Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
03 May 2000
Share
CAT
24th Session
3 May 2000
Morning
The Committee against Torture began this morning its consideration of a third periodic report submitted by the Government of Portugal on how it complied with the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Presenting his country's report, Jose Manuel Santos Pais, Deputy Procurator General of Portugal and head of the delegation, gave an overview of the measures taken by his Government to avert any acts of torture and the steps taken to increase awareness among the law-enforcing forces. Among the measures taken in response to the Committee's concerns was the restructuring of the public security police, where a profound reform had been carried out.
Peter Thomas Burns, the Committee expert who served as rapporteur to the report, said that Portugal had excellent safeguards for the rights of its citizens and the provisions to that end were functioning well. It was also well in advance of other countries in defining torture and designing provisions to prevent it.
The Portuguese delegation was also composed of Alvaro Mendanca e Moura, Permanent Representative of Portugal to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Catarine de Albuquerque and Paulo Marrecas Ferreira, of the cabinet of documentation and comparative law; Maria Jose de Matos, of the general direction of prison services; Mario Gomes Dias, of the Ministry of Internal Administration; and Maria de Fatima Graca Carvalho, Deputy Inspector-General, General Inspection of the Internal Administration.
Portugal is among the 119 States parties to the Convention against Torture, and as such it must submit periodic reports to the Committee on its performance to implement the terms of the treaty.
Also this morning, the Committee chose from amongst its members rapporteurs and co-rapporteurs to the reports of six countries which will be considered in its session next November. Those countries are Belarus, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Cameroon and Guatemala.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will hear the responses of the Polish delegation to the questions already asked during the presentation of its report yesterday morning.
Report of Portugal
The third periodic report of Portugal (document CAT/C/44/Add.7) describes in detail the legislative and administrative measures taken since the submission of the second report. It says that a number of legislative changes have occurred in the general domestic legal framework. The Constitution was revised for the fourth time. The extradition of Portuguese citizens was given special focus and no one should be extradited for political reasons nor for crimes which carry the death penalty or any other penalty causing irreversible damage to the physical integrity of the person.
The report further says that the legal definition of torture is laid down in the criminal code, according to which torture, or cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment are defined as "acts inflicting intense physical or psychological suffering or severe physical or psychological fatigue or involving the use of chemical substances, drugs or other natural or artificial means, intended to impair the victim's ability to made decisions or freely express his will". Other measures have also been taken to protect individuals from torture and to rehabilitate victims of such acts.
Introduction of Portuguese Report
JOSE MANUEL SANTOS PAIS, Deputy Procurator General of Portugal, gave an overview of the measures taken by his Government to avert any acts of torture and the actions taken to increase awareness among the law-enforcing forces. Among the measures taken in response to the Committee's concerns was the restructuring of the public security police, where a profound reform had been carried out.
Other concerns expressed by the Committee during its previous consideration of the Portuguese report had been the existing gap between the laws and their application, Mr. Santos Pais recalled. Following the recommendations of the Committee, the Government had created the Inspectorate-General within the Ministry of the Interior to monitor and supervise the legality of the activities of the police forces. The Inspectorate-General was a service whose primary role was to protect citizens' rights and to achieve more effective and prompt administration of disciplinary measures.
Mr. Santos Pais continued to say that the use of arms by different polices units had been regulated by respecting the principles of absolute necessity and proportionality. The use of arms could only take place in circumstances of extreme necessity and in the absence of other effective means. Arms could only be used in situations to save the lives of others human beings, against real aggression, and in situations causing imminent danger against the life of the police agent.
According to Mr. Santos Pais, concrete measures had also been taken to improve conditions of detention under police custody and in prisons. Police officers were also trained in view of improved application of the provisions of the Convention. In addition, programmes designed to increase public awareness against torture had also been launched on several occasions.
PETER THOMAS BURNS, the Committee expert who served as rapporteur to the report of Portugal, said that Portugal had excellent safeguards for the rights of its citizens and the provisions to that end were functioning well. It was also well in advance of other countries in defining torture and designing provisions to prevent it.
Mr. Burns said he did not find any case of repression related to acts of torture in the report. He asked the delegation to provide one if it ever existed. He then referred to a report of Amnesty International which mentioned cases of deaths under police custody. More information was requested on the manner in which any police officer was capable of arresting a citizen and the protective mechanisms of the rights of citizens in such cases.
The delegation was asked about criminal jurisdiction in cases of torture committed outside its territory, wherever it took place, alluding to the Pinochet case. In the case of Macao, it was good news that the transfer included also the legislation and its continuation under Chinese sovereignty.
YU MENGJIA, the Committee expert who served as co-rapporteur to the report of Portugal, said the report gave an impression that Portugal had made progress in its efforts to implement the provisions of the Convention. The Committee's concerns were focused on the judicial proceedings and the interrogation systems. The delegation was asked how it had overcome the problems in that area. What effective measures had been taken in that field? On the obstruction of testimony and occurrence of corruption, the delegation was asked how the Government had tackled the problem.
Among questions asked by other Committee members was one about the modality of legal protection of a person arrested by a police officer for two hours for the purpose of identification. What would happen if the person did not identify himself? Did the police officer have the right to detain the individual beyond the two-hour limit?
* *** *
24th Session
3 May 2000
Morning
The Committee against Torture began this morning its consideration of a third periodic report submitted by the Government of Portugal on how it complied with the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Presenting his country's report, Jose Manuel Santos Pais, Deputy Procurator General of Portugal and head of the delegation, gave an overview of the measures taken by his Government to avert any acts of torture and the steps taken to increase awareness among the law-enforcing forces. Among the measures taken in response to the Committee's concerns was the restructuring of the public security police, where a profound reform had been carried out.
Peter Thomas Burns, the Committee expert who served as rapporteur to the report, said that Portugal had excellent safeguards for the rights of its citizens and the provisions to that end were functioning well. It was also well in advance of other countries in defining torture and designing provisions to prevent it.
The Portuguese delegation was also composed of Alvaro Mendanca e Moura, Permanent Representative of Portugal to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Catarine de Albuquerque and Paulo Marrecas Ferreira, of the cabinet of documentation and comparative law; Maria Jose de Matos, of the general direction of prison services; Mario Gomes Dias, of the Ministry of Internal Administration; and Maria de Fatima Graca Carvalho, Deputy Inspector-General, General Inspection of the Internal Administration.
Portugal is among the 119 States parties to the Convention against Torture, and as such it must submit periodic reports to the Committee on its performance to implement the terms of the treaty.
Also this morning, the Committee chose from amongst its members rapporteurs and co-rapporteurs to the reports of six countries which will be considered in its session next November. Those countries are Belarus, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Cameroon and Guatemala.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will hear the responses of the Polish delegation to the questions already asked during the presentation of its report yesterday morning.
Report of Portugal
The third periodic report of Portugal (document CAT/C/44/Add.7) describes in detail the legislative and administrative measures taken since the submission of the second report. It says that a number of legislative changes have occurred in the general domestic legal framework. The Constitution was revised for the fourth time. The extradition of Portuguese citizens was given special focus and no one should be extradited for political reasons nor for crimes which carry the death penalty or any other penalty causing irreversible damage to the physical integrity of the person.
The report further says that the legal definition of torture is laid down in the criminal code, according to which torture, or cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment are defined as "acts inflicting intense physical or psychological suffering or severe physical or psychological fatigue or involving the use of chemical substances, drugs or other natural or artificial means, intended to impair the victim's ability to made decisions or freely express his will". Other measures have also been taken to protect individuals from torture and to rehabilitate victims of such acts.
Introduction of Portuguese Report
JOSE MANUEL SANTOS PAIS, Deputy Procurator General of Portugal, gave an overview of the measures taken by his Government to avert any acts of torture and the actions taken to increase awareness among the law-enforcing forces. Among the measures taken in response to the Committee's concerns was the restructuring of the public security police, where a profound reform had been carried out.
Other concerns expressed by the Committee during its previous consideration of the Portuguese report had been the existing gap between the laws and their application, Mr. Santos Pais recalled. Following the recommendations of the Committee, the Government had created the Inspectorate-General within the Ministry of the Interior to monitor and supervise the legality of the activities of the police forces. The Inspectorate-General was a service whose primary role was to protect citizens' rights and to achieve more effective and prompt administration of disciplinary measures.
Mr. Santos Pais continued to say that the use of arms by different polices units had been regulated by respecting the principles of absolute necessity and proportionality. The use of arms could only take place in circumstances of extreme necessity and in the absence of other effective means. Arms could only be used in situations to save the lives of others human beings, against real aggression, and in situations causing imminent danger against the life of the police agent.
According to Mr. Santos Pais, concrete measures had also been taken to improve conditions of detention under police custody and in prisons. Police officers were also trained in view of improved application of the provisions of the Convention. In addition, programmes designed to increase public awareness against torture had also been launched on several occasions.
PETER THOMAS BURNS, the Committee expert who served as rapporteur to the report of Portugal, said that Portugal had excellent safeguards for the rights of its citizens and the provisions to that end were functioning well. It was also well in advance of other countries in defining torture and designing provisions to prevent it.
Mr. Burns said he did not find any case of repression related to acts of torture in the report. He asked the delegation to provide one if it ever existed. He then referred to a report of Amnesty International which mentioned cases of deaths under police custody. More information was requested on the manner in which any police officer was capable of arresting a citizen and the protective mechanisms of the rights of citizens in such cases.
The delegation was asked about criminal jurisdiction in cases of torture committed outside its territory, wherever it took place, alluding to the Pinochet case. In the case of Macao, it was good news that the transfer included also the legislation and its continuation under Chinese sovereignty.
YU MENGJIA, the Committee expert who served as co-rapporteur to the report of Portugal, said the report gave an impression that Portugal had made progress in its efforts to implement the provisions of the Convention. The Committee's concerns were focused on the judicial proceedings and the interrogation systems. The delegation was asked how it had overcome the problems in that area. What effective measures had been taken in that field? On the obstruction of testimony and occurrence of corruption, the delegation was asked how the Government had tackled the problem.
Among questions asked by other Committee members was one about the modality of legal protection of a person arrested by a police officer for two hours for the purpose of identification. What would happen if the person did not identify himself? Did the police officer have the right to detain the individual beyond the two-hour limit?
* *** *