COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS REPORT OF CROATIA

MORNING
HR/CAT/98/34
13 November 1998





The Committee against Torture this morning took up the report of Croatia on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Zdravko Zidovec, head of the Cabinet of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and head of the delegation, said that the new Criminal Code of Croatia had come into force in January 1998. Among other things, it introduced into legislation the criminal offence of "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". There had also been a great step forward in the training of police officers and judicial police.

Mr. Zidovec said Croatia had strongly supported the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, however, it was not satisfied with the results of its work. Croatia could not be satisfied with the fact that only five persons had been indicted for war crimes against it, and that the most notorious criminals were still at large.
Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar, the Committee expert who acted as rapporteur for the report of Croatia, said the October 1996 amnesty in Croatia was granted to heal social wounds. However, the commitments to the Convention against Torture required States parties to be cautious as regards the scope of an amnesty and the crimes to which this amnesty might be applied to. Crimes described as torture could never be subjected to amnesty.

Bostjan Zupancic, the Committee expert acting as co-rapporteur on the report, mentioned as very positive developments the verbatim incorporation of the definition of torture in Croatian substantive criminal law and the shortening of the incommunicado detention period to 24 hours. However, he said the Committee had received reports from non-governmental organizations of de facto impunity for certain categories of individuals. Could the delegation respond to these allegations?

Other Committee experts raised further questions on the very wide and alarming gap between the law and its application regarding the verbatim incorporation of the definition of torture in Croatian substantive criminal law; the human rights education of prison staff and medical doctors; alleged discrimination in applying the criminal code with regards to acts of torture; provisions made for female prisoners and the availability of legal aid for detainees.

The Committee will resume its meeting at 3 p.m. to hear the response of the delegation of Croatia to the questions raised.

Report of Croatia

The second periodic report of Croatia (document CAT/C/33/Add.4) reviews the measures undertaken by the Government with the view to complying with the provisions of the Convention against Torture. It says that competent authorities of the Republic have considered in great detail the recommendations adopted by the Committee against Torture on the initial report of Croatia to develop efficient implementation of the Convention. The report says that international conventions and agreements, upon ratification, become integral parts of the domestic legal system of the country and take precedence over domestic legislation. The State has become party to most international treaties regarding human rights.

The report states that although torture and other forms such as assault and grievous bodily harms are not defined as explicit criminal acts, they are prohibited as criminal acts against human rights and freedoms; crimes against life and physical integrity; and criminal acts against personal dignity and morality. Among other things, the Constitution guarantees the right to life - the Constitution has abolished the death penalty; the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment; and the right to freedom and security of person. The report lists the legal remedies available to persons who have been victims of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It states that in 1996, disciplinary procedures were instituted against 3,673 officials, of which 2,394 cases related to the abuse of work discipline and 1,279 concerned aggravated abuse. In the course of the proceedings, 240 officials have been removed from duty and 110 have been dismissed from service. The report also states that 971 of the officials have been fined and 186 had criminal procedures instituted against them.

Introduction of the Report of Croatia

Zdravko Zidovec, head of the Cabinet of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Croatia and head of the delegation, said that since independence, his country had become a party to all the relevant international agreements and instruments. Croatia strongly supported the efficient international protection of human rights by means of objective criteria. This meant that it was opposed to the use of international human rights mechanisms solely as a means of pressure in gaining political leverage. Everything that Croatia had experienced since the beginning of the aggression until the end of the wartime operations for its liberation and the achievement of territorial sovereignty had brought into question the situation of human rights in the country. Therefore, when referring to that period, one could talk about particular cases of human rights violations which occurred as a consequence of the aggression against Croatia. They were not a widespread phenomenon. The process of confidence building between the people who were the victims and those who were on the other side required time and patience.

Mr. Zidovec said that although the war was behind it, Croatia was still burdened with the consequences of the aggression. Croatia was aware that the sovereignty of the Croatian territory entailed the necessity of developing other aspects of freedom, both political and economic. The basis on which all these freedoms must be built was the rule of law, enacted in accordance with the Constitution. Expanding democracy and respect for human rights was essential for peace, order and development, and the policy of human rights was a component part of the policy of security.

Croatia had strongly supported the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Mr. Zidovec said. However, it was not satisfied with the results of the work of the Tribunal. Croatia could not be satisfied with the fact that only five persons had been indicted for war crimes against it, and that the most notorious criminals were still at large. The State was also dissatisfied with the fact that only three of the nine Croats who voluntarily surrendered to the Tribunal had been indicted despite promises of a speedy conclusion of this part of the proceedings.

In conclusion, Mr. Zidovec noted that the new Criminal Code had come into force in January 1998. Among other things, it introduced into legislation the criminal offence of "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". There had also been a great step forward in the training of police officers and judicial police. In connection with the establishment and activities of an independent Committee for assessing allegations of torture after the military and police “Operation Storm”, the Croatian delegate said that a special committee which would operate outside the regular government bodies had not been established because the bodies of official government control (judiciary and police) had been implementing the appropriate legal measures. Croatia also had a permanent presence of bodies charged with ensuring the efficient functioning of the Tribunal in the Hague.

Discussion

ANTONIO SILVA HENRIQUES GASPAR, the Committee expert who acted as rapporteur for the report of Croatia, noted that a positive aspect in the report was the State party's determination to improve the situation of human rights and its signing and ratification of a number of international human rights instruments. There were also a number of questions to be raised. The October 1996 amnesty was granted to heal social wounds. However, the commitment to the Convention against Torture required States parties to be cautious as regards the scope of an amnesty and the crimes to which this amnesty might be applied to. Crimes described as torture could never be subjected to amnesty. He asked about the scope of the amnesty.

Concerning the new Criminal Code which came into effect in January 1998 and contained express provisions on torture, Mr. Gaspar asked if there had been any experience in its application as regards crimes described as torture. The report said that public attorneys investigated breaches of the provisions of the Convention against Torture. What was the status of these public attorneys? Were they magistrates? Were they independent and autonomous, or were they related to the Ministry of Justice? Concerning new mechanisms of protection to check the behaviour and actions of police, what types of mechanisms and bodies were set up and what were their powers? The report noted a change in the powers to provisionally detain people. Could the delegation clarify what this new legal regime was and what were the powers of judges to check the legality of provisional detentions.

Mr. Gaspar said the report stated that victims of abuse of power could address their complaints to public attorneys within three days. Was this time period compulsory and could victims file appeals after the three days expired? There was information from credible sources of suspicions of ill-treatment and torture related to police agents. Was the delegation able to provide the Committee with information on investigations concerning such cases?

BOSTJAN ZUPANCIC, the Committee expert who acted as co-rapporteur on the report of Croatia, noted two very positive developments. The first was the verbatim incorporation of the definition of torture in Croatian substantive criminal law. The second was the shortening of the incommunicado detention period to 24 hours. The shortening of this period was very important. It seemed that the report was written from the point of view of the Interior Ministry and it lacked information on very positive new legal developments concerning the reform of substantive criminal law. He recommended that the delegation bring together different aspects from different fields in writing its next report.

Mr. Zupancic said non-governmental organizations had submitted to the Committee critical comments on alleged manipulation of statistics concerning abuses by the army and police. The international community's field missions operating in Croatia had collected huge amounts of information, including on torture, which could be used for trials. Could the delegation explain why this information was not being used by the Government to try those accused? Not using this information raised the suggestion that the Government was not serious in punishing those guilty of torture.

The co-rapporteur said the Committee received from NGOs reports of de facto impunity of certain categories of individuals. He would provide the delegation with the reports and would be happy if it could respond to these allegations. What were the legally permitted periods of pre-trial detention? The report spoke of the right to compensation for persons who were held in pre-trial detention without foundation. What kind of compensation was provided? He asked for more information concerning the exclusionary rule.

Other Committee experts raised further questions. An expert said there was a very wide and alarming gap between the law and its application regarding the verbatim incorporation of the definition of torture in Croatian substantive criminal law. There were many reported incidents of acts of violence against detainees in which those responsible were administratively punished but were not held criminally responsible. Concerning the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, an expert said the Tribunal's Prosecutor has said that she could not pursue prosecution in every case and expected national authorities to initiate proceedings as well. What were Croatian authorities doing in this regard, especially since according to NGO reports, Croatian prosecutors said they had no information of wrongdoings in this regard. The report spoke of the human rights education of police, but did not mention the education of prison staff and medical doctors. More information was requested on this.

A Committee member said allegations had been made concerning discrimination in investigating persons accused of torture. According to the allegations, if accusations were made against a person who was an ally during the war, he was treated one way, while if the accusations are made against a person on the other side, action was much more pronounced. Could the delegation clarify this alleged discrimination in applying the criminal code with regards to acts of torture? Another expert asked for more information about the independence of the judiciary and how judges were appointed and removed? Concerning female prisoners, did they have separate remand facilities? How many female prisoners were there and how many prisons for females were there? Were the guards there female or male, and were provisions made for children to have access to the female prisoners? And was there a system of legal aid available to defendants?