COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONCLUDES EXAMINATION OF REPORT PRESENTED BY UNITED KINGDOM

AFTERNOON
HR/CAT/98/37
16 November 1998



The Committee against Torture this afternoon concluded its consideration of a report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the efforts of that country to implement the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

In their response to queries raised by Committee experts, the 11-member delegation sent by the United Kingdom said that no one could predict the outcome of the judgement of the House of Lords concerning the case of Chilean Senator Augusto Pinochet. The former military ruler was presently under detention awaiting judgement.

The Committee will issue its conclusions and recommendations on the report of the United Kingdom at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 19 November. When it will reconvene at 10 a.m. On Tuesday, 17 November, it will take up the report of Hungary.

Discussion

In response to the numerous queries raised this morning by Committee members, the delegation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland said that the situation in Northern Ireland was progressing with the introduction of the Human Rights Bill. But the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland justified special measures to protect the rights conferred on people throughout the United Kingdom by the Human Rights Bill, with the possibility also of creating additional rights unique to Northern Ireland. In addition, the Agreement signed in Belfast on Good Friday 1998 had sought to provide a new body to be called the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

Concerning the high security risk prison centres, the delegation said that prisoners under that category, such as terrorists, could be detained for longer years because of the gravity of the crimes they committed. In the past, measures had been taken to improve the conditions and some detention centres were envisaged for closure. In Northern Ireland, all interviews with suspects in connection with non-terrorist offences continued to be audio-recorded. In addition, provisions had now been made for the introduction of silent video-recording of interviews with terrorist suspects. Access of competent authorities to detainees could be delayed for 48 hours and not for seven days as alleged by one expert. Concerning confessions obtained under duress, the delegation said that courts in Northern Ireland excluded such investigative results.

The delegation said that no method for controlling public order situations, including the use of plastic batons, was entirely safe. Those batons were not designed as lethal weapons but rather to inflict a temporary disabling blow, and their use was governed by strict rules designed to minimize the possibility of injury. It was the professional judgement of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary that plastic batons should continue to be available to the security forces as a means of controlling difficult and potentially life-threatening public order situations. The Government also supported the view that plastic batons should continue to be available for use in Northern Ireland.

Concerning police complaints and discipline, the delegation said that any cases where there were allegations of serious injuries were investigated by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. In 1997 alone, 3,989 complaints against the police had been registered. Nevertheless, the establishment of a new independent Police Ombudsman was proposed for Northern Ireland to receive all complaints against police and decide how, and by whom, they should be investigated.

With respect to asylum-seekers, the delegation said that it was the Asylum Directorate of the Home Office that decided on individual applications and not the immigration officer. The decision could be appealed before a judicial body. In the United Kingdom, no one could be detained for having submitted an application for asylum if the individual was legally in the territory.

Regarding child detention, the delegation said that children could be detained if they were subjected to expulsion or if the mother was also detained and the separation of the child from the mother was not advisable. A child could also be detained if he or she entered unaccompanied at a sea or air port. In the latter case, the child could be detained at the immigration premises until a foster family was found. Since the United Kingdom could not detain children under 18 years of age, some of them pretended to be less than that age limit.

The delegation said that until the end of October 1998, seven prisoners had been incarcerated in the high security risk prison of Whitemoor. None of them were serving prison terms related to terrorism. The prisoners could leave their cells for eight hours a day and they remained inside for the rest of day. Concerning the case of Roison McAlisky, a German citizen, who was pregnant and had been detained in a separate part of an all-male prison, the delegation said she had been released on bail on 23 May 1997 and on the same day had been admitted in a maternity division of a hospital to deliver her baby. Although women were kept in high security risk prisons, they were never hand-cuffed or chained.

Furthermore, the delegation said that because of the increased number of prisoners, which was attributed to lengthy prison terms, the Government was planning to liberate some of them who were unlikely to repeat their offences. An electronic surveillance device would be attached to the released prisoners.

A question was asked about the manner in which the Government was dealing with cases of deaths in police custody. In response, the delegation said that such cases were investigated with great seriousness. The authorities investigated the ethnic origin of victims who died in police custody. However, between 1996 and 1997, the number of deaths in police custody in England and Wales had been 59, out of which 47 were white persons, 7 black persons and one of Asian origin.

Regarding the case of Senator Pinochet, the delegation said that no one could predict the outcome of the judgement of the House of Lords. Pinochet had based his argument on benefice of state immunity. However, the application of this argument was to be seen once the judgment was passed by the House of Lords. Meanwhile, the delegation viewed that the argument forwarded by Spain that the application of sovereign immunity could not be applicable might have some place as a valid reason. In any case, the United Kingdom has respected its obligations under articles 5 and 6 of the Convention regarding that affair.

The delegation recalled that Pinochet arrived at Heathrow Airport on 22 September for a private visit and that on 16 October he was detained at the request of Interpol. He was released on the same day with bail. The Attorney General had examined the file in October and had found that the proof collected in the file was not sufficient enough to indict the former Chilean ruler. The delegation underlined that the United Kingdom had thus assumed its responsibilities which were in compliance with the Convention, particularly articles 4 and 5. The Attorney General had obtained a few elements to advance his investigation. Pinochet was presently detained awaiting judgement by the House of Lords.

To an additional comment by an expert who said that institutional racism existed in the ranks of the police, the delegation said that any issue of racism was abhorrent. However, the Government would take all the appropriate measures towards such allegations. The delegation said some allegations could be attributed to individual abuses of power by a police officer outside his mandate.