Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
11 May 2000
Share
CAT
24th Session
11 May 2000
Afternoon
United States Exercises Universal Jurisdiction Over Crime of Torture, Delegation Says
A Government delegation from the United States told the Committee against Torture this afternoon that the United States had criminal jurisdiction over any crime of torture committed abroad by any official, irrespective of nationality, if that person was later found in its territory.
The delegation of the United States appeared before the Committee to provide answers to the questions raised by the experts during their consideration of the initial report of the country. Responding to queries, the delegation acknowledged that there had been deaths reported from improper restraint practices in health care facilities, and there might have been some in jails and prisons as well. Officials had been working aggressively to uncover full information on those incidents.
The United States is among the 119 States parties to the Convention against Torture, and as such it is obligated to provide periodic reports to the Committee on how it was complying to the exigencies of the treaty.
The Committee will deliver its conclusions and recommendations on the report of the United States report at 3 p.m. on Monday, 15 May, in the presence of representatives from that State.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 12 May, it will take up the initial report of Slovenia.
Response of the United States
In response to questions raised by Committee experts during their consideration of the report, the United States delegation explained why the submission of the report had been delayed by saying that the task of assembling a comprehensive report to cover a country of 267 million people required extraordinary coordination among many agencies and governmental bodies.
Concerning access by a person to a relative or doctor upon arrest, the delegation said that under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution, a pre-trial detainee in both federal and state custody had the right to appropriate medical care, which included access to a physician if warranted. All pre-trial detainees also had a constitutional right to communicate with friends, relatives, attorneys and public officials by means of visits or correspondence, subjected to reasonable limitations imposed by security needs.
A question was asked on why the United States had adopted an understanding of the definition of torture under article 1 which varied from the definition articulated in the Convention, to which the delegation stated that there was no inconsistency between the United States understanding and article 1 of the Convention. Contrary to the apparent perception of some members of the Committee, on the issue of official mistreatment resulting solely in mental suffering, such mistreatment constituted torture under the United States' understanding of article 1 of the Convention so long as it constituted prolonged mental harm.
The United States had criminal jurisdiction over any crime of torture committed abroad by any official, irrespective of nationality, if that person was later found in the United States, the delegation said. In addition, the United States had no interest in harbouring torturers. Concerning the high official of the former regime of Haiti, there had been no request for the official's extradition from anyone.
A question was raised about why the United States did not provide prompt responses to the past communications addressed to it by the Special Rapporteur on Torture, to which the delegation apologized for the time it had taken to respond to his communications. The United States supported the work of the Special Rapporteur and had sent a detailed response to his November 1998 communication, which included detailed answers to all of his prior communications.
The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice had sought stringent restrictions on the use of electro-shock weapons in both law enforcement agencies and corrections facilities, as well as increased training for officers using such weapons, the delegation said. The use of such restraints did not violate constitutional standards per se. Used appropriately, stun belts and stun guns could be effective tools for law enforcement under limited and closely regulated conditions in which the use of force was warranted due to the actions of a prison inmate or suspect whom an officer was justifiably attempting to arrest.
The delegation said that restraint devices were used in settings such as hospitals and nursing homes for patient safety reasons in addition to their use in jails and prisons. Such devices should only be used to keep an inmate from hurting himself or others, when less restrictive means of controlling the inmate had failed. They were not designed as punishment, but rather as an effective means of short-term control of a suicidal inmate or one who was engaging in self-mutilation. The United States Constitution did not permit use of restraint as a means of punishment or for purposes of interrogation, and one sought to eliminate such uses when one found them.
The delegation acknowledged that there had been deaths reported from improper restraint practices in health care facilities, and there might have been some in jails and prisons as well. The officials had been working aggressively to uncover full information on those incidents. In addition, it was unconstitutional to interrogate people in restraint chairs. However, the Justice Department had found some juvenile facilities that did use restraint chairs.
With regard to the Committee's concern about the "supermax" prison facilities, the delegation said that for certain violent inmates, supermax facilities had proven to be necessary for United States law enforcement. However, where federal facilities were concerned, use of such facilities was scrupulously controlled. Prisoners were screened and monitored for mental illness; and classification systems were in place so that confinement was not indefinite and that prisoners meeting certain criteria were transferred to less structured settings where appropriate.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service strived to ensure that all aliens in detention, regardless of whether they had made asylum claims, were treated humanely, the delegation said. The Service sought to house all detained asylum-seekers in its facilities, where it had a policy of housing non-violent detainees apart from criminal aliens and where it had greater control over the facilities. From 1990 to 1994, more than 425,000 asylum applications were filed in the United States, and many of those were deemed frivolous. Under the 1994 asylum reforms, genuine asylum seekers were quickly identified and granted protection.
A question was raised on how the United States could comply with the provisions of the Convention if prisons were operated by private companies. The delegation said that the fact that a correctional facility that housed state inmates was operated by a private company in no sense insulated that facility from scrutiny under the Federal Constitution. A corporation that operated a prison facility under a contract with the state was subject to the same liabilities under the federal law as a public facility.
Responding to additional queries put by Committee experts, the delegation acknowledged that inter-prisoner violence in jails was related to overcrowding, which was a problem for the Government.
24th Session
11 May 2000
Afternoon
United States Exercises Universal Jurisdiction Over Crime of Torture, Delegation Says
A Government delegation from the United States told the Committee against Torture this afternoon that the United States had criminal jurisdiction over any crime of torture committed abroad by any official, irrespective of nationality, if that person was later found in its territory.
The delegation of the United States appeared before the Committee to provide answers to the questions raised by the experts during their consideration of the initial report of the country. Responding to queries, the delegation acknowledged that there had been deaths reported from improper restraint practices in health care facilities, and there might have been some in jails and prisons as well. Officials had been working aggressively to uncover full information on those incidents.
The United States is among the 119 States parties to the Convention against Torture, and as such it is obligated to provide periodic reports to the Committee on how it was complying to the exigencies of the treaty.
The Committee will deliver its conclusions and recommendations on the report of the United States report at 3 p.m. on Monday, 15 May, in the presence of representatives from that State.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 12 May, it will take up the initial report of Slovenia.
Response of the United States
In response to questions raised by Committee experts during their consideration of the report, the United States delegation explained why the submission of the report had been delayed by saying that the task of assembling a comprehensive report to cover a country of 267 million people required extraordinary coordination among many agencies and governmental bodies.
Concerning access by a person to a relative or doctor upon arrest, the delegation said that under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution, a pre-trial detainee in both federal and state custody had the right to appropriate medical care, which included access to a physician if warranted. All pre-trial detainees also had a constitutional right to communicate with friends, relatives, attorneys and public officials by means of visits or correspondence, subjected to reasonable limitations imposed by security needs.
A question was asked on why the United States had adopted an understanding of the definition of torture under article 1 which varied from the definition articulated in the Convention, to which the delegation stated that there was no inconsistency between the United States understanding and article 1 of the Convention. Contrary to the apparent perception of some members of the Committee, on the issue of official mistreatment resulting solely in mental suffering, such mistreatment constituted torture under the United States' understanding of article 1 of the Convention so long as it constituted prolonged mental harm.
The United States had criminal jurisdiction over any crime of torture committed abroad by any official, irrespective of nationality, if that person was later found in the United States, the delegation said. In addition, the United States had no interest in harbouring torturers. Concerning the high official of the former regime of Haiti, there had been no request for the official's extradition from anyone.
A question was raised about why the United States did not provide prompt responses to the past communications addressed to it by the Special Rapporteur on Torture, to which the delegation apologized for the time it had taken to respond to his communications. The United States supported the work of the Special Rapporteur and had sent a detailed response to his November 1998 communication, which included detailed answers to all of his prior communications.
The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice had sought stringent restrictions on the use of electro-shock weapons in both law enforcement agencies and corrections facilities, as well as increased training for officers using such weapons, the delegation said. The use of such restraints did not violate constitutional standards per se. Used appropriately, stun belts and stun guns could be effective tools for law enforcement under limited and closely regulated conditions in which the use of force was warranted due to the actions of a prison inmate or suspect whom an officer was justifiably attempting to arrest.
The delegation said that restraint devices were used in settings such as hospitals and nursing homes for patient safety reasons in addition to their use in jails and prisons. Such devices should only be used to keep an inmate from hurting himself or others, when less restrictive means of controlling the inmate had failed. They were not designed as punishment, but rather as an effective means of short-term control of a suicidal inmate or one who was engaging in self-mutilation. The United States Constitution did not permit use of restraint as a means of punishment or for purposes of interrogation, and one sought to eliminate such uses when one found them.
The delegation acknowledged that there had been deaths reported from improper restraint practices in health care facilities, and there might have been some in jails and prisons as well. The officials had been working aggressively to uncover full information on those incidents. In addition, it was unconstitutional to interrogate people in restraint chairs. However, the Justice Department had found some juvenile facilities that did use restraint chairs.
With regard to the Committee's concern about the "supermax" prison facilities, the delegation said that for certain violent inmates, supermax facilities had proven to be necessary for United States law enforcement. However, where federal facilities were concerned, use of such facilities was scrupulously controlled. Prisoners were screened and monitored for mental illness; and classification systems were in place so that confinement was not indefinite and that prisoners meeting certain criteria were transferred to less structured settings where appropriate.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service strived to ensure that all aliens in detention, regardless of whether they had made asylum claims, were treated humanely, the delegation said. The Service sought to house all detained asylum-seekers in its facilities, where it had a policy of housing non-violent detainees apart from criminal aliens and where it had greater control over the facilities. From 1990 to 1994, more than 425,000 asylum applications were filed in the United States, and many of those were deemed frivolous. Under the 1994 asylum reforms, genuine asylum seekers were quickly identified and granted protection.
A question was raised on how the United States could comply with the provisions of the Convention if prisons were operated by private companies. The delegation said that the fact that a correctional facility that housed state inmates was operated by a private company in no sense insulated that facility from scrutiny under the Federal Constitution. A corporation that operated a prison facility under a contract with the state was subject to the same liabilities under the federal law as a public facility.
Responding to additional queries put by Committee experts, the delegation acknowledged that inter-prisoner violence in jails was related to overcrowding, which was a problem for the Government.