Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
10 November 1999
Share
MORNING
HR/CAT/99/29
10 November 1999
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS CONSIDERATION OF REPORT FROM AUSTRIA
Experts Concerned About Possible Culture of Violence Within Police Department
The Committee against Torture this morning took up the first and second periodic reports of Austria, which detailed steps taken to further the promotion and protection of human rights there.
Although a Government delegation said that legal measures had been pursued to promote and protect human rights throughout the country, a number of experts expressed concern that actual practice among law enforcement officers that there may be a pattern of discrimination and violence towards asylum seekers.
"These are ominous cases precisely because they are mundane", one expert said. Members of the Committee asked for assurances that the Government made it clear how police officers should behave, and that proper measures were being taken when violations occur.
Dr. Bent Sorensen, who served as the Committee's rapporteur to the report, said Austria should be thanked for its report and the introduction presented by Harold Kreid, Austria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva. Noting that Austria reported that changes in its law had led to many improvements for people living in the country, Dr. Sorensen asked if there were ways to measure those improvements. He said the definition of torture under Austria's laws did not specifically reflect the United Nations’ definition. He also asked detailed questions about the practical treatment of asylum seekers, and, in citing one particular instance, expressed concern about practices which could lead the public to believe that asylum seekers were criminals.
Alexander Yakovlev, the co-rapporteur to the report, said the Committee had questions about the real-life implementation of the laws and the psychological attitudes with regards to minorities, including the use of racist language. Although told that new amendments had been adopted to the criminal code, Mr. Yakovlev was still concerned that it appeared a detained person had no immediate access to legal representation. The early period after an arrest was the most critical, he said, and legal representation at that particular time was extremely important.
The Report of Austria
The first and second periodic reports of Austria (CAT/C/5/Add.10 and CAT/C/17/Add.21) review what the country has done in terms of promotion and protection of human rights. The report also describes Austria's attempts to comply with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The first periodic report describes Austria's legal provisions against persons who commit acts of torture, mentions which Government bodies are charged with overseeing the law, and describes the means of redress for victims. The second periodic report describes, in detail, the Security Police Act, its guidelines and requirements and the right to lawful intervention and legal protection. It also describes the Aliens' Act of 1977 and the Asylum Act of 1997, in particular the ban on expulsion and deportation of asylum seekers; the independent Federal Asylum Tribunal, the selection and training of police officers and examinations by medical officers.
Introduction to the Report
HAROLD KREID, Permanent Representative of the Austrian Mission to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the elimination of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was considered by Austria as one of the key commitments of the international community with regard to human rights. The Government had made every effort to make major improvements.
He said the reports primarily focused on the present legal situation, particularly on the Security Police Act of 1991, and on other criminal codes and guidelines which had a far-reaching impact upon the legal status of people living in Austria.
Among the things described by Mr. Kreid in introducing the report were the training practices of police officers and the creation of an independent Advisory Board to monitor human rights protection within Austria’s security forces. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture had visited Austria to meet with relevant Government agencies. It was preparing a report that would be available next year.
Discussion
BENT SORENSEN, who served as the Committee's rapporteur to the report, said Austria should be thanked for its report and the introduction presented by Mr. Kreid. Dr. Sorensen noted that the first report to the Committee was due in 1992 and the second in 1996; the third report will be expected in the year 2000. The delay was regretted by the Committee, as was the fact that the reports presented did not completely follow the guidelines. This made the discussion difficult.
Dr. Sorensen said that the report did not provide a definition of torture; Austria's penal code did not contain the elements of the Committee's definition -- in particular, the element of intentionality was missing. It was very important to include this definition for the police, military and judges, and it should be clear in the domestic law that torture is defined as a crime and is forbidden. If this is not included, the Government has not done its duty, he said.
While he welcomed the mention that torture should be forbidden in order to protect the physical integrity of human beings, the psychological integrity was also important and should be mentioned as well. He asked about the rights of people who were detained by the police, as well as information obtained by third parties. Further, he pressed about conditions and the timing of access to legal advice. If access was withheld, when and for how long? Also, did a person have the right to delay testifying until his or her lawyer was present? Dr. Sorensen noted that while the report said the changes in the laws had brought about improvements, he would like to know if there had been an attempt to measure that improvement. This seemed to be missing from the report.
Regarding the Aliens Act and the Asylum Act, Dr. Sorensen said there were questions about who was making the determination. He also wanted further information whether non-criminal asylum seekers could be detained. That, he said, could lead to the perception that asylum seekers were criminals.
Dr. Sorensen said that training sessions with police officers should include warnings about the prohibition of torture. He also thanked Austria for its contribution to the Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims, particularly as it showed respect for torture victims. Redress was of paramount importance; in cases of torture, the state should acknowledge that they were wrong, he said.
ALEXANDER YAKOVLEV, the co-rapporteur to the report, said the Committee had questions about the real-life implementation of the laws and the psychological attitudes with regards to minorities -- for example, the use of racist language. While the Committee was told that new amendments had been adopted to the criminal code, it still appeared that an apprehended person had no immediate access to legal representation. The early period after an arrest was the most critical and, as such, legal representation was extremely important.
Evidence obtained under duress should not be admissible in a court of law, he said. When a detained person was told that if they provide information they will be freed, this should be considered inadmissible evidence. He asked what was the practice in Austria?
Concerning the apprehension of people, there should be objective means to review if procedures were being carried out correctly. Mr. Yakovlev made reference to a case last year where a person under detention, Mr. Marcus Omofuma, suffocated to death, possibly in part because of actions taken by police officers. In the process of being deported, Mr. Omofuma had tape placed over his mouth to silence him, he said. Several hours later, he lost consciousness and died. The state should react openly and quickly about such allegations, Mr. Yakovlev said, and investigations should be carried out promptly.
Other Committee experts raised further questions. The Omofuma case, as described in a report by Amnesty International, was mentioned several times. It appeared that racial discrimination was an element in the incident. An expert asked about the result of the investigation, and wondered if compensation was ever envisioned in this or similar cases. Another expert said that this was apparently not the first case of asphyxiation of an asylum seeker. Placing tape over the mouth was said to be a well-known practice by law enforcement officials in Austria; the question was whether Austria observed the United Nations code of conduct for law enforcement officials. More questions focused on the treatment of foreigners in detention.
HR/CAT/99/29
10 November 1999
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS CONSIDERATION OF REPORT FROM AUSTRIA
Experts Concerned About Possible Culture of Violence Within Police Department
The Committee against Torture this morning took up the first and second periodic reports of Austria, which detailed steps taken to further the promotion and protection of human rights there.
Although a Government delegation said that legal measures had been pursued to promote and protect human rights throughout the country, a number of experts expressed concern that actual practice among law enforcement officers that there may be a pattern of discrimination and violence towards asylum seekers.
"These are ominous cases precisely because they are mundane", one expert said. Members of the Committee asked for assurances that the Government made it clear how police officers should behave, and that proper measures were being taken when violations occur.
Dr. Bent Sorensen, who served as the Committee's rapporteur to the report, said Austria should be thanked for its report and the introduction presented by Harold Kreid, Austria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva. Noting that Austria reported that changes in its law had led to many improvements for people living in the country, Dr. Sorensen asked if there were ways to measure those improvements. He said the definition of torture under Austria's laws did not specifically reflect the United Nations’ definition. He also asked detailed questions about the practical treatment of asylum seekers, and, in citing one particular instance, expressed concern about practices which could lead the public to believe that asylum seekers were criminals.
Alexander Yakovlev, the co-rapporteur to the report, said the Committee had questions about the real-life implementation of the laws and the psychological attitudes with regards to minorities, including the use of racist language. Although told that new amendments had been adopted to the criminal code, Mr. Yakovlev was still concerned that it appeared a detained person had no immediate access to legal representation. The early period after an arrest was the most critical, he said, and legal representation at that particular time was extremely important.
The Report of Austria
The first and second periodic reports of Austria (CAT/C/5/Add.10 and CAT/C/17/Add.21) review what the country has done in terms of promotion and protection of human rights. The report also describes Austria's attempts to comply with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The first periodic report describes Austria's legal provisions against persons who commit acts of torture, mentions which Government bodies are charged with overseeing the law, and describes the means of redress for victims. The second periodic report describes, in detail, the Security Police Act, its guidelines and requirements and the right to lawful intervention and legal protection. It also describes the Aliens' Act of 1977 and the Asylum Act of 1997, in particular the ban on expulsion and deportation of asylum seekers; the independent Federal Asylum Tribunal, the selection and training of police officers and examinations by medical officers.
Introduction to the Report
HAROLD KREID, Permanent Representative of the Austrian Mission to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the elimination of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was considered by Austria as one of the key commitments of the international community with regard to human rights. The Government had made every effort to make major improvements.
He said the reports primarily focused on the present legal situation, particularly on the Security Police Act of 1991, and on other criminal codes and guidelines which had a far-reaching impact upon the legal status of people living in Austria.
Among the things described by Mr. Kreid in introducing the report were the training practices of police officers and the creation of an independent Advisory Board to monitor human rights protection within Austria’s security forces. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture had visited Austria to meet with relevant Government agencies. It was preparing a report that would be available next year.
Discussion
BENT SORENSEN, who served as the Committee's rapporteur to the report, said Austria should be thanked for its report and the introduction presented by Mr. Kreid. Dr. Sorensen noted that the first report to the Committee was due in 1992 and the second in 1996; the third report will be expected in the year 2000. The delay was regretted by the Committee, as was the fact that the reports presented did not completely follow the guidelines. This made the discussion difficult.
Dr. Sorensen said that the report did not provide a definition of torture; Austria's penal code did not contain the elements of the Committee's definition -- in particular, the element of intentionality was missing. It was very important to include this definition for the police, military and judges, and it should be clear in the domestic law that torture is defined as a crime and is forbidden. If this is not included, the Government has not done its duty, he said.
While he welcomed the mention that torture should be forbidden in order to protect the physical integrity of human beings, the psychological integrity was also important and should be mentioned as well. He asked about the rights of people who were detained by the police, as well as information obtained by third parties. Further, he pressed about conditions and the timing of access to legal advice. If access was withheld, when and for how long? Also, did a person have the right to delay testifying until his or her lawyer was present? Dr. Sorensen noted that while the report said the changes in the laws had brought about improvements, he would like to know if there had been an attempt to measure that improvement. This seemed to be missing from the report.
Regarding the Aliens Act and the Asylum Act, Dr. Sorensen said there were questions about who was making the determination. He also wanted further information whether non-criminal asylum seekers could be detained. That, he said, could lead to the perception that asylum seekers were criminals.
Dr. Sorensen said that training sessions with police officers should include warnings about the prohibition of torture. He also thanked Austria for its contribution to the Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims, particularly as it showed respect for torture victims. Redress was of paramount importance; in cases of torture, the state should acknowledge that they were wrong, he said.
ALEXANDER YAKOVLEV, the co-rapporteur to the report, said the Committee had questions about the real-life implementation of the laws and the psychological attitudes with regards to minorities -- for example, the use of racist language. While the Committee was told that new amendments had been adopted to the criminal code, it still appeared that an apprehended person had no immediate access to legal representation. The early period after an arrest was the most critical and, as such, legal representation was extremely important.
Evidence obtained under duress should not be admissible in a court of law, he said. When a detained person was told that if they provide information they will be freed, this should be considered inadmissible evidence. He asked what was the practice in Austria?
Concerning the apprehension of people, there should be objective means to review if procedures were being carried out correctly. Mr. Yakovlev made reference to a case last year where a person under detention, Mr. Marcus Omofuma, suffocated to death, possibly in part because of actions taken by police officers. In the process of being deported, Mr. Omofuma had tape placed over his mouth to silence him, he said. Several hours later, he lost consciousness and died. The state should react openly and quickly about such allegations, Mr. Yakovlev said, and investigations should be carried out promptly.
Other Committee experts raised further questions. The Omofuma case, as described in a report by Amnesty International, was mentioned several times. It appeared that racial discrimination was an element in the incident. An expert asked about the result of the investigation, and wondered if compensation was ever envisioned in this or similar cases. Another expert said that this was apparently not the first case of asphyxiation of an asylum seeker. Placing tape over the mouth was said to be a well-known practice by law enforcement officials in Austria; the question was whether Austria observed the United Nations code of conduct for law enforcement officials. More questions focused on the treatment of foreigners in detention.