In Dialogue with Luxembourg, Experts of the Committee Against Torture Welcome Reduction in the Incarceration Rate, Ask Questions on Sexual Abuse and Asylum Seekers

The Committee Against Torture today concluded its consideration of the eighth periodic report of Luxembourg, with Committee Experts welcoming a decrease in the State’s incarceration rate, and asking questions on sexual abuse and asylum seekers.

Sebastien Touze, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of Luxembourg, commended the State party’s high-quality report, nothing that it contained information which responded to all the questions which the Committee had asked.  Luxembourg should also be commended, he said, that the incarceration rate had decreased by 31 per cent between 2010 and 2020.  However, the Committee also encouraged Luxembourg to embrace a discussion on possible alternatives to imprisonment.

On rape, it was noted that Luxembourg had an abnormally low statute of limitations for rape, at 10 years.  This presented numerous challenges and it was recommended that this be increased to 30 years.  A draft law strengthening the means of combatting sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of minors had been tabled, and he asked if it had been adopted, abandoned, or rejected.

Naoko Maeda, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of Luxembourg, addressed the situation of asylum seekers, citing reports that Luxembourg provided medical examinations to determine the age of unaccompanied minors who did not possess identity documents.  She asked whether there was a plan to suspend and prohibit the use of an examination of the applicant’s secondary sex characteristics.  The Committee congratulated Luxembourg for the recent increase of the reception capacity for unaccompanied minors and for the strengthening of the dedicated staff.  However, it was likely that more and more minors remained blocked in the first reception system, sometimes for weeks and months.  Ms. Maeda asked what was being done to combat this.

Responding, the delegation said there could be alternative options to imprisonment by the prosecution, such as semi-liberty, electronic tagging, suspended sentences and release on remand.  The conditions for granting semi-liberty had been lightened and could now be applied for from the first day of detention.  A draft law had been submitted that was based on the principle that the deprivation of liberty for a minor should only be undertaken as a last resort. 

With regard to violence against women, and the current condition of the draft law on criminalization of rape, the opinion of the Council of State was expected shortly.  This would be analysed and amendments made. 

On unaccompanied minors, the delegation said the situation was difficult at the start of 2022, but in the meantime substantial efforts had been made to provide new spaces for shelter and socio-pedagogical care, which was provided in line with the age of the person.  In line with European Union directives establishing standards for hosting persons requiring international protection, children under 16 were sheltered in an appropriate context. 

The country had organised in order to best respond to migrant flows.  The authorities, when granting protection, considered the level of vulnerability, age and medical conditions.  Luxembourg made no discrimination between asylum seekers based on country of origin.  There were several provisions in the Criminal Code covering the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and providing penalties.  These crimes could be prosecuted even if they had been committed abroad, and the victims could then receive assistance and follow-up from various services. 

In concluding remarks, the Chair of the Committee, Claude Heller, commended the high quality of the dialogue and the substance of the replies, which would be most valuable to the Committee in drafting concluding observations that could also reflect this high quality.  The Committee hoped to be able to follow up on the dialogue with the State. 

Luc Dockendorf, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in concluding remarks, said torture did occur and was used to destroy individuals, entire communities and sometimes whole countries.  All had a duty to prevent it, not only in their own countries but also internationally.  The Committee had presented examples of persons who had asked Luxembourg for aid, and it was the responsibility of all State workers and representatives, including the police and border officials, to provide aid in this regard. 

The delegation of Luxembourg consisted of representatives of the Police; the Ministry of Justice; the Centre for Retention; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Health; and the Permanent Mission of Luxembourg to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Luxembourg at the end of its seventy-sixth session on 12 May.  Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage.  Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 28 April at 3 p.m. to conclude its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Slovakia (CAT/C/SVK/4).

Report

The Committee has before it the eighth periodic report of Luxembourg (CAT/C/LUX/8).

Presentation of Report

ANNE GOEDERT, Goodwill Ambassador for Human Rights of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and head of the delegation, said Luxembourg considered the prevention and eradication of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as a non-negotiable obligation of any State.  The prohibition of torture in all circumstances was essential.  Since the last dialogue with the Committee, Luxembourg had initiated and implemented a number of projects, measures and pieces of legislation with a view to improving its implementation of the Convention.

Luxembourg continued to demonstrate its commitment for the protection of victims of torture at the international level.  The State pledged to continue its fight against impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.  This commitment was reflected through annual support to the United Nations funds for victims of torture, for the fight against contemporary forms of slavery, and for the association for the prevention of torture.  At the national level, reforms and legislative changes continued to be implemented. 

The law of 8 March 2017 allowed procedural safeguards to be strengthened for persons deprived of liberty, in particular by guaranteeing access to a lawyer, communication with the outside, linguistic assistance and medical examinations.  The amended law of 18 July 2022 aimed to modernise the legal framework governing the Grand Ducal Police, in particular regarding the organisation, powers and competencies of the police.  This was followed by the law of February 2023 amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, which established the principles and rules of ethical conduct that members of the police were required to follow while performing their duties. 

A bill was currently in progress to implement the reform of the prison administration.  The main measures of the reform included the creation of a post of Comptroller General, responsible for ensuring the fundamental rights of those in prison; the introduction of an individual detention regime for prisoners to reduce the risk inter-prisoner violence; and improving access to health care for detainees.

The fight against trafficking in human beings remained a priority for Luxembourg.  A succession of laws in 2020 and 2021 had made significant changes in this area.  In particular, the provisions relating to judicial assistance had been adapted so that any victim of trafficking could benefit from assistance without any condition of residence or nationality.  Several awareness campaigns had also been conducted regarding the rights of victims of trafficking and exploitation.  These campaigns were targeted not only at potential victims but also at the general public, to inform about their rights, and to highlight where they could find support for protection and information.  Since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, the StopTraite.lu site had included a section dedicated to potential victims from Ukraine.

Luxembourg had continued efforts to improve its penitentiary system.  Since December 2022, the State had a new closed establishment, the Ueschterhaff Penitentiary Centre, which only accommodated men in pre-trial detention.  The centre responded to the need to separate those in pre-trial detention from those serving sentences.  This separation of remand prisoners from convicted prisoners and the reduction of the population prison allowed penological treatment better adapted to the needs of detainees, and responded to recommendations by treaty bodies and civil society.  Ms. Goedert concluded by saying that Luxembourg appeared before the Committee willing to have a constructive dialogue. 

Questions by Committee Experts

SÉBASTIAN TOUZE, Vice Chair of the Committee and Country Rapporteur for the report of Luxembourg, congratulated Luxembourg on being one of the States which most regularly submitted their reports and respected the deadlines for submission; this was a good practice which should be promoted among other States parties.  The report was of high quality, containing information which responded to all the questions that the Committee asked.  Luxembourg should also be congratulated for this.  Could the delegation provide updated figures on those being held in detention or police stations? 

“Garde à vue” or retention, which was different from pre-trial detention, was justified by needs for an investigation into suspects for whom there were reliable and consistent evidence of guilt.  This measure could potentially infringe on the rights of the person concerned and it was regrettable not to provide for grounds which would justify use of “garde à vue”.  What circumstances justified use of “garde à vue” and was there any possibility of a change in legislation on this? 

The right to the assistance of a lawyer was guaranteed by the Code of Criminal Procedure; how was this right ensured?  Grand Ducal Police officials had affirmed their agreement to medical examinations without the presence of a police officer and without handcuffs.  What was the current situation?  What were the circumstances that justified the presence of a judicial police officer or handcuffing during the medical examination?  Could Luxembourg provide the updated number of individuals, disaggregated by sex, age group and ethnic origin or nationality, held in pre-trial detention, in relation to the total number of detainees?

The conditions for remand in custody were provided for in the Criminal Code and were satisfactory.  However, the Luxembourg Consultative Commission on Human Rights had found that 43 per cent of prisoners were in pre-trial detention while the European average was 28 per cent.  What was the reason for this result?  Luxembourg was the only European State that had not set a duration for pre-trial detention.  What was the average and maximum duration of pre-trial detention to date?  How did Luxembourg manage to ensure that time limits remained reasonable? 

Luxembourg should be commended that the incarceration rate had decreased by 31 per cent between 2010 and 2020.  However, the Committee also encouraged Luxembourg to embrace a discussion on possible alternatives to imprisonment.  Were alternatives to prison considered?  What safeguards existed for pregnant women in detention?  How did Luxembourg ensure compliance with them?

The Code of Criminal Procedure provided that a convicted person suspected of concealing dangerous objects could be searched, via a simple search, full search or an intimate search.  The use of intimate searches was subject to strict conditions and carried out by a doctor.  However, the full search was not subject to similar conditions.  Did Luxembourg intend to attach more safeguards to the full search?

Luxembourg had stated that minors were not deprived of their liberty but could be subject to protective and educational measures unless exceptional circumstances occurred.  However, despite various recommendations, juveniles may still be placed in adult prisons.  The current draft law did not provide for a ban on the placement of minors in adult prisons, even though the Government indicated that it wanted to put an end to this.  It was regretful that there was no stipulation for the placement of a juvenile in an adult penitentiary centre.  What improvements could be made to this situation?  What measures could be taken to improve security for detainees? 

Luxembourg was a country of destination and transit for human trafficking.  The number of alleged victims of trafficking reported to the judicial police was 14 in 2018, compared to 31 in 2021.  Could updated figures be provided?  As part of its policy to combat this phenomenon, Luxembourg had set up a monitoring committee to combat trafficking in human beings and had established a national plan to combat trafficking in human beings in 2016.  Had follow up to this plan been established?  Could more information be provided on this?  How could Luxembourg move forward from the issue of child sex tourism? 

The Committee welcomed the State's efforts to maintain an up-to-date and publicly accessible statistical database on violence against women.  However, there was currently a lack of statistics on femicide, street harassment and rape.  Moreover, some figures on domestic violence seemed surprisingly low, even for a small country of 640,000 inhabitants, which raised questions about existing procedures.  Could clarification be provided around the reported figures?

Despite police training on domestic violence, there were no specialised units on violence against women within the security forces and no specialised judges.  Did the State plan to create actors specialising in domestic violence and more generally in violence against women?  Did Luxembourg intend to set up more shelters, or find a solution so that women were not obliged to stay in the same place as the perpetrator?  Did the State envisage expulsion as the only and best possible option, or were there other solutions? 

On rape, it was noted that Luxembourg had an abnormally low statute of limitations for rape at 10 years.  This presented numerous challenges and it was recommended that this be increased to 30 years.  A draft law strengthening the means of combatting sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of minors had been tabled.  Had this been adopted, abandoned, or rejected?  Where did things stand on the law change?  Did Luxembourg intend to renew its financial contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture?

NAOKO MAEDA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for the report of Luxembourg, commended that Luxembourg had ratified the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 2017 and adopted the asylum law.  The numbers of applications for asylum in Luxembourg had been rising till 2017 before decreasing in 2018.  What was causing this trend?  Could data after 2019 be provided?  In view of the recent influx of Ukrainian asylum seekers in Luxembourg since February 2022, it would be desirable for the State to update these statistics.

What training programmes were in place for State agents in charge of asylum to recognise the rights of asylum seekers provided in international human rights documents.  What were the currently conducted trainings for police, immigration and medical staff?  What was the strategy to strengthen training on detection, treatment and referrals of victims of torture for all frontline workers supporting migrants in order to ensure effective and timely identification and support to survivors of torture?

It was reported that Luxembourg provided medical examinations to determine the age of unaccompanied minors who did not possess identity documents.  The physical examination required the applicants to strip naked to be examined by a doctor, an extremely invasive practice, particularly given some of youth applicants had sometimes already suffered serious trauma.  In addition, the taking of photographs of the genitals was intrusive and useless.  Could Luxembourg indicate the plan to suspend and prohibit the use of an examination of the applicant's secondary sex characteristics?  What improvements had been achieved in the support process for asylum seekers?  Had sufficient financial resources been allocated, including support to associations or institutions helping asylum seekers?  What measures facilitated the family reunification of asylum seekers? 

As a part of asylum issues, unaccompanied minors and children required special attention because of their vulnerability.  The Committee congratulated Luxembourg for the recent increase of the reception capacity for unaccompanied minors and for the strengthening of the dedicated staff.  However, it was likely that more and more minors remained blocked in the first reception system, sometimes for weeks and months; what was being done to combat this?  Could the State party provide updated figures on the number of medical staff dedicated to unaccompanied minors? 

Had there been any case in which Luxemburg refused a request of surrender or extradition because of potential human rights violations noted in the Convention and the European arrest warrant framework decision?  Could information be provided on any extradition agreements concluded with other States out of the European Union?

The Committee welcomed the Act of November 2006, which established the Centre for Equal Treatment.  Luxembourg had more than 47 per cent foreign nationals out of a total population of nearly 635,000 inhabitants.  The Committee welcomed that a national survey was conducted to study racism in Luxembourg in July 2020.  This quantitative and qualitative report illustrated a rise in hate crimes and hate speech in Luxembourg, particularly in the media and online.  What concrete measures had been taken to combat racism and hate speech on social networks? 

Ms. Maeda said the Committee commended that the Government introduced the national action plan for the promotion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights in July 2018.  One of the action plan’s proposed actions was to prohibit “normalising” non-vital medical treatments practiced without the free and informed consent of the intersex person and to stop reimbursing it by public health funds.  Could information be provided on legislative measures prohibiting medical procedures carried out on intersex children in the absence of a medical emergency?

The Luxembourg Code of Criminal Procedure set out the specific rules governing the powers of police officers when intervening in situations of crime or public disorder.  What was the criteria and thresholds of the use of force by law enforcement officers?  How did Luxembourg realise the legality, necessity and proportionality of the use of bodycams in the bill for body cameras for police officers?

The Consultative Commission of Human Rights had been accredited with “A” status by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions since 2002.  In 2010, Luxembourg adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and designated the Advisory Commission on Human Rights as the national preventive mechanism and defined its mandate.  What was the State’s strategy for strengthening the competence of the national human rights institution and the national preventative mechanism?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said despite being a small country, Luxembourg had three borders, meaning it was often left to the discretion of the police to decide whether there was a risk of flight in criminal cases.  The foreign prison population was over 70 per cent, which demonstrated the prevalence of the risk of flight.  This was a decisive factor regarding the implementation of “garde à vue”.  In light of what had been demonstrated, it was not reasonable to imagine this could be repealed.  In 2019, there were more than 300 people held in pre-trial detention, which represented more than 50 per cent of the prison population. 

Often there was an external factor regarding offences committed outside of Luxembourg, which complicated investigations and proceedings.  This was important to bear in mind, as there was no predictability.  Furthermore, when an external factor was at play, including part of the crime committed abroad, there was a need to call for investigations which added to the timeframe of cases.  A detainee could ask for provisional release. 

Regarding the Criminal Code for minors, there was a limitation for pre-trial detention.  Although it did not exist for adults, Luxembourg had tried to improve the situation for minors.  The period of pre-trial detention of minors must not accede three months, however, this could be renewed.

The delegation said there could be alternative options to imprisonment by the prosecution, such as semi-liberty, electronic tagging, suspended sentences and release on remand.  The conditions for granting semi-liberty had been lightened and could now be applied from the first day of detention.  Two cells were designated for prisoners in the hospital to ensure they could receive medical care in a hospital environment.  All medical care was free of charge.  Comprehensive or full searches were carried out under very strict conditions.  The intimate body search needed to be carried out while observing human dignity, and with the aim to avoid the humiliation of the person being searched.

The draft law which had been submitted was based on the principle that the deprivation of liberty for a minor should only be undertaken as a last resort.  It was linked inter alia to determining criminal responsibility.  The age of criminal responsibility was noted within the draft law, stipulating 14 years.  Following the opinions of stakeholders, this had been reduced to 13 years of age.  The imprisonment of minors was only justified for cases which typically carried a lengthy prison sentence.  A unisex security centre had been opened to provide protection of youth.  This was a closed facility, developed to avoid the placement of minors in a penitentiary centre with adults.  Since this structure had been opened, the number of children placed with adults in Luxembourg’s penitentiary centre had dropped sharply.  A lawyer was required to be present directly after arrest for any child entering the judicial procedure.

Regarding the declaration of rights for suspects, these were available in 20 languages.  When the Criminal Procedure Code was adopted in 2017, the police informed all operational personnel and provided them with in person training.  Staff members were taught about all the new changes to procedural guarantees.  The courses on human rights were 12 hours long, and other courses on fundamental freedoms and constitutional rights were also 12 hours.  Around 60 hours of training courses were also provided on the Criminal Code.  Medical examinations were typically carried out in the presence of a police officer, but the suspect was not handcuffed unless the police officer was required by the doctor to step out of the room. 

The delegation said that the increase in trafficking cases was due to improvement in training which enabled a higher level of identification for victims.  On sexual exploitation, the Red Cross “DropIn” office was open to all male and female prostitutes without distinction of legal status, gender or age.  The personnel working there had received training, as had the staff working in the national asylum office.  A new national action plan on trafficking had also been formulated. 

There was no autonomous standalone definition of femicide in Luxembourg law, and the delegation took note of the recommendation to consider this crime as a standalone offence.  A draft law had been adopted, introducing into the Criminal Code any offence which contained aggravating circumstances, such as if the crime was fuelled by hate or gender.  This meant the current framework could incorporate femicide.  The data which had been gathered on domestic violence provided figures on psychological and sexual violence, collected in the context of domestic violence.  In domestic violence cases, the perpetrator was required to leave the home while the victim could stay.  Luxembourg had 156 places for sheltering women victims of domestic violence and 12 places for male victims.  In addition, there were 95 “second phase” facilities to provide shelter for victims.  There was an emphasis on sensitising the public to the issue of violence through awareness raising activities. 

With regard to rates of occupation of places of detention, the delegation said unfortunately the Police did not have statistics, but it was clear that this was under 100 per cent, as cells were always occupied by one person and temporarily.  On detention centres, the annual occupation rate for 2019-2020 and in 2022 was 97 per cent - almost always at the maximum rate.  On non-custodial measures, a recent initiative to tackle hate speech was beginning to bear fruit.  The initiative involved a system of assessment and evaluation with an independent body.  When a problem was identified on social media, a notification was sent.  Where possible, the perpetrator was summoned by the Prosecutor and questioned by the police.  Where their behaviour made it possible, instead of a criminal sentence, the perpetrator could participate in a programme which aimed to help the perpetrator to reflect on their actions and on the limitation to freedom of expression.  They might also meet victims of hate speech.  The implementing organisation notified the Prosecutor and police of changes in behaviour, who could decide not to take the matter further.  Statistics showed that over 90 per cent of those who went through this course did not repeat their offence, demonstrating that the measure was appropriate.

On medical care, the delegation said pregnant women who were imprisoned benefited from the same healthcare pre- and post-birth as women who were not imprisoned.  There were regular checks in place, support from a midwife, and cohabitation between child and mother in prison was possible, without an age limit.  The best interests of the child prevailed.  All medical costs were completely covered by the State, and no payment was required for medical or psychological consultations.  As part of the preparatory work for penitentiary reform, issues relating to healthcare and sanitary conditions of prisoners were examined.  The reform stipulated that prisons should focus on their core purpose, and any additional purposes needed to come under an agreement with external service providers.  On care provided to prisoners with psychiatric disorders, there had been two initiatives focusing on both adult and minor prisoners, aiming to set up a hospital structure offering appropriate psychological and psychiatric care to prisoners. 

The right to a lawyer was guaranteed for any minor in conflict with the law or receiving judicial protection, and a lawyer would be appointed or could be chosen. As part of the draft Bill mentioned previously, any legal assistance was free of charge for minors.  On violence in detention between prisoners, the recommendations of the Committee had been noted, in particular regarding combating drug trafficking and avoiding violence.  The opening of the new detention centre was helpful in trying to deal with the most difficult aspects of the situation, the delegation said.  There were several systems in place to deal with violence between prisoners. 

In 2022, 67 per cent of victims of trafficking were women.  In 2023, Luxembourg had already identified 60 victims of trafficking, most victims of sexual exploitation.  Figures were on the rise, possibly because a system had not been established to allow victims to alert the authorities to this phenomenon, but the Ministry of Equality was tasked with dealing with this issue of human trafficking.  Psychosocial care, with the goal of social rehabilitation, was provided, regardless of gender or country of origin.  Aside from housing the victims, Luxembourg stressed the importance of awareness-raising and prevention, and it seemed that this had been very successful, as reporting had increased.  There had also been websites set up allowing for reporting of all forms of violence covered under the Istanbul Convention.  In cooperation with the Ministry of Justice and partners, there were two bodies which provided information on human trafficking.  Information was available for civil society activists and labour inspectorates.  The entities responsible were working on the next National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking.

On preventive measures against child prostitution, the delegation said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been promoting guidelines developed in concert with other partners, including the International Labour Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund and other United Nations organisations.  The guidelines tried to streamline the terminology used to combat exploitation and sexual abuse.  There were no cases of sexual exploitation linked to tourism that had been identified.  There were several provisions in the Criminal Code covering the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and providing penalties.  These crimes could be prosecuted even if they had been committed abroad, and victims could receive assistance and follow-up from various services. 

With regard to violence against women and the current condition of the draft law on criminalisation of rape, the opinion of the Council of State was expected.  This would be analysed and amendments made.  Luxembourg continued to support the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. 

The peak of requests for international protection in 2015-2018 was due to the migrant crisis in Europe, with the arrival of thousands of Syrian refugees at European borders.  The country had organised to best respond to the migrant flows.  There were fewer requests for asylum in 2018 compared to 2015, as Luxembourg’s procedures took a significant amount of time.  Updated statistics would be supplied in writing.  The authorities, when granting protection, considered the level of vulnerability, age and medical conditions.  Luxembourg made no discrimination between asylum seekers based on country of origin.  Currently the authorities had not documented in a database the grounds invoked by lawyers during appeals.  In response to refugee flows from Ukraine, Luxembourg had provided emergency housing, and provided refugees with access to longer-term accommodation, either in a home or a shelter.  Luxembourg had created a single window that brought together all the necessary stakeholders in one place, including the Immigration Department, the Education Ministry, the Post Office and others in order to provide services to Ukrainian refugees, allowing the State to deal with this sudden influx.  Photographs of asylum seekers’ genitals were no longer taken to determine the age of asylum seekers.  An examination of the teeth was carried out by expert dental personnel and a report submitted. 

The National Office for Asylum Seekers provided housing for those requesting international protection, including rent and heating.  The amount provided was determined by law.  Asylum seekers received 231 euros as a benefit payment.  Families requesting international protection with children of school age received special attention as to their specific needs, including schooling.  Efforts were made to find appropriate curricula for the children involved.  Social and professional integration was fostered for those requesting international protection.  Successful integration was based on two elements: learning the national language and understanding the functioning of everyday life.  Language classes were provided and funded, and a socio-educational team participated in events organised with reception centres.  Several projects were aimed at improving the integration and schooling of the children of asylum seekers. 

On unaccompanied minors, the delegation said the situation was difficult at the start of 2022, but in the meantime substantial efforts had been made to provide new spaces for shelter and socio-pedagogical care, which was provided in line with the age of the person.  In line with European Union directives establishing standards for hosting persons requiring international protection, children under 16 were sheltered in an appropriate context. 

At the beginning of April, Luxembourg had introduced a new article into the Criminal Code which covered all offences or crimes which had a hateful motivation relevant to article 454 of the Criminal Code, which related to sex, religion or nationality.  These crimes were given an increased penalty, which was rather heavy.  The penalty aimed to show that hatred, whether online or offline, was not to be tolerated in society.  The legislator had demonstrated an effort to combat discrimination in all forms.  A new National Plan to Combat Racism was being drafted. 

Luxembourg was currently drafting a Bill regarding the situation of intersex children.  As the process was complex, it was taking time.  The current tasks were defining key terms, the scope of action, and the rationale of the Bill.  To help in framing these points, meetings had been set up with medical experts and patient representatives to gain their opinions, aiming towards a ban on operations to alter the sex of minors.  Because of definition issues, the expected progress had not been achieved.  Annually, there were about 10 cases of intersex children.  The State was working to set up a national point of reference to deal with these issues, which would be a hub that ensured that children received optimum help on current practices.  There were also several initiatives being conducted in parallel that allowed parents to discuss with children issues including sexual rights, the rights of the child, and the concept of consent. 

With regard to the use of body-cams by police, a Bill had been introduced as part of the programme of the Coalition Government to counter a lack of respect for the police, and verbal abuse and complaints against police.  There was also an emerging phenomenon of amateur videos by the public, which could have an impact on private lives.  A legal framework had been established that strictly regulated the use of body-cams.  The agent wearing the camera could only consult the recordings if necessary for the discharge of their mandate.  Recordings could be used during a general inspection of the police or in the case of investigation of an offence by a police agent.  Any fears as to misuse of this tool were not a major concern. The cameras were used to protect citizens as much as to protect the police.  One of the purposes of the body-cam was to prevent incidents during police interventions and de-escalate such situations. 

Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts

SÉBASTIAN TOUZE, Vice Chair of the Committee and Country Rapporteur for the report of Luxembourg, said most of the questions had met with relevant replies, and noted that often reports were criticized and dialogues did not work particularly well, and it was important to note when a dialogue was successful.  Luxembourg had dealt with the questions raised with rigor. 

Regarding unaccompanied minors, the law of 8 May 2019 provided a connection between assistance and the prevention of trafficking, and another law provided for guardianship for unaccompanied minors so that they could receive support.  There was possibly a grey area that could open in this context.  On domestic violence, he inquired whether a media report that domestic violence claimed the majority of lives in the country was correct, and asked what was being done to strengthen support for victims of domestic violence.  What was the procedure for expulsion from the home of perpetrators?

NAOKO MAEDA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for the report of Luxembourg, also applauded the delegation’s cooperative attitude and hard work put in to preparing their response.  She welcomed the updated information and said the Committee was happy to receive the written submissions.  She noted that the Penal Code criminalised discrimination under 17 different criteria, but said that language was not included in these, requesting clarification in this regard.  Were there were any plans to amend this article to include language as discriminatory grounds, such as with regard to hate speech?  On universal jurisdiction, she asked what the practice was with regard to grave breaches of the Geneva Convention.  Could torture cases that were committed by nationals or others who were not in the territory of the country be tried?

Responses by the Delegation

Responding to these issues, the delegation said a legal administrator was appointed as tutor to unaccompanied minors, and they were responsible for all the daily tasks of the minor in the context of signing documentation.  Protection provided for unaccompanied minors was thus considerable.  Minors between 16 and 18, as per the law on international protection, did not require a legal administrator, but could ask for a specialised lawyer of their choice to represent them.  The law did provide for a person about to turn 18 to be able to choose for themselves the lawyer they wished to represent them.

Justice system teams responded to requests for compensation and reparations.  If the person required protection, they could be moved, depending on the conclusion of the police on the ground.  When it came to compensation, the person needed to request the amount that they estimated represented the scale of the harm that had been done.

Because of the lack of reference to discrimination based on language in article 454 of the Criminal Code, the delegation said the criteria in article 454 allowed the Government to tackle this issue.  The criteria listed included “belonging to an ethnicity or a nationality”, and this was seen as covering language or linguistic issues.  The national law was in line with the Rome Statute and prosecuted the most serious crimes, such as genocide, but the aspect of universal jurisdiction was no longer there.  If the Committee believed it would be useful to re-introduce this concept, the State would consider it, but State legislation was currently in step with the Rome Statute.  Universal jurisdiction only currently existed in the context of the crime of terrorism. 

Concluding Remarks

CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Expert and Chairperson, in concluding remarks, echoed the statements of the co-rapporteurs regarding the high quality of the dialogue and the substance of the replies, which would be most valuable to the Committee in drafting concluding observations that could also reflect this high quality.  The Committee hoped to be able to follow up on the dialogue with the State. 

LUC DOCKENDORF, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in concluding remarks, said the discussion had been very helpful, and Luxembourg wished to thank the Committee for the work that it did.  The Committee was one of the longest-standing Committees of the treaty bodies system, having worked for many decades.  Torture did occur and was used to destroy individuals, entire communities and sometimes whole countries.  All had a duty to prevent it, not only in their own countries but also internationally.  The Committee had presented examples of persons who had asked Luxembourg for aid, and it was the responsibility of all State workers and representatives, including the police and border officials, to provide aid in this regard. 

Link: https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/meeting-summary/2023/04/examen-du-luxembourg-devant-le-comite-contre-la-torture-le-taux