COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE TAKES UP REPORT OF LUXEMBOURG

CAT
28th session
7 May 2002
Morning





Government Officials Queried on Asylum Acceptance Rates,
Solitary Confinement, Detention for Identity Checks


The Committee against Torture began its consideration this morning of a third periodic report of Luxembourg, questioning a Government delegation among other things on whether rates of acceptance of asylum seekers, reported at around 1 per cent, were too restrictive; if solitary confinement, although reduced from 20 to 12 days, was still too extensive and if the conditions of such confinement were more severe than necessary; and what was the reason for a law allowing detention for identity checks.

Committee members praised the country's performance and noted that a number of Committee recommendations on Luxembourg's second periodic report had been implemented. Among other questions were if Luxembourg was willing to extradite someone being sought by a third country for acts in violation of the Convention; and if lawyers, doctors and family members were allowed immediate access to pre-trial detainees.

The report was introduced by Claude Nicolay, Luxembourg's Deputy Procurator General of State, who said among other things that a law had been passed transposing all of the Convention's provisions into national legislation, as requested by the Committee, thus establishing torture as a separate crime; and that a General Police Inspection Department had been set up to "police" the police.

Other members of the delegation were Michele Pranchere-Tomassini, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Luxembourg to the United Nations Office at Geneva; and Jeannine Dennewald, Attache of the Ministry of Justice.

Luxembourg, as one of the 129 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must submit periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to put the treaty into effect.


The Committee also appointed members to its Working Group on communications for its next session in November. Appointed were Alejandro Gonzalez Poblete, Alexander M. Yakovlev, Guibril Camara, and Fernando Marino Menendez, with Andreas Mavrommatis serving as an alternate.

The panel will reconvene at 3 p.m. to offer its conclusions and recommendations on the fourth periodic report of Sweden. Afterwards it will continue its review of the fourth periodic report of Norway.


Report of Luxembourg

The third periodic report of Luxembourg (CAT/C/34/Add.14) describes changes in legislation and institutions, monitoring and specific measures as related to various articles of the Convention. It notes among other things that provisions specifically relating to acts of torture based on the terms of the Convention were adopted into the Luxembourg Penal Code on 24 April 2000; that the new provisions specifically punish such acts committed by persons in the public sector; that both physical and psychological torture are covered; and that "even if such acts are still fortunately unknown in Luxembourg at present, criminal legislation has been adapted in order to better guarantee the prevention and punishment of this type of conduct".

Two additional systems have been set up to enable authorities to deal speedily with well-defined cases of large-scale inflows of asylum seekers, the report states; the Code of Pre-Trial Proceedings now requires that a detainee be formally informed by law enforcement authorities at the time of his arrest of his right to ask to be examined by a medical officer and his right to the assistance of legal counsel; training given to police officers on such matters are conducted in situations of violence, conflict management, police ethics, and human rights; that while there are no specific procedural provisions governing the response to the crime of torture, "ordinary law provides certain guarantees to ensure that an inquiry is opened"; and that ordinary law procedures include guarantee of the right of all victims to file a complaint with either the criminal or investigation police, the Public Prosecutor or an examining magistrate.


Introduction of Report

CLAUDE NICOLAY, Deputy Procurator General of State of Luxembourg, said the Committee had made constructive comments three years ago upon consideration of the country's second periodic report, and the Government had taken important steps in response. Legislatively there had been passage of a law transposing all of the Convention's provisions into national legislation. Torture was now a separate crime. Some of the recommendations of the European Committee against Torture also had been taken into account in the law. Universal jurisdiction for acts of torture had been adopted; and the Convention's standards regarding refoulement had been incorporated into domestic law.

In the General Police Investigation Department, the police force now had a police force, Mr. Nicolay said; this unit had responsibility for investigating any acts by police that might contravene the Convention. One Governmental effort that had failed had been to create a specific unit for incarcerated youth; the bill was still being dealt with and had grown complicated and cumbersome. Quantitative information was provided in the report as requested by the Committee.


Discussion

Serving as rapporteur and co-rapporteur on the report of Luxembourg respectively were Committee Experts ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS and GUIBRIL CAMARA.

Mr. Mavrommatis said Luxembourg had achieved a great deal in terms of human rights and meeting its international obligations; it also had done remarkable work in implementing the Committee's recommendations.

He asked, among other things, about the composition and effectiveness of the Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the General Police Investigation Department; if the merger of the country's two police forces had been effective; if new mechanisms for dealing with asylum matters had resulted in restrictive interpretations, resulting in an acceptance rate of around 1 per cent of applicants; if during consideration of asylum cases applicants were not allowed to work; if detention of asylum seekers occurred for those without papers; and if sufficient notice was given on expulsion of rejected applicants.

Mr. Mavrommatis also asked if Luxembourg was willing to extradite someone being sought by a third country for acts in violation of the Convention; if lawyers, doctors and family members were allowed immediate access to detainees; what was the purpose of identity checks -- when they were deemed necessary and how they were carried out; if solitary confinement, although reduced from 20 to 12 days, was still too extensive and if conditions of such confinement, as alleged, left something to be desired; and what the prospects were for agreement on construction of a separate building for young detainees.

Mr. Camara asked among other things if courses on the Convention's provisions were anticipated for medical personnel; if legal assistance was provided to pre-trial detainees who could not afford their own lawyers; if such detainees had the right to call their lawyers for all offenses, or if such access was limited for certain suspected crimes, based on fear of collusion; what was the content of the country's Act allowing detention for identity checks; if a person so detained could appeal his detention to his judge; if a mechanism had been set up for immediate investigation of allegations of torture or ill-treatment; and if there were separate, special regimes set up for compensation of victims.

Other Committee members also put questions. They asked among other things if human rights training included matters related to gender sensitivity as they might apply to asylum seekers; what the incidence of suicide was among juvenile detainees; if trafficking in women and children was a problem in Luxembourg; if there had been any cases in which Luxembourg had held its citizens accountable for offenses committed abroad; if sexual violence in prisons was monitored and if there had been any convictions for such offenses; and if any minor pre-trial detainees were held in solitary confinement, and what was the lowest age at which they could be held in isolation.




* *** *