Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF DENMARK
03 May 2007
Share
Committee against Torture
3 May 2007
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Denmark to questions raised by Committee Experts on the fifth 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 Wednesday, 2 May, the delegation, which was led by Kim Vinthen, Head of the Human Rights Unit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, observed that, although the Government had taken note of the recommendations of the Incorporation Committee established to review the possibility of incorporating the Convention into Danish law, it had been decided not to incorporate it. The Convention did not require such incorporation, and upon acceding to the Convention, the Danish Government had reviewed Danish legislation and practice and ascertained that the provisions of the Convention were effectively covered. In addition, the Convention against Torture was invoked in the Danish courts, and cited as the basis of decisions. Incorporation would not change the state of law in Denmark, given that the Convention was already used by the relevant authorities.
With regard to the issue of rendition, the delegation observed that the Danish Government had always been strongly opposed to any measures that violated the human rights of detained persons, including terrorists. Denmark had a clear stance against the illegal transfer of detainees. The Danish Government had published all available information on any flights alleged to have been secretly carrying detainees. Based on that material, it was not possible to confirm that illegal CIA activities had taken place in Danish airspace, on Danish soil, or that any Danish official had been involved in such activities.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Denmark towards the end of the session on Friday, 18 May 2007.
As one of the 144 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Denmark 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 Friday, 4 May, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the fourth periodic report of Italy (CAT/C/67/Add.3).
Response of Denmark
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Wednesday, 2 May, the delegation of Denmark said that, although the Government had taken note of the recommendations of the Incorporation Committee established to review the possibility of incorporating the Convention into Danish law, it had decided not to do so. The Convention did not require such incorporation. Upon acceding to the Convention, the Danish Government had reviewed Danish legislation and practice and ascertained that the provisions of the Convention were effectively covered. In addition, the Convention against Torture was invoked in the Danish courts, and cited as the basis of decisions. Therefore, incorporation would not change the state of law in Denmark, given that the Convention was already used by the relevant authorities.
Regarding whether there was a statute of limitation for prosecution of cases of torture, the delegation explained that the Danish Criminal Code provided that there was no statutory limitation for offences covered by international conventions to which Denmark was a party and under which there was no such statutory limitation for crimes defined therein.
On the issue of psychological and mental torture, the Standing Committee on Criminal Matters had mentioned in its report that the section on violence of the Criminal Code could be invoked to cover cases of mental torture. In addition, the offence of assault in the Criminal Code effectively covered mental torture, the delegation said.
As for the riot that took place in Copenhagen in March 2007, the delegation said that 850 persons had been arrested of whom 200 had been remanded after appearing before a judge and subsequently released; 25 were still in custody; and three persons had already been convicted and had been sentenced to imprisonment for up to six months. So far there had been no acquittals. Most of the complaints lodged in connection with the riot were still the subject of investigation and ranged widely in subject, including such things as complaints about the noise, so it was not yet possible to provide further information.
On the topic of pre-trial solitary confinement regarding juvenile remand prisoners, the delegation highlighted that special rules had applied since 2000 to all detainees, including juvenile detainees, held in solitary remand for more than 14 days. Those inmates had to have access to a priest, doctor or psychologist. Such prisoners also had to be offered special opportunities for occupation, including individual tuition, and contact with staff that might reduce the stress of solitary confinement.
In terms of the incorporation of the crime of torture in codes for the military, the delegation said that, first, the Military Disciplinary Code was not a substitute for the Criminal Code, but had essentially been devised to provide punishments for acts that were not punishable as crimes under the Criminal Code, and were of a lesser nature. There was also a Military Criminal Code, but that was supplementary to the civilian Criminal Code, and covered acts that were particular to the military. The civilian Criminal Code was applicable to everyone, including the military. As it was considered that the Criminal Code sufficiently covered the crime of torture, it was not contemplated that the Military Code would be altered.
With regard to legal aid for aliens deprived of liberty, the delegation said that if such aliens had not been released within three days, they would be brought before a court of justice to review their case and would receive free legal defence.
Continuing on the issue of asylum-seekers, the delegation noted that Denmark indeed had a reservation concerning legal and justice affairs with regard to the European Union Directives on asylum-seekers. However, the Danish Government was of the opinion that its legislation was substantially in line with the European Convention on Human Rights protections regarding return of aliens to countries where they faced a threat of torture or ill-treatment.
The delegation said that Denmark realized that asylum-seekers whose applications had been refused were in a difficult situation. Therefore, the Danish Government had been providing counselling and support to those individuals, both in Denmark and upon their return to their countries of origin.
In terms of access to naturalization for refugees, that was only possible through fulfilment of the guidelines set out by statutory law. The ability to speak, read and understand Danish, as well as the will to adapt to Danish society were required. The language skill requirement was one of the most important for admission to Danish citizenship, the delegation stressed. However, when exceptional circumstances dictated, such as physical or mental handicaps, the Parliament could exempt that individual from the language guidelines. There were also specially tailored language classes for traumatized refugees, which took into account their difficulties.
On the issue of remittance of 34 Afghan detainees in Afghanistan in 2002 by Danish authorities to United States forces, the delegation said that, following release of a documentary film alleging that those detainees had been tortured as a result, the Danish Government undertook a full investigation of the incident. In assessing Denmark's responsibility in the matter, first and foremost it was necessary to understand what information had been available to the authorities at the time. Denmark had been aware that the United States was bound not to torture or ill-treat the troops under international law, and, secondly, the reports that had subsequently come out concerning ill treatment of detainees by United States troops in the Kandahar prison in 2002 had not been released at the time. Denmark had therefore not violated article 12 of the Third Geneva Convention by handing over those detainees to the United States in Spring 2002.
Giving some background, the delegation said that Danish Special Forces had been conducting a joint operation with United States forces and were under United States command when they had captured the Afghans. Immediately after the capture of the Afghan forces, they had been handed over to the United States troops, and therefore it was determined that extraterritorial jurisdiction for Denmark had never applied.
Regarding the fate of those detainees, the Government had determined that all of the Afghan detainees had been released shortly after they were apprehended, the delegation said. Denmark had requested written confirmation and had received a letter from the United States Government that all detainees turned over to United States forces had been released within 48 to 72 hours after their detention. Indeed, it turned out that 31 of those seized had been allies of the Afghan Government.
Turning to rendition, the delegation said the Danish Government had always been strongly opposed to any measures that violated the human rights of detained persons, including terrorists. During the Danish membership of the Security Council, Denmark had worked to increase awareness of the need to promote human rights in the context of the fight against terrorism, including through procedures for "de-listing". Denmark had a clear stance against the illegal transfer of detainees. The Danish Government had published all available information on any flights alleged to have been secretly carrying detainees. Based on that material, it was not possible to confirm that illegal CIA activities had taken place in Danish airspace, on Danish soil, or that any Danish official had been involved in such activities.
Questions by Committee Experts
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Denmark, returned to the issue of incorporation of a definition of torture in military law. What were the specific laws under which military personnel guilty of torture would be prosecuted? Also, if it were just an issue of being prosecuted under the Code of Military Discipline, what recourse did victims of such behaviour have to remedies?
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Denmark, regarding solitary isolation, encouraged Denmark to work to put in place machinery to ensure that such a measure was only used as an extraordinary measure, when absolutely necessary.
Mr. Wang also expressed concern about mechanisms in Danish law that would ensure the prompt and impartial investigation of any complaints of torture, and ensure that the perpetrators would be punished.
An Expert said that, according to information received, 11 people had been killed by the police in Denmark over the past two years. That was particularly worrisome given that the figures for neighbouring countries were much lower, with only 2 killed by police in Norway and 6 killed by police in Sweden during the same time period. In addition, it had been asserted that there had not been thorough investigations into those deaths, and she would appreciate some clarification of that.
Response by Delegation
Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Denmark said that, as far as limitations on solitary confinement for very serious offences (terrorism) in the Criminal Code, it was true there were not any limits. However, it was important to note that such detentions were subject to intensive administrative scrutiny and review.
Answering concerns about the independence of investigations into police misconduct, the delegation said that the police complaint board was fully independent, as was the Public Prosecutor's Office. However, owing to criticisms that those mechanisms were not independent enough, the current system was under review and a report was due out next summer.
Expanding on the nature of the Military Disciplinary Code, the delegation said it basically provided for disciplinary sanctions. There was no possibility for providing victims with any compensation. However, it was important to remember that cases of physical violence, even within the military, would be prosecuted under the Criminal Code, which did have compensation provisions.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
3 May 2007
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Denmark to questions raised by Committee Experts on the fifth 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 Wednesday, 2 May, the delegation, which was led by Kim Vinthen, Head of the Human Rights Unit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, observed that, although the Government had taken note of the recommendations of the Incorporation Committee established to review the possibility of incorporating the Convention into Danish law, it had been decided not to incorporate it. The Convention did not require such incorporation, and upon acceding to the Convention, the Danish Government had reviewed Danish legislation and practice and ascertained that the provisions of the Convention were effectively covered. In addition, the Convention against Torture was invoked in the Danish courts, and cited as the basis of decisions. Incorporation would not change the state of law in Denmark, given that the Convention was already used by the relevant authorities.
With regard to the issue of rendition, the delegation observed that the Danish Government had always been strongly opposed to any measures that violated the human rights of detained persons, including terrorists. Denmark had a clear stance against the illegal transfer of detainees. The Danish Government had published all available information on any flights alleged to have been secretly carrying detainees. Based on that material, it was not possible to confirm that illegal CIA activities had taken place in Danish airspace, on Danish soil, or that any Danish official had been involved in such activities.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Denmark towards the end of the session on Friday, 18 May 2007.
As one of the 144 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Denmark 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 Friday, 4 May, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the fourth periodic report of Italy (CAT/C/67/Add.3).
Response of Denmark
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Wednesday, 2 May, the delegation of Denmark said that, although the Government had taken note of the recommendations of the Incorporation Committee established to review the possibility of incorporating the Convention into Danish law, it had decided not to do so. The Convention did not require such incorporation. Upon acceding to the Convention, the Danish Government had reviewed Danish legislation and practice and ascertained that the provisions of the Convention were effectively covered. In addition, the Convention against Torture was invoked in the Danish courts, and cited as the basis of decisions. Therefore, incorporation would not change the state of law in Denmark, given that the Convention was already used by the relevant authorities.
Regarding whether there was a statute of limitation for prosecution of cases of torture, the delegation explained that the Danish Criminal Code provided that there was no statutory limitation for offences covered by international conventions to which Denmark was a party and under which there was no such statutory limitation for crimes defined therein.
On the issue of psychological and mental torture, the Standing Committee on Criminal Matters had mentioned in its report that the section on violence of the Criminal Code could be invoked to cover cases of mental torture. In addition, the offence of assault in the Criminal Code effectively covered mental torture, the delegation said.
As for the riot that took place in Copenhagen in March 2007, the delegation said that 850 persons had been arrested of whom 200 had been remanded after appearing before a judge and subsequently released; 25 were still in custody; and three persons had already been convicted and had been sentenced to imprisonment for up to six months. So far there had been no acquittals. Most of the complaints lodged in connection with the riot were still the subject of investigation and ranged widely in subject, including such things as complaints about the noise, so it was not yet possible to provide further information.
On the topic of pre-trial solitary confinement regarding juvenile remand prisoners, the delegation highlighted that special rules had applied since 2000 to all detainees, including juvenile detainees, held in solitary remand for more than 14 days. Those inmates had to have access to a priest, doctor or psychologist. Such prisoners also had to be offered special opportunities for occupation, including individual tuition, and contact with staff that might reduce the stress of solitary confinement.
In terms of the incorporation of the crime of torture in codes for the military, the delegation said that, first, the Military Disciplinary Code was not a substitute for the Criminal Code, but had essentially been devised to provide punishments for acts that were not punishable as crimes under the Criminal Code, and were of a lesser nature. There was also a Military Criminal Code, but that was supplementary to the civilian Criminal Code, and covered acts that were particular to the military. The civilian Criminal Code was applicable to everyone, including the military. As it was considered that the Criminal Code sufficiently covered the crime of torture, it was not contemplated that the Military Code would be altered.
With regard to legal aid for aliens deprived of liberty, the delegation said that if such aliens had not been released within three days, they would be brought before a court of justice to review their case and would receive free legal defence.
Continuing on the issue of asylum-seekers, the delegation noted that Denmark indeed had a reservation concerning legal and justice affairs with regard to the European Union Directives on asylum-seekers. However, the Danish Government was of the opinion that its legislation was substantially in line with the European Convention on Human Rights protections regarding return of aliens to countries where they faced a threat of torture or ill-treatment.
The delegation said that Denmark realized that asylum-seekers whose applications had been refused were in a difficult situation. Therefore, the Danish Government had been providing counselling and support to those individuals, both in Denmark and upon their return to their countries of origin.
In terms of access to naturalization for refugees, that was only possible through fulfilment of the guidelines set out by statutory law. The ability to speak, read and understand Danish, as well as the will to adapt to Danish society were required. The language skill requirement was one of the most important for admission to Danish citizenship, the delegation stressed. However, when exceptional circumstances dictated, such as physical or mental handicaps, the Parliament could exempt that individual from the language guidelines. There were also specially tailored language classes for traumatized refugees, which took into account their difficulties.
On the issue of remittance of 34 Afghan detainees in Afghanistan in 2002 by Danish authorities to United States forces, the delegation said that, following release of a documentary film alleging that those detainees had been tortured as a result, the Danish Government undertook a full investigation of the incident. In assessing Denmark's responsibility in the matter, first and foremost it was necessary to understand what information had been available to the authorities at the time. Denmark had been aware that the United States was bound not to torture or ill-treat the troops under international law, and, secondly, the reports that had subsequently come out concerning ill treatment of detainees by United States troops in the Kandahar prison in 2002 had not been released at the time. Denmark had therefore not violated article 12 of the Third Geneva Convention by handing over those detainees to the United States in Spring 2002.
Giving some background, the delegation said that Danish Special Forces had been conducting a joint operation with United States forces and were under United States command when they had captured the Afghans. Immediately after the capture of the Afghan forces, they had been handed over to the United States troops, and therefore it was determined that extraterritorial jurisdiction for Denmark had never applied.
Regarding the fate of those detainees, the Government had determined that all of the Afghan detainees had been released shortly after they were apprehended, the delegation said. Denmark had requested written confirmation and had received a letter from the United States Government that all detainees turned over to United States forces had been released within 48 to 72 hours after their detention. Indeed, it turned out that 31 of those seized had been allies of the Afghan Government.
Turning to rendition, the delegation said the Danish Government had always been strongly opposed to any measures that violated the human rights of detained persons, including terrorists. During the Danish membership of the Security Council, Denmark had worked to increase awareness of the need to promote human rights in the context of the fight against terrorism, including through procedures for "de-listing". Denmark had a clear stance against the illegal transfer of detainees. The Danish Government had published all available information on any flights alleged to have been secretly carrying detainees. Based on that material, it was not possible to confirm that illegal CIA activities had taken place in Danish airspace, on Danish soil, or that any Danish official had been involved in such activities.
Questions by Committee Experts
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Denmark, returned to the issue of incorporation of a definition of torture in military law. What were the specific laws under which military personnel guilty of torture would be prosecuted? Also, if it were just an issue of being prosecuted under the Code of Military Discipline, what recourse did victims of such behaviour have to remedies?
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Denmark, regarding solitary isolation, encouraged Denmark to work to put in place machinery to ensure that such a measure was only used as an extraordinary measure, when absolutely necessary.
Mr. Wang also expressed concern about mechanisms in Danish law that would ensure the prompt and impartial investigation of any complaints of torture, and ensure that the perpetrators would be punished.
An Expert said that, according to information received, 11 people had been killed by the police in Denmark over the past two years. That was particularly worrisome given that the figures for neighbouring countries were much lower, with only 2 killed by police in Norway and 6 killed by police in Sweden during the same time period. In addition, it had been asserted that there had not been thorough investigations into those deaths, and she would appreciate some clarification of that.
Response by Delegation
Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Denmark said that, as far as limitations on solitary confinement for very serious offences (terrorism) in the Criminal Code, it was true there were not any limits. However, it was important to note that such detentions were subject to intensive administrative scrutiny and review.
Answering concerns about the independence of investigations into police misconduct, the delegation said that the police complaint board was fully independent, as was the Public Prosecutor's Office. However, owing to criticisms that those mechanisms were not independent enough, the current system was under review and a report was due out next summer.
Expanding on the nature of the Military Disciplinary Code, the delegation said it basically provided for disciplinary sanctions. There was no possibility for providing victims with any compensation. However, it was important to remember that cases of physical violence, even within the military, would be prosecuted under the Criminal Code, which did have compensation provisions.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: