Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE REVIEWS CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN ICELAND
21 October 1998
Share
MORNING
HR/CT/98/29
21 October 1998
The Committee on Human Rights this morning started its consideration of a report from the Government of Iceland on the country's efforts to give effect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Presenting his country's report, Thorsteinn Geirsson, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs and head of the delegation, said the Constitution had been revised with a view to the international obligations undertaken by Iceland when it became a party to international human rights agreements. The new civil and political rights included a general principle on the equality of all persons before the law; equal rights of men and women; a principle on freedom of movement and the right to choose place of residence; prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and prohibition of forced labour, among other things, he added.
In the course of their consideration of the Icelandic report, several members of the Committee asked why the Government of Iceland had not incorporated the International Covenant into domestic legislation to enable courts to invoke its provisions.
The Icelandic delegation also included Benedikt Jonsson, Permanent Representative of Iceland to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Jonas Thor Gundmundsson, Head of Section at the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs; and Haukur Olafsson, Minister Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Icelandic Mission in Geneva.
As one of 140 States parties to the Covenant, Iceland is obligated to submit summaries of its efforts in implementing the provisions of the treaty.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will conclude its consideration of the report from the Government of Iceland and issue its preliminary observations and recommendations.
Report of Iceland
The third periodic report of Iceland (document CCPR/C/94/Add.2) reviews the efforts of the State in implementing the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The report says that constitutional amendments were made providing for extensive changes and additions to the human rights provisions in the Constitution which had remained almost totally unchanged since 1874. It further says that various new rights are added to those already provided for and some of the old provisions are phrased in a much clearer way.
According to the report, public discussion on human rights and public interest in human rights have increased significantly in Iceland in the past few years. It notes that a Human Rights Office was established in the capital in the spring of 1994, similar to those which have existed in the Scandinavian countries for some time. The Office concerns itself with the implementation of international human rights instruments in Iceland. Some educational and informational work in the field of human rights has already been undertaken by the Office for the benefit of lawyers and the public, the report states.
The report says that as Icelandic legislation has now been adapted to the provisions of the Covenant, two reservations which Iceland made with respect to the Covenant have been recalled with regard to articles 8 and 13. However, reservations remained with respect to three provisions of the Covenant relating to the separation of juvenile prisoners from adults; the resumption of cases which have already been tried; and the prohibition against propaganda for war. There are no plans for the withdrawal of these reservations, the report says.
Presentation of Icelandic Report
THORSTEINN GEIRSSON, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs of Iceland, said that legislative changes had been enacted in Icelandic law which were of importance for the respect of human rights in the country. The Act on Administrative Procedure was deemed to be a significant reform as it expressed for the first time in statute form rules relating to handling of procedure within the Government.
Furthermore, Mr. Geirsson said that the law according to which the Minister of Justice could have expelled a foreigner who had lawfully entered Icelandic territory without any appeal had been changed. According to the new law, it was the Immigration Office which decided on the expulsion of a foreigner under such circumstances. The decision was subject to appeal to the Minister of
Justice, and the new law provided expressly that a foreigner was to be notified of the avenue for appeal when the decision to expel him was made known.
Mr. Geirsson said that the country's Constitution had been revised with a view to the international obligations undertaken by Iceland when it became a party to international human rights agreements. The former human rights provisions had been subjected to criticism. The amendment to the Constitution was intended to redress that situation. The new civil and political rights included a general principle on the equality of all persons before the law; equal rights of men and women; a principle on freedom of movement and the right to choose place of residence; prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and prohibition of forced labour, among other things, he added.
Mr. Geirsson said that an office of the Ombudsman had been established to guard the interests and rights of children and to ensure that administrative authorities, individuals and associations respected in full the rights, needs and interests of minors.
In conclusion, Mr. Geirsson told the Committee that the European Human Rights Convention had been incorporated into Icelandic law and its provisions could be invoked in courts as domestic legislation. At present, no decision had been taken to incorporate other human rights instruments into domestic law.
Discussion of Report
In response to written questions prepared by members of the Committee in advance, the delegation of Iceland stated that the Government had already discussed the possibility of incorporating the Covenant into domestic law last spring. The Ministry of Justice was now contemplating to appoint a special committee with the task of studying this incorporation. In spite of the fact that the Covenant did not directly have the force of domestic law, the Government was of the opinion that the constitutional amendments in 1995 were largely inspired by the provisions of the Covenant along with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The effects on the application of Icelandic law had thus increased significantly.
In response to a question on equality before the law and equal protection of the law, the delegation affirmed that the Constitution now expressly protected the principle of equal rights. It also provided for special protection of equality between men and women. It stipulated that men and women had equal rights in all aspects. In addition, the Ministry of Social Affairs, in collaboration with a special working group, had organized an experimental job evaluation project pertaining to equal wages issue. The objective was to use a gender-neutral job evaluation system to categorize each job at each workplace with the goal of studying whether an evaluation of jobs discriminated against the genders.
The Icelandic delegation said that children of an Icelandic father and a mother of foreign citizenship could not acquire Icelandic citizenship if their parents were not married. This principle was based on the presumption that a child would acquire the nationality of the mother, which seemed to be the general rule in the legislation on nationality in the majority of States.
Several members of the Committee reacted against the delegation's affirmation that children born out of wedlock could not acquire Icelandic nationality. One expert said that it was in violation of the provisions of the Covenant to discriminate against children born out of wedlock. The experts said that children, whether they were born from wedded or unwedded couple, should be treated equally.
Another issue raised by numerous experts was the omission by the Government of Iceland to incorporate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into domestic law. The delegation had said that the European Convention on Human Rights had already been incorporated into domestic legislation and that its provisions could be invoked in courts. An expert asked why the European Convention was incorporated and not the International Covenant. Were there political and legal reasons for that?
The report had indicated that the Human Rights Office concerned itself with the success or lack of success in the implementation of international human rights instruments. The expert said there was no question of success or lack of success in implementing international treaties since it was a matter of obligation for the State party.
Some experts asked whether the Human Rights Office of Iceland had other responsibilities other than educational and informational work in the field of human rights. They wanted to know if the Office was more than a non-governmental organization (NGO) because the parties which had founded the Office were all NGOs.
In response to some of the questions raised by members of the Committee, the Icelandic delegation said that although the Human Rights Office was founded by associations and private organizations, it had the authority to monitor the implementation of the Covenant. The Office was founded by such organizations as the Icelandic section of Amnesty International, Icelandic Bar Association, Icelandic Church Aid, and the Office of the Bishop of Iceland, among others.
The delegation said that the Office of the Ombudsman received not only complaints relating to violations of human rights, but also complaints against denial to access to public information. The Public Information Act made it mandatory for administrative authorities to provide public access to documents concerning particular matters, subject to certain limitations such as State security.
HR/CT/98/29
21 October 1998
The Committee on Human Rights this morning started its consideration of a report from the Government of Iceland on the country's efforts to give effect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Presenting his country's report, Thorsteinn Geirsson, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs and head of the delegation, said the Constitution had been revised with a view to the international obligations undertaken by Iceland when it became a party to international human rights agreements. The new civil and political rights included a general principle on the equality of all persons before the law; equal rights of men and women; a principle on freedom of movement and the right to choose place of residence; prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and prohibition of forced labour, among other things, he added.
In the course of their consideration of the Icelandic report, several members of the Committee asked why the Government of Iceland had not incorporated the International Covenant into domestic legislation to enable courts to invoke its provisions.
The Icelandic delegation also included Benedikt Jonsson, Permanent Representative of Iceland to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Jonas Thor Gundmundsson, Head of Section at the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs; and Haukur Olafsson, Minister Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Icelandic Mission in Geneva.
As one of 140 States parties to the Covenant, Iceland is obligated to submit summaries of its efforts in implementing the provisions of the treaty.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will conclude its consideration of the report from the Government of Iceland and issue its preliminary observations and recommendations.
Report of Iceland
The third periodic report of Iceland (document CCPR/C/94/Add.2) reviews the efforts of the State in implementing the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The report says that constitutional amendments were made providing for extensive changes and additions to the human rights provisions in the Constitution which had remained almost totally unchanged since 1874. It further says that various new rights are added to those already provided for and some of the old provisions are phrased in a much clearer way.
According to the report, public discussion on human rights and public interest in human rights have increased significantly in Iceland in the past few years. It notes that a Human Rights Office was established in the capital in the spring of 1994, similar to those which have existed in the Scandinavian countries for some time. The Office concerns itself with the implementation of international human rights instruments in Iceland. Some educational and informational work in the field of human rights has already been undertaken by the Office for the benefit of lawyers and the public, the report states.
The report says that as Icelandic legislation has now been adapted to the provisions of the Covenant, two reservations which Iceland made with respect to the Covenant have been recalled with regard to articles 8 and 13. However, reservations remained with respect to three provisions of the Covenant relating to the separation of juvenile prisoners from adults; the resumption of cases which have already been tried; and the prohibition against propaganda for war. There are no plans for the withdrawal of these reservations, the report says.
Presentation of Icelandic Report
THORSTEINN GEIRSSON, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs of Iceland, said that legislative changes had been enacted in Icelandic law which were of importance for the respect of human rights in the country. The Act on Administrative Procedure was deemed to be a significant reform as it expressed for the first time in statute form rules relating to handling of procedure within the Government.
Furthermore, Mr. Geirsson said that the law according to which the Minister of Justice could have expelled a foreigner who had lawfully entered Icelandic territory without any appeal had been changed. According to the new law, it was the Immigration Office which decided on the expulsion of a foreigner under such circumstances. The decision was subject to appeal to the Minister of
Justice, and the new law provided expressly that a foreigner was to be notified of the avenue for appeal when the decision to expel him was made known.
Mr. Geirsson said that the country's Constitution had been revised with a view to the international obligations undertaken by Iceland when it became a party to international human rights agreements. The former human rights provisions had been subjected to criticism. The amendment to the Constitution was intended to redress that situation. The new civil and political rights included a general principle on the equality of all persons before the law; equal rights of men and women; a principle on freedom of movement and the right to choose place of residence; prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and prohibition of forced labour, among other things, he added.
Mr. Geirsson said that an office of the Ombudsman had been established to guard the interests and rights of children and to ensure that administrative authorities, individuals and associations respected in full the rights, needs and interests of minors.
In conclusion, Mr. Geirsson told the Committee that the European Human Rights Convention had been incorporated into Icelandic law and its provisions could be invoked in courts as domestic legislation. At present, no decision had been taken to incorporate other human rights instruments into domestic law.
Discussion of Report
In response to written questions prepared by members of the Committee in advance, the delegation of Iceland stated that the Government had already discussed the possibility of incorporating the Covenant into domestic law last spring. The Ministry of Justice was now contemplating to appoint a special committee with the task of studying this incorporation. In spite of the fact that the Covenant did not directly have the force of domestic law, the Government was of the opinion that the constitutional amendments in 1995 were largely inspired by the provisions of the Covenant along with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The effects on the application of Icelandic law had thus increased significantly.
In response to a question on equality before the law and equal protection of the law, the delegation affirmed that the Constitution now expressly protected the principle of equal rights. It also provided for special protection of equality between men and women. It stipulated that men and women had equal rights in all aspects. In addition, the Ministry of Social Affairs, in collaboration with a special working group, had organized an experimental job evaluation project pertaining to equal wages issue. The objective was to use a gender-neutral job evaluation system to categorize each job at each workplace with the goal of studying whether an evaluation of jobs discriminated against the genders.
The Icelandic delegation said that children of an Icelandic father and a mother of foreign citizenship could not acquire Icelandic citizenship if their parents were not married. This principle was based on the presumption that a child would acquire the nationality of the mother, which seemed to be the general rule in the legislation on nationality in the majority of States.
Several members of the Committee reacted against the delegation's affirmation that children born out of wedlock could not acquire Icelandic nationality. One expert said that it was in violation of the provisions of the Covenant to discriminate against children born out of wedlock. The experts said that children, whether they were born from wedded or unwedded couple, should be treated equally.
Another issue raised by numerous experts was the omission by the Government of Iceland to incorporate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into domestic law. The delegation had said that the European Convention on Human Rights had already been incorporated into domestic legislation and that its provisions could be invoked in courts. An expert asked why the European Convention was incorporated and not the International Covenant. Were there political and legal reasons for that?
The report had indicated that the Human Rights Office concerned itself with the success or lack of success in the implementation of international human rights instruments. The expert said there was no question of success or lack of success in implementing international treaties since it was a matter of obligation for the State party.
Some experts asked whether the Human Rights Office of Iceland had other responsibilities other than educational and informational work in the field of human rights. They wanted to know if the Office was more than a non-governmental organization (NGO) because the parties which had founded the Office were all NGOs.
In response to some of the questions raised by members of the Committee, the Icelandic delegation said that although the Human Rights Office was founded by associations and private organizations, it had the authority to monitor the implementation of the Covenant. The Office was founded by such organizations as the Icelandic section of Amnesty International, Icelandic Bar Association, Icelandic Church Aid, and the Office of the Bishop of Iceland, among others.
The delegation said that the Office of the Ombudsman received not only complaints relating to violations of human rights, but also complaints against denial to access to public information. The Public Information Act made it mandatory for administrative authorities to provide public access to documents concerning particular matters, subject to certain limitations such as State security.