Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF COSTA RICA
06 May 2008
Share
Committee against Torture
AFTERNOON
6 May 2008
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Costa Rica to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on 5 May 2008, the delegation, which was led by Christian Guillermet, Senior Ambassador and Director General for Foreign Policy at the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Costa Rica, said, with regard to the definition of torture, the crime of acquiescence and incitement of torture was recognised under the penal system as participation in the act of torture itself and was penalised with the same force as torture itself. On the remark that there had been only one complaint concerning abuse of authority since this possibility had been implemented, the delegation said that it was perhaps because the modification was too recent and thus no culture of filing complaints had been built up in this regard.
Also the crime could be covered under a different offence, such as abuse of authority.
International treaties were given a rank above domestic law. Any domestic provision that might be contrary to those treaties was automatically void. Also, the State of Costa Rica fell under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court for Human Rights and its rulings had a binding effect for the country. Concerning statements given under torture, there was currently a draft law that aimed at removing an article in the criminal code on this. The draft clearly sought to eliminate the wording “unless this is for the advantage of the accused”. The view was that this could encourage ill-treatment. About non-refoulement, the delegation noted that all authorities were bound by and were required to respect the provisions of international treaties. No extradition was carried out to countries where the death penalty was practiced.
Concerning the case of Mario de Jesus Uribe Escobar, the delegation said that in Costa Rica, refugee status was provided by the Migration Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was responsible for asylum requests. In this specific case, Mr. Uribe went to the Costa Rican embassy in Bogota and stated his intention to seek asylum and the necessary facilities had been made available to him in order to do so. Later on, Costa Rica was informed about the charges levelled against him in Colombia. Under the Caracas Convention, it was not possible to grant asylum to people that had charges levelled against them and thus asylum was not granted. Mr. Uribe was later taken into custody. There had been no formal asylum application submitted by Mr. Uribe. Concerning the arrest of asylum seekers 50 kilometres away from the border, the delegation said that no information had been found about such a case. However, foreigners entered the country by escaping border control or if they had entered the country without going through the proper channels and were found in an area of 50 kilometres inside the country, they could be expelled. But even in these cases, inhuman treatment would not be allowed.
The Committee will submit its concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Costa Rica towards the end of the session on Friday, 16 May 2008.
As one of the 145 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Costa Rica is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 7 May 2008, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the second periodic report of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (CAT/C/MKD/2).
Response of Costa Rica
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on 5 May 2008, the delegation of Costa Rica said that, with regard to the definition of torture, the crime of acquiescence and incitement of torture was recognised under the penal system as participation in the act of torture itself and was penalised with the same force as torture itself.
On the remark that there had been only complaint concerning abuse of authority since this possibility had been implemented, the delegation said that it was perhaps because the modification was too recent and thus no culture of filing complaints had been built up in this regard. Also, international treaties were given a rank above domestic law. Any domestic provision that might be contrary to those treaties was automatically void.
The State of Costa Rica fell under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court for Human Rights and its rulings had a binding effect for the country. Concerning statements given under torture, there was currently a draft law that aimed at removing an article in the criminal code. This draft clearly sought to eliminate the wording “unless this is for the advantage of the accused”. The view was that this could encourage ill-treatment.
About non-refoulement, the delegation noted that all authorities were bound by and were required to respect the provisions of international treaties. No extradition was carried out to countries where the death penalty was practiced.
On incommunicado and pre-trial detention, the Constitution provided that a person could be arrested only if there was sufficient proof showing that the person had committed a crime. The right to defence could not be renounced. Further, a court order was needed to be able to call for an incommunicado detention and such a detention could only last for a maximum of 10 days. Incommunicado detention was exceptional and could only happen if there were risks that the detainee could destruct evidence or influence witnesses. During such a detention, it was still possible for the detainee to communicate with a legal council.
Regarding the suspension of civil servants indicted for acts of torture, the delegation said that they could be removed from their post for a period of 6 to 12 years. But there was no database available to check if the maximum sentence had ever been pronounced.
Concerning the migration law that was currently being revised, it was hoped that the new legislation would be ready by June. Regarding what was being done to prevent torture in centres for asylum seekers, the delegation said regional centres had been modernised to improve the living conditions. Areas for physical exercise were provided. Regular visits were carried out to these centres by various organizations. There had been no complaints of torture until now. The State knew about foreigners who had been the victims of police carrying out migratory controls and disciplinary procedures had been carried out against the officers in these cases. Police training had been further reinforced successive to these events. Training in human rights was very important.
Concerning human trafficking, a national commission was involved in the control of trafficking and was collaborating with civil society, the International Labour Organization and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. On the training of the police force about torture, the delegation noted that the national police academy included human rights in its curriculum. Also, there could be no justification for or impunity granted to acts of torture or other cruel or inhuman treatment.
Concerning the case of Mario de Jesus Uribe Escobar, the delegation said that in Costa Rica, refugee status was provided by the Migration Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was responsible for asylum requests. In this specific case, Mr. Uribe went to the Costa Rican embassy in Bogota and stated his intention to seek asylum and the necessary facilities had been made available to him in order to do so. Later on, Costa Rica was informed about the charges levelled against him. Under the Caracas Convention, it was not possible to grant asylum to persons with charges levelled against them and thus asylum was not granted. Mr. Uribe was later taken into custody. There had been no formal asylum application submitted by Mr. Uribe.
About corporal punishment, this was totally prohibited in schools. Parents had a right to punish their children moderately. The delegation noted that there was a bill currently in the legislative assembly aimed at abolishing corporal punishment.
Concerning the arrest of asylum seekers 50 kilometres away from the border, the delegation said that no information had been found about such a case. However, if foreigners entered the country by escaping border control or if they had entered the country without going through the proper channels and were found in an area of 50 kilometres inside the country, they could be expelled. But even in these cases, inhuman treatment would not be allowed.
Regarding domestic violence and homosexual couples, according to the law it was clear that the victim would have to be a woman, but it would de facto also apply in same sex couples, said the delegation.
Questions by Committee Experts
NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Costa Rica, thanked the delegation for the extensive answers and for the many details provided that had helped to settle some confusion and misunderstandings. Concerning the migration issue, was the actual practice currently in place good enough to ensure that, with the high number of asylum seekers, those that really were in need of protection and those that had been exposed to torture could be singled out?
Ms. Sveaass gladly noted that in immigrant detention centres, males and females were separated and that families were kept together. With regard to the Istanbul protocol, how were the health personnel in asylum seekers centres trained? When people arrived as refugees, what was the next step? When individuals having suffered from torture were detected, were they sent to a healthcare centre for their treatment?
LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Costa Rica, asked what the maximum duration for pre-trial detention was. On human trafficking there were two total different concepts. One part included people who wanted to migrate and the other group included people that were being sold in slavery. Was there a system which allowed such victims to be detected? On the situation of detainees belonging to sexual minorities, what steps were taken to ensure that during their detention period they were not subjected to violence from other detainees?
Other Committee Experts made comments and asked questions, including whether Costa Rica was planning to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families? What mechanisms were responsible to keep a watch on the respect of the provisions provided under the Convention against Torture?
Another Expert hoped that the absence of complaints of torture meant that there was no torture in Costa Rica. About incommunicado detention, and the fact that there was no plan to decrease it, what was the reason for the maximum detention period of ten days? The explanation provided by the delegation could be open to discussion.
Also, Experts asked at what age a person was considered to have reached adulthood. How were the authorities dealing with sexual tourism? Also, the issue of political asylum was believed to be of considerable importance, especially in South America.
Response by Delegation
Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Costa Rica said that there was an increase in pre-trial detention but it was not linked to the change in law but due to a general increase of violence in Costa Rica. The maximum limit for pre-trial detention was currently 12 months.
Concerning asylum, the delegation noted that at the level of the Americas there was the Caracas Convention giving guidelines. Asylum was granted to persons who had been prosecuted for political matters but not for ordinary crimes. If an asylum request was rejected, the person could apply for refugee status. Political asylum application was a matter that was determined by the President. Refugee status on the other hand was granted through an administrative act of the State. There was also redress available in this regard.
On questions of torture, the delegation said that the possibility to post a complaint was not sufficiently used because of a lack of culture. It was also quite possible that cases of torture had been covered under a different offence, such as abuse of authority. Also, there were no plans to reduce incommunicado detention. Minors could only be subject to sanctions after a due trial and someone under 12 could not be considered as a criminal.
The delegation underlined that there were no children in prisons, and there were specialised institutions for children where special care was offered to them. The aim of the system was to reduce the presence of children in prisons.
An attempt to commit torture was criminalised and was punished like the actual offence, said the delegation. The judge could however decide to reduce the period of imprisonment.
____________
For use of the information media; not an official record
AFTERNOON
6 May 2008
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Costa Rica to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on 5 May 2008, the delegation, which was led by Christian Guillermet, Senior Ambassador and Director General for Foreign Policy at the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Costa Rica, said, with regard to the definition of torture, the crime of acquiescence and incitement of torture was recognised under the penal system as participation in the act of torture itself and was penalised with the same force as torture itself. On the remark that there had been only one complaint concerning abuse of authority since this possibility had been implemented, the delegation said that it was perhaps because the modification was too recent and thus no culture of filing complaints had been built up in this regard.
Also the crime could be covered under a different offence, such as abuse of authority.
International treaties were given a rank above domestic law. Any domestic provision that might be contrary to those treaties was automatically void. Also, the State of Costa Rica fell under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court for Human Rights and its rulings had a binding effect for the country. Concerning statements given under torture, there was currently a draft law that aimed at removing an article in the criminal code on this. The draft clearly sought to eliminate the wording “unless this is for the advantage of the accused”. The view was that this could encourage ill-treatment. About non-refoulement, the delegation noted that all authorities were bound by and were required to respect the provisions of international treaties. No extradition was carried out to countries where the death penalty was practiced.
Concerning the case of Mario de Jesus Uribe Escobar, the delegation said that in Costa Rica, refugee status was provided by the Migration Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was responsible for asylum requests. In this specific case, Mr. Uribe went to the Costa Rican embassy in Bogota and stated his intention to seek asylum and the necessary facilities had been made available to him in order to do so. Later on, Costa Rica was informed about the charges levelled against him in Colombia. Under the Caracas Convention, it was not possible to grant asylum to people that had charges levelled against them and thus asylum was not granted. Mr. Uribe was later taken into custody. There had been no formal asylum application submitted by Mr. Uribe. Concerning the arrest of asylum seekers 50 kilometres away from the border, the delegation said that no information had been found about such a case. However, foreigners entered the country by escaping border control or if they had entered the country without going through the proper channels and were found in an area of 50 kilometres inside the country, they could be expelled. But even in these cases, inhuman treatment would not be allowed.
The Committee will submit its concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Costa Rica towards the end of the session on Friday, 16 May 2008.
As one of the 145 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Costa Rica is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 7 May 2008, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the second periodic report of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (CAT/C/MKD/2).
Response of Costa Rica
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on 5 May 2008, the delegation of Costa Rica said that, with regard to the definition of torture, the crime of acquiescence and incitement of torture was recognised under the penal system as participation in the act of torture itself and was penalised with the same force as torture itself.
On the remark that there had been only complaint concerning abuse of authority since this possibility had been implemented, the delegation said that it was perhaps because the modification was too recent and thus no culture of filing complaints had been built up in this regard. Also, international treaties were given a rank above domestic law. Any domestic provision that might be contrary to those treaties was automatically void.
The State of Costa Rica fell under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court for Human Rights and its rulings had a binding effect for the country. Concerning statements given under torture, there was currently a draft law that aimed at removing an article in the criminal code. This draft clearly sought to eliminate the wording “unless this is for the advantage of the accused”. The view was that this could encourage ill-treatment.
About non-refoulement, the delegation noted that all authorities were bound by and were required to respect the provisions of international treaties. No extradition was carried out to countries where the death penalty was practiced.
On incommunicado and pre-trial detention, the Constitution provided that a person could be arrested only if there was sufficient proof showing that the person had committed a crime. The right to defence could not be renounced. Further, a court order was needed to be able to call for an incommunicado detention and such a detention could only last for a maximum of 10 days. Incommunicado detention was exceptional and could only happen if there were risks that the detainee could destruct evidence or influence witnesses. During such a detention, it was still possible for the detainee to communicate with a legal council.
Regarding the suspension of civil servants indicted for acts of torture, the delegation said that they could be removed from their post for a period of 6 to 12 years. But there was no database available to check if the maximum sentence had ever been pronounced.
Concerning the migration law that was currently being revised, it was hoped that the new legislation would be ready by June. Regarding what was being done to prevent torture in centres for asylum seekers, the delegation said regional centres had been modernised to improve the living conditions. Areas for physical exercise were provided. Regular visits were carried out to these centres by various organizations. There had been no complaints of torture until now. The State knew about foreigners who had been the victims of police carrying out migratory controls and disciplinary procedures had been carried out against the officers in these cases. Police training had been further reinforced successive to these events. Training in human rights was very important.
Concerning human trafficking, a national commission was involved in the control of trafficking and was collaborating with civil society, the International Labour Organization and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. On the training of the police force about torture, the delegation noted that the national police academy included human rights in its curriculum. Also, there could be no justification for or impunity granted to acts of torture or other cruel or inhuman treatment.
Concerning the case of Mario de Jesus Uribe Escobar, the delegation said that in Costa Rica, refugee status was provided by the Migration Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was responsible for asylum requests. In this specific case, Mr. Uribe went to the Costa Rican embassy in Bogota and stated his intention to seek asylum and the necessary facilities had been made available to him in order to do so. Later on, Costa Rica was informed about the charges levelled against him. Under the Caracas Convention, it was not possible to grant asylum to persons with charges levelled against them and thus asylum was not granted. Mr. Uribe was later taken into custody. There had been no formal asylum application submitted by Mr. Uribe.
About corporal punishment, this was totally prohibited in schools. Parents had a right to punish their children moderately. The delegation noted that there was a bill currently in the legislative assembly aimed at abolishing corporal punishment.
Concerning the arrest of asylum seekers 50 kilometres away from the border, the delegation said that no information had been found about such a case. However, if foreigners entered the country by escaping border control or if they had entered the country without going through the proper channels and were found in an area of 50 kilometres inside the country, they could be expelled. But even in these cases, inhuman treatment would not be allowed.
Regarding domestic violence and homosexual couples, according to the law it was clear that the victim would have to be a woman, but it would de facto also apply in same sex couples, said the delegation.
Questions by Committee Experts
NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Costa Rica, thanked the delegation for the extensive answers and for the many details provided that had helped to settle some confusion and misunderstandings. Concerning the migration issue, was the actual practice currently in place good enough to ensure that, with the high number of asylum seekers, those that really were in need of protection and those that had been exposed to torture could be singled out?
Ms. Sveaass gladly noted that in immigrant detention centres, males and females were separated and that families were kept together. With regard to the Istanbul protocol, how were the health personnel in asylum seekers centres trained? When people arrived as refugees, what was the next step? When individuals having suffered from torture were detected, were they sent to a healthcare centre for their treatment?
LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Costa Rica, asked what the maximum duration for pre-trial detention was. On human trafficking there were two total different concepts. One part included people who wanted to migrate and the other group included people that were being sold in slavery. Was there a system which allowed such victims to be detected? On the situation of detainees belonging to sexual minorities, what steps were taken to ensure that during their detention period they were not subjected to violence from other detainees?
Other Committee Experts made comments and asked questions, including whether Costa Rica was planning to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families? What mechanisms were responsible to keep a watch on the respect of the provisions provided under the Convention against Torture?
Another Expert hoped that the absence of complaints of torture meant that there was no torture in Costa Rica. About incommunicado detention, and the fact that there was no plan to decrease it, what was the reason for the maximum detention period of ten days? The explanation provided by the delegation could be open to discussion.
Also, Experts asked at what age a person was considered to have reached adulthood. How were the authorities dealing with sexual tourism? Also, the issue of political asylum was believed to be of considerable importance, especially in South America.
Response by Delegation
Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Costa Rica said that there was an increase in pre-trial detention but it was not linked to the change in law but due to a general increase of violence in Costa Rica. The maximum limit for pre-trial detention was currently 12 months.
Concerning asylum, the delegation noted that at the level of the Americas there was the Caracas Convention giving guidelines. Asylum was granted to persons who had been prosecuted for political matters but not for ordinary crimes. If an asylum request was rejected, the person could apply for refugee status. Political asylum application was a matter that was determined by the President. Refugee status on the other hand was granted through an administrative act of the State. There was also redress available in this regard.
On questions of torture, the delegation said that the possibility to post a complaint was not sufficiently used because of a lack of culture. It was also quite possible that cases of torture had been covered under a different offence, such as abuse of authority. Also, there were no plans to reduce incommunicado detention. Minors could only be subject to sanctions after a due trial and someone under 12 could not be considered as a criminal.
The delegation underlined that there were no children in prisons, and there were specialised institutions for children where special care was offered to them. The aim of the system was to reduce the presence of children in prisons.
An attempt to commit torture was criminalised and was punished like the actual offence, said the delegation. The judge could however decide to reduce the period of imprisonment.
____________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: