COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

AFTERNOON
HR/CAT/98/31
11 November 1998



The Committee against Torture this afternoon concluded its consideration of the report of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on how it implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The six-member delegation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia responded to questions raised by Committee members this morning. The delegation said events in Kosovo and Metohija had been characterized by terrorism carried out by Albanian terrorists and the constant flow of illegal arms to the terrorists. The activities of police in the territory were entirely legitimate and were directed against terrorists and not civilians.

Concerning the competence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the delegation said that there was no war in Kosovo nor was there any international armed conflict in the sense of the Geneva conventions. Therefore, rules of humanitarian law were not applicable in this situation. The Government had accepted to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia but could not accept its competence with regards to Kosovo and Metohija.

Committee Chairman Peter Thomas Burns, in preliminary observations and recommendations, said the Committee was sensitive to the reasons offered by the delegation for the lateness of the report. Since the second periodic report was also late, the delegation should in addressing it answer the queries which were raised but could not be immediately responded to. The delegation should also respond to the specific allegations made by human rights organizations in the documents which had been provided to it by the Committee.

Also this afternoon, the Committee announced which of its experts would act as rapporteurs and co-rapporteurs for the consideration of country reports in 1999. For the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the rapporteur would be Alexander Yakovlev and the co-rapporteur would be Peter Thomas Burns. For Mauritius, it would be Andreas Mavrommatis and Sayed Kassem El Masry. For the report of Bulgaria, Bent Sorensen would be rapporteur and Mr. Yakovlev would be co-rapporteur. For Venezuela, it would be Alejandro Gonzalez Poblete and Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar; for Italy, it would be Mr. El Masry and Mr. Mavrommatis; for Luxembourg, it would be Mr. Gaspar and Guibril Camara; for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, it would be Mr. Sorensen and Yu Mengjia; for Morocco, it would be Mr. Camara and Mr. Gaspar; for Liechtenstein, it would be Mr. Burns and Mr. Yu; and for Egypt, it would be Mr. Burns and Mr. Mavrommatis.

The Committee then went into private session to discuss its concluding observations and recommendations on the report of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The Committee will issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the report of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at 10 a.m. on Monday, 16 November. At 10 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, 12 November, the Committee will start its consideration of a report presented by Iceland.

Discussion

In response to questions raised by Committee members in the morning session, the delegation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia said that the then-Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had ratified the Convention in 1991 and started to prepare the report to be presented to the Committee in 1992. However, there had been negative developments taking place in the country at the time. That was why the report was presented late to the Committee. The report was completed at the end of 1997. The delegation said that since the events in Kosovo and Metohija did not escalate until the start of 1998, that was why there was no mention of the territory in the report. These events had been characterized by terrorism carried out by Albanian terrorists and the constant flow of illegal arms to the terrorists. The activities of police in the territory were entirely legitimate and were directed against terrorists and not civilians.

Concerning the competence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the delegation said that there was no war in Kosovo nor any international armed conflict in the sense of the Geneva conventions. Therefore, rules of humanitarian law were not applicable in this situation. The Government had accepted to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia but could not accept its competence with regards to Kosovo and Metohija. At the same time, the delegation said that the Government had just signed an agreement with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to expand its presence all over the country. The Government was fulfilling all its international obligations in this regard.

Concerning the new draft criminal code, the delegation said it sought to enable the right to a fair trial, especially with regards to the right to defence. With regards to the election of judges which helped secure the right to a fair trial, the delegation said that judges and representatives of chambers were elected by the People’s Assembly. The function of a judge was permanent and was terminated at his or her request or at retirement. There were also specific enumerated provisions under which a judge could be removed from office which were implemented by Parliament. These included if the judge was sentenced to 6 months or more in jail for a criminal offense; if the criminal offense made the judge unsuitable to perform his or her function; in case of illness or incapacity which was objectively assessed; and if the judge wished to pursue social or political activities.

With regards to the definition of torture, the delegation said Yugoslav criminal legislation, like in other countries, did not provide a direct definition of torture such as in the Convention. But this did not mean that the Convention was not sufficiently implemented nor did it mean that the treaty was not incorporated sufficiently into domestic law. Any official who mal-treated a detainee could be punished by prison terms as mal-treatment was criminalized. The use of firearms was strictly regulated. Police officials were subjected to judicial and parliamentary control. It was not possible to talk of a culture of impunity in Yugoslav legislation.

If a state of emergency was declared, the courts, the judicial procedures and the People's Assembly remained operative which meant that torture or cruel or inhuman treatment were not allowed, the delegation said. As for the right of victims to rehabilitation, such persons had the right to demand compensation for damages from the State and from the person who carried out the mal-treatment. There was also moral rehabilitation which meant for example that the media could publish a report that a person had been deprived of his or her liberty without any grounds.

The delegation said that the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the United Nations Office at Geneva had received reports from various human rights organizations concerning detained persons. These reports alleged that law enforcement officers discriminated against the Albanian national minority and tortured Albanians. The reports referred to physical mal-treatment, extortion of confessions by coercion, and unjustified detentions. The Ministry of Interior in every concrete case had tracked down whether these reports were true . In most cases, it determined that the persons involved had been sentenced by competent courts and were being held in accordance with the law.

The delegation said one third of the Constitution related to freedoms and rights to ensure that they were being exercised. As for military courts, they were part of the judicial system and applied the same procedures as the civilian courts. Contrary to the situation in other countries, military courts did not have a separate system which applied different legal rules. These military courts existed in times of peace and war and were responsible, inter alia, for pronouncing judgements for all criminal offenses carried out by military persons, prisoners of war, and civilians who served in the Yugoslav army for offenses committed in connection with their line of duty.

In response to a question raised by Committee members this afternoon on alleged discrimination against and mal-treatment of Romanys, the delegation said that it had no knowledge of any torture of Romanys in the country. The Romanys enjoyed all their rights like other citizens. Maybe there were some problems regarding their status , but the Government was carrying out all efforts to improve their situation with regards to education and status.

Responding to a further query on the cooperation of the Government with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia - in which an expert said that since the Tribunal was established to deal with serious violations of international humanitarian laws in the territory of the Former Yugoslavia, and Kosovo was part of that territory, then the Tribunal was competent to deal with the situation in Kosovo - the delegation said that it considered the situation in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija was an internal affair and therefore the Tribunal had no competence to deal with it.

Preliminary Observations and Conclusions

Committee Chairman Peter Thomas Burns, in preliminary observations and conclusions, said the Committee was sensitive to the reasons offered by the delegation for the lateness of the report. Since the second periodic report was also late, the delegation should in addressing it answer the queries raised which could not be immediately responded to. The delegation should also respond to the specific allegations made by human rights organizations which had been provided to it by the Committee.