COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONTINUES CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

AFTERNOON
HR/CAT/99/5
28 April 1999



A delegation from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia this afternoon returned to the Committee against Torture to provide answers to the numerous questions raised by the Committee yesterday.

The delegation of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said all people were ensured equal treatment under the Constitution. If there were any complaints from the Roma minority about alleged excessive force used by police, the Ministry of Interior always took them under the most serious consideration. In the last year and a half, the Ministry had not registered a single case of torture against a member of the Roma minority in the country. Since 1996, the number of cases of physical force used by police officers had decreased.

The nine-person delegation, which presented its initial report to the Committee on Tuesday morning, consists of Goce Petreski, Permanent Representative of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Stevo Pendarovski, head of the Analytical Department at the Ministry of Interior; Dragi Celevski, director of the Directorate for Execution of Sanctions in the Ministry of Justice; Mirjana Lazarova-Trajkovska, Assistant Minister of the Administrative Affairs Department at the Ministry of Interior; Vitomir Micev, professor at the Faculty of Medicine; Biljana Stefanovska-Sekovska, First Secretary at the Permanent Mission at Geneva; Elizabeta Gorgieva, head of the Human Rights Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Tatjana Janjic, Counselor at the Ministry of Justice; and Zoran Todorov, desk officer in the Human Rights Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The delegation will return on Friday, 30 April, at 3 p.m. when the Committee offers its final conclusions on the report of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. When the Committee meets at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 29 April, it will start its consideration of the initial report of Venezuela.

Discussion

In response to a question about when a detainee had a right to a lawyer, the delegation said that according to the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, detained persons should be informed of their rights and should not be forced to make statements. An attorney was allowed to attend police and court proceedings. An attorney might also be present during interrogation. If a person held by police requested a lawyer, the police had to delay the proceedings for up to two hours until the defence lawyer arrived. Persons who were apprehended had the right to an immediate counsel.

Concerning the eventual legal relevance of evidence derived from torture, the delegation explained that a judge was free to access all evidence presented by the defence or the prosecutor, but the judge could not consider or base the final judgment on evidence illegally obtained by violation of freedoms and rights. Statements of defendants given in the pre-criminal proceedings were kept in separate sealed envelopes which could not be opened or considered as evidence until the end of the trial. Any final judgment that was based on the evidence illegally obtained by violation of freedoms and rights had a legal basis for appeal and suspension of the judgment.

With regard to the existence of independent authorities that reviewed individual complaints, the delegation said there were three permanent commissions in the Government before which citizens could raise their appeals and objections against any administrative or practical measure taken by the Government Ministries or any State agenciy. Last year, seven applications were submitted, from which one was forwarded to the public prosecutor. That case was still pending.

As for compensation for the victims of torture, the delegation said the right to compensation for victims of torture could be exercised in the course of criminal procedure, but until now, courts had very rarely decided on the compensation claims in the course of criminal procedures because of the possibility of delay in the procedure. However, the referral to civil procedure was considered to be a double victimization of the person -- once with the criminal offense itself, and then by referral to the civil procedure which was a separate procedure and which caused additional costs. In a pending revision of the Law on Criminal Procedure, this question would be addressed by introduction of the obligation for the court to award compensation in the course of criminal procedure as a rule, and only exceptionally to refer the case to civil procedure.

Concerning reports of excessive force used against members of the Roma minority, the delegation said the Ministry of Interior was obliged to treat equally anyone who committed criminal acts regardless of the person's race, colour of skin, national and social origin, political and religious belief, property or social status. In the country, all minorities, including the Roma, had equal rights. If there were any complaints from the Roma who were not satisfied by the treatment of the police, the Ministry of Interior always took them under the most serious consideration. In the last year and a half, the Ministry had not registered a single case of torture against a member of the Roma minority in the country. Since 1996, the number of cases of physical force used by police officers had decreased. In 1996, 5 of 172 cases of physical force were found to be unjustified, and three police officers were disciplined. In 1997, there were two unjustified cases among 144 incidents of alleged physical force. Both cases resulted in disciplinary measures. And last year, there were three cases of unjustified force found in 145 cases of alleged physical force. All three suffered disciplinary measures.

Responding to a question about why the Government had yet to incorporate the Covenant's definition of torture into domestic law, the delegation said although there was no comprehensive provision that incorporated all the elements of the definition, it was obvious that the legal system contained a number of provisions that covered acts of torture and other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Constitution explicitly prohibited torture, and all relevant laws -- disallowing discrimination based on race, sex, skin colour, national or social origin, political or religious beliefs, property or social status -- had that Constitutional provision incorporated into them. In addition, the international treaties ratified by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in accordance with the Constitution were an integral part of the legal system and could not be changed by laws. Accordingly, the international treaties, including the Convention against Torture, were directly applicable by national courts.

About the jurisdiction of authorities with regard to foreigners who committed crimes of torture in foreign countries against foreign citizens, the delegation said criminal legislation was applicable to a foreigner who committed a crime abroad against other foreigners. The accused could be sentenced to up to 5 years in prison or to a more severe punishment when he was extradited to that country. The court could not mandate in such a case a punishment more severe than the punishment that was prescribed by the law of the country in which the crime was committed.

Concerning the former practice of inviting citizens to police stations, the delegation said if it was necessary to obtain information from citizens, the police could summon the person who had a right to refuse. After a refusal, the police could petition a court for authorization to apprehend the citizen.

Educational programmes against torture were incorporated from the beginning of medical high school, the delegation said. There were instructions and rules about psychiatry and psychology in medical high school, as well. And at the Medical Faculty, the subject of medical ethics was present in the study during the semester before students started working with patients. In the programme of post- graduate studies, ethics were again part of training no matter what branch in medicine was in question. At least 10 hours were allocated on this subject during the training.

ALEXANDER YAKOVLEV, the Committee member who acted as Rapporteur to the report, complimented the delegation for its comprehensive answers and expressed hopes that future delegations were as thorough. He asked one final question about sending a summons to a person who had refused to come to the police station. Did that mean police could obtain a court order to arrest the person? The person could be a witness. So any citizen could be apprehended and kept for 24 hours in such a case? What was the legal status of the person in that case?

The delegation said a police officer was not allowed to apprehend a person without prior authorization by the court. The police could petition the court and convince the judge that this was necessary.