COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE ISSUES CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON REPORT OF ICELAND

AFTERNOON
HR/CAT/98/39
17 November 1998




Hears Responses of Hungary to Questions By Committee Members


The Committee against Torture this afternoon issued its conclusions and recommendations on a report presented by Iceland, expressing concern about the use of solitary confinement as a preventive measure during pre-trial detention.

The Committee last week examined the report of Iceland on its compliance with the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was defended by an Icelandic Government delegation.

In its recommendations, the Committee urged the Government to include in the penal legislation of Iceland torture as a specific crime and to review the provisions regulating solitary confinement during pre-trial detention in order to reduce considerably the cases to which solitary confinement could be applicable.

Also this afternoon, the Committee heard the responses of the delegation of Hungary to the questions raised this morning by experts. The Hungarian delegation told the Committee that there might be a high proportion of Roma detainees in Hungarian prisons but there was no discrimination against them. The provisions of the Convention applied to all citizens on equal footing.

The Hungarian delegation said asylum-seekers or immigrants were not detained, but were kept in community shelters where they were free to move. Only foreigners who violated the law were subjected to detention.

As States parties to the Convention against Torture, Iceland and Hungary must submit periodic summaries to the Committee on their efforts in implementing the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee will issue its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Hungary at 12 a.m. on Thursday, 19 November.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 November, it will take up the second periodic report of Tunisia.

Concluding Observations and Recommendations on Report of Iceland

The Committee considered as positive aspects Iceland's declarations which were necessary to recognize the Committee's competence under article 21 and 22 of the Convention; the amendments to the Constitution adopted in 1995 that were aimed at enhancing protection of human rights and establish, in particular, the absolute prohibition of torture; and enactment by the Icelandic authorities of legislation and rules on the rights of arrested persons, interrogations by the police, and the protection of persons committed to psychiatric hospitals against their will.

The Committee was concerned that torture was not considered as a specific crime in the penal legislation of the State party. It was also concerned about the use of solitary confinement, particularly as a preventive measure during pre-trial detention.

The Committee recommended that torture as a specific crime be included in the penal legislation of Iceland; that Icelandic authorities review the provisions regulating solitary confinement during pre-trial detention in order to reduce considerably the cases to which solitary confinement could be applicable; that legislation concerning evidence to be adduced in judicial proceedings be brought in line with the provisions of article 15 of the Convention so as to explicitly exclude any evidence made as a result of torture; and that information on constraining measures applied in psychiatric hospitals be included in Iceland's next periodic report.

Response of Hungary

In response to the questions raised this morning by members of the Committee, the delegation said that in the event of conflict between domestic and international law, Hungarian legislation provided that the Convention prevailed over domestic law.

On the question regarding the function and role of the Ombudsman, the delegation said that it had an investigative role and its function was similar to any European Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman could receive complaints from individuals. Citizens also had the right to directly file complaints to the constitutional courts.

Concerning the visit by members of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture to Hungary in November 1994, the delegation said that the Committee widely recognized the adherence of Hungarian legislation as well as the conditions in prisons and police stations to existing international norms and standards. The second visit was expected to take place next year, the delegation added.

Regarding the question on Hungary's geographical reservations to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, the delegation said that it had already lifted the reservations which were made at the time of ratification.

There was no practice of discrimination in places of detention, the Government officials said. Only those who violated Hungarian law were detained. Asylum-seekers and immigrants were not necessarily detained, but were confined in community shelters where they were free to move or to leave.

In response to a question on whether Hungarian citizens were subjected to extradition to another country by Hungarian authorities, the delegation affirmed that no Hungarian had been subjected to such a measure. Nevertheless, in exceptional cases, a Hungarian citizen could be extradited if he or she had committed crimes against humanity.

Hungarian law did not provide for the detention of children under the age of 14, the delegation said. The question on the high proportion of detainees of the Roma minority was not easy to answer. The number might be high, but there was no discrimination against them. The provisions of the Convention applied to all citizens without distinction.

The delegation of Hungary further said that there were educational centres where programmes of human rights teachings were provided, including the provisions of the Convention against Torture.

On the situation of refugees, the Hungarian officials stressed that the issue was a new challenge for the Government. There had been 150,000 refugees present under its territory for the past 10 years. The refugees were chiefly from Romania and Yugoslavia and their cases had been the focus of continued discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Government had kept most of the refugees in community shelters where they enjoyed their right to liberty of movement. Nevertheless, those who violated the law were kept in different places.

Furthermore, the delegation said that Hungary was not the final destination for many of the refugees who needed temporary protection coming from war-torn regions. As a consequence, some countries were putting pressures on Hungary so it did not become a transit point.

On the question of the separation of military and civil jurisdiction, the delegation said that if a crime was committed by military personnel, the Attorney-General was involved, while military crimes concerned the special military Attorney-General.

Regarding the success of complaints against law enforcing personnel, the delegation said that 22 per cent of complaints filed by individuals could go to court. Out of those complaints examined by courts, 50 per cent received negative judgement against the law-enforcing forces, added the delegation.

The number of female detainees in all Hungarian prison centres amounted to 829, while the male prisoners numbered 13,443, the delegation said. All jails had separate cells for male and female inmates.

In response to additional questions raised by members of the Committee, the delegation said that in case torture was committed by a military official, it was dealt with by the competent military authorities. However, if a common crime was committed by the military official, the judicial authorities could intervene. In separate proceedings, the victims of torture could also turn to the State for redress or medical rehabilitation.

A question was also raised on the high number of complaints of cruel treatment in police custody to which the delegation promised to bring the matter to the attention of the authorities in Budapest.