COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE TAKES UP REPORT OF LUXEMBOURG

MORNING
HR/CAT/99/12
4 May 1999



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

Michèle Pranchere-Tomassini, Luxembourg's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva, told the Committee that the country had abolished the death penalty 20 years ago. The prohibition was formally placed in the Constitution only last month. Other recent changes, she said, included a merger of police forces with the military police to ensure wider police presence throughout the country, and to streamline the training of new recruits.

Mrs. Pranchere-Tomassini was joined by Andrèe Clemang, a counselor at the Ministry of Justice, and Claude Nicolay, of the solicitor-general’s office.

Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar, who served as the Committee's rapporteur to the report, lauded the delegation for the steps that the country had taken since it last met with the Committee in 1992. But he also noted that the State had not adopted a specific definition and crime of torture in its general laws, as required by the Convention.

Guibril Camara, the co-rapporteur for the report, asked about the absence of certain Convention articles from the report. And other Committee members pressed the delegation for answers on issues concerning the allowed length of time a person could be held in solitary confinement and procedures about pre-trial detention.

The delegation will return to answer the Committee's questions on Wednesday, 5 May, at 3.30 p.m. The Committee will meet at 3 p.m. to issue its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Venezuela and to hear the response of the Italian delegation to questions about their report.

Report of Luxembourg

The second periodic report of Luxembourg (CAT/C/17/Add.20) reviews what the country has done since it presented its first periodic report to the Committee in April 1992. Such reforms include an overhaul of the system pertaining to confinement of untried and convicted prisoners, and changes to the procedures dealing with police custody and pre-trial detention.

The report also addresses on an article-by-article basis the Government's attempts to conform with the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As required by the Convention, for example, the State does not permit a sentence of death for any crime committed. In addition, the report details specific situations to illustrate when extradition is allowed.

Introduction of Report of Luxembourg

MICHÈLE PRANCHERE-TOMASSINI, the Permanent Representative of Luxembourg to the United Nations Office at Geneva, apologized for the tardiness of the report. The Ministry of Justice had a limited number of staff members and there had been a number of reforms to deal with since the last presentation of a report in 1992. The administration there was too small not to be affected by the changes.

Still, the Permanent Representative said, the country was fully conscious of all of its obligations and the report tried to address all concerns that the Committee could have had.

The death penalty, Mrs. Pranchere-Tomassini explained, had been abolished in statute in 1979, but on 21 April, it was formally prohibited in the Constitution.

She added that the Government had also implemented a programme encouraging alternative sentences for prisoners. Under the terms of the programme, certain prisoners would be able to work, without pay, to pay off their debt to society. It could not be forced on the prisoner - it was an option - but more and more convicts were choosing this method.

Mrs. Pranchere-Tomassini said the situation of minors in detention was still crucial. There had been a strong effort to develop social, cultural, and educational activities for juvenile detainees, and the protection and rehabilitation of such children remained a top priority but it was taking time to get qualified staff in place.

A bill that had passed Parliament combined the police with the military police, she said. That would allow for a more widespread presence and better training of the new recruits. The recruits were already trained in the protection of human rights.

Discussion

ANTONIO SILVA HENRIQUES GASPAR, who served as the rapporteur to the report, asked about article 3 -- the extradition provision. The law in Luxembourg had not been changed to address extradition to a country where the detained person may be subject to torture. It was noted that the Government had also not adopted a definition of torture in its general laws. It was very advisable to do that, as it was spelled out in articles 1 and 4 in the Convention.

He said, in respect to universal jurisdiction, the right to consult with a doctor and the right to immediate counsel, that clarifications would be needed. On the questions of the detention of minors, adequate protection would be needed to ensure against ill-treatment. It was not possible to make an appeal.

Mr. Gaspar said that for adult detainees, the use of strict confinement cells could last up to 12 months. It was necessary to know if there were any changes with this situation.

GUIBRIL CAMARA, the co-rapporteur to the report, said it had no reference to article 8. Was there an error in the headings provided? Article 11, one of the most important provisions to prevent torture, did not seem to be taken up in the report. It was possible that it was brought up and resolved in the initial report of Luxembourg. Information on article 14 also seemed to have been omitted.

He said there were two documents by non-governmental organizations which were submitted that referred to the fate of children in detention. Although this may have been addressed by other bodies, it was the mandate of the Committee to address it as well.

Other Committee experts raised further questions. There was a question about whether or not someone in pre-trial detention could be held in isolation, and who would make that decision? How common was solitary confinement in Luxembourg? Was it only one or two cases a year, or was it more common than that?