Committee against Torture hears response of delegation of Finland

Committee against Torture
AFTERNOON

19 May 2011

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Finland to questions raised by Committee Experts on the initial report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee members on Wednesday, 18 May, the delegation, which was led by Arto Kosonen, Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, said that an explicit provision on torture in Finnish legislation was intended to be phrased so that it would fully cover the contents and definition of Article 1 of the Convention. The penal latitude of torture was more severe than the penal latitude of aggravated assault and as regards the fixed-term punishments, it was also the highest possible according to the Criminal Code, excluding a life sentence. There were two institutions providing services for torture victims, the Centre for Torture Survivors located in Helsinki and the Rehabilitation Services in Oulu, both offered specialized healthcare for assessing, treating and rehabilitating refugees and asylum seekers and their families residing in Finland. The delegation provided information on the number of foreigners in prison; as of 1 May 2011 there were 230 sentenced and 206 remand foreign prisoners, about 14 per cent of the prison population. Most foreigner prisoners were citizens of Estonia, Russia and Somalia and the most common offence was drugs.

The delegation explained that the Government had developed a vision for Roma policy in Finland with the objective of enabling Roma to participate and effectively influence the planning, implementation, evaluation and monitoring of measures to improve their situation. Violence against women remained a serious human rights problem in Finland and the Government had developed an action plan to proactively address this issue along with female genital mutilation which was a punishable act under the Finnish Penal Code under the crime of aggravated assault with a punishment from 1 to 10 years imprisonment.

Fernando Marino Menendez, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur for the report of Finland, asked for clarification on the objectives of the Nordic Treaty for the Sami and the April 2008 decision not to deport to Rwanda a Rwandan citizen accused of genocide. As Finland had yet to decide to accede to the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, the Rapporteur explained that the Convention would provide irregular workers with protective rights.

Xuexian Wang, the Committee Expert who served as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Finland, appreciated Finland’s efforts to prevent prisoner violence. He asked if the Convention against Torture was applicable to the Olmond Islands and if the Government monitored the implementation of the Convention on the islands.

Other Committee Experts said they were encouraged that Finland abided by the due diligence principle as this would provide the Committee with data on violence against women and the protection of women and could the delegation explain why video and audio interrogations were not obligatory.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Kosonen said that the new reporting procedure, the List of Issues Prior to Reporting, had been a positive experience because it had focused the report on critical areas and said it would be useful to have a press conference at the conclusion of the Committee’s review of State party reports to inform the public of the conclusions reached.

The delegation from Finland included representatives from the Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Ministry of the Interior.

The Committee will meet at 10 a.m. on Friday 20 May to consider the combined fourth and fifth periodic report of Monaco (CAT/C/MCO/4-5).

Response by Delegation of Finland

Responding to questions raised on Wednesday, 18 May by Committee Experts, the delegation explained that Finland was one of the dual system countries whereby the provisions of treaties required a Parliamentary Act to be brought into force. Finland applied the human rights friendly interpretation in the rulings of the Supreme Court and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Olmond Islands were granted self determination 90 years ago and the Convention against Torture was fully enforced there. Concerning adoption of the Convention of the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers, consultations were ongoing on this but as the rights of immigrants were already covered by national legislation and European legislation and there was no separation between the rights of migrant workers and regular workers, no decision had been taken. Finland had not ratified the International Labour Organization Convention 169, but had tried to settle the rights of the Sami with a balanced solution without success to date; however the Government was committed to ensuring the right of the Sami to maintain their indigenous rights.

Concerning the criminalisation of torture in Finnish legislation, the explicit provision on torture was intended to be phrased so that it would fully cover the contents and definition of Article 1 of the Convention. The penal latitude of torture was more severe than the penal latitude of aggravated assault and as regards the fixed-term punishments, it was also the highest possible according to the Criminal Code, excluding a life sentence. In a normal case, a torture crime also covered aggravated assault. However, if torture had not covered all interests intended to be protected through the criminalisation, other provisions of the Criminal Code would apply at the same time, for example in the case of an aggravated rape.

In 2010, disciplinary punishment in prison was imposed on 94 violent deeds in the prison system. Inter-prisoner violence was mostly based on acts resulting from criminal activity. The Internal Auditing Unit of the Criminal Sanctions Agency was preparing a study on prisoners and would prepare long-term measures to reduce the incidence of violence based on the results.

The renovation of old Finnish prisons was a huge project carried out over decades. At the moment Mikkeli and Kuopio prisons were under renovation. The Helsinki and Hameenlinna prisons would be renovated following the completion of the first two prisons. The estimated renovation cost for all four prisons was Euros 110 million.

On 1 May 2011, there were 230 sentenced and 206 remand foreign prisoners, about 14 per cent of the prison population. Most foreigner prisoners were citizens of Estonia, Russia and Somalia and the most common offence was drugs. The freedom of action of a prisoner could be restricted by handcuffing, using a plastic cuff if necessary to prevent escape during transport, control violent behaviour that could not be prevented by another other means, deter threatening violence or to secure a body cavity search.

Training and education for prison staff was provided by the Training Institute for Prison and Probation Services founded in 1976. The Institute provided basic training and further education for the prison and probation services staff and cooperated with Laurea University in organising a bachelor’s degree programme in prison and probation services. There was no separate judicial system for minors. Pending pre-trial detention, a remand prisoner’s contact with other remand prisoners could be restricted by a decision of the court if there was a justified reason that such contacts would endanger the purpose of remand imprisonment. Contact with the remand prisoner’s legal counsel could not be restricted. According to the Remand Imprisonment Act, remand prisoners should be placed in prisons in separate wards apart from sentenced prisoners.

The delegation confirmed that concerning the 2008 request of Rwanda for extradition of a Rwandan citizen accused of genocide, the request was denied because the Ministry of Justice concluded that a fair trial was a fundamental right of a person and could not be guaranteed in Rwanda; the trial was at the moment being held in Finland and should conclude in 2012.

ARTO KOSONEN, Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, provided comparison data from the Institute of Legal Policy on the punishment level concerning the crime of rape. Concerning unconditional imprisonment sentences in Finland they were 10 per cent to 20 per cent lower than in other Nordic countries but 10 per cent to 20 per cent higher than in Germany. The average duration of the imprisonment in Finland was at the same level as in Sweden and Norway and higher than in Denmark, but lower than in Germany. In relation to the population, the amount of prison years in Finland was lower than in Sweden and Norway and higher than in Germany and Denmark.

The delegation said that a person who had been detained must be informed as soon as possible about the right to use a lawyer and in principle questioning should not be conducted between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and a meal should be provided. A transcript must be made and given to the detainee for changes. The interrogation could be recorded using audio or video. Under the Aliens Act, a decision on an application for international protection could be accelerated if the applicant came from a safe country of origin, if the application could be considered manifestly unfounded or if the applicant had filed a subsequent application, which had not contained any new grounds for staying in the country that would influence the decision on the matter. The accelerated procedure was applied to those asylum applications which were not based on the need for protection.

A non European Union citizen could be prevented from entering the country at the border or removed from the country when the person had not sought international protection and had no valid visa or residence permit. This decision on refusal of entry could be enforced regardless of appeal, unless otherwise ordered by an administrative court. Prior to 1 June 2009, there was a possibility to grant a residence permit based on the person’s need for protection; since 1 June 2009 this had been replaced by a possibility to grant a resident permit based on subsidiary protection or humanitarian protection. The grounds for granting a residence permit based on compassionate grounds were laid down in the Aliens Act. Decisions based on compassionate grounds would not include decisions based on non-refoulemnt. On compassionate grounds, the residence permit could be granted if refusing the permit would be manifestly unreasonable with regard to the alien’s health, ties to Finland or on other compassionate grounds, particularly in consideration of the circumstance the alien would face in his home country.

The number of foreigners detained based on the Aliens Act during 2011 was halved when compared with the numbers for 2009 and 2010. In 2008, the Ministry of the Interior established a Steering Group to monitor trafficking in human beings. The Steering Group proposed that a consistent national operating model should be developed for the asylum procedure, refusal of entry and removal from the country to facilitate identifying victims of human trafficking as early as possible in the initial phase of the asylum procedure.

The Coercive Measures Act regulated the request to detain a person, which should be lodged to the court immediately and before noon during the third day when the person was apprehended. The court should decide on a time limit when a charge must be brought to court and the duration must not be longer than was necessary to finish the pre-trial investigation and to prepare the prosecution. In 2010, the number of persons detained in police facilities was 2,300 with the medium length of detention 3 days.

All police training was monitored and evaluated by the National Police Board which ensured that the training fulfilled the needs to carry out police duties in an appropriate manner. The National Police Board had a separate legality control unit which handled complaints filed concerning the police. Complaints could also be addressed to the Chancellor of Justice and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Concerning the case of ill-treatment that occurred in the Helsinki Police Detention Establishment in 2006, the guard was sentenced to a suspended imprisonment of 80 days and was fined jointly with the State Euros 9,000 in damages to the mishandled foreigner.

There were two institutions providing services for torture victims, the Centre for Torture Survivors located in Helsinki and the Rehabilitation Services in Oulu, both offered specialized healthcare for assessing, treating and rehabilitating refugees and asylum seekers and their families residing in Finland.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman made 70 investigations and visits per year, including to psychiatric hospitals, and the reports of these visits were publically available on the Ombudsman’s website. The Ombudsman played a role as a promoter of human rights in psychiatric hospitals. The Ombudsman could issue a reprimand on the basis of unlawful action; express an opinion as to what procedure would have been lawful; and draw the attention of the authorities to the requirements of good administrative practice. The right to bring a prosecution was the most severe sanction at the Ombudsman’s disposal.

In 2007, Finland signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol but as there were sill some legislative modifications and changes required, the Government was not yet in a position to ratify the Convention and its Protocol. The provisions restricting the right of self-determination of clients/patients of social welfare and health care services required reform. Separate legislation would be enacted concerning the treatment and examination of patients of forensic psychiatry.

Mutilation of women’s and girls’ genitals was a punishable act under the Finnish Penal Code, which also applied to the case when a girl resident was taken abroad for circumcision. Depending on the seriousness of the act, the person performing or assisting in a circumcision could be sentenced to imprisonment. The title of the crime was aggravated assault and the punishment was from 1 to 10 years imprisonment. There had been no cases verified to date. Efforts were concentrated on intervention campaigns and community based actions to ensure that knowledge and information about providing care to circumcised women was available in public and private health care services.

Violence against women remained a serious human rights problem in Finland. The National Institute for Health and Welfare prepared an action plan for the period 2010 to 2015 with the aim of tackling violence proactively by seeking to influence attitudes and behaviors, prevent repeated violence, improve the position of victims of sexual violence and crisis assistance and support provided for them, develop methods for identifying and intervening in violence experienced by vulnerable groups, and enhance the knowledge and skills of the authorities and professional service providers in prevention.

In 2010 a National Policy on Roma established a working group to draw up a strategy for influencing the international Roma policy under the lead of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The vision of the Roma policy was defined by the working group in the handbook, The Objectives of Finland for Advancing the European Policy on Roma. The objective was to enable Roma to participate and effectively influence the planning, implementation, evaluation and monitoring of measures to improve their situation. A national database for good practices in the area of education, housing, health, adult education and employment, language and culture and promotion of equality and combating discrimination would be created and made available on the Internet site of the Advisory Board on Romani Affairs.

According to the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person, the average non-pecuniary compensation was Euros 100 per day and compensation must be applied within six months from the time when the decision not to take action was passed or the matter was dropped or the judgment passed in the proceedings was given legal force, annulled or removed.

Questions by Committee Experts

FERNANDO MARINO MENENDEZ, the Committee Expert Serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Finland, asked for clarification on the Nordic Treaty for the Sami, what was the objective of the treaty and was there protection for natural resources for the Sami. Concerning the April 2008 decision not to deport to Rwanda a Rwandan citizen accused of genocide, could the delegation clarify their decision making? Concerning the deportation of asylum seekers at the border or at detention facilities, was there an opportunity for the asylum seeker to appeal a decision to the Supreme Court, and was the superior administrative tribunal the same as the Supreme Court? The Rapporteur explained that if the Convention on Migrant Workers was enabled in Finland then irregular workers could be given protective rights. Had Finland handed over a detainee with diplomatic assurances?

XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert who Served as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Finland, asked if the Convention against Torture was applicable to the Olmond Islands, and, if so, had the Government monitored the implementation of the Convention in the Olmond Islands? The Co-Rapporteur appreciated the efforts to prevent prisoner violence and said the Committee would appreciate being informed on these long-term measures. The Co-Rapporteur asked for more information on the cases of unjustified detention and asked about the objectivity of the Police Board in monitoring their own training over an independent body.

A Committee Expert said she was encouraged that Finland abided by the due diligence principle as this would provide the Committee with data on violence against women and the protection of women in the State party. Could the delegation explain why video and audio interrogations were not obligatory? A Committee member asked for a copy of the book on Violence against Men.

Response by the Delegation

A member of the delegation, in responding to questions, said that the Nordic Treaty was a long-term project first initiated in the 1990’s. It took seven years for an expert group to be appointed, with representatives from Sweden, Norway and Finland and also among the three Sami parliaments in Sweden, Norway and Finland. The Treaty proposed a draft convention with 51 articles and 7 chapters that sought to affirm and strengthen the Sami people’s rights by protecting their language, livelihood and access to resources.

The structure of the judiciary in Finland included the administrative court in Helsinki, followed by the superior administrative tribunal and then the European Court of Human Rights. Concerning diplomatic assurances, Finland mostly opposed the idea because it provided an unclear commitment by a State.

In 1994 the United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute those responsible for genocide and the aim was to complete the work by 2010. In 2007 Rwanda asked that three cases be referred to Rwanda for conclusion in their courts and this was rejected and the Ministry of Justice of Finland used a similar argumentation in 2009 that a fair trail could not occur in the Rwandan courts.

There was an independent evaluation body attached to the Ministry of Education that would evaluate all universities, including the police college at the end of 2011.

In concluding remarks, ARTO KOSONEN, Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, said that the new reporting procedure of the List of Issues Prior to Reporting had been a positive experience because it had focused the report on critical areas. Mr. Kosonen said it would be useful to have a press conference at the conclusion of the Committee’s review of country reports to inform the public of the conclusions reached.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record