COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONTINUES REVIEW OF REPORT OF MOLDOVA

CAT
30th session
9 May 2003
Afternoon



The Committee against Torture continued its consideration this afternoon of an initial report of Moldova, hearing a Government delegation explain differences between "administrative" and regular detention, standards for interrogating and protecting detainees, and procedures for obtaining evidence in criminal trials.
The delegation, led by Vitalie Slonovschi, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova, responding to questions put by Committee members upon presentation of the report on Thursday afternoon, said among other things that administrative detention related to such offenses as hooliganism and resistance to police, and that both administrative and criminal detainees had the right of access to a lawyer. Interrogations had to occur in the presence of a lawyer and could be audiotaped or videotaped if facilities were available, and the Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of the Interior kept records of detainees and monitored their situations on a daily basis.
Allegations that an overwhelming number of convictions in criminal cases were based on confessions were not accurate, the delegation said; other evidence was often brought into play and was considered vital, and laws and police regulations prohibited obtaining or using in court evidence obtained improperly, including through maltreatment of suspects.
The delegation also said that overcrowding in detention centres was a vexing problem; most facilities were built in the 1970s and were now far below international standards; most holding cells were in basements. Construction of new detention centres was an issue discussed regularly, and while financial shortages made this difficult, some improvements were expected over the course of the next year.
Committee Experts had cited further concern that the country's current Penal Code contained a definition of torture based on the definition contained in the Convention against Torture, while a new Penal Code set to take effect on 1 July did not contain such a definition. The Moldovan delegation said a number of articles of the new Code contained provisions amounting to definitions of torture, that the Code had been developed in consultation with experts, and that under the Code offenses amounting to torture were severely punished.
Moldova, as one of the 133 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must submit periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to prevent torture and related ill-treatment.
The Committee's conclusions and recommendations on the report of Moldova will be issued on the afternoon of 15 May.
The Committee also discussed, on a request by Expert Sayed Kassem El-Masry, whether it should send a letter to the United States Government expressing concern about the Guantanamo Detention Centre run by the United States for terrorism suspects. Chairman Peter Thomas Burn said following a forty-five-minute discussion that there was no consensus in favour of sending a letter, and no action was taken on the matter.
And the Committee approved this afternoon a joint statement on the occasion of the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, 26 June, that it hoped would be approved by and issued jointly with the Commission on Human Rights' Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The statement reminds States parties to the Convention against Torture of the non-derogable nature of the obligations contained in articles 2 and 16 of the Convention; urges all other States and parties to international, regional or internal conflicts to observe the norms contained in articles 2 and 16 of the Convention; and pays tribute and supports those States and organizations that are committed to ending the practice of torture and are engaged in its prevention and in securing redress for its victims.
The Committee will reconvene in public session at 10 a.m. on Monday, 12 May, to hold an informal dialogue with States parties to the Convention. The Committee will issue its conclusions and recommendations on reports of Cambodia and Azerbaijan beginning at 3 p.m. on Monday.

Discussion
The Moldovan delegation, responding to questions put by Committee members upon presentation of the Moldovan report on Thursday afternoon, said among other things that the new Penal Code contained in several articles aspects of the definition of torture contained in the Convention; there were more than 14 such articles; the new Penal Code had been drawn up on the advice of experts; and under the Code, torture was considered a very serious crime.
The Criminal Code punished any methods of obtaining evidence that violated the law, and punished court judgments reached improperly, the delegation said; articles of the new Criminal Procedural Code also barred improper evidence. Types of evidence had been expanded and new procedures for obtaining it had been introduced. Most evidence obtained during investigations was obtained according to well-defined procedures.
Judges were appointed by the President of the country upon proposal by the Higher Council of the Magistracy for periods of five years, the delegation said; after that period had passed, and upon recommendation of the Council, the President could appoint a judge for life. Prosecutors were appointed by the Prosecutor General.
The country was in the process of ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the delegation said; the country already had signed the Statute. Official bodies were now working to ensure that legislation would be amended to be in line with the Statute when it was ratified.
Moldova had already concluded some bilateral treaties with countries, especially in Central Europe, on extradition matters, the delegation said; such treaties also were being negotiated with countries of the European Union. The Constitution provided that in extradition cases involving countries where there were no bilateral treaties, articles 3 and 4 of the Convention were applied.
Moldova had ratified the relevant Convention on the status of refugees, the delegation said; and last year a law establishing mechanisms in that area had been approved. Provisions required that the elementary rights of all refugees were respected. Last week the Government had adopted a decision under which the department dealing with refugees would be transferred to the control of the country's immigration service.
The Ministry of the Interior had responsibility for public order and uncovering crimes committed on the national territory, the delegation said. The information cited by the Committee that police officers were paid based on arrests and convictions was not true; policemen and officials of the Ministry of the Interior received regular salaries from the State. A supplement amounting to 80 per cent of their base salary was offered if they achieved good results, but this had nothing to do with convictions but with their overall efficiency.
There were two systems of punishment in the country – criminal and administrative, the delegation said; the administrative system dealt with administrative violations and offenses. Administrative detention applied to various offenses, such as hooliganism, being drunk in public, and resistance to and disobedience of orders of the police force; judges could impose punishments under the administrative system amounting to 30 days. Such detentions were carried out in different places than for those sentenced for criminal offenses. In administrative detention, detainees had the right to legal counsel, and to make a telephone call to relatives; they had the right to see a doctor and the right to make statements. Monitoring of the legality of detention was done by the Prosecutor's Office and by the Department for Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The assertion by the Committee that most convictions in criminal cases were based on confessions was not true in actuality, the delegation said; evidence of other sorts played a major role. A sincere confession of guilt was considered one factor influencing the extent of punishment following conviction.
In 1999, police station detention centres had been established in Moldova, but they had not been established for anything other than rehabilitation and holding; on occasion they housed such people as drug addicts. It was not accurate to talk about wide-scale detention in these places; for the most part they were used while crimes were being investigated.
Regarding Chechens reportedly detained by the Ministry of the Interior and then sent on to Russia through Transnistria through "informal arrangements" with authorities in Transnistria, the delegation said there were no high-level contacts between the Ministry and those in Transnistria, a territory in a state of revolt and where the central Government had no power, but at some mid-level posts there had been contact. The reported case of the transfer of the Chechens would be investigated and information would be provided to the Committee later.
Officials from the Prosecutor's Office were to check detention centres daily, the delegation said; each detainee was reviewed based on why he was there, when he had arrived, and under what conditions he was being held. A prime objective of these inspections was to determine if there were signs of torture. If violations seemed to have been committed by police officers, the matter was passed on to officials at higher levels, if necessary for prosecution. If it was determined that a police officer had violated some administrative regulation, then officials of the Ministry of the Interior contacted the Department of Public Security. At the request of the Ministry of the Interior, the Government recently had adopted a new statute which punished police officers for violations of human rights in the course of their functions.
Interrogations could be carried out only in the presence of a lawyer, and video and/or audio technology were to be used if possible, the delegation said. Instructions from the Ministry of Interior called for daily checks on persons isolated in cases of temporary custody. Regarding allegations that persons arrested were not given food or water, the Government would investigate if the Committee could say in which police station this had occurred. There were of course regulations calling for detainees to be fed, although financial constraints affected what food was provided.
In each police station, in cells for temporary detention, there were special rooms where confidential conversations could be held by detainees with lawyers. Any policeman, when detaining a person, was obliged to notify the person's family of the detention and of the reason for the arrest.
Each police station had a regular register, the delegation said, and in each case where a person was detained, the place, time, and cause of detention were noted, along with the duration of the detention; the register was checked every day by superiors; the Prosecutor's Office also exercised control through monitoring of the detainee's case file, which required regular updating.
Unfortunately overcrowding in detention centres was a vexing issue, the delegation said; the facilities were built in the 1970s and were now far below international standards; most were in basements. Construction of new facilities for detainees would be extremely costly, but the issue was being discussed and it appeared there would be some improvements this year.
Statistics would be provided later, in writing, on the number of police officials found in violation of laws prohibiting maltreatment, the delegation said; the information was not immediately available.
The police academy now taught standards of human rights, including the standards contained in the Convention against Torture, the delegation said.
The Government was doing all in its power to improve prison conditions, the delegation said. It was true that there was overcrowding in prisons, particular in remand centres. Overcrowding in remand centres, of persons held in preliminary detention particularly, occurred in great part because the judicial system was investigating criminal cases and the investigations were often protracted. Efforts were being made to improve water service, heating, and ventilation. A high percentage of cells now no longer had bars or shutters, as these were cutting light and ventilation. This year, funds allocated for reconstruction and repairs were being allocated to penal and detention facilities for women, where minors also could be held. Unfortunately, the resources allocated were less than what was needed to bring all prisons and holding centres up to standard.
Prison medical staff were very well trained and were present in sufficient numbers to deal with inmate populations, the delegation said; the problems related to medical care were rooted in financial constraints. It had been estimated that the financial resources allocated were only 14 per cent of what was needed. Humanitarian assistance helped make up some of this shortfall – up to about 56 per cent of what was needed. Tuberculosis was receiving careful attention; 100 per cent of drug requirements for patients in remand centres was now being supplied. Finding hospitals that could treat convicts with tuberculosis was a major challenge in some regions of the country. A hospital containing 640 convicts with tuberculosis had had its electricity cut off by rebels in Transnistria; electricity had to be provided with mobile generators. Non-governmental organizations and foreign Governments had helped in responding to the crisis. Construction recently had been completed of a new, 300-bed hospital to treat inmates suffering from tuberculosis, and a second tuberculosis hospital would soon be opened thanks to international and bilateral aid.
Only one case had been pursued in recent years against a prison official for maltreatment of an inmate, the delegation said. That was in 1999. The prison official had been dismissed from his job. It was not clear if a criminal prosecution also had been carried out; when that information was determined, it would be reported to the Committee.
Committee Experts had further comments. They remarked, among other things, that widespread allegations from reliable sources that police routinely beat and otherwise maltreated detainees were hard to ignore, and that a system where judges were appointed to five-year terms by the President of the country before he decided whether or not to appoint them to life terms did not give much assurance that they were "independent", especially for the first five years. The Committee asked the delegation to reply to these concerns in writing.

Discussion of a Proposal by an Expert Concerning the Situation in the Guantanamo Detention Centre
Committee Expert SAYED KASSEM EL MASRY said he wished to raise the matter of the Guantanamo detention centre, as it was run by the United States but was outside the territory of the United States, and seemed to be subject to no jurisdiction. Detainees did not appear to have standard protections at the centre. There were indications that those detained were not provided with due process and fair trials. As far as he could tell, Mr. El Masry said, the detention regime in Guantanamo violated six or seven articles of the Convention against Torture. The Committee had an obligation to address this problem, Mr. El Masry said, especially since the second periodic report of the United States to the Committee was a year and a half overdue.
Other Experts variously said the situation as it stood did not fall within the Committee's mandate – that the Committee was charged with considering reports formally submitted to it by States parties to the Convention. Some suggested that the Committee might write the United States Government, pointing out that the second periodic report was overdue, asking that the report be submitted and requesting that information on Guantanamo be included in it.
Chairman PETER THOMAS BURNS said the Committee did not in fact "know" that the United States was in violation of the Convention. The Committee had to be seen to function impartially, and not to target particular countries. When the United States submitted a report and appeared before the Committee was the time to raise such matters, and he had no doubt they would be raised energetically.
The Committee took no action on the matter.



* *** *