HR/CAT/99/8
30 April 1999



The Committee against Torture this morning took up the report of Bulgaria on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Petko Draganov, Permanent Representative of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, told Committee experts that his country had made wide-ranging reforms in the field of human rights protection and torture prevention in recent years. These included passing the Judiciary Act and the Combatting Anti-social Behaviour by Minors and Adolescents Act which addressed criminal and detainee rights.

Mr. Draganov said Bulgaria's abolition of the death penalty, despite public opposition, on 10 December 1998 -- the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- illustrated the nation's commitment to adhering to the tenants of the Convention.

Bent Sorensen, who served as the Committee's rapporteur to the report, said Bulgaria should adopt into its domestic laws a definition of torture as well as a specific statute outlawing torture. Without a detailed prohibition of torture, he said, in essence, there could not be a crime of torture.

Alexander Yakovlev, who served as the Committee co-rapporteur, meanwhile focused on the Bulgarian law enforcement community's treatment of minority populations, particularly the Roma minority. He asked if there were specific laws prohibiting discrimination and what were the systems in place to monitor police brutality.

The delegation will respond to the questions raised by the Committee at 3 p.m. on Monday, 3 May. The Committee will resume its meeting at 3 p.m. this afternoon to hear replies from Venezuela on its queries, and to offer its conclusions on the report of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Report of Bulgaria

The second periodic report of Bulgaria (CAT/C/17/Add.19) reviews what the country has done in terms of promotion and protection of human rights since it presented its first report to the Committee in November 1991. The report also describes, article-by-article, its attempts to comply with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government had introduced into the Penal Code a sentence of life imprisonment, which is meant to eventually succeed the death penalty. (The report was submitted to the Committee in July 1998, six months before the death penalty was abolished.) Currently, the death penalty is legal in Bulgaria, but the life imprisonment procedure is a ''legal and political prerequisite'' for the eventual abolition of capital punishment. The prevailing attitude of the public is to keep the death penalty, but evidenced by a moratorium on death sentences -- the State has not executed anybody since 1990 -- the question is not if it will be outlawed in Bulgaria, but when. Likewise, while there is no specific crime against ''torture,'' and legislation to change that is often seen as duplicative to statutes against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, the report said efforts to pass a bill specifically prohibiting torture will continue to be introduced before Parliament.

Introduction of Report of Bulgaria

PETKO DRAGANOV, the Permanent Representative of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said his country considered the Convention against Torture as one of the basic modern international legal documents that specified the obligations for tolerant and human attitude towards all citizens by officials while performing their duty functions.

On two occasions in 1992, Bulgaria had withdrawn its reservations over certain articles in the Convention, and in the period following 1992, the country had ratified and promulgated a number of important international legal instruments related to the subject of the Convention against Torture. Mr. Draganov said that in accordance with the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Bulgaria had cooperated fully with the members of the Committee’s delegation who came to the country for inspections in April and May 1995.

Mr. Draganov said there had been changes in the Penal Code, the Penal Procedure Code, the Execution of Punishments Act and the regulations on its implementations, the Judiciary Act, and the Combatting Anti-social Behaviour by Minors and Adolescents Act. The main goal of these changes was to expand and increase penal responsibility under article 4 of the Convention. These activities would be dealt with in the subsequent periodic report of Bulgaria.

Since 1997, six amendments had been introduced to the Penal Code, he said. The most important was the abolition of the death penalty for all crimes. It was passed on 10 December 1998 on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In spite of a certain reluctance in general public opinion toward the abolition, the Bulgarian authorities took the decision in line with the country's political commitments as a member of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Draganov said the Penal Code also aimed at a more effective protection of the individual against acts of torture under the Convention, such as murder, body injury, kidnapping, sexual crimes, and crimes against children. The legislation was now much more strict towards law enforcement officials. It provided for heavier sanctions and sentences in cases of disproportionate use of force, extortion, kidnapping and arbitrary detention perpetrated by those officials.

The Permanent Representative of Bulgaria said a review was carried out of the existing rules and practices related to the arrest and treatment of suspects, convicts and prisoners under police interrogation. Despite present limitations in public spending, living conditions of detainees were steadily improving. The premises for detention, the food, the medical services, the contacts with the outside world, and the time spent in open air were being brought up to the universally accepted standards.

Mr. Draganov said that as a result of an intensified campaign by the non-governmental sector aimed at raising public awareness about preventing torture, there was now growing intolerance among the general public towards criminal acts of physical and mental violence as qualified by the Convention.

Special attention was given by the State to counteract manifestations of intolerance against individuals belonging to the Roma community. At the beginning of this month, the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues at the Council of Ministers, together with the representatives of more than 150 Roma organizations, had produced a National Programme for the Full Integration of the Roma into Bulgarian Society. The programme had already been approved by the Government.

In conclusion, Mr. Draganov noted that the Government was fully aware that in spite of the progress in evidence, not all that was desired in the field had been achieved. The progress, however illustrated a strong commitment for a faster and radical elimination of the existing shortcomings and for increasing the effectiveness of all measures aimed at achieving the goals of the Convention.


Discussion

BENT SORENSEN, the Committee rapporteur to the report, said it was almost seven years overdue, and the due date for the third report had already passed. It was sincerely hoped that the new report would be ready by its new date of 26 June 2000. Still, he welcomed the abolition of the death penalty and other changes that had been made to the statutes of the country.

Mr. Sorensen said domestic law should contain a definition of torture and there should be a provision formalizing torture as a specific crime. Torture was not covered by several provisions in the Penal Code, as stated in paragraph 9. It was very important to specify the crime because it was a special crime in so many ways. There was severe pain and suffering, both physically and mentally; it was done intentionally; and it was done by a public official. If the country did not have a specific crime, there could be no torture there.

Some pre-trial prisoners were held in police stations for long periods of time, he said, when it was known that the stations were built for short stays. There mostly was no access to the outside, and conditions were generally not up to standard. Prisons were for long-term stays. Was that still a practice as it was in 1995?

Mr. Sorensen said the decision to place a child into a corrective boarding school could be made by a local board, a judge, or a prosecutor. Could such decisions be appealed? For children who had nobody to look after them, who paid special attention to them, as outlined in paragraph 16.

On extradition, he asked, what were the assurances that a person would not be sent back to a country where he or she were sure to be tortured? The Convention was clear - if there was a risk of being tortured, the person could not be sent back, even if the person was a terrorist.

Mr. Sorensen said the report stated that there were 46 reported cases of physical force by police, which was not a high number. However, they had resulted in 5 deaths which was a high number. Was there only that many cases in a six-year period, or were there more? In conclusion, he suggested Bulgaria make a symbolic donation to the Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims.

ALEXANDER YAKOVLEV, the Committee expert who served as co-rapporteur to the report, said it was clear that the Government was doing much to follow the provisions of the Convention, and that was welcome news, but much more needed to be done. Recognizing the problem of the Roma minority was the first step toward solving it. Unfortunately, there were instances where excessive police force had been used against Roma, as well as instances of unjustified use of firearms. It was reported that at least three Roma had died in situations like that.

Mr. Yakovlev asked if there were laws aimed specifically against discrimination, and if there was adequate protection against discrimination? What were the mechanisms in place to monitor police brutality? Police were obliged to use force, but they must not use excessive or unnecessary force. What were the standards for police use of firearms? It would help the Committee to have these questions answered.

Other Committee experts raised further questions about the admissibility of evidence obtained through tortuous means, a provision in the report about the connection between torture and suicide, and why a Special Rapporteur's request for information from Bulgaria had not been answered.