Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF MONACO TO ITS QUESTIONS
06 May 2004
Share
6 May 2004
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Monaco to questions raised by its Experts on the second periodic report of that country.
The Monegasque delegation told the Committee that for the last six years, no complaints of ill treatment had been lodged with the judicial authorities or had come to the attention of the administrative authorities. Police officers and prison staff strictly abided by the rules and regulations concerning their performance.
Asked if the law of Monaco exonerated acts of torture in situations of self-defence, the delegation said that no disposition was provided for in the Criminal Code for exceptional circumstances that would justify acts of torture.
Committee Chairperson Fernando Marino Menendez said he was fully satisfied with the response of the Monegasque delegation and invited its members to be present at 10 a.m. on Friday, 14 May, to hear the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations on the report of Monaco.
Monaco, as one of the 135 States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, must provide periodic reports to the Committee on its performance to prevent torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 7 May, it will consider the third periodic report of Germany (CAT/C/54/Add.2).
Response of Monaco
Responding to questions and observations raised in relation to the second periodic report, the delegation of Monaco said, among other things, that in the legislative hierarchy, the Convention was below the Constitution but above domestic laws. So far, no contradiction to the Constitution had been observed in the application of the Convention against Torture.
There was no definition of torture in the Criminal Code of the country within the terms of article 1 of the Convention, the delegation said. Article 1 was self-executing in the judicial system of Monaco.
Asked if the law of Monaco exonerated acts of torture in situations of self-defence, the delegation said that no disposition was provided for in the Criminal Code for exceptional circumstances that would justify acts of torture.
Any detainee could inform his family by telephone of his detention on the authorization of the judge or prison official, the delegation said. The lawyer of the detainee, who was chosen by the detainee or was appointed by the court, could also inform the family of the detainee. The law also obliged the director of the prison to provide telephone services to detainees immediately upon their arrest.
On solitary detention, the delegation said that this procedure was only used for the protection of information or as a disciplinary measure within the prison system. If many individuals were detained in relation to the same criminal case, the inmates, on the orders of the investigating judge, could be held separately. The duration of the solitary measure should not exceed 15 days.
The Franco-Monegasque treaty of 18 May 1963 did not provide for the handing over of prisoners sentenced to long terms to the French authorities, the delegation said. However, other prisoners were handed over to the French authorities to serve their terms in French prisons.
No legal provision existed for the registration of persons detained in police stations, the delegation said. Nevertheless, in practice, the police had kept a book of arrests for many years. The book provided information relating to the motives of the arrest, personal effects and the meals served to the detainee. The reform of the Criminal Procedural Code would provide further precision on the manner of keeping records. With regards to medical consultations during the period of detention in the police station, no information was to be found in the book, except in the acts of procedure submitted to the judge. However, the police had to inform the Procurator General about the arrest of any individual.
All magistrates in Monaco, whether they were Monegasque or French who were attached to the country’s jurisdiction, had access to continued training at the National School of French Magistrates, the delegation said.
Asked if Monaco was planning to ratify the Rome Statute for the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the delegation said the ratification process was proceeding. Since that Convention did not provide for any reservations, Monaco was examining if there was any contradiction between the treaty and Monegasque legislation.
Until April 2004, Monaco had hosted 20 refugees and 8 stateless persons, the delegation said. Those persons enjoyed the legal status defined under the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of refugees.
No complaints had been lodged to the judicial authorities for the last six years with regards to ill treatment inflicted by the police or by the prison staff, the delegation said. Police officers and prison staff strictly abided by the rules and regulations concerning their performance. Any citizen had the right to lodge complaints directly to the judicial authorities.
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Monaco to questions raised by its Experts on the second periodic report of that country.
The Monegasque delegation told the Committee that for the last six years, no complaints of ill treatment had been lodged with the judicial authorities or had come to the attention of the administrative authorities. Police officers and prison staff strictly abided by the rules and regulations concerning their performance.
Asked if the law of Monaco exonerated acts of torture in situations of self-defence, the delegation said that no disposition was provided for in the Criminal Code for exceptional circumstances that would justify acts of torture.
Committee Chairperson Fernando Marino Menendez said he was fully satisfied with the response of the Monegasque delegation and invited its members to be present at 10 a.m. on Friday, 14 May, to hear the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations on the report of Monaco.
Monaco, as one of the 135 States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, must provide periodic reports to the Committee on its performance to prevent torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 7 May, it will consider the third periodic report of Germany (CAT/C/54/Add.2).
Response of Monaco
Responding to questions and observations raised in relation to the second periodic report, the delegation of Monaco said, among other things, that in the legislative hierarchy, the Convention was below the Constitution but above domestic laws. So far, no contradiction to the Constitution had been observed in the application of the Convention against Torture.
There was no definition of torture in the Criminal Code of the country within the terms of article 1 of the Convention, the delegation said. Article 1 was self-executing in the judicial system of Monaco.
Asked if the law of Monaco exonerated acts of torture in situations of self-defence, the delegation said that no disposition was provided for in the Criminal Code for exceptional circumstances that would justify acts of torture.
Any detainee could inform his family by telephone of his detention on the authorization of the judge or prison official, the delegation said. The lawyer of the detainee, who was chosen by the detainee or was appointed by the court, could also inform the family of the detainee. The law also obliged the director of the prison to provide telephone services to detainees immediately upon their arrest.
On solitary detention, the delegation said that this procedure was only used for the protection of information or as a disciplinary measure within the prison system. If many individuals were detained in relation to the same criminal case, the inmates, on the orders of the investigating judge, could be held separately. The duration of the solitary measure should not exceed 15 days.
The Franco-Monegasque treaty of 18 May 1963 did not provide for the handing over of prisoners sentenced to long terms to the French authorities, the delegation said. However, other prisoners were handed over to the French authorities to serve their terms in French prisons.
No legal provision existed for the registration of persons detained in police stations, the delegation said. Nevertheless, in practice, the police had kept a book of arrests for many years. The book provided information relating to the motives of the arrest, personal effects and the meals served to the detainee. The reform of the Criminal Procedural Code would provide further precision on the manner of keeping records. With regards to medical consultations during the period of detention in the police station, no information was to be found in the book, except in the acts of procedure submitted to the judge. However, the police had to inform the Procurator General about the arrest of any individual.
All magistrates in Monaco, whether they were Monegasque or French who were attached to the country’s jurisdiction, had access to continued training at the National School of French Magistrates, the delegation said.
Asked if Monaco was planning to ratify the Rome Statute for the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the delegation said the ratification process was proceeding. Since that Convention did not provide for any reservations, Monaco was examining if there was any contradiction between the treaty and Monegasque legislation.
Until April 2004, Monaco had hosted 20 refugees and 8 stateless persons, the delegation said. Those persons enjoyed the legal status defined under the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of refugees.
No complaints had been lodged to the judicial authorities for the last six years with regards to ill treatment inflicted by the police or by the prison staff, the delegation said. Police officers and prison staff strictly abided by the rules and regulations concerning their performance. Any citizen had the right to lodge complaints directly to the judicial authorities.