Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
11 November 1999
Share
MORNING
HR/CAT/99/31
11 November 1999
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS THIRD REPORT FROM FINLAND
Members Praise the Report, Express Concern That Torture Still Not Defined
The Committee against Torture this morning took up the third periodic report of Finland as it considered how that country implemented the provisions of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Per Lindholdm, head of Finland's delegation, presented the report which focused primarily on questions and concerns posed by the Committee when Finland presented its second report in 1996. The report took note that the number of prisoners had decreased considerably during the past several years and efforts had been made to improve prison conditions and cultural sensitivity for Roma prisoners. It also discussed conditions of detention for asylum seekers, human rights education and staff training, and accelerated procedures for asylum seekers.
While members of the Committee had high praise for Finland's report and the high calibre of its delegation, many questioned the fact that the Government had not categorized torture as a separate crime under its Constitution. Experts said without a specific definition of torture, it was virtually impossible to establish that a crime had taken place. Torture, it was said, did not always have physical effects -- the effects could be psychological, as well. Further, there were moral aspects to the crime which must be included in the definition. Without a separate definition, they said, a country can not fully implement the Convention. Note was also taken of a report by a non-governmental organization (NGO) in Finland about reported racist acts by skinheads in parts of Finland.
Ambassador Pekka Huhtaniemi, Finland’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introduced the delegation. Other members of Finland's delegations included Esa Vesterbacka, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Justice, Department of Prisons; Annikki Vanamo-Alho, Director ofRefugee and Asylum Affairs Unit, Ministry of the Interior, Immigration Department; Harri Sintonen, Senior Officer, Legal Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; Kaarle J. Lehmus, Inspector General of the Police, Ministry of the Interior, Police Department; and Petra Hagelstam, Secretary of the Delegation, Researcher, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Department for Legal Affairs.
Report of Finland
The third periodic report of Finland (CAT/C/44/Add.6) reviews development in terms of the promotion and protection of human rights in Finland since it presented its second periodic report in 1996.
According to the third report, the number of prisoners had decreased considerably during the past several years, mainly as a result of fewer convictions for offenses against property. Efforts had been made to improve prison conditions and cultural sensitivity for Roma prisoners. Conditions of detention for asylum seekers and other foreigners had also improved; detention of asylum seekers, for instance, was only enacted as an extreme safeguard. The report also detailed human rights education and staff training.
Also, according to the report, the duties of the Parliamentary Ombudsman for human right were to be expanded to include concerns about ethnic discrimination. The report also dealt in detail with measures taken by the Finnish Government to implement the conclusions and recommendations made by the Committee when the second periodic report was presented, including comments on Finland's use of the accelerated procedure for asylum seekers.
Introduction to the Report of Finland
PER LINDHOLM, Justice of the Supreme Court of Finland and head of the delegation, said the report aimed at responding to questions posed and comments made by Committee members during the presentation of the second report in 1996.
The Constitution of Finland now provided a prohibition against torture. However, Finland had not considered it important to include a specific definition of the elements of torture. It was illegal and punishable in Finland to obtain information by using torture. Such evidence was inadmissible in a court of law, and so a prohibition was evident in practice, even if it is not specified by the Constitution.
During the last report, the Committee welcomed the idea of reinforcing the Office of Ombudsman for Human Rights. This spring preparations were initiated to extend its activities to cover ethnic minorities and ethnic discrimination. The reform measures, he said, will be completed in
2000 - 2001.
The prison population in Finland was decreasing. More convicted persons were ordered to serve their sentences by performing community service. The number of prisoners arriving in prison has also decreased. New measures have also been enacted to further prevent drug and substance abuse in prisons.
Prison conditions for Roma people had been improved; guidelines for health services had been instituted and they included information on the culture of Roma people and the difficulties they meet in prison.
Preventive detention of dangerous recidivists had not been abolished so far, as suggested by the Committee. But a committee was formed this year to reform legislation on imprisonment. The Ministry of the Interior was working on a legislative project which attempted to introduce an act including rules relating to the treatment of persons held in custody at police premises.
Concerning the administrative detention of aliens -- an issue noted by the Committee when Finland last presented its report -- the Aliens' Act was amended this year; it aimed at providing detention facilities especially for aliens. It remained to be seen how detained aliens would be guarded.
Discussion
BENT SORENSEN, Special Rapporteur to the Committee for the report, welcomed the very competent delegation, its oral introduction and the written report. He said the report completely reviewed the Committee's guidelines, the content was very satisfactory, and the work in the prisons laudable. It was a pleasure to deal with the report.
Dr. Sorensen asked a number about the isolation of prisoners. Does Finland use the isolation system for detained prisoners awaiting trial. This was a crucial issue discussed last year with the other Nordic countries. The question referred to isolation in the beginning of the pre-trial period just after coming into detention. If so, who makes the decision on isolation - the police, prosecution or judge? Were there specific conditions, in detail, for their isolation (family visits, access to radio or TV, access to other prisoners?), and was there a time limit on the length of isolation, and was there a maximum limit? Were there statistics on isolation?
Dr. Sorensen asked if information for Roma prisoners was translated into Roma?
Concerning asylum seekers, he asked if the primary investigation was conducted by the border police. Do border police and guards receive specific education about asylum seekers who have been tortured? Dr. Sorensen said that tortured people often behaved in peculiar ways that often seemed irrational. Education could solve some problems. If they did receive training, who does it?
Could a non-criminal asylum seeker be placed in a prison or detention centre, he asked. If so, were they separated from normal prisoners? Dr. Sorensen said he was concerned about public opinion in instances where non-criminal asylum seekers were placed in prison -- it gave the impression that they were criminals.
Regarding a specific definition for torture, Dr. Sorensen said he was not in full agreement with the report. While it states all acts of torture are punishable under Finnish law, Dr. Sorensen said that the Committee's definition of torture includes the word "intentional". This was an important concept -- torture was the only disease which was man-made, and this was why the results were so terrible. This concept should be taken into account in Finland's penal code.
Dr. Sorensen thanked the delegation for Finland's continuous and generous support to the Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims. It was important for the victims to know that some countries pay continuous respect to them.
Mr. GONZALEZ POBLETE, Co-Rapporteur for the report, said it was important that Finland's Constitution include a specific prohibition of torture. He said he did not share Finland's basic premise for not including a definition of torture. For instance, in some cases there was no physical evidence of torture, but there would be moral harm done and this should be taken into account.
Other experts posed a number of questions, including the terms for implementing an accelerated process in refugee status determination, and a report from a Finnish NGO about racist acts by skinheads in parts of Finland. Does Finland prohibit organisations which promote and incite racial discrimination, one Expert asked. It was also asked if the Finnish Government planned to install bugging devices in prison cells, and was there the right to access legal aid from the moment of detention?
HR/CAT/99/31
11 November 1999
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS THIRD REPORT FROM FINLAND
Members Praise the Report, Express Concern That Torture Still Not Defined
The Committee against Torture this morning took up the third periodic report of Finland as it considered how that country implemented the provisions of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Per Lindholdm, head of Finland's delegation, presented the report which focused primarily on questions and concerns posed by the Committee when Finland presented its second report in 1996. The report took note that the number of prisoners had decreased considerably during the past several years and efforts had been made to improve prison conditions and cultural sensitivity for Roma prisoners. It also discussed conditions of detention for asylum seekers, human rights education and staff training, and accelerated procedures for asylum seekers.
While members of the Committee had high praise for Finland's report and the high calibre of its delegation, many questioned the fact that the Government had not categorized torture as a separate crime under its Constitution. Experts said without a specific definition of torture, it was virtually impossible to establish that a crime had taken place. Torture, it was said, did not always have physical effects -- the effects could be psychological, as well. Further, there were moral aspects to the crime which must be included in the definition. Without a separate definition, they said, a country can not fully implement the Convention. Note was also taken of a report by a non-governmental organization (NGO) in Finland about reported racist acts by skinheads in parts of Finland.
Ambassador Pekka Huhtaniemi, Finland’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introduced the delegation. Other members of Finland's delegations included Esa Vesterbacka, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Justice, Department of Prisons; Annikki Vanamo-Alho, Director ofRefugee and Asylum Affairs Unit, Ministry of the Interior, Immigration Department; Harri Sintonen, Senior Officer, Legal Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; Kaarle J. Lehmus, Inspector General of the Police, Ministry of the Interior, Police Department; and Petra Hagelstam, Secretary of the Delegation, Researcher, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Department for Legal Affairs.
Report of Finland
The third periodic report of Finland (CAT/C/44/Add.6) reviews development in terms of the promotion and protection of human rights in Finland since it presented its second periodic report in 1996.
According to the third report, the number of prisoners had decreased considerably during the past several years, mainly as a result of fewer convictions for offenses against property. Efforts had been made to improve prison conditions and cultural sensitivity for Roma prisoners. Conditions of detention for asylum seekers and other foreigners had also improved; detention of asylum seekers, for instance, was only enacted as an extreme safeguard. The report also detailed human rights education and staff training.
Also, according to the report, the duties of the Parliamentary Ombudsman for human right were to be expanded to include concerns about ethnic discrimination. The report also dealt in detail with measures taken by the Finnish Government to implement the conclusions and recommendations made by the Committee when the second periodic report was presented, including comments on Finland's use of the accelerated procedure for asylum seekers.
Introduction to the Report of Finland
PER LINDHOLM, Justice of the Supreme Court of Finland and head of the delegation, said the report aimed at responding to questions posed and comments made by Committee members during the presentation of the second report in 1996.
The Constitution of Finland now provided a prohibition against torture. However, Finland had not considered it important to include a specific definition of the elements of torture. It was illegal and punishable in Finland to obtain information by using torture. Such evidence was inadmissible in a court of law, and so a prohibition was evident in practice, even if it is not specified by the Constitution.
During the last report, the Committee welcomed the idea of reinforcing the Office of Ombudsman for Human Rights. This spring preparations were initiated to extend its activities to cover ethnic minorities and ethnic discrimination. The reform measures, he said, will be completed in
2000 - 2001.
The prison population in Finland was decreasing. More convicted persons were ordered to serve their sentences by performing community service. The number of prisoners arriving in prison has also decreased. New measures have also been enacted to further prevent drug and substance abuse in prisons.
Prison conditions for Roma people had been improved; guidelines for health services had been instituted and they included information on the culture of Roma people and the difficulties they meet in prison.
Preventive detention of dangerous recidivists had not been abolished so far, as suggested by the Committee. But a committee was formed this year to reform legislation on imprisonment. The Ministry of the Interior was working on a legislative project which attempted to introduce an act including rules relating to the treatment of persons held in custody at police premises.
Concerning the administrative detention of aliens -- an issue noted by the Committee when Finland last presented its report -- the Aliens' Act was amended this year; it aimed at providing detention facilities especially for aliens. It remained to be seen how detained aliens would be guarded.
Discussion
BENT SORENSEN, Special Rapporteur to the Committee for the report, welcomed the very competent delegation, its oral introduction and the written report. He said the report completely reviewed the Committee's guidelines, the content was very satisfactory, and the work in the prisons laudable. It was a pleasure to deal with the report.
Dr. Sorensen asked a number about the isolation of prisoners. Does Finland use the isolation system for detained prisoners awaiting trial. This was a crucial issue discussed last year with the other Nordic countries. The question referred to isolation in the beginning of the pre-trial period just after coming into detention. If so, who makes the decision on isolation - the police, prosecution or judge? Were there specific conditions, in detail, for their isolation (family visits, access to radio or TV, access to other prisoners?), and was there a time limit on the length of isolation, and was there a maximum limit? Were there statistics on isolation?
Dr. Sorensen asked if information for Roma prisoners was translated into Roma?
Concerning asylum seekers, he asked if the primary investigation was conducted by the border police. Do border police and guards receive specific education about asylum seekers who have been tortured? Dr. Sorensen said that tortured people often behaved in peculiar ways that often seemed irrational. Education could solve some problems. If they did receive training, who does it?
Could a non-criminal asylum seeker be placed in a prison or detention centre, he asked. If so, were they separated from normal prisoners? Dr. Sorensen said he was concerned about public opinion in instances where non-criminal asylum seekers were placed in prison -- it gave the impression that they were criminals.
Regarding a specific definition for torture, Dr. Sorensen said he was not in full agreement with the report. While it states all acts of torture are punishable under Finnish law, Dr. Sorensen said that the Committee's definition of torture includes the word "intentional". This was an important concept -- torture was the only disease which was man-made, and this was why the results were so terrible. This concept should be taken into account in Finland's penal code.
Dr. Sorensen thanked the delegation for Finland's continuous and generous support to the Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims. It was important for the victims to know that some countries pay continuous respect to them.
Mr. GONZALEZ POBLETE, Co-Rapporteur for the report, said it was important that Finland's Constitution include a specific prohibition of torture. He said he did not share Finland's basic premise for not including a definition of torture. For instance, in some cases there was no physical evidence of torture, but there would be moral harm done and this should be taken into account.
Other experts posed a number of questions, including the terms for implementing an accelerated process in refugee status determination, and a report from a Finnish NGO about racist acts by skinheads in parts of Finland. Does Finland prohibit organisations which promote and incite racial discrimination, one Expert asked. It was also asked if the Finnish Government planned to install bugging devices in prison cells, and was there the right to access legal aid from the moment of detention?