on Monday, 7 May.
Report of Ukraine
Ukraine’s penal corrections policy underwent fundamental changes during the reporting period, according to the fifth periodic report of Ukraine (CAT/C/81/Add.1). Ukraine’s Criminal Code, which entered into force on 1 September 2001, provides for a number of alternatives to incarceration (short-term rigorous detention, restricted freedom, community service). The list of circumstances under which an act cannot be considered unlawful is considerably broader than the Ukrainian Criminal Code of 1960, and the new Code for the first time includes a stand-alone section on relief from criminal responsibility. Moreover, the Penal Corrections Code of Ukraine that entered into force on 1 January 2004 is geared to humanizing and democratizing the enforcement and serving of sentences. The Ukrainian penal corrections system is guided in its operations by the European Prison Rules. The reform of the penal corrections system that has been carried out in recent years has permitted substantial moves to humanize the serving of sentences, strengthen the rule of law, and stabilize conditions at custodial institutions. Unfortunately, current law and judicial practice are still geared primarily to handing down sentences that involve incarceration. This seriously exacerbates the problems of housing and employing convicts and detainees in proper conditions in penal correction facilities. To overcome those problems, additional capacity is being installed and brought into use at remand centres and correctional colonies.
In terms of training for prison staff, more attention has recently been paid to training junior prison officers. The Dniprodzerzhinsk College trains guards who work in remand centres and with juveniles and the Bila Tserkva College offers basic and advanced training for junior officers with supervisory responsibilities. The training courses and curricula are being developed and tested, and teaching staff at the Bila Tserkva College are being trained with Swiss assistance under a general “Model Institutions” programme. Five training seminars for Bila Tserkva instructors have been held since April 2002. As recommended by the Committee against Torture, the training curricula at the institutions have been reviewed and completely reworked. Much training time is devoted to learning about the legal system and to psychological and social training and developing interpersonal skills. The curriculum also includes international law as it relates to the treatment of prisoners.
Presentation of Report
VALERIYA LUTKOVSKA, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, presenting the fifth periodic report of Ukraine, welcomed this opportunity to hold a dialogue with the Committee against Torture. Ukraine had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and had established a national mechanism as provided for in that instrument. A law had been adopted in accordance with which a prisoner had the right to have access to correspondence without censorship, and contacts with the High Commissioner's office were also possible without interference. As of 2005, mobile teams for monitoring citizens' rights and freedoms, which could inspect temporary places of detention, had been established in every region.
As of 2006, a programme had been established to renovate prison facilities and to bring them into line with European regulations, Ms. Lutkovska continued. A hotline had also been established for military staff wishing to bring individual complaints. Ukraine was working to align its legislation with European guidelines for ensuring human rights standards.
Replies by the Delegation to Written Questions by Experts Submitted in Advance
Responding to written questions, the delegation said that, with regard to the incorporation of the definition of torture as set out in the Convention, there had been changes in the definition of torture in Ukrainian law. Added to the definition were aggravated penalties if acts of torture were carried out by law enforcement officials. It was Ukraine's provision that with the new amendments to its Criminal Code, the definition of the crime of torture in Ukraine was fully in line with that set out in Article 1 of the Convention.
Regarding poor treatment of prisoners, in particular foreigners, the changes in Ukrainian law also covered activities of law enforcement officials regarding those in detention, including the calling of immediate medical assistance if necessary, and the guarantee of prisoners rights from the moment they entered custody, including access to a lawyer.
On the basis of the Constitution of Ukraine and its laws, prosecutors carried out inspections on how sentences were enforced and with regard to the rights of individuals in prison, with particular attention paid to women in prisons. The Prosecutor's Office was also checked the legality of measures carried out by staff in such facilities, including isolation measures. Following investigations of such complaints during the reporting period, three officials had been convicted.
The issue of military hazing was dealt with by three sections of the Criminal Code, the delegation said. There was a whistle-blowers provision that allowed for officers who identified that the rules had been broken were protected. There was also a provision for obligatory disciplinary measures to be taken in the case of commanders who could not control the activities of those in their command. In addition, a hotline had been set up, and there were private telephone lines set up in the Ministry of Defence itself. Following the implementation of these preventive measures, there had been a marked drop off in the number of such complaints brought. In 2005, 125 cases had been brought for military hazing; in 2006, 83; and in 2007, 40 cases, only two of which involved bodily harm.
Regarding the commission to inspect law enforcement agencies and protect prisoners' rights, that had been in operation since 2004 and required heads of departments to inspect their premises to ensure there were no instruments of torture, the delegation said. In addition, unit staff were instructed not to tolerate violence towards suspects, and if violence was uncovered, they could be held collectively liable.
A foreigner could be extradited to a foreign State for the execution of justice, in accordance with the Constitution and the European Convention for the Extradition of Criminals and its Additional Protocol, the delegation said. There were no special appeals provisions for extradition orders; appeals to such decisions were provided under the regular law. In 2006, courts considered over 35 complaints related to extradition.
Following the May 2005 amendments to the law on asylum, expulsion orders could be appealed in court, and such appeals would effectively stop the expulsion process, except in cases involving national security.
In terms of measures to prevent torture, as of 2005, a certification Committee, which included representatives of non-governmental organizations, had been set up for law enforcement staff.
In accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol, Ukraine was ensuring that national inspection bodies were in place to examine conditions in places of detention, the delegation said. The Constitution called for obligatory monitoring of the manner in which sentences were carried out, and Article 24 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences provided for the right of an observation commission to visit places of detention to monitor conditions there. Moreover, the Ombudsperson also had the right to inspect places of detention.
With respect to preventing illegal acts against prisoners, including illegal detentions, the Ministry of the Interior had issued three decrees from 2004 to 2006 which provided, among other things, that staff in places of temporary detention had to inform the families of prisoners of the detention, and had to ensure that detainees received proper medical care.
In that connection, the delegation said that the current system for legal aid was not ideal. For that reason, a bill had been put forward to provide free legal aid with the help of non-governmental organizations. A pilot project had already been set up in three districts.
Regarding juveniles in detention, they were provided with educational opportunities, including courses on current affairs, the delegation said. They had access to television and sports facilities.
In terms of time limits for detentions, detention could not last more than 72 hours, the delegation said.
Inspections of isolation cells were carried out regularly, as set out in the law. No complaints regarding cases of solitary confinement had been received, the delegation said.
On the issue of human trafficking, in 2006 there had been 376 complaints, resulting in 81 criminal prosecutions against 122 accused on 315 charges. Of those, some 66 individuals had been remanded to custody and the remaining cases were still under investigation. The Ombudsman for Human Rights could be contacted on a confidential basis by detainees to address their complaints. Military personnel were also able to bring confidential complaints before the Ombudsman.
In 2006, there had been 144 complaints alleging harm from illegal acts of officials while in detention. The courts had satisfied those claims in many cases. In 49 cases, the decision had been appealed and the award granted had been decreased. The delegation underscored that State funds were set aside to compensate victims of illegal actions by law enforcement personnel.
In conclusion, the delegation noted that, while the situation in Ukraine regarding torture and legislation on that subject might not be perfect, they were witnessing a positive trend, a level of transparency and openness, and real efforts were being made to prevent the crime of torture.
Questions Raised by Committee Experts
FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Ukraine, noted the many changes that had taken place in Ukraine relating to the Convention against Torture since it had presented its previous reports. In that connection, she welcomed Ukraine's ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which was one of the most important preventive measures that could be taken.
On the definition of torture, Ms. Gaer was pleased to see the changes in Ukrainian legislation, including the new Criminal Code. However, she was concerned that the definition of torture in Ukrainian law did not meet the requirements of article 1 of the Convention. Some items appeared to be missing. There was reference to violent acts, but not to mental suffering. It also appeared that the definition in Ukrainian law only applied to law enforcement officers, and not to other State agents, and that deliberate inaction or acquiescence in torture was not covered.
Regarding detainees right to access to a lawyer, the delegation had said in its presentation, and it had been stated in the report, that access to a lawyer was available from the moment of detention. However, it was unclear what that meant. Did that mean from the moment of apprehension? From the moment of entry into a detention facility? Or from the moment that charges were laid?
While by law detention in Ukraine generally required a court order, there were exceptions to that rule, and information received from other sources had indicated that that norm was often disregarded and that detention on the basis of a court order was the exception. Ms. Gaer was further concerned that there had also been allegations that detainees had not been allowed to contact their families or a lawyer.
Could the delegation provide any statistics on how long suspects were held in custody before they came before a judge, Ms. Gaer asked. Furthermore, she would appreciate any information on when it was expected that the Parliament might take a decision on the new draft Code of Criminal Procedure.
On women and sexual violence, the delegation had said that, of 506 complaints brought by female prisoners, only six were substantiated and of those there had been only three convictions. That seemed inadequate, and she wondered what impact such a low finding would have on female prisoners wishing to bring complaints.
Ukraine was to be congratulated on the measures it had taken to address hazing of junior staff in the military. Ms. Gaer, however, was concerned by the way in which such complaints had been followed up: acts of torture appeared to be prosecuted under lesser charges.
Regarding the case of the 11 Uzbek asylum-seekers who had been deported back to Uzbekistan in 2006, Ms. Gaer found the delegation's explanation unlikely. The delegation had said that those individuals had refused lawyers, that they had made no complaints, and that they had wanted to go back voluntarily, and had signed statements to that effect. The whole process had been undertaken under a procedure for administrative expulsion, from which there was no possibility of appeal, had taken 7 days and had presented no problems. However, upon their return, several of those individuals had lodged complaints with non-governmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch, that they had been tortured. She would appreciate the delegation's explanation of how this proceeding was in conformity with the Convention, and whether it was true that no appeal could be made from such administrative expulsions. Furthermore, she wished to know if there had been any official follow-up on the status of those individuals following their return.
ALEXANDER KOVALEV, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Ukraine, said he would appreciate further details on training of military and law enforcement personnel on human rights; crowd control, other than the use of clubs and tear gas; training of trainers; and whether the Istanbul Protocol was used as a guideline for medical practitioners in order to determine whether torture had occurred.
Noting the new human rights monitoring bodies that had been put in place in Ukraine, Mr. Kovalev said he would appreciate more detailed information on the Observation Commission charged with inspecting conditions in detention. What was its mandate and its composition? Similarly, the mobile groups for monitoring citizens' rights and freedoms that had been set up at the local level, how did they work, and how many convictions had been brought as a result of their activities?
Regarding the right to a lawyer, Mr. Kovalev said it appeared that resources were lacking to provide lawyers in many areas of the country. How then did Ukraine ensure this right to those facing criminal prosecution?
Mr. Kovalev would appreciate statistics on prosecutions undertaken in cases of testimony received as a result of torture.
On the Roma, Mr. Kovalev read out a statement published in a Ukrainian newspaper that said Roma were not human beings and that they should get out of the country. He was concerned to know what measures Ukraine was taking to protect the Roma from violence.
Other Committee Experts then asked questions and made comments on a number of topics, including the involvement of non-governmental organizations and civil society in measures to combat torture in Ukraine; the need for independent monitoring bodies, in particular for the police; apparent impunity for officials who committed acts of torture or ill-treatment, given the low conviction rate for such cases; lack of sufficient judicial oversight of conditions of detention; whether there was a guideline on interrogation techniques, both for law enforcement agents and for the armed forces; and whether there were any Roma on the police force.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: