Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases
Default title
14 November 2000
Share
CAT
25th session
14 November 2000
Morning
Government Delegation Queried on Standards for "Custody",
"Preventive Detention", and Existing Practices
The Committee against Torture began consideration this morning of a second periodic report of Armenia, with the panel's 10 Experts questioning a Government delegation on what they said was the continued absence of a precise, law-based definition of torture, and remarking that the report dealt in great part with a draft Penal Code, or the "future", while they wished to know what was going on now.
Committee members also sought clarification on various standards of the draft Armenian Penal Code, which they said seemed to allow "custody" of up to 96 hours and "preventive detention" of up to seven days. They further asked for details on a current practice of "administrative detention", saying non-governmental organizations (NGOs) asserted that cases of maltreatment and even deaths had occurred during administrative detention.
A six-member Armenian Government delegation was present and said it would respond to the questions at the Committee's afternoon meeting on Tuesday, 15 November.
The delegation was headed by Karen Nazarian, Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva. It also included Michael Grigorian, Adviser to the Minister of the Interior of Armenia; Samvel Manukian, Head of the Department of Surveillance over the Lawfulness of Inquests and Investigations; Vahram Kazhoyan, Director of the Armenian Department of International Organizations; Ashot Kotcharian, Counsellor of the Department of International Organizations; and Arpine Gevorgian, Third Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Armenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
In a brief introduction of the report, Mr. Nazarian said Armenia had ratified the Convention against Torture in 1993 and that the Government was striving to develop effective mechanisms and strategies for implementing it.
Armenia, as one of 123 States parties to the Convention, is required to submit periodic reports to the Committee. States parties customarily also send Government delegations to answer questions about the reports.
In other business, the Committee heard comments from Expert Felice Gaer on the subject of torture and gender issues; and from Expert Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar on a meeting of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the subject of State violence against children.
The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. for a preliminary discussion on improving the effective operation of human-rights treaty bodies; at 4 p.m., the Committee will discuss other matters in closed session.
Second periodic report of Armenia
The report (CAT/C/43/Add.3) reviews implementation of the Convention on an article-by-article basis. An introduction notes developments since presentation of the country's initial report; they include adoption of a Constitution in July 1995 which includes a chapter on "fundamental human and civil rights and freedoms". The Constitution states that "until such time as it is abolished, the death penalty may be prescribed by law as an exceptional punishment for particularly heinous crimes". A new draft Penal Code also prescribes the death penalty for a number of heinous crimes. Article 19 of the Constitution, according to the report, asserts that "no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. No one may be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without his or her consent."
The Constitution allows the establishment of economic, military or other types of courts provided for by law, according to the report, but "the establishment of extraordinary courts is forbidden". Article 6 of the Constitution gives provisions of international human-rights treaties ratified by the Government preeminence over domestic legislation in cases where the two conflict. The report also reviews aspects of the draft Penal Code which relate to torture or ill-treatment.
Introduction of report
KAREN NAZARIAN, Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Convention against Torture had been ratified by Armenia in 1993 and that the Government fully shared the Committee's interest in full implementation of the Convention; efforts were being made to do so through the development of effective mechanisms and strategies. The delegation would share with the Committee information on recent developments.
Discussion
Serving as rapporteur on the situation in Armenia was Committee Expert GUIBRIL CAMARA, who said, among other things, that the report appeared to speak more to a future situation than to the current state of affairs. On reading the report, it seemed to him that there was no definition of torture in Armenia as required under the Convention; there was only a very general prohibition of torture in the Constitution, without the constituent elements of the particulars of torture being prohibited in legislation or the effects of torture described. The matter was of some concern because the Committee had recommended following consideration of Armenia's first report that the Government should "come into line" with article 1.
He had similar concerns that under the draft Penal Code -- so far, apparently, standards proposed but not in effect -- custody could be up to 96 hours, which appeared to violate article 2 of the Convention. He also wished to know how, in practice, such custody was overseen, and by whom, and if there were any remedies available with regard to the period of 96 hours. Another aspect of the report stated that preventive detention could not exceed seven days, and one wondered what the difference was between "preventive" measures and "custody". Did preventive mean before charges were filed?
Questions also needed to be answered about standards for return of refugees and/or asylum-seekers; it was not clear whether or not such persons might be returned by Armenia if there was a question that they might, on return, be subjected to torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. Mr. Camara added that he wished to ask if legislation covered all aspects of torture, as the U.S. State Department had reported that local human-rights groups had referred to five cases of death from torture during detention by local authorities; if provisions in the penal code related to torture were too vague to be useful; and if more detail could be provided on Armenian legislation in effect and on current practice, as what the report focused on was draft legislation yet to be adopted.
Serving as a second rapporteur was Committee Expert ALEXANDER M. YAKOVLEV, who said, among other things, that the "first encounter" between a person and a State was a time when such a person was in an especially vulnerable position -- the person was charged with, perhaps a serious crime, and there was often a temptation to exert pressure, even torture, on such a person to extract a confession or information; the delegation was asked to provide more detail about the rights of those persons immediately after they were detained and placed in cells. It was unacceptable that any communication should be intercepted at such times; such a person should be able to communicate with a lawyer immediately upon detention, but were there exceptions to the rule, or was such communication private, and could such a person contact his family? And were the laws in fact applied? In the same way, laws prohibited the use of evidence obtained by torture, but what was the case in practice, and had there been any court decisions barring use of such evidence?
Mr. Yakovlev also asked if medical and paramedical staff responsible for detainees were trained in recognizing evidence of torture, as prohibitions against torture were only effective if such abuses were guarded against and discovered; if examples could be given of complaints of torture that had been filed and considered appropriately; if persons had been found responsible for acts of torture and punished, and how; and if compensation had been granted in specific cases by the civil courts.
There were also remarks and queries from other Committee Experts. They asked, among other things, about the status of the imposition of the death penalty in Armenia; about hazing in the military, which was reported by citizens' groups, including groups of mothers whose sons had been injured or even killed by such hazing; about what the report termed "incitement to suicide", and seemed to refer to such maltreatment as beatings by police, which had resulted in as many as 200 complaints a year, and in charges that such complaints were not investigated impartially; about prison conditions, treatment in prisons, sexual violence in prisons; and about whether men guarded female prisoners. It was noted that there were 68,000 prisoners in the country.
Committee Chairman Peter Thomas Burns asked the delegation to explain what "administrative detention" was, noting that NGOs reported concern about it, including a case cited by Amnesty International where someone was called to a police station as a murder suspect, and when his mother brought him food she was told he was no longer a suspect but was being held for five days in administrative detention because he had not turned up at earlier requests to present himself. Later he died as result of falling from a window while in custody, and it was treated as "suicide" -- and it was also reported that he had confessed to the murder.
Other business
FELICE GAER, Expert, addressing the Committee on the topic of torture and gender issues, said, among other things, that there had been a significant general comment of the Human Rights Committee on the matter of equality between men and women; enough ratifications had been achieved for the optional protocol to CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women) so that it would come into force in December; the International Criminal Court had defined certain elements of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including wartime rape and such matters as sexual violence and forced sterilization, in language that implied that such offenses could be described as torture, which was significant to the Committee's work; and the Security Council for the first time had debated and adopted a resolution on the subject of women in armed conflict. The General Assembly, for its part, had recently discussed and passed a resolution on so-called "crimes of honour", which Secretary-General Kofi Annan had said should be called "crimes of shame"; the resolution focused on the need to bring perpetrators to justice and called on States to eliminate such crimes.
ANTONIO SILVA HENRIQUES GASPAR, Expert, reported on a session of the Committee on the Rights of the Child focusing on the topic of State violence against children, saying he had stressed to that Committee the possibility and usefulness of the mechanisms of the Committee against Torture to help ensure that the rights of the child were enforced. He particularly had said that the Convention against Torture might be used to ensure better effectiveness of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention against Torture could be useful, for example, in relation to detention of children, placement of children outside the home, police treatment of children, and use of force by staff in official institutions for children.
* *** *
25th session
14 November 2000
Morning
Government Delegation Queried on Standards for "Custody",
"Preventive Detention", and Existing Practices
The Committee against Torture began consideration this morning of a second periodic report of Armenia, with the panel's 10 Experts questioning a Government delegation on what they said was the continued absence of a precise, law-based definition of torture, and remarking that the report dealt in great part with a draft Penal Code, or the "future", while they wished to know what was going on now.
Committee members also sought clarification on various standards of the draft Armenian Penal Code, which they said seemed to allow "custody" of up to 96 hours and "preventive detention" of up to seven days. They further asked for details on a current practice of "administrative detention", saying non-governmental organizations (NGOs) asserted that cases of maltreatment and even deaths had occurred during administrative detention.
A six-member Armenian Government delegation was present and said it would respond to the questions at the Committee's afternoon meeting on Tuesday, 15 November.
The delegation was headed by Karen Nazarian, Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva. It also included Michael Grigorian, Adviser to the Minister of the Interior of Armenia; Samvel Manukian, Head of the Department of Surveillance over the Lawfulness of Inquests and Investigations; Vahram Kazhoyan, Director of the Armenian Department of International Organizations; Ashot Kotcharian, Counsellor of the Department of International Organizations; and Arpine Gevorgian, Third Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Armenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
In a brief introduction of the report, Mr. Nazarian said Armenia had ratified the Convention against Torture in 1993 and that the Government was striving to develop effective mechanisms and strategies for implementing it.
Armenia, as one of 123 States parties to the Convention, is required to submit periodic reports to the Committee. States parties customarily also send Government delegations to answer questions about the reports.
In other business, the Committee heard comments from Expert Felice Gaer on the subject of torture and gender issues; and from Expert Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar on a meeting of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the subject of State violence against children.
The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. for a preliminary discussion on improving the effective operation of human-rights treaty bodies; at 4 p.m., the Committee will discuss other matters in closed session.
Second periodic report of Armenia
The report (CAT/C/43/Add.3) reviews implementation of the Convention on an article-by-article basis. An introduction notes developments since presentation of the country's initial report; they include adoption of a Constitution in July 1995 which includes a chapter on "fundamental human and civil rights and freedoms". The Constitution states that "until such time as it is abolished, the death penalty may be prescribed by law as an exceptional punishment for particularly heinous crimes". A new draft Penal Code also prescribes the death penalty for a number of heinous crimes. Article 19 of the Constitution, according to the report, asserts that "no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. No one may be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without his or her consent."
The Constitution allows the establishment of economic, military or other types of courts provided for by law, according to the report, but "the establishment of extraordinary courts is forbidden". Article 6 of the Constitution gives provisions of international human-rights treaties ratified by the Government preeminence over domestic legislation in cases where the two conflict. The report also reviews aspects of the draft Penal Code which relate to torture or ill-treatment.
Introduction of report
KAREN NAZARIAN, Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Convention against Torture had been ratified by Armenia in 1993 and that the Government fully shared the Committee's interest in full implementation of the Convention; efforts were being made to do so through the development of effective mechanisms and strategies. The delegation would share with the Committee information on recent developments.
Discussion
Serving as rapporteur on the situation in Armenia was Committee Expert GUIBRIL CAMARA, who said, among other things, that the report appeared to speak more to a future situation than to the current state of affairs. On reading the report, it seemed to him that there was no definition of torture in Armenia as required under the Convention; there was only a very general prohibition of torture in the Constitution, without the constituent elements of the particulars of torture being prohibited in legislation or the effects of torture described. The matter was of some concern because the Committee had recommended following consideration of Armenia's first report that the Government should "come into line" with article 1.
He had similar concerns that under the draft Penal Code -- so far, apparently, standards proposed but not in effect -- custody could be up to 96 hours, which appeared to violate article 2 of the Convention. He also wished to know how, in practice, such custody was overseen, and by whom, and if there were any remedies available with regard to the period of 96 hours. Another aspect of the report stated that preventive detention could not exceed seven days, and one wondered what the difference was between "preventive" measures and "custody". Did preventive mean before charges were filed?
Questions also needed to be answered about standards for return of refugees and/or asylum-seekers; it was not clear whether or not such persons might be returned by Armenia if there was a question that they might, on return, be subjected to torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. Mr. Camara added that he wished to ask if legislation covered all aspects of torture, as the U.S. State Department had reported that local human-rights groups had referred to five cases of death from torture during detention by local authorities; if provisions in the penal code related to torture were too vague to be useful; and if more detail could be provided on Armenian legislation in effect and on current practice, as what the report focused on was draft legislation yet to be adopted.
Serving as a second rapporteur was Committee Expert ALEXANDER M. YAKOVLEV, who said, among other things, that the "first encounter" between a person and a State was a time when such a person was in an especially vulnerable position -- the person was charged with, perhaps a serious crime, and there was often a temptation to exert pressure, even torture, on such a person to extract a confession or information; the delegation was asked to provide more detail about the rights of those persons immediately after they were detained and placed in cells. It was unacceptable that any communication should be intercepted at such times; such a person should be able to communicate with a lawyer immediately upon detention, but were there exceptions to the rule, or was such communication private, and could such a person contact his family? And were the laws in fact applied? In the same way, laws prohibited the use of evidence obtained by torture, but what was the case in practice, and had there been any court decisions barring use of such evidence?
Mr. Yakovlev also asked if medical and paramedical staff responsible for detainees were trained in recognizing evidence of torture, as prohibitions against torture were only effective if such abuses were guarded against and discovered; if examples could be given of complaints of torture that had been filed and considered appropriately; if persons had been found responsible for acts of torture and punished, and how; and if compensation had been granted in specific cases by the civil courts.
There were also remarks and queries from other Committee Experts. They asked, among other things, about the status of the imposition of the death penalty in Armenia; about hazing in the military, which was reported by citizens' groups, including groups of mothers whose sons had been injured or even killed by such hazing; about what the report termed "incitement to suicide", and seemed to refer to such maltreatment as beatings by police, which had resulted in as many as 200 complaints a year, and in charges that such complaints were not investigated impartially; about prison conditions, treatment in prisons, sexual violence in prisons; and about whether men guarded female prisoners. It was noted that there were 68,000 prisoners in the country.
Committee Chairman Peter Thomas Burns asked the delegation to explain what "administrative detention" was, noting that NGOs reported concern about it, including a case cited by Amnesty International where someone was called to a police station as a murder suspect, and when his mother brought him food she was told he was no longer a suspect but was being held for five days in administrative detention because he had not turned up at earlier requests to present himself. Later he died as result of falling from a window while in custody, and it was treated as "suicide" -- and it was also reported that he had confessed to the murder.
Other business
FELICE GAER, Expert, addressing the Committee on the topic of torture and gender issues, said, among other things, that there had been a significant general comment of the Human Rights Committee on the matter of equality between men and women; enough ratifications had been achieved for the optional protocol to CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women) so that it would come into force in December; the International Criminal Court had defined certain elements of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including wartime rape and such matters as sexual violence and forced sterilization, in language that implied that such offenses could be described as torture, which was significant to the Committee's work; and the Security Council for the first time had debated and adopted a resolution on the subject of women in armed conflict. The General Assembly, for its part, had recently discussed and passed a resolution on so-called "crimes of honour", which Secretary-General Kofi Annan had said should be called "crimes of shame"; the resolution focused on the need to bring perpetrators to justice and called on States to eliminate such crimes.
ANTONIO SILVA HENRIQUES GASPAR, Expert, reported on a session of the Committee on the Rights of the Child focusing on the topic of State violence against children, saying he had stressed to that Committee the possibility and usefulness of the mechanisms of the Committee against Torture to help ensure that the rights of the child were enforced. He particularly had said that the Convention against Torture might be used to ensure better effectiveness of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention against Torture could be useful, for example, in relation to detention of children, placement of children outside the home, police treatment of children, and use of force by staff in official institutions for children.
* *** *