Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF GERMANY TO ITS QUESTIONS
10 May 2004
Share
Committee against Torture
AFTERNOON 10 May 2004
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Germany to questions on the third periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture.
Asked if asylum seekers in the airport transit area were able to receive visits from family members and lawyers, the delegation said the authorities allowed those individuals to see family members already living in Germany and to contact lawyers.
Foreign nationals under custody were told of the reason for their detention through the help of interpreters, if required, the delegation said.
Responding to a question on the use by the judiciary of testimony extracted under coercion, the delegation said that there was an absolute ban on such practice.
Concerning the death of a Sudanese national while being deported, the delegation said the long period of hearings before the start of the trial had been due to additional forensic examinations and the hearing of witnesses abroad who had been on the plane taking the victim to Sudan.
The delegation of Germany was invited to return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 May, to hear the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations on its report.
As one of the 135 States parties the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Germany provides the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 11 May, it is scheduled to take up the third periodic report of New Zealand (CAT/C/49/Add.3).
Response of Germany
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee Experts on Friday, 7 May, the delegation, among other things, said that all international treaties were equally applicable to Landers. The Basic Law of Germany provided for the observation of treaties by the components of the Federal system. In the event that an international instrument was breached, the law provided for mechanisms to correct the situation. Since the Landers respected international treaties on human rights, such an incident had never occurred so far.
On the allegations of ill treatment in prisons reported by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the delegation said that if there was suspicion that ill treatment was taking place, it could be brought to justice. However, there were discrepancies between the alleged practices and reality. In certain cases, the Government had taken appropriate measures after which the perpetrators had been dismissed from their jobs.
The Government did not intend to establish a central mechanism to monitor police practices, the delegation said. However, each Lander had its own internal mechanism to monitor police practices.
The law regulated the export of materials that could serve for the purpose of torture such as electric shock units and hand and foot cuffs, the delegation said.
The competent authorities took article 3 of the Convention into consideration before taking measures of deportation, the delegation said. A finding that the individual could risk torture in the country of destination would prevent removal. The threat of torture was mainly attributed to political persecution. Any person subjected to expulsion was taken to a police station before he or she was expelled. When non-governmental actors provided information on the risk of torture in the case of expulsion, the existence of concrete evidence should be taken into consideration.
Ill treatment in the army was repressed by military criminal justice, the delegation said, adding that between 1998 and 2002, 13 cases of ill-treatment, 17 degrading acts and 2 cases of misuse of orders had been brought to the military justice system.
Asked if asylum seekers in the airport transit area were able to receive visits from family members already living in Germany and lawyers, the delegation said that following the recommendation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , the authorities had given the opportunity to such individuals to see their families and to contact lawyers while in transit. In the airport asylum procedure, an individual could make a claim of torture in the event of deportation to the country of destination. Seventy five per cent of asylum seekers were able to enter the country after submitting their cases at the airport.
Foreigner nationals under custody were told of the reason of their detention through the help of interpreters, if required, the delegation said.
Responding to a question on the use by the judiciary of testimony extracted under coercion, the delegation said that there was an absolute ban on such practice.
Concerning the death during the process of deportation of a Sudanese national, the delegation said the long period of hearings before the court was due to additional forensic examinations and the hearing of witnesses abroad who had been on the plane taking the victim to Sudan. Aamir Ageeb died on 28 May 1999 shortly after take-off of the flight from Frankfurt to Khartoum in which he was to be deported to Sudan. Three officers of the Federal Border Police accompanied him. He died after being pressed into his seat by the officers during take-off to prevent his resistance to deportation.
The airport asylum procedure had processed the cases of 21,964 persons, out of which only 49 cases received a positive response, the delegation said. Only after the federal law screened the application were the asylum seekers allowed to enter the country. In most cases, asylum seekers did not have documents identifying them.
Asked if medical examination was carried out after a failed deportation, the delegation said that the border police had to verify, with medical support, if the individual was fit to travel by air. In the event that the country of destination failed to accept the deportee, the individual should return to Germany. The use of drugs or injections in order to ease resistance by the person being deported was forbidden.
A private security firm had assumed responsibility to work in Frankfurt airport, the delegation. Written regulations bound the firm so that their personnel comported correctly in their duties in the airport accommodations. During the day, the private security personnel were monitored by social workers. In the event that excessive force was used against the asylum seekers, the case was dealt with severely.
Germany had taken measures to fight trafficking at the national level, and had supported the passage of a resolution at the Commission on Human Rights for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on trafficking in human persons, which was adopted unanimously.
An Expert asked if the German Government might assume jurisdiction over the case in Chile involving a German citizen living in Colonia Dignidad where allegations of torture and ill treatment of children and adults at a centre had arisen. The Expert said the individual leading the centre was a German citizen and the German Government should exercise its influence in cooperation with the Government of Chile. In reaction, the head of the delegation said he had no information on the direct issue but that in general, the Government would act as appropriate.
* *** *
AFTERNOON 10 May 2004
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Germany to questions on the third periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture.
Asked if asylum seekers in the airport transit area were able to receive visits from family members and lawyers, the delegation said the authorities allowed those individuals to see family members already living in Germany and to contact lawyers.
Foreign nationals under custody were told of the reason for their detention through the help of interpreters, if required, the delegation said.
Responding to a question on the use by the judiciary of testimony extracted under coercion, the delegation said that there was an absolute ban on such practice.
Concerning the death of a Sudanese national while being deported, the delegation said the long period of hearings before the start of the trial had been due to additional forensic examinations and the hearing of witnesses abroad who had been on the plane taking the victim to Sudan.
The delegation of Germany was invited to return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 May, to hear the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations on its report.
As one of the 135 States parties the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Germany provides the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 11 May, it is scheduled to take up the third periodic report of New Zealand (CAT/C/49/Add.3).
Response of Germany
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee Experts on Friday, 7 May, the delegation, among other things, said that all international treaties were equally applicable to Landers. The Basic Law of Germany provided for the observation of treaties by the components of the Federal system. In the event that an international instrument was breached, the law provided for mechanisms to correct the situation. Since the Landers respected international treaties on human rights, such an incident had never occurred so far.
On the allegations of ill treatment in prisons reported by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the delegation said that if there was suspicion that ill treatment was taking place, it could be brought to justice. However, there were discrepancies between the alleged practices and reality. In certain cases, the Government had taken appropriate measures after which the perpetrators had been dismissed from their jobs.
The Government did not intend to establish a central mechanism to monitor police practices, the delegation said. However, each Lander had its own internal mechanism to monitor police practices.
The law regulated the export of materials that could serve for the purpose of torture such as electric shock units and hand and foot cuffs, the delegation said.
The competent authorities took article 3 of the Convention into consideration before taking measures of deportation, the delegation said. A finding that the individual could risk torture in the country of destination would prevent removal. The threat of torture was mainly attributed to political persecution. Any person subjected to expulsion was taken to a police station before he or she was expelled. When non-governmental actors provided information on the risk of torture in the case of expulsion, the existence of concrete evidence should be taken into consideration.
Ill treatment in the army was repressed by military criminal justice, the delegation said, adding that between 1998 and 2002, 13 cases of ill-treatment, 17 degrading acts and 2 cases of misuse of orders had been brought to the military justice system.
Asked if asylum seekers in the airport transit area were able to receive visits from family members already living in Germany and lawyers, the delegation said that following the recommendation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , the authorities had given the opportunity to such individuals to see their families and to contact lawyers while in transit. In the airport asylum procedure, an individual could make a claim of torture in the event of deportation to the country of destination. Seventy five per cent of asylum seekers were able to enter the country after submitting their cases at the airport.
Foreigner nationals under custody were told of the reason of their detention through the help of interpreters, if required, the delegation said.
Responding to a question on the use by the judiciary of testimony extracted under coercion, the delegation said that there was an absolute ban on such practice.
Concerning the death during the process of deportation of a Sudanese national, the delegation said the long period of hearings before the court was due to additional forensic examinations and the hearing of witnesses abroad who had been on the plane taking the victim to Sudan. Aamir Ageeb died on 28 May 1999 shortly after take-off of the flight from Frankfurt to Khartoum in which he was to be deported to Sudan. Three officers of the Federal Border Police accompanied him. He died after being pressed into his seat by the officers during take-off to prevent his resistance to deportation.
The airport asylum procedure had processed the cases of 21,964 persons, out of which only 49 cases received a positive response, the delegation said. Only after the federal law screened the application were the asylum seekers allowed to enter the country. In most cases, asylum seekers did not have documents identifying them.
Asked if medical examination was carried out after a failed deportation, the delegation said that the border police had to verify, with medical support, if the individual was fit to travel by air. In the event that the country of destination failed to accept the deportee, the individual should return to Germany. The use of drugs or injections in order to ease resistance by the person being deported was forbidden.
A private security firm had assumed responsibility to work in Frankfurt airport, the delegation. Written regulations bound the firm so that their personnel comported correctly in their duties in the airport accommodations. During the day, the private security personnel were monitored by social workers. In the event that excessive force was used against the asylum seekers, the case was dealt with severely.
Germany had taken measures to fight trafficking at the national level, and had supported the passage of a resolution at the Commission on Human Rights for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on trafficking in human persons, which was adopted unanimously.
An Expert asked if the German Government might assume jurisdiction over the case in Chile involving a German citizen living in Colonia Dignidad where allegations of torture and ill treatment of children and adults at a centre had arisen. The Expert said the individual leading the centre was a German citizen and the German Government should exercise its influence in cooperation with the Government of Chile. In reaction, the head of the delegation said he had no information on the direct issue but that in general, the Government would act as appropriate.
* *** *
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: