Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE STARTS CONSIDERATION OF MONACO’S SECOND PERIODIC REPORT
05 May 2004
Share
Committee against Torture
MORNING 5 May 2004
The Committee against Torture this morning started its consideration of the second periodic report of Monaco on the measures taken by that country to prevent the occurrence of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on its territory.
Introducing the report was Gilles Noghes, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, who said that by submitting the report to the Committee and replying to its questions, Monaco wanted to demonstrate its constant will to respect human rights and its desire for frank cooperation in a spirit of transparency. It also aimed at evolving its legal system towards harmonization, taking into account the specific character of the country’s institutions, traditions and its geographic and demographic realities, he added.
Mr. Noghes said that far from thinking that Monaco was unmoved and far away from the great political, social and cultural transformation of the European environment that surrounded it, his country wished to join the Council of Europe, attesting its continued aspiration towards the enjoyment of an ideal democracy.
The delegation of Monaco also provided replies to written questions prepared by the Committee in advance in which it asserted, among other things, that no incident of torture or ill treatment has taken place in the country.
Guibril Camara, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur for the report of Monaco, said that from the point of view of the Committee’s concerns, Monaco could stand as a model country where no torture cases had been reported. He asked if there was a clause for exemption of liability in acts of torture; if a police officer on duty who killed someone on the pretext of “self-defence” could be exempted from prosecution; and if the Monegasque jurisprudence justified the commission of torture.
The Co-Rapporteur Fernando Marino Menendez and another Committee Expert also raised questions on whether detainees were allowed to receive visits from relatives; if incommunicado detention existed; if Monaco still hesitated to ratify the Rome Statute on the establishment to the International Criminal Court; about the number of persons incarcerated and the absence of monitoring of the physical conditions of prisoners; and about sexual violence in custody and how it was dealt with.
The delegation of Monaco will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 6 May, to provide answers to the questions raised this morning.
Monaco was also represented by Bernard Gastaud, Legal Advisor to the Minister of State who is Head of Government; Dominique Adam, Advisor in the Court of Appeal of Monaco; Dominique Pastor, Legal Assistant of the Legal Advisor of the Minister of State; and Jean-Philippe Bertani, First Secretary in the Permanent Mission of Monaco in Geneva.
As one of the 136 States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Monaco must submit periodic reports to the Committee on how it is preventing acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Before adjourning its morning meeting, the Committee briefly exchanged views on the structure of the dialogue with delegations from States parties presenting their reports. It also discussed its working relations with non-governmental organizations.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the response of the Czech Republic to questions raised yesterday.
Report of Monaco
The second periodic report of Monaco (CAT/C/38/Add.2) provides information on new measures relating to the implementation of the Convention against Torture and additional information requested by the Committee during its consideration of the initial report. It says Monaco has completed work on its Code of Criminal Procedure to bring its criminal law in line with the provisions of the Convention. Under the amended Code, the perpetrator, joint perpetrators or accomplices of a crime consisting of an act of torture may be prosecuted in Monegasque territory. The author or accomplice should actually be present in the Principality, whether as a resident or a visitor. Monaco has also adopted an important law on extradition, which reconciles effective international enforcement with individual freedom.
The report notes that Monaco acceded to the Convention in December 1984 and it was given the force of law by Sovereign Ordinance No. 10,542 of 14 May 1992. Since then, the provisions of the Convention have formed part of Monegasque law and may be directly invoked by a judge, as they required no implementing measures in the form of domestic laws.
Presentation of Report
GILLES NOGHES, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that by submitting the report to the Committee and replying to its questions, Monaco wanted to demonstrate its constant will to subscribe its respect for human rights and its desire for frank cooperation in a spirit of transparency in order to evolve its legal system towards harmonization, taking into consideration the specific character of the country’s institutions, traditions and its geographic and demographic realities.
Mr. Noghes said that far from thinking that Monaco was unmoved and far away from the great political, social and cultural transformation of the European environment that surrounded it, his country wished to join the Council of Europe, attesting its continued aspiration towards the enjoyment of an ideal democracy.
Understanding Monaco’s aspirations, Mr. Noghes continued, the European Parliament in Strasbourg had given a favourable opinion to Monaco’s accession to the Council of Europe. The positive opinion was recognition of the political will of Monaco to strengthen the structure of the rule of law. Although the Government was unable to fully satisfy the Committee’s requests, it had made progress in its approach to the issues which concerned the Committee.
Discussion
Responding to written questions raised by the Committee in advance, the Monegasque delegation said, among other things, that there was no legal provision for the justification of torture. If a law was made for circumstances that might be invoked to justify torture or to exonerate anyone who committed torture, that would be considered contrary to article 20 of the Constitution and would be nullified by the Supreme Court.
Asked if the Monegasque law specifically prohibited the invoking of orders from a superior officer or public authority as a justification of torture, the delegation said the law was not express on that issue. However, it implicitly prohibited committing acts of torture and ensured that the perpetrators were prosecuted under the Criminal Code.
On the guarantees established to meet the requirements of article 3 of the Convention against Torture in cases of expulsion or refoulment, the delegation said that prior to the entry of the provisions of the Convention into Monaco’s legislation, the country’s law had provided legal guarantees to persons concerned by measures of refoulment or expulsion. Since all such steps were administrative measures, they were subjected to appeals to the Supreme Court. Before doing so, the individuals concerned by the measures could appeal to the administrative authorities to obtain a retreat of the measures. Monaco expelled individuals to France, where they did not risk torture or the death penalty.
Asked to provide statistical data concerning acts of torture, the delegation said no complaint with regard to acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had been registered. In addition, no case of physical or mental violence against detainees had even been signified to the authorities. Prison staff were prohibited from practicing any form of pressure on prisoners.
During their training, police officers studied the Criminal Code and its Procedure in addition to education on fundamental rights of persons, particularly on the right to physical integrity of human persons, the delegation said. Further, a course on police ethics was being elaborated.
The Franco-Monegasque treaty of 18 May 1963 allowed Monaco’s prisoners to complete their sentences in France, the delegation said. The treaty provided that sentenced individuals would serve their sentences in French prisons. Any pardons, taken on the basis of reports submitted by France, were transmitted to the French Government through diplomatic channels.
GUIBRIL CAMARA, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for the report of Monaco, said that from the point of view of the Committee’s concerns, Monaco could stand as a model since no reports of torture had been received. What procedure was followed if the provisions of the Convention contradicted those of Monaco’s laws? What was the content of the Sovereign Ordinance No. 10,542 of May 1998 that referred to acts of torture? The Committee would like to know if there was a cause for exemption of liability in acts of torture. If a police officer on duty killed someone on the pretext of “self-defence”, could he be exempted from prosecution? Did the Monegasque jurisprudence justify the commission of torture?
On the issue of recourse, Mr. Camara asked if recourse with regard to expulsion or refoulment was effective.
FERNANDO MARINO MENENDEZ, Chairperson of the Committee and Co-Rapporteur for the report of Monaco, said it seemed that Monaco was a paradise with no reports of torture reaching the Committee. On the issue of detention, he asked if an individual was allowed to receive a visit from relatives or a legal advisor as soon as he was arrested. On the training of officers, how did judges and other members of the judiciary train in relation to the prevention of torture? Was Monaco still hesitating to ratify the Rome Statute on the establishment to the International Criminal Court? Had it ratified international treaties on trafficking in human beings? How many asylum seekers lived in Monaco?
Another Committee Expert also raised questions. She asked, among other things, about the non-existence of incidents of torture in Monaco; the number of persons incarcerated and the absence of monitoring of the physical conditions of prisoners; the existence and monitoring of institutions for the elderly; and sexual violence in custody and how it was dealt with.
* *** *
MORNING 5 May 2004
The Committee against Torture this morning started its consideration of the second periodic report of Monaco on the measures taken by that country to prevent the occurrence of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on its territory.
Introducing the report was Gilles Noghes, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, who said that by submitting the report to the Committee and replying to its questions, Monaco wanted to demonstrate its constant will to respect human rights and its desire for frank cooperation in a spirit of transparency. It also aimed at evolving its legal system towards harmonization, taking into account the specific character of the country’s institutions, traditions and its geographic and demographic realities, he added.
Mr. Noghes said that far from thinking that Monaco was unmoved and far away from the great political, social and cultural transformation of the European environment that surrounded it, his country wished to join the Council of Europe, attesting its continued aspiration towards the enjoyment of an ideal democracy.
The delegation of Monaco also provided replies to written questions prepared by the Committee in advance in which it asserted, among other things, that no incident of torture or ill treatment has taken place in the country.
Guibril Camara, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur for the report of Monaco, said that from the point of view of the Committee’s concerns, Monaco could stand as a model country where no torture cases had been reported. He asked if there was a clause for exemption of liability in acts of torture; if a police officer on duty who killed someone on the pretext of “self-defence” could be exempted from prosecution; and if the Monegasque jurisprudence justified the commission of torture.
The Co-Rapporteur Fernando Marino Menendez and another Committee Expert also raised questions on whether detainees were allowed to receive visits from relatives; if incommunicado detention existed; if Monaco still hesitated to ratify the Rome Statute on the establishment to the International Criminal Court; about the number of persons incarcerated and the absence of monitoring of the physical conditions of prisoners; and about sexual violence in custody and how it was dealt with.
The delegation of Monaco will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 6 May, to provide answers to the questions raised this morning.
Monaco was also represented by Bernard Gastaud, Legal Advisor to the Minister of State who is Head of Government; Dominique Adam, Advisor in the Court of Appeal of Monaco; Dominique Pastor, Legal Assistant of the Legal Advisor of the Minister of State; and Jean-Philippe Bertani, First Secretary in the Permanent Mission of Monaco in Geneva.
As one of the 136 States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Monaco must submit periodic reports to the Committee on how it is preventing acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Before adjourning its morning meeting, the Committee briefly exchanged views on the structure of the dialogue with delegations from States parties presenting their reports. It also discussed its working relations with non-governmental organizations.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the response of the Czech Republic to questions raised yesterday.
Report of Monaco
The second periodic report of Monaco (CAT/C/38/Add.2) provides information on new measures relating to the implementation of the Convention against Torture and additional information requested by the Committee during its consideration of the initial report. It says Monaco has completed work on its Code of Criminal Procedure to bring its criminal law in line with the provisions of the Convention. Under the amended Code, the perpetrator, joint perpetrators or accomplices of a crime consisting of an act of torture may be prosecuted in Monegasque territory. The author or accomplice should actually be present in the Principality, whether as a resident or a visitor. Monaco has also adopted an important law on extradition, which reconciles effective international enforcement with individual freedom.
The report notes that Monaco acceded to the Convention in December 1984 and it was given the force of law by Sovereign Ordinance No. 10,542 of 14 May 1992. Since then, the provisions of the Convention have formed part of Monegasque law and may be directly invoked by a judge, as they required no implementing measures in the form of domestic laws.
Presentation of Report
GILLES NOGHES, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that by submitting the report to the Committee and replying to its questions, Monaco wanted to demonstrate its constant will to subscribe its respect for human rights and its desire for frank cooperation in a spirit of transparency in order to evolve its legal system towards harmonization, taking into consideration the specific character of the country’s institutions, traditions and its geographic and demographic realities.
Mr. Noghes said that far from thinking that Monaco was unmoved and far away from the great political, social and cultural transformation of the European environment that surrounded it, his country wished to join the Council of Europe, attesting its continued aspiration towards the enjoyment of an ideal democracy.
Understanding Monaco’s aspirations, Mr. Noghes continued, the European Parliament in Strasbourg had given a favourable opinion to Monaco’s accession to the Council of Europe. The positive opinion was recognition of the political will of Monaco to strengthen the structure of the rule of law. Although the Government was unable to fully satisfy the Committee’s requests, it had made progress in its approach to the issues which concerned the Committee.
Discussion
Responding to written questions raised by the Committee in advance, the Monegasque delegation said, among other things, that there was no legal provision for the justification of torture. If a law was made for circumstances that might be invoked to justify torture or to exonerate anyone who committed torture, that would be considered contrary to article 20 of the Constitution and would be nullified by the Supreme Court.
Asked if the Monegasque law specifically prohibited the invoking of orders from a superior officer or public authority as a justification of torture, the delegation said the law was not express on that issue. However, it implicitly prohibited committing acts of torture and ensured that the perpetrators were prosecuted under the Criminal Code.
On the guarantees established to meet the requirements of article 3 of the Convention against Torture in cases of expulsion or refoulment, the delegation said that prior to the entry of the provisions of the Convention into Monaco’s legislation, the country’s law had provided legal guarantees to persons concerned by measures of refoulment or expulsion. Since all such steps were administrative measures, they were subjected to appeals to the Supreme Court. Before doing so, the individuals concerned by the measures could appeal to the administrative authorities to obtain a retreat of the measures. Monaco expelled individuals to France, where they did not risk torture or the death penalty.
Asked to provide statistical data concerning acts of torture, the delegation said no complaint with regard to acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had been registered. In addition, no case of physical or mental violence against detainees had even been signified to the authorities. Prison staff were prohibited from practicing any form of pressure on prisoners.
During their training, police officers studied the Criminal Code and its Procedure in addition to education on fundamental rights of persons, particularly on the right to physical integrity of human persons, the delegation said. Further, a course on police ethics was being elaborated.
The Franco-Monegasque treaty of 18 May 1963 allowed Monaco’s prisoners to complete their sentences in France, the delegation said. The treaty provided that sentenced individuals would serve their sentences in French prisons. Any pardons, taken on the basis of reports submitted by France, were transmitted to the French Government through diplomatic channels.
GUIBRIL CAMARA, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for the report of Monaco, said that from the point of view of the Committee’s concerns, Monaco could stand as a model since no reports of torture had been received. What procedure was followed if the provisions of the Convention contradicted those of Monaco’s laws? What was the content of the Sovereign Ordinance No. 10,542 of May 1998 that referred to acts of torture? The Committee would like to know if there was a cause for exemption of liability in acts of torture. If a police officer on duty killed someone on the pretext of “self-defence”, could he be exempted from prosecution? Did the Monegasque jurisprudence justify the commission of torture?
On the issue of recourse, Mr. Camara asked if recourse with regard to expulsion or refoulment was effective.
FERNANDO MARINO MENENDEZ, Chairperson of the Committee and Co-Rapporteur for the report of Monaco, said it seemed that Monaco was a paradise with no reports of torture reaching the Committee. On the issue of detention, he asked if an individual was allowed to receive a visit from relatives or a legal advisor as soon as he was arrested. On the training of officers, how did judges and other members of the judiciary train in relation to the prevention of torture? Was Monaco still hesitating to ratify the Rome Statute on the establishment to the International Criminal Court? Had it ratified international treaties on trafficking in human beings? How many asylum seekers lived in Monaco?
Another Committee Expert also raised questions. She asked, among other things, about the non-existence of incidents of torture in Monaco; the number of persons incarcerated and the absence of monitoring of the physical conditions of prisoners; the existence and monitoring of institutions for the elderly; and sexual violence in custody and how it was dealt with.
* *** *
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: