Committee against Torture Issues conclusions and recommendations on report of Morocco, hears replies from Liechtenstein

Afternoon
HR/CAT/99/23
11 May 1999



The Committee against Torture this afternoon cited its satisfaction with Morocco’s adoption of several treaties into its domestic laws and its initiation of a programme under which recently-released political detainees were paid an allowance.

The Committee expressed its concern that the State had not adopted into its domestic laws a specific definition of torture, and said it remained troubled by continued allegations of mistreatment and torture.

The Committee's recommendations on the report of Morocco included the need to add a definition of torture into its laws, and to reform its expulsion and extradition statutes so they conformed with the text of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Also this afternoon, the Committee heard responses to questions it put to the delegation of Liechtenstein on Monday. Uwe Langenbahn, the Chief of Staff of Liechtenstein's National Police, told the Committee experts that when the country transferred prisoners to neighbouring Austria for imprisonment, Austria was liable for compensation if there was a case of torture or mistreatment. He also told the experts that although visits by a detainee's counsel could be monitored if there was a threat of collusion, this rarely happened.

The Committee will issue its recommendations and conclusions on the report of Egypt at 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 May. It will issue its recommendations on the report of Liechtenstein at 4 p.m. At 3 p.m. tomorrow, Bertie Ramcharan, the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, is scheduled to address the Committee.

Conclusions and Recommendations on report of Morocco

GUIBRIL CAMARA, who served as the Committee’s rapporteur on the report of Morocco, praised it for the political will that demonstrated a true state of law, as evidenced by paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 17 of the report. He noted positively the Government's decision to pay an allowance to recently-released political prisoners and to pay for their medical care when necessary. He also noted Morocco’s implementation of several recommendations made by the Committee after its first report was considered, including the publishing of a journal containing the text of the Convention.

Mr. Camara said the Committee was concerned about the absence of a specific definition of torture from the statutes, continued reports of torture and ill-treatment, and the non-conformity of Moroccan legislation in matters of expulsion and extradition as pertaining to the text of the Convention.

The Committee recommended that Morocco implement a definition of torture into its general laws, and reform its extradition and expulsion laws so that they conformed with the provisions of the Convention.

Responses from Liechtenstein

UWE LANGENBAHN, the Chief of Staff of the National Police of Liechtenstein, responding to a question concerning ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, said that during the international consultation process in view of the enactment of legislation on cooperation with the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in 1998, the decision had been made to wait for the outcome of the negotiations on the statute for an International Criminal Court. In the current preparatory work for the ratification of the Rome Statute, the question was being examined on whether it would be possible to include in a law on cooperation with the ICC provisions for cooperation with the two ad hoc tribunals, since the issues to be regulated were of the same nature.

Concerning a detainee’s right to choose a physician, Mr. Langenbahn said the regular physician for arrested, detained or imprisoned persons was the public-health officer. In well-founded cases, a private medical practitioner of the patient's own choice would be admitted. In practice, the public health officer would refer every case to a specialized doctor, psychiatrist or psychological therapist when such a measure was indicated from a medical point of view. A permanent service of doctors on call was ensured.

Mr. Langenbahn said a general prohibition of visits in case of danger of collusion was not allowed under Liechtenstein law. Also, in cases of collusion, visits of relatives and others were possible, but in those cases, they were monitored by officers. In some very restricted cases, visits of certain persons could be restricted in case of collusion, for example, if the visitor and the prisoner talked to each other in a way not understandable to the present officer. The limitation of contact had to be lifted as soon as the reason for its imposition no longer applied.

Mr. Langenbahn said every arrested, detained or imprisoned person had at any time the right to receive visits from a counsel for the defence, especially a lawyer. In case of danger of collusion, the visits of the counsel to the person in custody could be monitored by a court officer. There was no obligation in Liechtenstein to have a lawyer as counsel for the defence, so that any person could act as counsel, for example, the father of the person in custody. It was obvious that in such a case, the danger of collusion existed. In practice, of course, nowadays the counsel of the defence was always a lawyer. Due to the severe professional rules for lawyers and due to public disciplinary subordination, visits of lawyers to persons in custody were not monitored by any court officer.

He said the reason for possibly long pre-trial detentions must be seen in connection with the small territory of Liechtenstein. In such a small country, many criminal cases were cross-border cases and, especially in the area of economic crime, many jurisdictions could be involved leading to a corresponding number of proceedings of judicial aid. Due to these circumstances, the duration of pre-trial detentions were dependent on the duration of the judicial aid proceedings of the countries involved. It must be kept in mind, however, that in any case, the imposition of pre-trial detention required a strong suspicion and detention could only be imposed if no minor encroachment leading to the same result was available.

With regards to prisoners who were transferred to Austria for imprisonment, he said in case of torture or mistreatment, the Austrian State was liable for compensation if representatives of Austrian authorities were responsible for such acts.

Asked about the conditions for female and juvenile prisoners at Liechtenstein's only prison, Mr. Langenbahn said female prisoners were lodged on a floor completely separated from male prisoners. In 1996, 13 women were detained or imprisoned for a total of 95 days. In 1997, seven women were held for a total of 57 days, and in 1998, eight women were held for a total of 70 days. This meant that the women's part of the prison was empty for most of the year. Therefore, it was not possible to employ female officers. The male officers were submitted to special rules concerning the treatment of female prisoners and it had been agreed with the office of social services that women prisoners were regularly visited by female social workers and were allowed to talk to them unmonitored. Body searches were always carried out by female police officers.

Concerning juveniles, Mr. Langenbahn said they had to be kept separated from adult prisoners. In practice, the imprisonment of juveniles had not occurred for many years in the country. In case that a juvenile had to be kept under custody, there was the possibility to keep him or her in a nearby Austrian prison with special parts for juveniles.