COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS REPORT OF ICELAND

MORNING
HR/CAT/98/32
12 November 1998



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

Thorsteinn Geirsson, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs of Iceland and head of the delegation, said that article 68 of the Constitution provided that no one may be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This prohibition was unreserved and unconditional, allowing no exceptions.

Bent Sorensen, the Committee expert acting as rapporteur on the report of Iceland, praised the report which answered nearly all the questions the Committee had. He noted that the only convention incorporated in domestic Icelandic law was the European Convention on Human Rights and asked why the Convention against Torture had not been incorporated. Icelandic penal law lacked a definition of torture and did not define it as a crime and this should be amended.

Andreas Mavrommatis, who served as co-rapporteur on the report of Iceland, said the situation in Iceland as far as torture was concerned was quite satisfactory. At the same time, the Government was not complacent and was constantly improving the human rights record.

Committee members also asked the four-member delegations further questions on regulation of force against the mentally ill in hospitals; the rights of asylum seekers under Icelandic law; and solitary confinement which might lead to depression and suicide among pre-trial prisoners.

The Committee will meet at 3 p.m. to hear the response of the delegation of Iceland to the questions raised.

Report of Iceland

The initial report of Iceland (document CAT/C/37/Add.2) reviews the application of the Convention against Torture on an article-by-article basis, and notes that the influence of international human rights instruments on Icelandic legal procedure and the implementation of constitutional provisions on human rights has increased substantially since Iceland became a party to them. It states that, in addition to the Convention, Iceland has ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The report says that Iceland is among the States that adhere to the doctrine of the duality of international and national law. Iceland has generally held the view that its legislation conforms to the provisions of the human rights instruments to which it is a party. For the time being, there is no intention of incorporating international human rights instruments into national law, the report states. The provisions of an international human rights instrument do not achieve the status of national law unless active measures are taken to adopt them into national law. The report details Icelandic legislation prohibiting torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and explains remedies available for persons who maintained they suffered torture at the hands of persons acting in official capacity. The Icelandic police force is made up of 600 persons. In 1996, there were three complaints against policemen on duty, and in 1997, there were five complaints.

Introduction of Report of Iceland

THORSTEINN GEIRSSON, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs of Iceland, introduced the report, drawing the attention of the Committee to the extensive amendments to the human rights provisions of the Constitution, enacted in 1995. These measures were considered highly timely as the provisions in effect until then were in various respects out of date and had been subject to criticism both domestically and internationally. The principal criticism related to the fact that the Constitution lacked various explicit provisions on fundamental human rights and a general prohibition against torture.

Accordingly, article 68 of the Constitution now provided that no one may be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mr. Geirsson said. This prohibition was unreserved and unconditional, allowing no exceptions. Icelandic law protected persons deprived of liberty, on account of suspicion of criminal conduct or for service of a prison sentence, from torture or other inhuman treatment. This protection also extended to persons deprived of their liberty by reason of mental illness and committed to hospitals against their will.

Mr. Geirsson said the Icelandic Police Force had recently undergone radical changes and the New Police Act, which came into force on 1 July 1997, provided for a specific procedure to be applied if a complaint was lodged against a policeman on account of a alleged criminal act in the exercise of his or her duties. In the past decade, Icelandic legislation on legal procedure and law enforcement had also profoundly changed and the new enactments had taken international human rights obligations into account, including the requirement for protection against torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For example, doctors who tended arrested persons were not dependent on police in any way but were employees of the public health system.

In conclusion, Mr. Geirsson said that last spring, the European Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment visited Iceland. The Committee found no allegations that prisoners or persons in mental institutions had been subjected to torture, but members had expressed concern as regards the general system of health care for prisoners, particularly the psychiatric service. Icelandic authorities had already taken steps to comply with some of the provisional conclusions of the Committee, specifically aiming at the improvement of prisoners' health care.

Discussion

BENT SORENSEN, the Committee expert acting as rapporteur on the report of Iceland, praised the report, saying the Committee was pleased that all ministers had participated in preparing it. This meant that the report answered nearly all the questions the Committee had.

Mr. Sorensen asked, among other things, about the Scandinavian system of duality of international and national law. He noted that the only convention incorporated in domestic law was the European Convention on Human Rights and asked why the Convention against Torture had not been incorporated. Icelandic penal law lacked a definition of torture and did not define it as a crime. This should be amended according to the definition of torture in the Convention.

The human rights training of police and medical doctors in Iceland was commendable, but Mr. Sorensen said that article 10 of the Convention emphasized the area of prohibition of torture which the State party should do as well. He requested more information about protection of mental prisoners. For example, was it possible to put a person in a mental hospital against his or her will just because he or she suffered from alcohol or substance abuse. Usually, a person suffering alcohol or substance abuse also had to be dangerous to himself or to his surroundings to be put in a mental hospital.

Mr. Sorensen noted the specific Scandinavian problem of isolation of prisoners in pre-trial detention. The report provided statistics on the isolated prisoners and he found the figures alarming. In 1992, 35 prisoners were isolated, with 1 person isolated for more than 30 days. In 1993, 83 prisoners were isolated, with 6 persons isolated for more than 30 days. Isolation affected the health and should be used sparingly. He asked for statistics for cases of isolation in 1997.

ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, the Committee expert acting as co-rapporteur, also praised the report which followed the guidelines of the Committee. The situation in Iceland as far as torture was concerned was quite satisfactory. At the same time, the Government was not complacent and was constantly improving the human rights record. He asked why Iceland had left ratification of this Convention so late. This was surprising.

Mr. Mavrommatis said that section 131 of the penal code provided that a judge or other public servant entrusted with public authority under criminal law, who employed unlawful methods in order to bring a person to confess, could be fined or imprisoned for up to three years. He found this strange with regard to judges since one of the main considerations that secured independence of the judiciary was the immunity of judges while carrying out their work.

Other Committee experts raised further questions. The report referred to the regulation of use of force against prisoners, but the use of force for necessary restrainment of the mentally ill might not be regulated. Was the use of force on mentally ill regulated or not? Concerning asylum seekers, did they have the legal possibility to present their cases to the competent authorities under Icelandic law? Which was the competent authority in this case? With regards to solitary confinement, some countries considered that the use of solitary confinement for pre-trial prisoners was something normal. Since there were two or three suicides annually among Icelandic prisoners, what was the reason behind them? There was a reasonable suspicion that depression stemming from solitary confinement might contribute to the suicide rate. Iceland was called upon to introduce a definition of torture and define it as a crime in legislation. How could Iceland analyse the rate of torture if it did not define it as a crime? The report said that there was no exclusionary rule in Iceland. However, drafters of the Convention felt this rule was necessary for the protection of person under interrogation.