Committee against Torture offers conclusions and recommendations on report of Uzbekistan

CAT
28th session
8 May 2002
Afternoon


Continues Review of Report of Luxembourg



The Committee against Torture issued its conclusions and recommendations this afternoon on a second periodic report of Uzbekistan, noting concern over "particularly numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations of particularly brutal acts of torture and other cruel treatment committed by law enforcement personnel" and urging establishment of an independent complaints mechanism to ensure prompt and thorough investigations into complaints of such maltreatment.
The Committee also recommended that a register of pre-trial detainees be kept; that the Uzbek Government ensure that such detainees had access to lawyers, doctors, and family members from the time they were taken into custody; that measures be taken to establish independence of the judiciary; and that Uzbekistan promptly proceed with plans to amend domestic penal law to include a crime of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention against Torture.
Among positive developments in the country, the Committee cited establishment of an appeals system for court sentences; and the prosecution and sentencing in January 2002 of four police officials to prison terms for committing acts of torture.
The Committee also carried on this afternoon with its review of a third periodic report of Luxembourg, hearing responses by a Government delegation to questions put by Committee members upon presentation of the report on Tuesday morning. The delegation said, among other things, that solitary confinement for pre-trial detainees had to be authorized by a judge -- that the period was for 10 days and could be renewed once, and that the regime was seldom used but strict; and that detention for identity checks could not exceed four hours and only occurred when a person who was asked for proof of identity refused to provide it.
The Committee will offer its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Luxembourg at 3 p.m on Wednesday, 15 May.
Uzbekistan and Luxembourg, as among the 129 States parties to the Convention against Torture, are obligated to provide the Committee with regular reports on efforts to put the Convention into effect.
The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. on Friday, 10 May, to provide its conclusions and recommendations on a fourth periodic report of Denmark and to continue consideration of an initial report of Saudi Arabia.

Conclusions and Recommendations on Second Periodic Report of Uzbekistan
The Committee cited among positive aspects of the report the Government's efforts to draw up a new definition of torture consistent with that of the Convention and the introduction of a draft law to allow citizens to file complaints of torture; assurances that the State party was determined to establish an independent judiciary; establishment of an appeals system for court sentences; and the prosecution and sentencing in January 2002 of four police officials to prison terms for committing acts of torture.
The Committee noted that "the difficulty of overcoming the inheritance of an authoritarian system in the transition towards a democratic form of governance" and "instability in the region" were factors impeding implementation of the Convention in Uzbekistan.
Concern was cited, among other things, over particularly numerous, ongoing, and consistent allegations of acts of particularly brutal acts of torture and other cruel treatment committed by law-enforcement personnel; an insufficient level of independence and effectiveness of the procuracy; de facto refusal of judges to take into account evidence of torture and ill-treatment provided by accused persons, so that there were neither investigations nor prosecutions; investigations into allegations of torture; and an absence of transparency in the criminal justice system.
Among the Committee's recommendations were that Uzbekistan promptly proceed with plans to amend domestic penal law to include the crime of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention; that it take urgent and effective steps to establish a fully independent complaints mechanism for persons held in official custody and ensure prompt and impartial investigations into the many allegations of torture reported to authorities; that it ensure absolute respect for inadmissibility of evidence obtained by torture; that it take measures to establish and ensure independence of the judiciary; that it permit detainees access to lawyers, doctors, and family members from the time they were taken into custody; that it maintain a register with the names of all detainees and noting the times such notifications had taken place and the results of examinations; that it improve conditions in prisons and detention centres; that Uzbekistan establish a system allowing for unannounced inspections of pre-trial detention centres and prisons; that it ensure that officials in contact with detainees were trained regarding the prohibition of torture; that the Government consider further steps to transfer the prison system from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice; that it review cases of convictions based solely on confessions in the period since Uzbekistan became a party to the Convention, recognizing that many of these might have been obtained through torture or ill-treatment; that the Government ensure that no one would be expelled, returned or extradited to a State where there were substantial grounds to believe he should be in danger of being subjected to torture; and that Uzbekistan make declarations under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.

Discussion of Third Periodic Report of Luxembourg
A Government delegation from Luxembourg , responding to questions put by Committee members on Tuesday morning, said among other things that the Consultative Committee on Human Rights was intended to help the Government with its human rights policies and had members chosen for their special competence, some of whom were foreign citizens; that the Committee had issued two opinions, one on the draft Charter for Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the second on a draft bill concerning the protection of personal data; that the Inspectorate of the Police was an independent body that performed inquiries on the activities of the police, and upon the request of the judiciary carried out investigations into actions of members of the police force; one such inquiry had ended in a criminal sentence and the second in a reprimand.
Some 98 per cent of asylum seekers were rejected, the delegation said, most because they were from regions not at war. However, the rate of granting of asylum had risen of late. Many asylum seekers had come into Luxembourg during the Kosovo crisis -- they amounted to about 1 per cent of the Luxembourg population; these people received six-month temporary permits under a special measure. Access to employment would soon be based on a relevant European Union directive that was soon to be incorporated into Luxembourg domestic law. Repatriation of rejected asylum seekers occurred after a negative ruling and exhaustion of appeal procedures, if filed; after that Luxembourg would pay for a plane ticket and would provide a significant amount of monetary assistance; it further had established assistance centres in Kosovo and Montenegro; if, despite that, a person refused to leave he would be forcibly removed, but not in a way that was degrading or inhumane; such a measure could not be applied to children.
Luxembourg did not extradite its nationals, the delegation said; however, a law allowed Luxembourg jurisdiction for acts of torture committed in foreign countries by Luxembourg citizens.
The law allowed for provision of lawyers for persons who could not afford them, the delegation said; such legal assistance was to be provided in an "acceptable" period of time -- it was not provided at night, as the relevant law offices were not open; and access to doctors or lawyers was applied only to persons suspected of offenses that could result in imprisonment.
Detention for purposes of establishing identity did not include access to doctors or lawyers, the delegation said; such detention could not be for more than four hours; such detentions occurred when a person was stopped on the street and asked to furnish documentation of his identity; a long-standing practice nonetheless provided that anyone in detention who was not feeling well and asked for a doctor was provided with one. Usually verification of identity did not result in detention; that only happened if the person asked refused to produce his identification papers; such persons would be taken to the police station if their fingerprints needed to be taken; there was no judge involved in the procedure since the maximum detention time was four hours; the only control was that the State prosecution agent would be notified and should see that the appropriate procedure was followed.
Solitary confinement for pre-trial detainees had to be authorized by a judge, the delegation said; the period was for 10 days and could be renewed once; the regime was seldom used, but it was strict; the person was kept in an individual cell without television or radio; he had an hour a day to take a walk alone; no contact could be taken up with anyone except the guardians of the centre, the doctor, and the lawyer. The regime for minors was essentially the same as for adults. Psychological follow-up now was done for such detainees and authorized personnel could visit such detainees; for minors there was a daily visit by a psychologist or social worker and by an educator for a young person attending school -- instruction was provided for two hours. To the extent possible solitary confinement was avoided. In prisons, terms of solitary confinement were for periods of 15 days or a month, and in many cases the sentences were not completed. Creation of a specific unit for minors in solitary confinement was still being considered and construction of buildings had not yet started. Currently girls and boys were placed in separate areas of the central penitentiary of Luxembourg.
Vocational training for police and officers of the judiciary police focused on crisis-management situations involving foreigners in general and asylum seekers in particular, the delegation said; courses also were being carried out to sensitize officials to women's issues. Doctors were trained in problems of torture and human rights as part of their medical studies at medical schools in France, Belgium, Germany, Austria and other countries.
The Ministry of Justice was drawing up a list of existing means to ensure greater protection for victims of torture, the delegation said; no specific text existed on reparations or compensation for victims. The principle that proof must be obtained lawfully was fully enshrined in case law and hence no plans had been made specifically to prohibit use in court of evidence obtained through torture. In 2000, there had been 11 cases of violence committed by the police; two cases led to sentences and fines for physical harm; in 2001 there were 13 cases; three were still in course; one had led to a fine for blows and wounds; one affair would be ruled on, it was expected, in September.
Trafficking in human beings was dealt with by a 1999 law, the delegation said; through it Luxembourg legislation was brought into line with the policy of the Council of Ministers of the European Union; Luxembourg jurisdiction had been extended to all crimes involving sexual tourism committed by Luxembourgers while abroad.
Sexual violence in the prisons was rare and statistics were not kept, the delegation said; perpetrators were severely punished; the last serious occurrence had been in 1995, with one person responsible for rape sentenced to 10 years and his accomplice to four years' imprisonment.
Preventive detention of minors was not allowed except for minors over the age of 16 who had committed grave crimes and for which a judge specializing in youth matters decided that normal measures would be inadequate, the delegation said. In these cases, minors could be preventively detained and could be sentenced to imprisonment; in such cases minors would be subjected to the same regime that applied to adults and would be placed in a prison section for young adults.



* *** *