COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONTINUES EXAMINATION OF REPORT OF ICELAND

CAT
30th session
2 May 2003
Afternoon




The Committee against Torture carried on this afternoon with review of a second periodic report of Iceland, hearing a Government delegation reiterate that it was the Government's view that although the country did not have a specific crime and definition of torture, all possible acts of such maltreatment were criminalized under various other legal measures.
Icelandic authorities also were of the opinion that sufficient protections existed to prevent the use of evidence in court that had been obtained through torture or maltreatment, the delegation said. However, the concerns of the Committee on these matters would be brought to the attention of the Government in the capital, the delegation said.
Responding to questions put by Committee members upon presentation of the report on Thursday morning, the Icelandic delegation, led by Stefan Haukur Johannesson, Ambassador of Iceland to the United Nations Office at Geneva, also said the Government was fully aware of objections that international treaties ratified by Iceland did not have direct force in domestic law - but transparency and clarity were the principles of Icelandic law, and Icelandic citizens were made aware of international standards, and the Government strove to reflect international standards in domestic legislation.
The Government officials went on to explain the country's standards on such matters as extradition; notification of detainees of their legal rights; the powers of the country's Ombudsman; and the use of solitary confinement.
As one of 133 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Iceland is required to submit periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to prevent such maltreatment. The Committee's conclusions and recommendations on the country's second periodic report will be issued at 10 a.m. on 13 May.
The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Monday, 5 May, to begin consideration of a second periodic report of Slovenia.

Discussion
Responding to questions put by Committee Experts following presentation of the Icelandic report Thursday morning, a Government delegation said, among other things, that the Government was fully aware of the main concerns raised by the Committee, among them that torture was not fully and specifically defined as a crime in domestic law. However, the Government held the view that different ways could be selected to meet the obligations of international human rights instruments, and that Iceland had been successful in adopting legislation to meet such requirements. The Government believed that all acts of torture did in fact fall under various criminal acts and so were outlawed in the country. Icelandic authorities also were of the opinion that sufficient protection existed to prevent the use of evidence in court that had been obtained through torture or maltreatment. However, the concerns of the Committee on these matters would be brought to the attention of the Government in the capital.
The Government was fully aware of objections that international treaties ratified by Iceland did not have direct force in domestic law, the delegation said. But transparency and clarity were the principles of Icelandic law, and Icelandic citizens were made aware of international standards, and the Government strove to reflect international standards in domestic legislation.
Extradition was never applicable when there were reasonable grounds to believe that the person extradited could undergo maltreatment, and that applied even to persons alleged to have participated in terrorism, the delegation said. The return of an American to the United States to face legal charges in a case mentioned by the Committee had taken place voluntarily, the delegation said; the person in question had sought to leave to face the charges filed against him.
A list of detainees' rights was given to all detainees upon arrival at detention centres, the delegation said; the list was available in five different languages.
Investigations of complaints against prison authorities were not required to be carried out by the General Prosecutor's office, as complaints against police officers now were, because the authority over prisoners lay with a different branch of Government, the delegation said.
Deaths in prison or custody were always followed by full investigations, the delegation said.
The country's Ombudsman had the authority to receive complaints from prisoners and to visit prisons and places of detention, the delegation said; prisoners often phoned the Ombudsman or wrote to him. Non-governmental organizations did not have free access to visit or inspect prisons or places of detention.
Some pre-trial detainees requested solitary confinement, the delegation said; and if it was requested it was granted. But the delegation did not consider that such confinement was a luxury or a more pleasant form of detention. Prisoners did not have the right to solitary confinement, but in practice did usually receive it when they requested it. The reasons for such a request could be fear of other prisoners or of violence by other prisoners, or psychological problems; it was hard to say. Detainees always had legal counsel to guide them in these matters.
Punishment for crimes was in general milder than in many countries, the delegation said; the number of prisoners as a percentage of the population was low as well. In comparison to other penalties, the maximum penalty for sexual crimes could be relatively high, although the decision in each case was up to the judge. The penalties for sexual offenses had grown stiffer in recent years, and more stringent sentences were being considered. Prison authorities had not been informed of any inter-prisoner sexual violence.
There were about 110 prisoners at any one time in Iceland, with six to 10 of them women, the delegation said; it was true that men were also kept in the prison where women were incarcerated.
In Iceland, there were no special prison doctors, the delegation said; no special training had yet been established for recognizing signs of ill-treatment by doctors who provided medical services to prisoners.
If an asylum seeker was granted asylum, he received an indefinite residence permit in accordance with the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugee, the delegation said. But the granting of formal asylum was rare. In most cases a temporary residence permit was granted for a year, renewed for three years, and after that the permit was made permanent.



* *** *