COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE TAKES UP REPORT OF ESTONIA

CAT
29th session
14 November 2002
Morning


The Committee against Torture began review this morning of an initial report of Estonia, questioning a Government delegation, among other things, on the nature of pre-trial detention, whether it was incommunicado or not, and on the duration of detention before a person was brought before a judicial officer.
The Committee expressed concern about allegations that some police officers reportedly had obliged some detainees to maltreat others. Members of the panel asked if a detainee had the opportunity to go immediately before a court if he felt he had been arrested, held, or treated unlawfully.
The Estonian report was introduced by Marina Kaljurand, Deputy Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who said among other things that Estonia had acceded in September 1991 to almost 30 of the most important United Nations treaties and conventions. She said a new Penal Code aimed to develop a flexible and individualized penal system, and stipulated several crimes against health, including torture, which was punishable by up to five years' imprisonment or by fines.
Other members of the Estonian delegation were Clyde Kull, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Estonia to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Mai Hion, Director of the Human Rights Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Rasmus Luni, Assistant to the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ülle Raig, Legal Adviser of the Penal Law Department of the Ministry of Justice; and Kirke Kraav, Third Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Estonia in Geneva.
The delegation will reply to the Committee’s questions at 3 p.m. Friday, 15 November.
Estonia, as one of 131 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must provide periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to put the Convention into effect.
The Committee will reconvene in public session at 2:30 p.m. to hear replies from a delegation of Egypt to questions posed Wednesday upon presentation of Egypt’s fourth periodic report.

Report of Estonia
The initial report of Estonia (CAT/C/16/Add.9) reviews implementation of the Convention on an article-by-article basis. The report notes among other things that a basic provision relating to protection from torture is to be found in article 18 of the Constitution. Article 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that it is prohibited to attempt to obtain testimony from a suspect, accused, accused at trial or other persons participating in a criminal matter by violence, threats or other illegal means. Upon commission of such activity a preliminary investigator, prosecutor or judge will be held criminally liable in accordance with articles 171 and 172 of the Criminal Code. In 1998, 20 criminal cases were brought on the basis of article 172, and three persons were convicted in the court of first instance.
The report also notes that the State Liability Act establishes the protection and restoration of rights that have been violated in the course of implementation of powers by public authorities and provides the basis and procedure for compensation. A person may demand monetary compensation of non-material damage in the case, among others, of culpable degradation of his or her dignity, damaging of health, or deprivation of liberty. The State Liability Act entered into force on 1 January 2002.
The Disciplinary Measures in Armed Forces Act establishes deprivation of liberty as a disciplinary punishment both in the form of disciplinary detention and disciplinary arrest. Disciplinary arrest is imposed on servicemen who have committed a disciplinary offence or have repeatedly or seriously violated discipline in the defence forces. The length of arrest is 3-10 days, the report states.

Presentation of Report
MARINA KALJURAND, Deputy Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that in order to fill the gap in the field of international law and particularly human rights, Estonia acceded in September 1991 to almost 30 of the most important United Nations treaties and conventions. From the beginning of 2001, the Public Information Act had established a legal obligation to ensure that the public had the opportunity to access public information and to monitor the performance of public duties. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had interpreted the disclosure of the present report and the recommendations made on it to fall under the relevant articles of the Public Information Act.
Ms Kaljurand said issues raised in the report with respect to Penal Law were based on the Estonian Criminal Code, which had been replaced by a new Penal Code as of 1st September 2002. The aim of the penal reform was the development of a flexible and individualized penal system. Indeed, in each individual case, the reason for the criminal behaviour was the centre of attention. Ms. Kaljurand stressed the importance of re-socialisation of prisoners that was achieved by providing them with an opportunity to work or study. The new Penal Code also stipulated several offences against health, such as physical abuse and torture, which were punishable by up to five years of imprisonment or by fines. A new Code of Criminal Procedure was being discussed in Parliament; a more economic and effective administration of criminal justice was intended. Through amendment to detention procedure, it would no longer be possible to prolong the period of detention, currently for a maximum of one year. Any pre-trial investigation had to be carried out within that period.
The new Imprisonment Act came into force on 1st of December 2000, and was based on “The European Prison Rules” adopted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. Ms. Kaljurand said the Estonian Government had paid substantial attention to the living conditions of prisoners, and a new Tartu prison, corresponding to recognized international standards, was to be officially opened tomorrow, 15 November.
Beginning in 2001, experts from the Ministry of Justice had periodically carried out prison inspections. The biggest challenge in the forthcoming years for Estonian prison system was the development of a professional and motivated prison service. In 2001, the Department of Prisons of the Ministry of Justice elaborated a prison development strategy through 2005. The aim was to establish a regional system of cell-type prisons, to create a number of open prisons, to bring all prisons into conformity with the needs of the penal practice, and to increase the number of prisoners in educational or work programmes to 70 per cent.

Discussion
A number of questions were put to the Estonian delegation, which will respond to the queries at 3 p.m. Friday, 15 November.
Serving as rapporteur on the report of Estonia was Committee Expert PETER THOMAS BURNS, who asked among other things how long a person could be detained by the police before brought before a judicial officer; what was the nature of pre-trial detention; and whether it was incommunicado. He also asked if a detainee got the opportunity to go immediately before a court in a case of unlawful custody; how judges were appointed and removed; and whether the definition of torture contained in the Convention was incorporated into Estonian domestic law. He said he was concerned that during a state of emergency or of war, the law might authorize torture, which was firmly condemned by the Convention.
Article 21 of the Estonian Refugees Act stipulated that Estonia would not expel or return a person or refugee to a State where his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of his or her race, nationality or religion, Mr. Burns said. He asked if Estonia would send back a person who had not yet entered the country but was on the border, despite the risk of such threats if the person were repatriated. He also asked if the police were given training about the provisions contained in international human rights instruments and if the medical personnel were trained to detect signs of torture.
Mr. Burns said there had been allegations that police officers had obliged prisoners to maltreat others, and asked what steps had been taken to avoid such abuses.
Serving as co-rapporteur on the report was Committee Expert FELICE GAER, who noted that reports submitted under different UN human rights instruments were going to be translated into Estonian, and asked if they were also going to be translated into Russian. She also asked, among other things, if prison inspections by independent NGOs were permitted; about length and conditions of pre-trial custody; and about a reported 20 letters of complaint sent per day by prisoners to the authorities. Ms. Gaer asked about the nature of these complaints, if they were analyzed and if there was follow-up. About anonymity as a protection measure to ensure the security of a victim or a witness to a criminal procedure, Ms. Gaer asked if Estonian measures to ensure anonymity were sufficient.
She also asked if the country's Ombudsman investigated prisons; about the situation of mentally disabled persons in prisons; to what extent was rehabilitation of victims of torture provided; how many aliens were kept in Estonian prisons; and why they were not allowed to apply for residency permits; and what measures had been taken to deal with the problem of illegal orphan migrants.
Other members of the Committee also put questions. They asked among other things about the length of administrative detention; about the medical examinations during detention; whether the decisions of the Ombudsman were mandatory for Government institutions or only considered recommendations; and about how many stateless person lived in Estonia. An expert expressed concern about expulsions of children and asked if measures had been taken for the protection of such children.



* *** *