COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONTINUES REVIEW OF REPORT FROM LITHUANIA

19 November 2003

The Committee against Torture continued this morning its consideration of the initial report of Lithuania on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture.
The delegation, which was led by Gintaras Svedas, the Deputy Minister of Justice for Lithuania, said among other things that a foreigner could only be deported to a safe country defined as one where there was no persecution for reasons of race, religion and nationality, and where nobody was submitted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, among other things. A question was asked whether it was possible to invoke the Convention against Torture in Lithuania’s courts to which the delegation said that the Constitutional Court stated that provisions of international treaties could be invoked in courts with the exception of issues related to criminal law.
On the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction, the delegation noted that the criminal law of Lithuania was only applied to those foreigners who committed a crime abroad if that crime was provided in the international treaties ratified by Lithuania.
Lithuania, 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 on the report of Lithuania will be issued on Friday, 21 November in the morning.
The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. this afternoon to issue its conclusions and recommendations on the third periodic report of Colombia and to continue its review of the third periodic report of Cameroon.
Discussion
In response to a question on the court system and judges, the delegation said that the uniform court system was made up of the courts of general jurisdiction and courts of special jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, The Court of Appeals, district and regional courts – were the courts of general jurisdiction dealing with civil and criminal cases. A judge might be appointed, transferred, dismissed or removed from office only in accordance with the Constitution and Law on Courts. A judge of a district court was appointed and dismissed by the President upon the advice of the Judicial Council. Judges of other courts were appointed by the President of the Republic for a term until they were 65 years of age. A judge of the Supreme Administrative Court was appointed and dismissed by the President.
To provide more information on the work of Ombudsmen, the delegation said Ombudsmen investigated complaints of citizens, foreign nationals and stateless persons regarding abuse of office or bureaucracy of officers of state and local authorities and they did not investigate complaints arising from labour relations and complaints that were subject to court investigation. In reply to the question raised on the Ombudsmen practice related to torture, the delegation noted that it was not the mandate of Ombudsmen to investigate cases of torture.
The main functions of the Prosecutor’s Office included to organize and conduct a pre-trial investigation and prosecute on behalf of the State. On the question on the lawyers, delegation said the Code on Professional Ethics for Lawyers stated that while performing their duties, lawyers should be independent from state authorities and governing institutions and officials.
On the question of prisons, the delegation stated that the system of enforcement of criminal punishments had been transferred from the competence of the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Justice as of 1 September 2000.
Concerning the expulsion of foreigners, the delegation said that the decision to expel an alien from the territory of Lithuania was taken by the Director of the Migration Department in the Ministry of Interior and the person had the right to appeal the case to the Vilnius County Administrative Court. The decision to expel an alien who had permission to reside in Lithuania could only be taken by the court and was implemented by the Foreigners Registration Centre of the State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of Interior or by the local Police Station. On the question concerning the grounds by which a foreigner could not be expelled, the delegation said that a foreigner could only be deported to a safe country defined as one where there was no persecution for reasons of race, religion and nationality, and where nobody was submitted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, among other things.
On the question pertaining to the definition of torture, the delegation noted that Lithuania’s laws did not provide a definition of torture. However, the court practice, especially in criminal cases, was in compliance with the provisions of the Convention.
On the question of pre-trial detention, the delegation said the exact term of pre-trial detention was imposed by the judge of pre-trial investigation and the term could not exceed 18 months, and no more than 12 months for juveniles. The Government of Lithuania recognized that the conditions in the places of pre-detention were poor and it had taken a number of measures to address the problem to improve living conditions. Funds had been allocated by the Government to implement a programme of renovation, the delegation said. Furthermore, two facilities were shut down in 2002 for not meeting national or international standards.
On the question put by the Rapporteur on “watch units’, the delegation said that a ‘watch unit’ was meant to be part of the local Police Station responsible for guarding and managing detention facilities around the clock.
On the question of torture in psychiatric institutions and prisons, the delegation mentioned that Lithuania’s Law on Mental Health Care established procedures on how a person was admitted to a psychiatric establishment and stipulated that mental patients could only be treated by legally established treatment methods.
On the question on the code of conduct, the delegation recalled that in August 2002 the General Commissar of the Lithuanian Police had issued a regulation on the ‘Observance of the Ethics of Police Officers’, which had highlighted the use of ‘respectful’ treatment by police officers of all groups of society.
Turning to the question asked by Committee Experts on access to a lawyer and family members, the delegation stated that the Constitution guaranteed every person suspected of committing a crime or formally accused of committing a crime the right to defense from the moment of their detention. They also had the right to meet their relatives; however a prosecutor had the right to prohibit such a meeting on the grounds of suspicion that it might obstruct the investigation.
On the question of internal investigation, the delegation stated that the Internal Investigative Service of the Ministry of Interior was a service authorized to investigate all complaints on police actions addressed to the Minster of Interior although it did not investigate crimes.
Concerning anonymous witnesses or victims, the Lithuanian Code of Criminal Procedures made it possible to use evidence given by an anonymous witness or victim in a criminal proceeding. The practice was rarely used and usually in cases of organized crime or a violent crime, the delegation said.
Recalling the question on overcrowded prisons, the delegation said the new Code of Enforcement of Punishment established new criteria for prisoner classification. Hence, men and women, adults and juveniles, first time offenders and recidivists were separated. In Lithuania the number of convicted women was less than 400 and the figure was less than 300 for juvenile offenders. On the question of tuberculosis in places of detention, the delegation stated that if inmates suffered from any infectious disease, they were separated from other inmates.
The delegation was asked if it was possible to invoke the Convention against Torture in Lithuania’s courts to which the delegation said that the Constitutional Court stated that provisions of international treaties could be invoked in courts with one exception, issues related to criminal law. On the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction, the delegation noted that criminal law of Lithuania was only applied to those foreigners who committed a crime abroad if that crime was provided in the international treaties ratified by Lithuania.
Lastly, on the question of witness protection, the delegation stated that organized crime was a serious problem in Lithuania although progress had been achieved in recent years. Such cases were successfully completed by a court only because special protection measures were applied to the victims and witnesses.