|
United Nations press release
UNITED NATIONS
Press Release
---
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT
OF SLOVAKIA
Committee against Torture
3 November 2009
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of
the second periodic report of Slovakia on the efforts of that country
to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Introducing the report, Fedor Rosocha, Permanent Representative of
Slovakia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, drew attention to the
entry into force on 1 January 2006 of the new Criminal Code and the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The new definition of torture contained
therein went beyond the scope of the Convention in that it did not
limit torture only to the purposes of obtaining information from or
punishing suspects. The Criminal Code also defined the criminal
offence of "abuse of power by public officials". A further advance had
been the creation of the Public Defender of Rights (ombudsman), who
might be called upon by anyone who believed that his or her
fundamental rights and freedoms had been violated by a public
authority. The ombudsman's office had begun to operate in 2002, and
had received over 17,980 submissions to date.
Slovakia was also currently conducting an analysis of the provisions
of the Optional Protocol to the Convention (on independent monitoring
of places of detention), and Mr. Rosocha was confident that in the
near future they would be able to start the necessary legislative
procedure leading to Slovakia's becoming a contracting party.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Slovakia, Committee Expert
Myrna Kleopas asked for clarification on information in the report
that persons were informed of their rights "as soon as practical"
after arrest, in particular given information that, in practice,
detainees were not always informed of their rights in a timely manner,
and did not always have access to a lawyer. In particular, she was
concerned about reports that juveniles were often questioned by police
officers in the absence of legal guardians, parents or a lawyer. Also,
while welcoming the fact that refugees or asylum-seekers were not sent
back to countries where they were at risk for torture or ill-treatment
and that asylum-seekers had not been subject to detention since 2006,
she was concerned that non-refoulement was not considered as an
absolute obligation by Slovakia, but could be derogated from in
certain cases (i.e. those involving terror suspects).
Xuexian Wang, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the
report of Slovakia, noted that the definition of the crime of torture
in Slovakia did not cover discrimination, which was a ground for
torture under the Convention. In addition, while welcoming information
on training provided for police officers and others with a view to
preventing torture, he wondered if any evaluations had been carried
out on those trainings and what had been the results?
Other Committee Experts asked questions and raised concerns related to
effective complaints mechanisms; a very high rate of complaints
alleging torture or ill-treatment submitted to the Public Defender or
to the Police or Prison authorities that were dismissed as lacking
foundation; and the fact that juveniles could be held in solitary
confinement for up to 10 days. Other concerns included only very light
penalties - usually a suspended sentence - for perpetrators of racist
attacks and reports that torture complaints were stamped as "no
injuries found" even when there had been a medical examination that
had found evidence of injury.
Also representing the delegation of Slovakia were representatives from
the Roma Communities Office; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the
Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of the Interior; the Ministry of
Labour, Social Affairs and the Family; the Ministry of Defence; the
General Directorate of the Corps of Prison and Court Guards; and the
Presidium of the Police Corps.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 4
November, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.
Slovakia is among the 146 States parties to the Convention and as such
it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is
implementing the provisions of the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes in public at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 4
November, it will hear the responses of Slovakia to questions posed by
Experts today.
Report of Slovakia
The second periodic report of Slovakia (CAT/C/SVK/2) notes the recent
adoption of a new Criminal Code and new Code of Criminal Procedure,
which both came into effect on 1 January 2006. In addition, several
pieces of legislation forming the legislative framework for the
implementation of the Convention were adopted during the reporting
period, including the Act on the Public Defender of Rights. When the
Public Defender of Rights establishes facts indicating that a person
is held unlawfully in places under remand custody he shall immediately
inform the competent prosecutor of this in the form of a petition and
shall inform the administration of such place and the person
concerned. The Public Defender can submit the petition to a competent
prosecutor when the petition concerns reviewing final decision of a
public administration body or when the Public Defender concludes that
the decision reached by a public administration body is in
contradiction to the law. For his part, the Prosecutor has to inform
the Public Defender of measures taken to remedy the unlawful situation
within the time limits laid down in the Act on the prosecution
authority.
Regarding treatment of psychiatric patients, the Ministry of Health
issued a "Methodological measure concerning the use of means of
restraint in patients at healthcare facilities providing psychiatric
care". The document, which treats placement of patients in net-beds or
seclusion rooms, provides that restraint can only be used under
exceptional circumstances, by order of a doctor, and when a patient's
behaviour poses a threat to him or his surroundings. In no case can
means of restraint be used on educational or corrective grounds. In
addition, the Act on State administration authorities responsible for
social affairs, family and employment services amended existing legal
provisions to limit the use of bodily and non-bodily restraint in
social services establishments providing care to persons with mental
and behavioural disorders. According to the Act, seclusion room or
means of restraint can only exceptionally be used when the acute stage
of the disease constitutes serious threat to the life or the health of
the person suffering from a mental disorder and can only be applied
until the necessary care is provided in a specialised heath care
facility.
Presentation of Report
FEDOR ROSOCHA, Permanent Representative of Slovakia to the United
Nations Office at Geneva, noted that Slovakia was a democratic country
governed by the rule of law. It had ratified all the basic human
rights instruments, and its human rights legislation was up to the
highest internationally recognized standard. In addition to guarantees
in the Constitution, the prohibition against torture, inhuman or
degrading treatment was guaranteed by international treaties, which
took precedence over the laws of the Slovak Republic.
A significant step towards fulfilling the commitments arising from the
Convention and the recommendations of the Committee had been the entry
into force on 1 January 2006 of the new criminal codices - the
Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Rosocha
highlighted that the new definition of torture contained therein went
beyond the scope of the Convention in that it did not limit torture
only to the purposes of obtaining information from or punishing
suspects. According to the new definition, torture meant any conduct
inflicting severe pain of suffering, whether physical or mental.
The Criminal Code also offered protection against the abuse of means
of coercion by members of the police by defining the criminal offence
of "abuse of power by public officials". Every complaint of
ill-treatment filed with an investigator or another police officer in
the course of criminal proceedings had always to be referred to the
Inspection Service Office of the Police Force. In the interest of
eliminating ill-treatment of detainees, the Inspection Service
presented annual reports on police crime to the Ministry of the
Interior.
Another important legislative change had been introduced by Act No.
475/2005 on the Execution of Custodial Sentences and Act No. 221/2006
on the Execution of Remand Custody. The two acts, adopted in reaction
to the recommendations both of this Committee and the Council of
Europe Committee on the Prevention of Torture, created the necessary
legal conditions for humanizing the Slovak prison system. Compliance
with the rules applicable to the places holding, inter alia, remand
prisoners, sentence prisoners, persons under court-ordered protective
treatment, or in institutional care was supervised by the prosecution
service. The prosecution service exercised similar supervisory powers
also with respect to police officers not only during criminal
proceedings, but in all cases when the police acted as a public
authority vis-à-vis citizens, Mr. Rosocha added.
Mr. Rosocha also drew attention to Act No. 90/2001 amending the
Constitution, which, among others created the institution of the
Public Defender of Rights (ombudsman), who might be called upon by any
person who believed that his or her fundamental rights and freedoms
had been violated by a public authority. The ombudsman's office had
begun to operate in Slovakia in 2002, and had received over 17,980
submissions to date, more than 100 of them filed by persons remanded
in custody or serving custodial sentences who had complained about
living conditions in penitentiary institutions. Under a 2006
amendment, the ombudsman's powers had been expanded to include the
ability to initiate proceedings before the Constitutional Court in
matters involving violations of fundamental rights and freedoms.
An irreplaceable vehicle for ensuring compliance with the law was the
training of members of the police, the prison corps, members of the
armed forces and others acting on behalf of the State in premises used
to hold persons subject to a restriction of their fundamental human
rights and freedoms. In that regard, Mr. Rosocha said the Action Plan
for the Prevention of All Forms of Discrimination, Racism, Xenophobia,
Anti-Semitism and Related Intolerance was the core document in the
area of training provided to members of professional groups. An
important priority of the 2009-2011 Action Plan was to ensure
systematic training of those professional groups which, through the
performance of their profession, had an impact on preventing all forms
of discrimination, racism and related intolerance. The training
included regular courses for and examinations of the police force, the
prison and court guards, and members of the armed forces, in the
application of equal treatment. One of the specific objectives of the
Plan was to ensure effective social integration of the persons
belonging to national minorities or ethnic groups, including persons
coming from socially disadvantaged environments.
Concerning the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention
against Torture, Slovakia was conducting an analysis of the provisions
of the Optional Protocol with the aim of identifying the necessary
legislative amendments in national laws. Mr. Rosocha was confident
that in the near future they would be able to start the necessary
legislative procedure leading to Slovakia becoming one of the
contracting parties to the Optional Protocol.
Mr. Rosocha recognized that, in spite of the Government's efforts,
there had been cases involving elements of torture and other cruel or
inhuman treatment. With regard to police action taken in Kosice
against six Roma juveniles in March 2009, Slovakia admitted that the
police conduct in that case was incompatible with the mission, powers
and the code of ethics of police officers. The Ministry of the
Interior had immediately condemned that conduct. After the facts of
the case had been established, the six members of the police force
directly involved in the action had been suspended and eventually
dismissed from the force, while proceedings against one policewoman
were still pending on account of illness. Motions were also being
prepared to dismiss three more policemen who had been present on the
premises of the local police station during the time of the incident.
Moreover, criminal proceedings had been initiated and indictments
filed against seven police officers for the crime of abusing power of
a public official and for the crime of extortion committed in
complicity.
Providing another example, Mr. Rosocha said that, on 17 September
2009, the Supreme Court had issued a final judgement in the case of
the tragic death of Karol Sendrei, a member of the Roma national
minority. The first-instance court had handed down a guilty verdict
against seven policemen on 28 February 2008, convicting them of
participation in the violent death of Mr. Sendrei, who had died in
early July 2001 at the local police department in Revuca after brutal
questioning by the police. A total of six imprisonment sentences -
ranging from two to eight and a half years - had been issued against
the former police officers, four of them for the criminal offence of
torture and other inhuman or cruel treatment. After that tragic event,
the Government had instructed the Ministry of the Interior to urgently
propose measures for restoring confidence in the police force as
guardians of law and order.
Questions Raised by Committee Experts
MYRNA KLEOPAS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the
report of Slovakia, commended Slovakia for the substantive and
relevant information submitted to the Committee, as well as for the
adoption of a number of measures to prevent and punish acts of torture
and ill-treatment.
With regard to the rights of persons in police custody, Ms. Kleopas
noted that the report said persons were informed of their rights (i.e.
right to a lawyer, right to contact a family member) "as soon as
practical" after arrest. She asked for more clarification on the time
frame indicated.
In that connection, Ms. Kleopas had received information that, in
practice, detainees were not always informed of their rights in a
timely manner, and did not always have access to a lawyer. In
particular, she was concerned about reports that juveniles were often
questioned by police officers in the absence of legal guardians,
parents or a lawyer.
Was there an independent monitoring body to hear complaints from
persons who had been deprived of their liberty, including to review
conditions in places of detention, Ms. Kleopas asked?
With regard to plans to ratify the Optional Protocol to the
Convention, had Slovakia identified an institution to act as the
national torture prevention mechanism, and did it have plans in place
to involve civil society in that endeavour?
Ms. Kleopas noted the report lacked information on implementation of
international standards in regard to juvenile justice, with the
exception of improvements in the separation of adults from minors in
remand centres. It lacked information on separate facilities for
juveniles, or to ensure that juveniles were only held in detention as
a last resort and for the minimum possible time, for example. She
asked generally for more information on how Slovakia planned to
implement United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration
of Juvenile Justice
Ms. Kleopas welcomed the fact that refugees or asylum-seekers were not
sent back to countries where they were at risk for torture or
ill-treatment and that asylum-seekers had not been subject to
detention since 2006. However, she was concerned about the fact that
non-refoulement was not considered as an absolute obligation, but
could be derogated from in certain cases, i.e. cases involving terror
suspects. She mentioned the specific case of an Algerian who had been
deported although there was reason to believe he would face
ill-treatment in his country.
Turning to the issue of the Roma, Ms. Kleopas noted reports of
educational segregation of Roma, as well as of poor living conditions
for members of the Roma community, including a lack running water,
electricity and proper shelter. The Committee considered such a
situation to be the equivalent of inhuman or degrading treatment.
There were also reports that forced sterilizations of Romani women and
girls continued to be done, despite a new law prohibiting such
sterilizations. A non-governmental organization said that that was
owing to a lack of government issued guidance in this area, as well as
a lack of prompt investigation of complaints, prosecution of
perpetrators and payment of reparations to victims.
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the
report of Slovakia, noted that the delegation had said the scope of
their definition of torture exceeded that included in the Convention.
However, as far as he could see, it did not cover discrimination,
which was a ground for torture under the Convention.
Mr. Wang welcomed information on training provided for police officers
and others with a view to preventing torture. In that regard, had the
Government carried out any evaluations of those trainings? And, if so,
what had been the results?
Finally, Mr. Wang said that, according to information received,
existing avenues for redress for torture victims in Slovakia did not
appear to be functioning. He would appreciate a comment from the
delegation on that. He also noted that there had been no mention of
reparations in the report.
Other Committee Experts asked questions and raised concerns related to
the jurisdiction of military courts; the low number of asylum-seekers
who had obtained refugee status (22 out of 909 according to one
report); a lack of disaggregated data, in particular with regard to
asylum-seekers, prisoners and detainees; what measures were being
taken to combat trafficking in Roma women and girls for purposes of
sexual exploitation; a very high rate of complaints alleging torture
or ill-treatment submitted to the Public Defender or to the Police or
Prison authorities that were dismissed as lacking foundation; and the
fact that juveniles could be held in solitary confinement for up to 10
days.
An Expert noted a number of cases of racial attacks on foreigners, in
particular by skinhead groups, including on a visiting basketball
star, on a doctor, as well as on a Mexican, a Nigerian and a
Vietnamese citizen. Those cases appeared to result in only very light
penalties - usually just a suspended sentence - for the perpetrator.
That raised issues about the efficacy of the legal system in dealing
with such hate attacks.
An Expert was concerned that statistics received on patients in
psychiatric institutions had been provided by the Ministry of Justice.
Did that mean psychiatric hospitals were under the auspices of the
Justice Ministry? She also asked for further breakdowns in the
statistics on such patients.
An Expert was concerned by reports that even in cases where a detainee
who had complained of torture had been subject to a medical
examination, and the medical record clearly noted injuries suffered,
the case was stamped as "no injuries found".
_________
For use of the information media; not an official record
|
|
 |
