COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE TAKES UP REPORT OF FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

MORNING
27.04.1999
HR/CAT/99/3


The Committee against Torture took up a report this morning of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on national efforts to implement the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Goce Petreski, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's Ambassador to the United Nations Office at Geneva and the head of the delegation that presented the comprehensive report to the Committee and fielded questions from the group, said that when the country broke away from Yugoslavia at the beginning of this decade, it had committed itself to a system of parliamentary democracy that included full protection of human rights.

The transformation, Mr. Petreski said, had gone on during extremely unstable times and in gravely difficult economic conditions, which had slowed the achievement of the desired results. The tragic situation in Kosovo had further hindered matters, creating an economic, social, and humanitarian catastrophe in the country.

Committee members widely praised the report, especially what the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been able to accomplish under difficult circumstances. Several members said the comprehensiveness of the report illustrated the country's commitment to the Convention.

Other members focused on particulars, including the admissibility of confessions that were extracted while torture was being practiced, what torture-monitoring mechanisms were in lace, and the criminal liability of subordinates when following orders from superiors.

The Committee will meet in closed meeting this afternoon and return to public meeting Wednesday, 28 April, at 10 a.m. to hear the report of Mauritius. The delegation of the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will return to answer the Committee's questions during Wednesday's afternoon session.

Report of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The initial report of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (CAT/C/28/Add.4) reviews the country's structural framework, both Constitutional and legal, for preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The report also describes competent organs in that field, as well as legal remedies and international conventions ratified.

The report reviews implementation of the Convention, noting the application of domestic laws, on an article-by-article basis. The report notes that the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia is the only country that had been a part of Yugoslavia to gain its independence and sovereignty peacefully. Its citizens expressed their wishes in 1991, and gained entrance into the United Nations in 1992. Among the provisions adopted into its Constitution was the abolition of the death penalty. The last execution sanctioned by the Government there was in July 1988. The report also details the inclusion of human rights education into its educational system, particularly for students at police academies.

Introduction of the Report of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

GOCE PETRESKI, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission in Geneva for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, introduced the report, detailing the efforts of his country to comply with the Convention's language since winning admittance to the United Nations in 1992.

Mr. Petreski said that during this time, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had
established wide observance, promotion and protection of individual human rights. The development of the individual human-rights protection system, in addition to domestic
legislation, was accompanied by international legal protection through ratification of the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European
Convention on Human Rights, as well as through the possibility of submitting communications to the Committee against Torture.

The system's transformation, Mr. Petreski said, was conducted during an extremely unstable
security situation in the region and in gravely difficult economic conditions, which ndoubtedly
had its impact on the achievement of the desired results. In that respect, it was also necessary to underline the disastrous impact of the tragic Kosovo crisis on the stability, economic and political prospects of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Because of the crisis, the country had become an innocent victim and was facing its own economic, social and humanitarian crisis.

The report was divided into two parts, Mr. Petreski said. The first part detailed the framework
and basic information on the social, political and legal system of the Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia through which the Convention's provisions were being implemented. The second part described concrete implementation of certain provisions. It must be understood that implementation was still an on-going process, he said.

Discussion

ALEXANDER YAKOVLEV, who served as the Committee's Rapporteur on the report of the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, said the depth of the report reflected the sincerity of the Government's efforts to comply with the Committee's principles. The country had ratified the Convention as a whole. That was an essential point. He noted with satisfaction that article 11 of the Constitution expressly provided for the abolishment of the practice of torture. He also noted with praise that a post of ombudsman had been established in the country. The function of the ombudsman was to monitor all human rights, but the most acutely felt, the most vulnerable point in the whole picture of observing human rights, was torture. These were important steps.

Mr. Yakovlev praised the State commission that oversaw penitentiaries. It was useful that the
country was participating in seminars about preventing torture, especially two seminars held in 1996 and 1998, he said. Still, there were questions. The law provided the possibility for counsel for defence. At what point did an apprehended person have access to counsel - immediately after arrest, or was there a period of incommunicado detention? Could the counsel have access to the client without an investigator present? Were relatives notified immediately? Were there any medical examinations?

There were very good statistics about disciplinary measures, but were there any statistics about the implementation of the criminal code on torture, Mr. Yakovlev asked. One of the strict guarantees against torture was that often the aim of torture was to extract confessions. And there were questions about the admissibility of evidence gained through the use of torture. Were there any rules prohibiting the use of information gained through torture? Was there any independent body that investigated complaints about torture? Were there any laws that provided for compensation for victims of torture?

There had been information about torture committed by the police against Roma. Mr. Yakovlev asked to what extent did that exist? It was important in multi-ethnic countries to provide protection to minorities.

PETER THOMAS BURNS, the Committee's Chairman and the co-rapporteur for the report,
echoed the positive comments -- it was positive that only one non-governmental organization had responded to the State report, for example; that was indicative that the country was regarded as one which was concerned to achieve the same results as NGOs active in this field.

Mr. Burns said the definition of torture in domestic law was not spelled out clearly, however. A
part of the definition was seen in the criminal code, the part about applied force to extract a
confession. But the Committee's definition was much broader than that. Where in the domestic law was the full definition? About jurisdiction, would the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under its domestic rules exercise universal jurisdiction over a person alleged to have had committed torture outside the country to non-citizens if that person were either passing through the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or seeking asylum there? In 1997, there was evidence of excessive force used by police against the Roma. Had that been addressed? Police culture was difficult to shift once established. Mr. Burns lauded that school curricula had adopted the teaching of basic human rights.

There were also specific questions about the rights of the accused, how thoroughly complaints against the police by the Roma population were investigated, and about compensation for victims who were tortured by public officials. Another question centred on the admissibility of confessions. Specifically, were they admissible in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? Was derivative evidence also admissible?

Other committee experts raised further questions. The report referred to the education of
medical personnel, but how were they trained to handle torture cases? Did the training include both physical and psychological effects of torture? The report referred to the ombudsman's covering of organizations and the Government. What kind of organizations fell within that domain? In paragraph 65, there was reference to force, threat or '...unallowed means'. If there were unallowed means, what were allowed means? What was the punishment for law-enforcement personnel inflicting torture who had been acting on orders from a superior? Was there a judge to ensure penalties were being carried out? The report stated that police could only detain a suspect for 24 hours before charging the person with a crime. After 24 hours, did there have to be an appearance before a judge? Did the prisoner have a right to request an appearance?