Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF NEW ZEALAND TO ITS QUESTIONS
12 May 2004
Share
Committee against Torture
12 May 2004
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of New Zealand to questions raised by Committee Experts on how it implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture.
Referring to a question raised by a Committee member about allegations that all asylum seekers, including children, were detained, the delegation said that this was not correct. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had affirmed in 2002 that the Mangere Accommodation Centre for asylum seekers was an open centre where children and adults had access to excellent education, health and recreational services.
The residents could leave the Centre during the day and could receive visitors. Parents and children were not generally separated in the best interest of the children. Since 2001, out of 881 asylum seekers arriving in New Zealand, 472 had been granted permits to enter the country, 332 had resided at the Centre and 65 had been detained in penal institutions.
On the solitary confinement -- “non-voluntary segregation” -- of the Algerian national Ahmed Zaoui, the delegation said it was the warrant of commitment issued by the court that required him to be detained in a penal institution. As he was deemed to constitute a threat to national security and a danger to the security of the country, the Immigration Act required that he be held in detention until the security risk certificate process was concluded. The New Zealand Refugee Authority recognized Mr. Zaoui as a refugee.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the third periodic report of New Zealand at 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 May, in the presence of the delegation.
As one of the 135 States parties to the Convention, New Zealand is obligated to submit periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to prevent and punish acts of torture. An 8-member of New Zealand delegation responded to the questions of the Committee.
When the Committee reconvenes in public at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 13 May, it will issue its conclusions and recommendations on the third periodic report of the Czech Republic. It will meet in private in the morning to discuss draft conclusions on country reports already considered this session.
Response of New Zealand
Responding to a series of questions and observations raised by the Committee on 11 May, the delegation of New Zealand said, among other things, that the country implemented its international obligations through a combination of legislation and administrative measures. The non-refoulement obligation under article 3 of the Convention against Torture was implemented administratively and reinforced by a common law requirement upon decision-makers to consider the obligation.
On the administrative measures and common law protections that ensured implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the country, the delegation said that the Government has signalled that it intended to review aspects of the Immigration Act over the next 12 months. The scope of the review had not been finalized.
Asked if article 3 could be taken as the basis for a decision on non-refoulement, the delegation said five claims had been made to the Removal Review Authority and four claims to the Minster of Immigration. The claims to the Authority were denied, but those decisions were now subject to judicial review and appeal. Two claims to the Minister had yet to be determined; the other two were denied; however, temporary work permits would be issued to the people concerned. The Government had expelled 1,603 persons until 30 June 2003.
On the solitary confinement -- “non-voluntary segregation” -- of the Algerian national Ahmed Zaoui, the delegation said it was the warrant of commitment issued by the court that required him to be detained in a penal institution. There was no formal link between a “security risk certificate” and the security conditions under which the person was then managed. However, issuing a certificate represented a statement of extreme concern by the country’s intelligence community which usually resulted in maximum security management, at least until time allowed a more considered and experience-based assessment.
A question was raised on why Mr. Zaoui continued to be held in detention despite his refugee status recognized by the Refugee Status Appeal Authority, to which the delegation said the security risk certificate that dictated Mr. Zaoui’s treatment contained classified security information that was not available to the Authority and could not be made available to the Committee. As he was deemed to constitute a threat to national security and a danger to the security of the country, the Immigration Act required that he be held in detention until the security risk certificate process was concluded. That process contained measures to ensure that his rights and the public interest were appropriately weighed.
The Ombudsman’s 2003 annual report had expressed concern about delays in reporting and investigating allegations of assault on inmates by prison staff, particularly in the Auckland maximum-security prison, and recommended the installation of video cameras, the delegation said. The delays experienced at Auckland prison had been addressed by the implementation of a more robust regional tracking and monitoring regime, for when complaints were made. Managers involved in investigative procedures and processes were also being more comprehensively trained. Video cameras were progressively being installed in prisons, and decisions had recently been made to videotape staff when they used control and restraint.
Allegations of any assault on an inmate, including sexual assault, were recorded and notified through the Corrections Incident Reporting system, the delegation said. All incidents were also reported to an Operations Advisor at National Office. When an allegation or an incident occurred involving an inmate, immediate action was taken to reduce the risk of harm. All allegations of an assault by a prison staff, whether sexual or otherwise, were thoroughly investigated.
There were three major avenues that a child, a lawyer, parents, the family or a member of the public could take if they believed that a child had been abused or mistreated during arrest, the delegation said.
The allegation that all asylum seekers, including children, were detained was not correct, the delegation said. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had affirmed in 2002 that the Mangere Accommodation Centre was an open centre where children and adults had access to excellent education, health and recreational services. The residents could leave the centre during the day and could receive visitors. Parents and children were not generally separated in the best interest of the children. Since 2001, out of 881 asylum seekers arriving in New Zealand, 472 had been granted permits to enter the country, 332 had resided at the Centre and 65 had been detained in penal institutions.
The Penal Institutions Act allowed the Government to award contracts for the private management of penal institutions, the delegation said. The Government expected that its public and private prisons would offer the same level of performance.
On prison population, the delegation said that as of 30 June 2003, New Zealand’s total prison population, including sentenced and remand inmates, was 6,115. That total comprised of 5,795 male and 320 female inmates. Maori and New Zealand European inmates made up 51 per cent and 44 per cent, respectively.
New Zealand was currently examining the administrative and legislative changes necessary to enable the State to ratify the optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, the delegation said. Final decisions had yet to be made by the Cabinet but it was likely that there would be a number of agencies designated as national preventive mechanisms with one agency – the Human Rights Commission.
Asked if access to medical care had a legal basis, the delegation said that while the right for persons arrested or detained by police to have medical care was not specifically embodied in statute, it was regarded as part of the State’s duty to treat detained persons with humanity and respect. In practice, the police would call a health professional if they considered it necessary or if the detained person requested it.
* *** *
12 May 2004
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of New Zealand to questions raised by Committee Experts on how it implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture.
Referring to a question raised by a Committee member about allegations that all asylum seekers, including children, were detained, the delegation said that this was not correct. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had affirmed in 2002 that the Mangere Accommodation Centre for asylum seekers was an open centre where children and adults had access to excellent education, health and recreational services.
The residents could leave the Centre during the day and could receive visitors. Parents and children were not generally separated in the best interest of the children. Since 2001, out of 881 asylum seekers arriving in New Zealand, 472 had been granted permits to enter the country, 332 had resided at the Centre and 65 had been detained in penal institutions.
On the solitary confinement -- “non-voluntary segregation” -- of the Algerian national Ahmed Zaoui, the delegation said it was the warrant of commitment issued by the court that required him to be detained in a penal institution. As he was deemed to constitute a threat to national security and a danger to the security of the country, the Immigration Act required that he be held in detention until the security risk certificate process was concluded. The New Zealand Refugee Authority recognized Mr. Zaoui as a refugee.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the third periodic report of New Zealand at 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 May, in the presence of the delegation.
As one of the 135 States parties to the Convention, New Zealand is obligated to submit periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to prevent and punish acts of torture. An 8-member of New Zealand delegation responded to the questions of the Committee.
When the Committee reconvenes in public at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 13 May, it will issue its conclusions and recommendations on the third periodic report of the Czech Republic. It will meet in private in the morning to discuss draft conclusions on country reports already considered this session.
Response of New Zealand
Responding to a series of questions and observations raised by the Committee on 11 May, the delegation of New Zealand said, among other things, that the country implemented its international obligations through a combination of legislation and administrative measures. The non-refoulement obligation under article 3 of the Convention against Torture was implemented administratively and reinforced by a common law requirement upon decision-makers to consider the obligation.
On the administrative measures and common law protections that ensured implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the country, the delegation said that the Government has signalled that it intended to review aspects of the Immigration Act over the next 12 months. The scope of the review had not been finalized.
Asked if article 3 could be taken as the basis for a decision on non-refoulement, the delegation said five claims had been made to the Removal Review Authority and four claims to the Minster of Immigration. The claims to the Authority were denied, but those decisions were now subject to judicial review and appeal. Two claims to the Minister had yet to be determined; the other two were denied; however, temporary work permits would be issued to the people concerned. The Government had expelled 1,603 persons until 30 June 2003.
On the solitary confinement -- “non-voluntary segregation” -- of the Algerian national Ahmed Zaoui, the delegation said it was the warrant of commitment issued by the court that required him to be detained in a penal institution. There was no formal link between a “security risk certificate” and the security conditions under which the person was then managed. However, issuing a certificate represented a statement of extreme concern by the country’s intelligence community which usually resulted in maximum security management, at least until time allowed a more considered and experience-based assessment.
A question was raised on why Mr. Zaoui continued to be held in detention despite his refugee status recognized by the Refugee Status Appeal Authority, to which the delegation said the security risk certificate that dictated Mr. Zaoui’s treatment contained classified security information that was not available to the Authority and could not be made available to the Committee. As he was deemed to constitute a threat to national security and a danger to the security of the country, the Immigration Act required that he be held in detention until the security risk certificate process was concluded. That process contained measures to ensure that his rights and the public interest were appropriately weighed.
The Ombudsman’s 2003 annual report had expressed concern about delays in reporting and investigating allegations of assault on inmates by prison staff, particularly in the Auckland maximum-security prison, and recommended the installation of video cameras, the delegation said. The delays experienced at Auckland prison had been addressed by the implementation of a more robust regional tracking and monitoring regime, for when complaints were made. Managers involved in investigative procedures and processes were also being more comprehensively trained. Video cameras were progressively being installed in prisons, and decisions had recently been made to videotape staff when they used control and restraint.
Allegations of any assault on an inmate, including sexual assault, were recorded and notified through the Corrections Incident Reporting system, the delegation said. All incidents were also reported to an Operations Advisor at National Office. When an allegation or an incident occurred involving an inmate, immediate action was taken to reduce the risk of harm. All allegations of an assault by a prison staff, whether sexual or otherwise, were thoroughly investigated.
There were three major avenues that a child, a lawyer, parents, the family or a member of the public could take if they believed that a child had been abused or mistreated during arrest, the delegation said.
The allegation that all asylum seekers, including children, were detained was not correct, the delegation said. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had affirmed in 2002 that the Mangere Accommodation Centre was an open centre where children and adults had access to excellent education, health and recreational services. The residents could leave the centre during the day and could receive visitors. Parents and children were not generally separated in the best interest of the children. Since 2001, out of 881 asylum seekers arriving in New Zealand, 472 had been granted permits to enter the country, 332 had resided at the Centre and 65 had been detained in penal institutions.
The Penal Institutions Act allowed the Government to award contracts for the private management of penal institutions, the delegation said. The Government expected that its public and private prisons would offer the same level of performance.
On prison population, the delegation said that as of 30 June 2003, New Zealand’s total prison population, including sentenced and remand inmates, was 6,115. That total comprised of 5,795 male and 320 female inmates. Maori and New Zealand European inmates made up 51 per cent and 44 per cent, respectively.
New Zealand was currently examining the administrative and legislative changes necessary to enable the State to ratify the optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, the delegation said. Final decisions had yet to be made by the Cabinet but it was likely that there would be a number of agencies designated as national preventive mechanisms with one agency – the Human Rights Commission.
Asked if access to medical care had a legal basis, the delegation said that while the right for persons arrested or detained by police to have medical care was not specifically embodied in statute, it was regarded as part of the State’s duty to treat detained persons with humanity and respect. In practice, the police would call a health professional if they considered it necessary or if the detained person requested it.
* *** *
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: