Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
03 May 2000
Share
CAT
24th Session
3 May 2000
Afternoon
No Need for Torture to be Defined Under Polish Law, Delegation Says
A Polish Government delegation this afternoon told the Committee against Torture that to all intents and purposes, there was no definition of torture in the country's legislation and that situation was justified on the basis of the legal sources of the new Polish Constitution.
The remark came as part of the response provided by the Polish delegation to a series of queries put by the Committee during the presentation of the country's third periodic report yesterday morning. The delegation said that any international convention entered to by Poland constituted a universally binding source of law and was applied directly by the law enforcement organs. There was no need for a definition of torture in Polish domestic law because of the fact that its concept existed.
In a brief exchange of views with the members of the Polish delegation, the Committee's experts underlined the need to define torture in the domestic law of Poland, even if that country claimed the absence of torture in its territory. A person could only be accused of committing a crime if there was a legal provision defining that crime, they said.
The Polish delegation will return at 3 p.m. on Friday, 5 May, to hear the Committee's observations and recommendations on the report it submitted.
After adjourning its public meeting, the Committee continued its deliberations in private session.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 4 May, it will take up the third periodic report of China.
Responses of Poland
In response to a number of questions raised by Committee members during the presentation of the Polish report in yesterday's meeting, the members of the delegation said that to all intents and purposes, there was no definition of torture in the country's legislation. That situation was justified on the basis of the legal sources of the new Polish Constitution. Any international convention entered to by Poland constituted a universally binding source of law and was applied directly by the law enforcement organs. There was no need for a definition of torture in Polish domestic law because of the fact that its concept existed.
The new penal code of September 1999 had introduced a new type of crime, in light of the obligations arising from the Convention, which was the use of unlawful threat by any law enforcement official towards a witness, a court expert, or translator with the aim of obtaining testimony. The introduction of the above regulation to the penal code also made it possible to single out this category of crime from the point of view of the perpetrator, a fact which greatly facilitated the gathering of statistical information.
Answering a question concerning responsibility for acts carried out under orders, the Polish delegation said the country's criminal law held that no one could be relieved of responsibility for crimes committed. However, the penal code did provide exceptions to that rule when it was judged that the accused did not commit a crime, for reasons of non-accountability, and also under certain specifically defined conditions when carrying out orders. The basis for criminal responsibility of a person acting under orders in Polish criminal law remained in the demonstration of the fact that the person in question was aware that by carrying out the order he would be intentionally committing an offence. In that respect, the new penal code had not introduced any significant changes.
Further, the Polish officials said the new penal code provided a legal basis for the prosecution of perpetrators who were present on Polish territory and who were charged with the commission of crimes subject to persecution under international law, and in whose case extradition had been ruled out. In addition, the regulations introduced by the new code specifically prohibited influencing testimony during interrogations through the use of violence and unlawful threats. It was stated that testimony could not be used as evidence if it was obtained in violation of the prohibition.
Polish law did not specifically mention the necessity to protect against acts of torture as a reason for rejecting a demand for extradition, the delegation went on to state. The Polish law stated generally that an extradition which would be contrary to Polish law was inadmissible. "Polish law" should be understood as comprising all binding international agreements of which Poland was a party, including the norms set forth in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. All international instruments which the country was a party to had precedence over domestic legal acts, if the domestic law could not be reconciled with the norms arising from those conventions.
Referring to the case of a fatal shooting of a suspect in a police station by its commander, the delegation said that the man had stood trial on charges of homicide and had been sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment. The court of appeal had turned down the sentence, and ruled that the legal qualification of the crime had been unjust, and suggested that fatal bodily injury would be more appropriate. The case was pending. An internal police inquiry had revealed that the officer in question was not on duty at the time of the event and was under the influence of alcohol.
The delegation said that torture and inhuman and cruel treatment were treated in Poland as serious legal infractions. They did not constitute a part of any official system nor were they tolerated by the Polish authorities. Condemnation of torture and inhuman and cruel treatment constituted an integral part of all training programmes destined for law enforcement officers. In addition, education and information about human rights, especially about the unlawful nature of torture and cruel and degrading treatment, constituted a significant part of their training.
* *** *
24th Session
3 May 2000
Afternoon
No Need for Torture to be Defined Under Polish Law, Delegation Says
A Polish Government delegation this afternoon told the Committee against Torture that to all intents and purposes, there was no definition of torture in the country's legislation and that situation was justified on the basis of the legal sources of the new Polish Constitution.
The remark came as part of the response provided by the Polish delegation to a series of queries put by the Committee during the presentation of the country's third periodic report yesterday morning. The delegation said that any international convention entered to by Poland constituted a universally binding source of law and was applied directly by the law enforcement organs. There was no need for a definition of torture in Polish domestic law because of the fact that its concept existed.
In a brief exchange of views with the members of the Polish delegation, the Committee's experts underlined the need to define torture in the domestic law of Poland, even if that country claimed the absence of torture in its territory. A person could only be accused of committing a crime if there was a legal provision defining that crime, they said.
The Polish delegation will return at 3 p.m. on Friday, 5 May, to hear the Committee's observations and recommendations on the report it submitted.
After adjourning its public meeting, the Committee continued its deliberations in private session.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 4 May, it will take up the third periodic report of China.
Responses of Poland
In response to a number of questions raised by Committee members during the presentation of the Polish report in yesterday's meeting, the members of the delegation said that to all intents and purposes, there was no definition of torture in the country's legislation. That situation was justified on the basis of the legal sources of the new Polish Constitution. Any international convention entered to by Poland constituted a universally binding source of law and was applied directly by the law enforcement organs. There was no need for a definition of torture in Polish domestic law because of the fact that its concept existed.
The new penal code of September 1999 had introduced a new type of crime, in light of the obligations arising from the Convention, which was the use of unlawful threat by any law enforcement official towards a witness, a court expert, or translator with the aim of obtaining testimony. The introduction of the above regulation to the penal code also made it possible to single out this category of crime from the point of view of the perpetrator, a fact which greatly facilitated the gathering of statistical information.
Answering a question concerning responsibility for acts carried out under orders, the Polish delegation said the country's criminal law held that no one could be relieved of responsibility for crimes committed. However, the penal code did provide exceptions to that rule when it was judged that the accused did not commit a crime, for reasons of non-accountability, and also under certain specifically defined conditions when carrying out orders. The basis for criminal responsibility of a person acting under orders in Polish criminal law remained in the demonstration of the fact that the person in question was aware that by carrying out the order he would be intentionally committing an offence. In that respect, the new penal code had not introduced any significant changes.
Further, the Polish officials said the new penal code provided a legal basis for the prosecution of perpetrators who were present on Polish territory and who were charged with the commission of crimes subject to persecution under international law, and in whose case extradition had been ruled out. In addition, the regulations introduced by the new code specifically prohibited influencing testimony during interrogations through the use of violence and unlawful threats. It was stated that testimony could not be used as evidence if it was obtained in violation of the prohibition.
Polish law did not specifically mention the necessity to protect against acts of torture as a reason for rejecting a demand for extradition, the delegation went on to state. The Polish law stated generally that an extradition which would be contrary to Polish law was inadmissible. "Polish law" should be understood as comprising all binding international agreements of which Poland was a party, including the norms set forth in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. All international instruments which the country was a party to had precedence over domestic legal acts, if the domestic law could not be reconciled with the norms arising from those conventions.
Referring to the case of a fatal shooting of a suspect in a police station by its commander, the delegation said that the man had stood trial on charges of homicide and had been sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment. The court of appeal had turned down the sentence, and ruled that the legal qualification of the crime had been unjust, and suggested that fatal bodily injury would be more appropriate. The case was pending. An internal police inquiry had revealed that the officer in question was not on duty at the time of the event and was under the influence of alcohol.
The delegation said that torture and inhuman and cruel treatment were treated in Poland as serious legal infractions. They did not constitute a part of any official system nor were they tolerated by the Polish authorities. Condemnation of torture and inhuman and cruel treatment constituted an integral part of all training programmes destined for law enforcement officers. In addition, education and information about human rights, especially about the unlawful nature of torture and cruel and degrading treatment, constituted a significant part of their training.
* *** *