COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE ISSUES RECOMMENDATIONS ON REPORT OF BULGARIA

AFTERNOON
HR/CAT/99/15
5 May 1999


Continues Consideration of Report of Luxembourg

The Committee against Torture praised Bulgaria this afternoon for steps taken to further adhere to the text of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, including its abolishment of the death penalty and its emphasis on educating law enforcement officials in the field of human rights, particularly with regard to the prohibition against torture.

Still, Committee expert Bent Sorensen, who served as rapporteur to the report, noted that the State could do more. Bulgaria still did not define torture in its domestic laws, nor did it specifically criminalize acts of torture. And there had been continued reporting from reliable non-governmental organizations of ill-treatment by public officials, particularly the police, especially against persons belonging to ethnic minorities.

Following the Committee's presentation of its conclusions and recommendations to Bulgaria, it listened to a delegation from Luxembourg that provided answers to questions asked by Committee members when its second periodic report was presented on Tuesday.

Led by Michèle Pranchere-Tomassini, Luxembourg's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the delegation responded to the queries about its report. The delegation clarified its system of informing detainees of their legal rights, and said a working group could soon consider reducing the maximum amount of time a prisoner could be held in solitary confinement to three months.

There was no specific procedure in place to monitor interrogations because cases of torture had not happened in the country for decades, the delegation added.


Luxembourg's delegation will return on Friday at 3 p.m. to hear the Committee's conclusions and recommendations on its report. The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 6 May, to consider the second periodic report of Morocco.

Conclusions and Recommendations on Report of Bulgaria

BENT SORENSEN, who served as the Committee’s rapporteur to the report of Bulgaria, cited as positive aspects that the State had made the declarations recognizing the Committee's competence under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention and that it had ratified, among other international and regional treaties, the European Convention of Prevention of Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Other positive aspects included that the State had abolished the death penalty; continued to reform and amend its domestic laws in order to protect human rights; and continued its efforts to educate law enforcement officials in the field of human rights, particularly with regard to the prohibition against torture.

The rapporteur noted as subjects of concern the lack in domestic law of a definition of torture in accordance with article 1 of the Convention, the failure to ensure that all acts of torture were offenses under criminal law, and that the legislative and other measures were not sufficiently effective to ensure the respect of the provisions of article 3 of the Convention. Other subjects of concern were the lack of measures to ensure universal jurisdiction with regard to acts of torture in all circumstances; the continued reporting from reliable non-governmental organizations on ill-treatment by public officials, particularly the police, especially against persons belonging to minorities; and the deficiencies relating to a prompt and impartial system of investigation of alleged cases of torture and the failure to bring those allegations before a judge or another appropriate judicial authority.

The Committee recommended that the State party continue its efforts to implement the provisions of the Convention, particularly articles 1 through 6, by adopting the necessary legislative measures in that regard. Other recommendations were for Bulgaria to continue its policies and efforts to educate law enforcement personnel as well as medical personnel about the prohibition of torture, and to take effective steps to put an end to practices of ill-treatment by the police which still occurred. The Committee said all prisoners' correspondence addressed to international bodies of investigation or settlement of disputes should be excluded from ''censor checks'' by prison personnel or other authorities. Bulgaria should submit its third and fourth periodic reports due on 25 June 1996 and 25 June 2000 respectively on 25 June 2000 at the latest.

Responses from Luxembourg

In response to a question about the status of a bill to criminalize the act of torture, the delegation said the bill encompassed information about torture committed abroad. It also contained a provision that prohibited the extradition of a person to a country where he could be tortured. It was hoped that the legislative procedure would be completed before the end of the year.

The delegation said the existing law compels the judicial police to inform the person in custody of his right to immediate counsel. This information must be submitted in writing in a language comprehensible to the detainee.

On reducing the maximum length of the solitary confinement sentences of up to 12 months, the delegation said the Ministry of Justice had decided to review its procedures. It was highly probable that a working group could shorten the maximum length of a sentence to three months. In 1997, the maximum penalty was only sentenced once. In other cases, it was only three months.

Dealing with questions about the report not referring to article 8, the delegation said it did not think it was necessary to include the implementation of this article because it was directly applicable in Luxembourg law.

To clarify the application of article 11, which related to the monitoring of methods of interrogation, the delegation said it had no specific monitoring procedures since cases of torture had fortunately not occurred in Luxembourg for decades. Even since before the second World War there had not been any incidents, except during the war, which hopefully was an isolated case.

The delegation also said there was a request for details about articles 12 and 13 concerning investigations into allegations of torture. Those alleging violations could appeal to the relevant authorities. The law provided guarantees for all who claimed to be victims of an offense. A preliminary investigation was always ordered by the public prosecutor if there was an allegation of violation of bodily integrity. This was an obligation set forth in law. If it was believed the public prosecutor was not pressing forward, the Minister of Justice had the right to ask the public prosecutor to undertake the investigation.

On article 14, which related to the right of the victim to claim compensation and redress, the general principle was that any victim could claim redress in the courts. In criminal offenses, it could be referred to the civil section, or it could be a civil aspect that was handled by the judge dealing with the criminal proceedings in the case. If the offense had been committed by State authorities, then the victim could make claims directly against the State. Luckily, these cases were very rare. They dealt not only with the offense, but also the speed with which the bureaucracy moved to deal with the offense.


The delegation said that article 15 stated that testimony given under torture could not be presented as evidence. The Government had not taken any measures in this area. It believed that it was not necessary to undertake such legislation because case law showed that evidence obtained under duress could not be used, and that was not an isolated case. The Government had a long history of jurisprudence. Up until now, there had never been any problems in this area. If it had been proved that a declaration or testimony had been given under duress, then this fact could be used against those that committed the acts of torture.