COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF ICELAND

AFTERNOON



HR/CAT/98/33
12 November 1998



The Committee against Torture this afternoon concluded its consideration of a report presented by Iceland on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

In response to questions raised by Committee members this morning, the four-member delegation of Iceland said that the Government had adapted its domestic legislation according to its existing human rights obligations and it believed that it had managed to do this successfully.

The Committee will issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Iceland at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 November.
The Committee will meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 13 November, to take up the report of Croatia.

Discussion

In response to questions raised by Committee members this morning, the four-member delegation said that Iceland fully realized that international conventions concerning human rights imposed on States parties the obligation to give the provisions effective implementation in their domestic legal systems. Iceland had used a different way to reach this goal. The method Iceland applied was that it adapted domestic legislation according to its existing human rights obligations and it believed that it had managed to do this successfully. There had been cases of possible conflict between domestic law and international human rights obligations over the years, and in order to prevent such discrepancies, the Government had incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights and had made amendments to the Constitution.

With regards to why the term torture was not defined in the Constitution and was not defined as a crime, the delegation said Iceland believed that torture should be comprehended according to the interpretation of international bodies which dealt with the issue. Even though the provisions of the Constitution with regards to a definition were less detailed than those of international human rights instruments, it should be emphasized that torture was punishable according to the law in Iceland. In the view of the delegation, the provisions of the Convention were thus fully achieved. What mattered most was conduct, and not the definition of the term.

Concerning the human rights education of police and prison wardens, the delegation said that police officers were educated for two years in the State School of Police. Two of the semesters dealt with theoretical training and the other two with practical training. The delegation was unable to obtain details about the education of prison wardens, but would forward them to the Committee at a later date.

With regard to the rules for a person to be admitted into hospital for mental reasons against his or her will, the delegation said persons could be admitted into hospital against their will if they suffered from serious psychiatric illness or from serious alcohol or substance abuse. Such a person was provided with a counsellor paid for by the State to protect his or her rights. Persons could only be held in hospital against their will for a limited period of time, and there were strict procedures and rules which were applied. Renewal of decisions to put persons against their will in hospital could be considered by tribunals which could order a release if the detention in hospital was illegal.

The delegation said that in 1997, 71 prisoners on remand were put into isolation for investigative purposes. Only seven prisoners had been held in isolation for between 31 and 41 days. Three prisoners were also put in isolation for between 2 to 12 hours as disciplinary sanctions.

Iceland had not ratified the Convention against Torture earlier because torture had not been a big issue in the country. It was only in recent years when public debate became increasingly interested in such matters that the Government took steps to ratify the Convention.

In response to a question on why judges who employed unlawful methods in order to bring a person to confess could be fined or imprisoned for up to three years, the delegation said the penal code dated back to 1940 when judges participated actively in conducting investigations and interrogations. This was history now and there was a complete separation of functions of judges and investigative bodies. However, the provision remained in the penal code.

Three prisoners recently committed suicide in prison, but none of them had been held in isolation, the delegation said. An independent expert committee had been formed to investigate the circumstances behind the suicides and to put forward proposals for an action programme to prevent further incidents.

The Immigration Office, which served under the Ministry of Justice, decided on requests by asylum seekers, the delegation said. Asylum seekers could appeal decisions by this Office to the Ministry of Justice. Asylum seekers had to be notified of their right to appeal if their requests were rejected and the Immigration Act provided for the procedure in such cases.

Legislation did not expressly prohibit the use of a statement which was obtained by torture because a judge was free to decide on the admissibility of any statement or evidence, the delegation said. If a confession was not corroborated in court, it could not lead to a conviction. The Government believed that the present law secured that a person could not be convicted in court on the basis of a confession that was obtained by torture.