COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE REVIEWS REPORT OF ICELAND

Committee against Torture
MORNING

9 May 2008



The Committee against Torture this morning considered the third periodic report of Iceland 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, Kristrun Kristinsdottir, Director at the Ministry of Justice of Iceland, said that even though the term torture was not defined in law texts, there was no doubt about what was included in that term and that it was a punishable offence under Icelandic law. Given the general principle of Icelandic law that legal provisions were to be interpreted in harmony with international legal obligations, there could be no doubt that the term torture would be interpreted in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. The Government of Iceland was of the view that Icelandic law contained satisfactory provisions applying to torture, both physical and mental, as covered by the Convention. Also, in Icelandic criminal procedure, there was a principle of a judge’s free evaluation of evidence brought before the court. Police reports which were not supported by statements made in court had limited value as evidence. Concerning criminal proof, Icelandic law ensured that a person could not be convicted on the basis of a confession, if it was established that it had been obtained by torture.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Iceland, Committee Expert Nora Sveaass said that one of the positive aspects was that no complaints of torture had been received. One of the recommendations of the Committee had been that torture should be defined as a specific offence. The report said that the term torture was explained in such a way that there should be no doubt as to what was meant by this term, even though it was not specifically defined. She recalled that the Committee had emphasized that a clear comprehensive domestic law defining torture was of essence in the efforts to prevent such acts.

Xuexian Wang, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Iceland, said that a clear specific provision in domestic law indicating that evidence obtained under torture had no value in court would be welcomed. Also, there seemed to be a high number of rapes. Was this linked to the fact that they had no specific definition of rape in Icelandic law? He wondered about the large difference between the sanctions for someone accused of rape. Rape of children could lead to 16 years imprisonment, whereas rape of adults could only lead to one to two years imprisonment, this was thought to be a rather weak. Further, Iceland should create a criminal offence for cruel or inhuman treatment. What was the delegation’s view in this regard?

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said that concerning so-called “Taser guns”, the police association had expressed their opinion in this regard and had indicated the necessity of the police to be able to use such guns in certain conditions. No action had however been taken by the authorities in this regard until now to authorize such guns.

Also representing the delegation of Iceland were members of the Permanent Mission of Iceland to the United Nations Office at Geneva and the Ministry of Justice.

Iceland is among the 145 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 at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the answers of Zambia to the questions posed by Experts on 8 May 2008.
Report of Iceland

The third periodic report of Iceland (CAT/C/ISL/3) notes that Article 7 of the Application of Punishments Act establishes an authorisation in law for the use of force by prison warders. The general rule is that prison staff are to carry out their work without using force. The aforementioned provision provides for the use of force under special conditions; these are given in an exhaustive list. Specifically, provision is made for prison staff to use force in the course of their work only if this is considered necessary in order to prevent an escape, to defend themselves against an imminent attack, to overpower violent resistance, to prevent a prisoner from harming himself or others and to prevent acts of vandalism. Prison staff may also use force if this is considered necessary to carry out measures in accordance with orders when it is necessary to carry them out immediately and the prisoner refuses or neglects to comply with instructions regarding them. It is stated in the provision that force may involve physical holds or the use of the appropriate defensive equipment. It is stated specifically that a doctor is to be summoned if there is a suspicion that the use of force has resulted in injury, in cases involving disease or if the prisoner himself requests medical assistance.

In connection with the third paragraph of Article 6 of the Convention, it should be mentioned that Article 40 of the Application of Punishments Act prescribes that foreign prisoners have the right to contact the embassies or consuls of their countries. In cases where the prisoner is a stateless person or a refugee, the prison is to assist him to contact the representative of domestic or international organisations which defend the interests of such persons. This provision also applies to remand prisoners. Also, any person who considers he has been unfairly treated by a government authority is able to submit a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. In the period from 2001 to October 2005, the Parliamentary Ombudsman did not receive any complaints directly involving allegations by individuals of torture by civil servants. Each year the Parliamentary Ombudsman receives a certain number of complaints from prisoners in which they criticise facilities in the prisons, the way disciplinary measures are imposed and the conduct of prison warders and other persons working in the prisons, including doctors and health service employees. In many of these cases, complaints do not result in any measures being taken by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, though in some cases he has criticised aspects of the handling of cases by the prison authorities.

Presentation of Report

Kristrun Kristinsdottir, Director at the Ministry of Justice of Iceland, first made some minor oral corrections to the texts of the report and their written replies. Concerning the Child Protection Act, it was wrongly stated that the Minister of Justice could regulate the methods of coercion or disciplinary actions, this lay with the competences of the Minister of Social Affairs. Concerning deportations, no applicant had fallen under the definition of the term refugee given in the United Nations Convention during the years 2001 to 2005.

Ms. Kristinsdottir, reviewing the main measures and developments, said that in the new Application of Punishment Act, a large number of provisions in various acts and regulations had been brought together in a single piece of legislation defining the rights and obligations of persons on whom sentence was passed. By this Act, the distinction between prisons for those serving sentences and remand prisons had been abolished. In fact, no remand prisons had been in operation in Iceland for many years.

Regarding the fact that no special rules had been set regarding the use of force by employees of the Coast Guard, Ms. Kristinsdottir noted that there had been some developments. A new Coast Guard Act stated that the Coast Guards shall comply with the Police Act and Law on Criminal Procedure. On prison warders, one of the requirements for candidates was that they should not have been convicted of a criminal offence and the training for prison warders lasted nine months. A course in human rights and ethics was taught, educating prison warders on rules on human rights and how to care for people with dignity.

Ms. Kristinsdottir underlined that, even though the term torture was not defined in law texts, there was no doubt about what was included in that term and that it was a punishable offence under Icelandic law. Given the general principle of Icelandic law that legal provisions were to be interpreted in harmony with international legal obligations, there could be no doubt that the term torture would be interpreted in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. The Government of Iceland was of the view that Icelandic law contained satisfactory provisions applying to torture, both physical and mental, as covered by the Convention.

Also, in Icelandic criminal procedure, there was a principle of a judge’s free evaluation of evidence brought before the court. Police reports which were not supported by statements made in court had limited value as evidence. Concerning criminal proof, Icelandic law ensured that a person could not be convicted on the basis of a confession, if it was established that it had been obtained by torture, said Ms. Kristinsdottir.

Questions Raised by Committee Experts

NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Iceland, said that one of the positive aspects was that no complaints of torture had been received. One of the recommendations of the Committee had been that torture should be defined as a specific offence. The report said that the term torture was explained in such a way that there should be no doubt as to what was meant by this term, even though it was not specifically defined. She recalled that the Committee had emphasized that a clear comprehensive domestic law defining torture was of essence in the efforts to prevent such acts.

One of the major tools for the prevention of torture was to have a good oversight mechanism and independent monitoring body. The parliamentary ombudsperson was engaged in this but the resources were limited. Had the Ombudsman been able to visit places of psychiatric facilities? Was it true that he did not have a broad human rights mandate? What were the plans to strengthen this independent function, in compliance with the Paris Principles, asked Ms. Sveaass.

What were the legal provisions and measures taken by the State party to deal with the high number of rapes? Concerning asylum seekers, Ms. Sveaass noted that there were very few who were granted protection when applying for asylum. Between 2001 and 2005, the report noted that there had been 394 applications and 240 deportations. Between 2001 and 2008, 457 persons sought asylum, 24 of them had been granted humanitarian status and one person was granted refugee status. What had happened to the 25 reported appeals?

The Icelandic Human Rights Centre was aware of a case where a seven months pregnant woman had been returned and of a Romanian asylum seeker who had been returned to the United Kingdom, despite the fact that he had been gravely ill and suffering from severe post-traumatic stress. In this regard, was it planned to reconsider procedures? Information received by the Committee also indicated that there had been incidents where asylum seekers had not been treated in accordance with international agreement, said Ms. Sveaass

Concerning the much discussed CIA activities in Europe and the tendency to turn a blind eye to flights operated by the CIA which had on occasion been used for extraordinary rendition or the illegal transportation of detainees, Ms. Sveaass noted that in 2005 the media had published information that CIA affiliated planes had landed in Iceland at least 67 times since 2001. There had been calls for an official investigation relating to a possible complicity. But the public prosecutor had not taken up the issue. Further, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had responded that they had not been aware of any such landings or any such planes in the Icelandic air space. What was the position of the present Government on these issues?

XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Iceland, said that it was good that Icelandic peacekeepers units were harmonized in line with the United Nations peacekeeping standards. However, the State party should push to have a provision in its domestic legislation that ensured that peacekeepers be trained in international human rights and humanitarian law.

Concerning border guards, Mr. Wang welcomed the fact that the law indicated that they had to respect international obligations. Could Iceland also take the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s suggestion to train them on all aspects of protection of refugees and asylum seekers onboard? Also, the Reykjavik prison had been termed as being under standard and that there were no separate toilets. Were these allegations true? What had been done in this regard? On solitary confinement, the numbers of detainees in solitary confinement was thought to be quite high. The Committee felt that prolonged solitary confinement was a form of torture and should be prevented as much as possible. Also, information received had indicated that two children were currently held in prison together with adults. Was this correct?

Mr. Wang said that a clear specific provision in domestic law indicating that evidence obtained under torture had no value in court would be welcomed. Also, there seemed to be a high number of rapes. Was this linked to the fact that they had no specific definition of rape in Icelandic law? He wondered about the large difference between the sanctions for someone accused of rape. Rape of children could lead to 16 years imprisonment, whereas rape of adults could only lead to one to two years imprisonment, this was thought to be a bit weak. Further, it was thought that Iceland should create a criminal offence for cruel or inhuman treatment. What was the delegation’s view in this regard?

Other Committee Experts asked questions and made comments on juvenile justice, stating that a lot of progress had been made in the protection of minors, but up until now it looked like there still was no fully fledged juvenile justice. More aggressive legislation on domestic violence should be implemented by the State party, noted one Expert. Were there any numbers available concerning offences of sexual violence inside marriages and concerning sexual violence against children inside the family? Concerning trafficking, were there any provisions ensuring the assistance of victims?

One Expert wondered what exactly happened when an asylum seeker arrived by plane to Iceland from a Schengen country and was rejected. Was he sent back automatically to the same country or was he sent back to a third country? Were travel documents granted by a Schengen member country recognised by Iceland?

Had investigations of cases of suicide in prisons taken place, asked another Expert? Were guards educated in this regard? While there was a parliamentary Ombudsman, there was no systematic control and visits to prison because, as noted in the report, it was not considered appropriate to entrust this function to any already existing body. Why was this considered not to be appropriate? Why could the Ombudsman or a NGO not take this role?

An Expert underlined that there were specific reasons to have a definition for torture. Preventing torture would be easier when calling it by its name. Types of criminal acts should be defined narrowly.

Further, what was meant under “national security” with regard to asylum seekers whose requests were refused because they posed a threat to national security? This seemed to be a very broad term, how was it defined? A precise definition of terrorism was also needed. Were there attempts to narrow it down? Historical events sometimes made people overreact and it was important to review later-on decisions that had been taken in such periods.

Response by Delegation

Kristrun Kristinsdottir, Director at the Ministry of Justice of Iceland, said that, on the issue of evidence obtained under torture and the definition of torture, they would convey the questions back home and submit the answers to the Committee in written form.

Concerning the asylum seekers being sent back, the delegation noted that Icelandic authorities were actively participating in the Dublin groups of experts dealing with the fight against organised crime and practical methods of extraditions. Icelandic authorities were in good contact with the other participating States. Regarding the issue of Dublin and Schengen, the delegation noted that the Dublin scheme and the Schengen regime were not the same thing. Under Schengen, the borders were open between Iceland and other Schengen Member States and free movement was accorded to any nationals from another Schengen country and any nationals from a third country, residing legally in a Schengen country. However, under the Dublin regime when a third country national arrived from a Dublin member country, like the United Kingdom, he was subject to border control.


Regarding the low number of asylums which had been granted, the delegation noted that Iceland received a relatively high number of refugees through their cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Red Cross. Iceland received 30 to 40 persons a year which was already a high number, compared to the population. Also, Iceland was not a country were many asylum seekers came to seek asylum. Other European countries seemed to be more attractive in this regard.

Concerning the issue of unaccompanied minors, Iceland was participating in the Baltic Sea Cooperation which included other Nordic countries as well as Poland and Russia. An action plan had been set up in this regard in 2003, said the delegation. Regarding the question on setting up a definition of rape, this was the same issue as the definition of torture; it would go against the legal tradition of the country to introduce such a definition.

Regarding the CIA flights question, the delegation said that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had conducted a study and it could not establish that any flights had taken place. An inter-ministerial consultation group had been set up later on, to look into the specific monitoring procedure and if they were sufficient. It came to the conclusion that this was the case. However, decisions had been taken to change rules in order to request pilots, flying through Icelandic air space, to inform whether they had captives onboard.

As regards training for the peacekeeping force, the delegation noted that members of the unit had to sign a code of conduct before being deployed. This code of conduct was in line with the United Nations peacekeeping code of conduct. Further, a new human rights policy to train all peacekeeping units in human rights and humanitarian matters was now being set up.

The delegation noted that coast guards and border guards were not the same. The coast guards were partly border guards and partly police forces. They also received training in human trafficking and how to spot out such situations. On minors in prison, it was true that there were two boys aged 17 currently in prison. It was also true that in one prison individual toilets were not available to everyone. Prisoners who had committed minor crimes were placed there and young offenders were also placed in this prison as it was felt better to place them with less serious criminals. Even though this prison was not the most modern one, people preferred to be sent to this prison.

Concerning so-called “Taser guns”, the police association had expressed their opinion in this regard and had indicated the necessity of the police to be able to use such guns in certain conditions. No action had however been taken by the authorities in this regard until now to authorize such guns. Concerning suicides in prisons, they were being closely monitored. On close up body search of prisoners, the delegation indicated that there were specific rules for this.

Further Questions by Experts

NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Iceland, welcomed the signing by Iceland of the European Convention against human trafficking. On psychiatrist hospitals and their independent overview, could more information on this issue be provided?

XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Iceland, said, on solitary confinement, the numbers were quite high. It was a problem as it could also last weeks or years. On evidence obtained under torture, the State party was invited to adopt a specific provision in this regard and also one about cruel and inhuman treatment.

Other Experts asked questions and made further comments concerning the recording of interrogations. The State party had said that this was carried out in order to protect the police, but it should rather be done to protect the detainee. Also, how were victims of trafficking protected and how were they detected by the border control personnel?

Response by Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said that the actual sentences on rape were normally lower than the maximum authorized of 16 years. It was also true that the sentence for rape cases against adults was between one and two years imprisonment. Views had been recently expressed in the country that this should become stricter.

Concerning the use of recording during interrogations, the delegation said that such tapes could constitute additional proof if there were allegations of ill treatment by the police, and thus the parties would have a better opportunity to address what happened. During case hearings, recordings of children’s statements in sexual abuse cases were used in order to protect the children.

____________

For use of the information media; not an official record