COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONTINUES REVIEW OF REPORT FROM LATVIA

14 November 2003

The Committee against Torture continued this afternoon its consideration of the initial report of Latvia on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture.

The delegation, which was led by Aivars Aksenoks, the Minister of Justice of Latvia, emphasized the measures that had been taken to improve the judiciary system while noting the creation of the new draft Law on Judiciary that would improve the procedures by which candidates for judges were selected.

The delegation also specified the measures adopted to guarantee the rights of prisoners and to improve the conditions of detention, specifically with regard to the search and examination of a person only by a person of the same gender and the monitoring of inter-prisoner violence, including sexual violence.

On the question of non-citizens and stateless people, the delegation of Latvia explained the historical context which led to the establishment of the category of non-nationals and specified that non-citizens had constitutional rights and benefited from full protection from the Latvian State. Moreover, they had the right to acquire citizenship by the means of naturalization. With regard to stateless people, the law stipulated that persons could acquire the status of a stateless person only if they legally resided in Latvia.

Latvia, as one of the 134 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must submit periodic reports on efforts to prevent torture and related ill treatment.

The Committee's conclusions and recommendations of the report of Latvia will be issued on 20 November in the afternoon.

The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Monday, 17 November to begin its consideration of the initial report of Yemen.

Discussion

The Latvian delegation responding to questions put by Committee members upon presentation of the Latvian report on Thursday morning, started by stating that their national report had been published in an official journal in Latvia and had been translated into English after being adopted. The recommendations of the Committee would also be published in a journal.

AIVARS AKSENOKS, the Minister of Justice of Latvia, said in response to a question that Latvian citizens who had permanent residence in the country were liable in accordance with the Criminal Code for an offence committed within the territory of another State.

Recalling a question raised on the criteria for judges and the reform of the judiciary, Mr. Aksenoks said the new draft Law on Judiciary would improve the procedures by which candidates for judges were selected. Since 1990 there had been major changes in the composition of judges, he added. On the question of alleged corruption among judges, he stated that it was not true that there was corruption, and that strict procedures were in place to see to it that that situation did not change.

Another representative of the Latvian delegation answered a question concerning the number of complaints alleging torture. In 2002, 31 criminal cases regarding torture had been instituted and so far in 2003 nine cases had been instituted. Of these cases a total of seven had been brought to trial.

There was no separate statistical data on complaints alleging violence used by police officers. On the question of a breakdown of the statistics for those expelled according to gender, ethnicity and other criteria, the delegation said that that data did not exist. However statistics on expelled persons could be provided.

Responding to a question asked on the measures taken to implement the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture (CPT) recommendations on ensuring the rights of detained persons, the delegation said that in the case of the detention of a minor, police authorities had to inform his or her family within 24 hours. A special circular had been sent to police units spelling out the rights of those brought in on charges. The Criminal Procedure Code provided that a person might request defense council to be present as of the moment they became suspects.

On the question of whether Latvia was considering adopting a police ethics code, the delegate said such a code has been drafted and submitted for comments. It was expected to be signed by the Head of the State Police soon.

In response to a question, the delegation said courts had no right to use evidence obtained by means of force. Turning to forensics, Latvian legislation obliged judges and prosecutors to demand medical expertise in cases of alleged torture.

Recalling another question, the delegation said that Latvian law allowed for search and examination of a person only by a person of the same gender. On monitoring inter-prisoner violence, including sexual violence, information on such cases was being obtained from inmates and medical personnel and investigations might be initiated by the service

Asked to explain the reduction in the number of complaints alleging violence in the armed forces, the delegation stated that Latvia had a very small army whose commanding staff had changed almost entirely over the past few years. An Inspectorate within the Ministry of Defence had been created to monitor the situation within the army, including conducting regular anonymous surveys and having a hotline for recruits to report cases of violence.

In response to a specific question, the delegation said an institution outside the police did exist in Latvia that was in a position to receive complaints on alleged violence by the police. The Internal Security Office received all such complaints and had the mandate to institute a criminal case and send it for investigation.

The delegation provided several statistics on the results of investigations which had been requested and on the numbers of those who had lost their non-citizenship status as a result of leaving Latvia.

Asked whether expulsion orders were automatically issued when a person crossed the border illegally and whether the border crossing was recognized as an offence, the delegation said that under Latvian immigration law, there was no possibility to automatically issue an expulsion order. A thorough examination of the case had to be performed, detaining the person for the time being. Furthermore, illegal immigrants were informed of their rights upon their apprehension in the language they understood. Information on three specific individual cases dealing with persons of non-citizenship was provided.

On the question of training and medical aid on the signs of torture, the delegation said training was not provided at medical schools in Latvia. However signs of torture were observed during forensic medicine courses and in higher medical institutions. When persons were brought into detention, they were questioned about their health by the person on duty and if there was evidence of physical or mental trauma a doctor was called in for further examination.

The delegation provided an explanation on refugee status in Latvia by saying that this status was not granted to those who had acted contrary to the goals and principles of the United Nations Convention on Refugees. Furthermore, the principle of non-repression was generally applied if there was evidence that the person was a victim of torture. However, there was no heavy flow of refugees or applicants for asylum in Latvia

On a question on non-citizens and stateless people, the delegation explained the historical context which had led to the establishment of the category of non-nationals. Non-citizens had constitutional rights and benefited from full protection from the Latvian State. Moreover, they had the right to acquire citizenship by means of naturalization. With regard to stateless people, the law stipulated that one could acquire the status of a stateless person only if they legally resided in Latvia. The granting of the residence was not automatic and must be requested. Some 200 people had this status.