Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
12 November 1999
Share
AFTERNOON
HR/CAT/99/34
12 November 1999
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO AUSTRIA
Finland Answers Committee’s Questions
The Committee against Torture this afternoon lauded the steps taken by Austria to further the protection of human rights there, and expressed hope it would continue progress in that area.
Expert Bent Sorensen, who served as the rapporteur to the report Austria presented to the Committee, noted with satisfaction that several legal measures and procedures had been enacted in accordance with the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, including the Security Police Act of 1993 and the establishment of an inspection system.
However, Dr. Sorensen said that the Committee had several points of concern, including the fact that Austria had not adopted the definition of torture in its domestic laws, as defined by the Convention, and that there were insufficient measures to protect persons being deported.
In its recommendations, the Committee said that clear instructions needed to be given to the police by the competent authorities to avoid incidents of ill-treatment, and that provisions to protect asylum seekers should fully conform with international standards.
Also this afternoon, a Government delegation from Finland returned with answers to questions that Experts asked yesterday during its report presentation. Ambassador Per Lindholm told members that almost all evidence was admissible under Finnish law, but when it was pointed out to the judge if evidence was obtained through torture, the judge then dismissed it. He also said that racial tolerance was part of the basic curriculum in Finnish police training, and that because of the Committee’s concern, access to legal aid will also be stressed in law enforcement training.
The Committee will meet again in public session on Monday, 15 November at 10 a.m. when it will hear the initial report of Azerbaijan.
Conclusions and Recommendations on Report of Austria
Bent Sorensen, the Committee's rapporteur to the report, noted that the Committee, in its conclusions and recommendations to Austria, welcomed the following developments: the Security Police Act of 1993; the Guidelines for the Intervention of Organs of Public Security; the fact that the Federal Government was required to submit an annual Security Report to the Austrian Parliament; the establishment of an inspection system in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of the Convention; the Code of Criminal Procedure Modification Act 1993 and the Basic Rights Complaint Act of 1992.
The Committee also noted its subjects of concern: in spite of the fact the Convention had the status of law in the Austrian legal system and that it was directly enforceable, a definition of torture as provided for under the Convention was not included in the penal legislation of the State party and, therefore, the offence of torture did not appear as punishable by appropriate penalties as required by Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Convention; notwithstanding the entry into force of the Security Police Act 1993, allegations of ill-treatment by the police were still reported; potential complaints of abuse committed by police authorities may be discouraged by provisions which enabled the police to make accusations of defamation against the person who lodged a complaint against them; there were insufficient measures of protection in cases of individuals under an order of deportation which were not in conformity with the provisions of Articles 3 and 11 of the Convention.
The Committee recommended that: Austria incorporate adequate penal provisions to make torture, as defined in Article 1 of the Convention, a punishable offence in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Convention; clear instructions be given to the police by the competent authorities to avoid any incident of ill-treatment by police agents. Such instruction should emphasize that ill-treatment by law enforcement officials shall not be tolerated and shall be promptly investigated and punished in cases where the instructions had been violated; provisions concerning the protection of asylum seekers should fully conform with the relevant international standards, in particular Articles 3 and 11 of the Convention, both in law and practice; the third periodic report of Austria, which was due in August 1996, could be prepared in accordance with the Committee's guidelines and be submitted by December 2000.
Remarks from the Delegation
HAROLD KREID, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said he very much appreciated the time and consideration the Committee gave to Austria's report. Concerning the Committee's wish that Austria adopt a specific definition of torture into its civil code of law, he said he would personally transmit the Committee's concerns to his Government.
Response from Finland
PER LINDHOLM, Justice of the Finnish Supreme Court, was the first in the delegation to respond to the Committee's questions. He said the meeting yesterday was friendly, and the Committee's kind words were appreciated.
Concerning incorporating a specific definition of torture, the Committee's concerns would be conveyed in due manner to Government officials. The remarks about the moral value of incorporating a definition of torture into the civil code were convincing -- particularly the argument that this sent a strong message to the public.
The admissibility of evidence obtained under torture was not allowed under Finnish law. While there was no provision under the law to specifically disallow that, the legal tradition in the Nordic countries may explain that. In these countries, almost everything was admissible evidence as a starting point. If it was brought to the attention of the judge that some piece of evidence was obtained through torture, it would be ignored by the judge. The Government of Finland believed it was in compliance with the Convention if a judge ignored such evidence.
The delegation also responded to questions about prisoners and prison administration. Concerning the isolation of prisoners, a remand prisoner had the right to receive visitors. The right could be restricted if the visit was presumed to be counter-productive to detention. Telephone calls and televisions could be restricted on the same grounds. About half of the foreign prisoners in Finnish jails came from Estonia. Information concerning prisoners' rights was translated into a number of languages. The problems of prisoners who belonged to a minority group should be given special attention.
Addressing administrative procedures for asylum seekers, they said an alien may be placed in detention if his or her identity was not known, or if there was reason to believe that the person had committed a crime. The alien may be placed in a general prison. Accelerated asylum procedures applied when the asylum seeker had not claimed serious violations of human rights. When allegations of torture arose during an asylum claim, the facts were sufficient; proof was often very difficult to provide. It was not necessary to have medical proof.
The principle of safe country of asylum was no longer applied in Finland; there was no list of safe countries of asylum. Every case was dealt with individually. The matter is decided by the administrative court.
Border guards do not conduct interrogations of asylum seekers. Training for those who do deal with asylum contained a number of human rights elements. Teachers for this training came from different authorities, including the Ministries of the Interior, Social Affairs and Health and from the Office of the Ombudsman for Aliens. Key speakers at the sessions included representatives from various ethnic backgrounds, as well as representatives from the Centre for Torture.
Racism as a phenomenon was a complex issue, they said. The fight against racism was part of the curriculum of basic police training. The penal code had specific provisions on racial discrimination with sanctions of up to two years imprisonment.
Bugging devices could be installed in a prison cell. A court order was needed and it was only implemented when there was good reason to believe that a crime was in process, or that one was being committed. Concerning the availability of legal aid, a prisoner must be told of his or her rights to have access to a lawyer. If a person was arrested in the middle of the night, it was not always possible to contact a lawyer. Actual interrogations were conducted only during the day, with the possibility of legal aid, if the person wished. Access to legal aid was important and it will be emphasized in police training in the future.
Conclusions of the Committee will be presented to the delegation on Monday, 15 November at 3 p.m.
HR/CAT/99/34
12 November 1999
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO AUSTRIA
Finland Answers Committee’s Questions
The Committee against Torture this afternoon lauded the steps taken by Austria to further the protection of human rights there, and expressed hope it would continue progress in that area.
Expert Bent Sorensen, who served as the rapporteur to the report Austria presented to the Committee, noted with satisfaction that several legal measures and procedures had been enacted in accordance with the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, including the Security Police Act of 1993 and the establishment of an inspection system.
However, Dr. Sorensen said that the Committee had several points of concern, including the fact that Austria had not adopted the definition of torture in its domestic laws, as defined by the Convention, and that there were insufficient measures to protect persons being deported.
In its recommendations, the Committee said that clear instructions needed to be given to the police by the competent authorities to avoid incidents of ill-treatment, and that provisions to protect asylum seekers should fully conform with international standards.
Also this afternoon, a Government delegation from Finland returned with answers to questions that Experts asked yesterday during its report presentation. Ambassador Per Lindholm told members that almost all evidence was admissible under Finnish law, but when it was pointed out to the judge if evidence was obtained through torture, the judge then dismissed it. He also said that racial tolerance was part of the basic curriculum in Finnish police training, and that because of the Committee’s concern, access to legal aid will also be stressed in law enforcement training.
The Committee will meet again in public session on Monday, 15 November at 10 a.m. when it will hear the initial report of Azerbaijan.
Conclusions and Recommendations on Report of Austria
Bent Sorensen, the Committee's rapporteur to the report, noted that the Committee, in its conclusions and recommendations to Austria, welcomed the following developments: the Security Police Act of 1993; the Guidelines for the Intervention of Organs of Public Security; the fact that the Federal Government was required to submit an annual Security Report to the Austrian Parliament; the establishment of an inspection system in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of the Convention; the Code of Criminal Procedure Modification Act 1993 and the Basic Rights Complaint Act of 1992.
The Committee also noted its subjects of concern: in spite of the fact the Convention had the status of law in the Austrian legal system and that it was directly enforceable, a definition of torture as provided for under the Convention was not included in the penal legislation of the State party and, therefore, the offence of torture did not appear as punishable by appropriate penalties as required by Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Convention; notwithstanding the entry into force of the Security Police Act 1993, allegations of ill-treatment by the police were still reported; potential complaints of abuse committed by police authorities may be discouraged by provisions which enabled the police to make accusations of defamation against the person who lodged a complaint against them; there were insufficient measures of protection in cases of individuals under an order of deportation which were not in conformity with the provisions of Articles 3 and 11 of the Convention.
The Committee recommended that: Austria incorporate adequate penal provisions to make torture, as defined in Article 1 of the Convention, a punishable offence in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Convention; clear instructions be given to the police by the competent authorities to avoid any incident of ill-treatment by police agents. Such instruction should emphasize that ill-treatment by law enforcement officials shall not be tolerated and shall be promptly investigated and punished in cases where the instructions had been violated; provisions concerning the protection of asylum seekers should fully conform with the relevant international standards, in particular Articles 3 and 11 of the Convention, both in law and practice; the third periodic report of Austria, which was due in August 1996, could be prepared in accordance with the Committee's guidelines and be submitted by December 2000.
Remarks from the Delegation
HAROLD KREID, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said he very much appreciated the time and consideration the Committee gave to Austria's report. Concerning the Committee's wish that Austria adopt a specific definition of torture into its civil code of law, he said he would personally transmit the Committee's concerns to his Government.
Response from Finland
PER LINDHOLM, Justice of the Finnish Supreme Court, was the first in the delegation to respond to the Committee's questions. He said the meeting yesterday was friendly, and the Committee's kind words were appreciated.
Concerning incorporating a specific definition of torture, the Committee's concerns would be conveyed in due manner to Government officials. The remarks about the moral value of incorporating a definition of torture into the civil code were convincing -- particularly the argument that this sent a strong message to the public.
The admissibility of evidence obtained under torture was not allowed under Finnish law. While there was no provision under the law to specifically disallow that, the legal tradition in the Nordic countries may explain that. In these countries, almost everything was admissible evidence as a starting point. If it was brought to the attention of the judge that some piece of evidence was obtained through torture, it would be ignored by the judge. The Government of Finland believed it was in compliance with the Convention if a judge ignored such evidence.
The delegation also responded to questions about prisoners and prison administration. Concerning the isolation of prisoners, a remand prisoner had the right to receive visitors. The right could be restricted if the visit was presumed to be counter-productive to detention. Telephone calls and televisions could be restricted on the same grounds. About half of the foreign prisoners in Finnish jails came from Estonia. Information concerning prisoners' rights was translated into a number of languages. The problems of prisoners who belonged to a minority group should be given special attention.
Addressing administrative procedures for asylum seekers, they said an alien may be placed in detention if his or her identity was not known, or if there was reason to believe that the person had committed a crime. The alien may be placed in a general prison. Accelerated asylum procedures applied when the asylum seeker had not claimed serious violations of human rights. When allegations of torture arose during an asylum claim, the facts were sufficient; proof was often very difficult to provide. It was not necessary to have medical proof.
The principle of safe country of asylum was no longer applied in Finland; there was no list of safe countries of asylum. Every case was dealt with individually. The matter is decided by the administrative court.
Border guards do not conduct interrogations of asylum seekers. Training for those who do deal with asylum contained a number of human rights elements. Teachers for this training came from different authorities, including the Ministries of the Interior, Social Affairs and Health and from the Office of the Ombudsman for Aliens. Key speakers at the sessions included representatives from various ethnic backgrounds, as well as representatives from the Centre for Torture.
Racism as a phenomenon was a complex issue, they said. The fight against racism was part of the curriculum of basic police training. The penal code had specific provisions on racial discrimination with sanctions of up to two years imprisonment.
Bugging devices could be installed in a prison cell. A court order was needed and it was only implemented when there was good reason to believe that a crime was in process, or that one was being committed. Concerning the availability of legal aid, a prisoner must be told of his or her rights to have access to a lawyer. If a person was arrested in the middle of the night, it was not always possible to contact a lawyer. Actual interrogations were conducted only during the day, with the possibility of legal aid, if the person wished. Access to legal aid was important and it will be emphasized in police training in the future.
Conclusions of the Committee will be presented to the delegation on Monday, 15 November at 3 p.m.