COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF SWEDEN

The Committee against Torture this morning heard the response of Sweden to questions raised by Committee Experts on the fifth periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on 29 April, the delegation, which was led by Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, Director-General for Legal Affairs and Ministry for Foreign Affairs, said, on interrogation techniques, that the Swedish penal code prohibited the use of knowingly false information or torture in courts. On the two Egyptian cases, no legal actions had been taken against the security services and police personnel who had taken the decision to send the two persons to Egypt. On the question of collecting statistics about the sexual orientation of residence permit candidates, the delegation said that taking such statistics could cause privacy problems.

Turning to the use of isolation in prisons, the delegation said that it was a temporary measure, and was normally used only during a few hours or a few days. On the issue of the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the delegation observed that Sweden was really concerned about this issue. An action plan had been put in place and it had resulted in a decrease of asylum-seeking children. On the use of video recording during police interrogations, it was mostly used during interrogations of children that had been victims of certain crimes.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Sweden towards the end of the session on Friday, 16 May 2008.

As one of the 145 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Sweden is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to hear the response of Australia to questions raised by Committee Experts yesterday.

Response of Sweden

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on 29 April, the delegation of Sweden said that, with regard to the definition of torture as a specific crime, they had listened to the remarks made by Committee, but their position remained unchanged. On interrogation techniques, the delegation underlined that the Swedish penal code prohibited the use of knowingly false information or torture in courts. On the two Egyptian cases, no legal actions had been taken against the security services and police personnel who had taken the decision to send the two persons to Egypt. Also, none of the two Egyptians had been tortured by Swedish personnel.

On the question of collecting statistics about the sexual orientation of residence permit candidates, the delegation said that taking such statistics could cause privacy problems. Concerning the training of staffs at embassies, it was noted that they were being trained in human rights and migration issues. On statistics of complaints of police violence, no such statistics existed. There was a panel within the police board which was dealing with such cases; it had dealt with 89 cases last year, but there was no information available concerning the content of these cases.

Turning to the use of isolation in prisons, the delegation said that it was a temporary measure, and was normally used only during a few hours or a few days. Last year, 55% of the isolation measures had ceased within 2 days. On Mr. Wang’s remark concerning the wording used in the report on the right to have access to an interpreter in courts, it was noted that it was a problem of translation. The Swedish version of the document was reading the words “shall be provided” and not “may be provided”.

On the issue of the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the delegation observed that Sweden was really concerned about this issue. An action plan had been put in place and it had resulted in a decrease of asylum-seeking children. On the conditions that led to the detention of a child, they were very strict and the authorities had to check in each individual case, if for example, supervision was a better measure.

The delegation explained that international treaties did not automatically become national law. Sweden had a dual system. A treaty could be transformed in one or more national laws. When Sweden was considering acceding to an international law, it was looking into its applicability into the Swedish system.

The delegation was also of the view that areas of competence had to be defined between the different monitoring bodies in Geneva and certain questions that had been asked by the Committee had been felt as falling out of its scope of competence. On the use of video recording during police interrogations, it was mostly used during interrogations of children that had been victims of certain crimes. It was used when it was likely that the child would not be present in court, such as the tape could be listened to during court hearings. On the duration of detention of asylum seekers, there was no maximum time limit there was however a time limit for the detention of children.

Questions by Committee Experts

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Sweden, said that the consistent view of the Committee that the crime of torture was different from the crime of assault or homicide was not based on strange facts and torture should have its own definition. There were practical and theoretical reasons for this. It also allowed the Committee to take a look to specific crimes of torture that had been defined as such.

Sweden had a sound and solid record in human rights noted Mr. Grossman; it was a role model. However, in many cases, there were no statistics available to the Committee. There was the problem of protecting privacy while collecting statistics, but it was felt that there were ways to collect statistics while preserving privacy.

XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Sweden, asked whether statements obtained under torture could be used as evidence during court proceedings. On the issue of the Committee’s scope of competence, it was noted that the Committee’s General Comment 2 mentioned that the Committee also had to prevent violence against women and domestic violence. What was the view of the delegation in this regard?

Other Committee experts asked questions and made comments on the fact that the Convention did also apply to women, and thus, gender issues should also be dealt with inside this Committee. Sexual abuse of women and children, genital mutilation and trafficking of women did fall under the purview of this Committee which was examining torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment and it was surprising that Sweden did not accept this. Where would the delegation wish to see the issue of torture to be examined? The Human Rights Committee was the place for this but apparently, State Parties had felt that it was important to have more than one body tackling these issues. In which body should the rape of a woman in prison, used as a weapon of war, be dealt with? The strength of the system was that each body had to look into violations falling within its scope and affecting everyone, whether the victims were men, women, children, minors or migrant workers. Another committee member said that nothing stopped this body to look at how other international treaties were being respected by the state party. There was no competition between bodies but they may inspire themselves on what was happening concerning with regard to other conventions.


On the rights of the child, a committee expert said that they had been told that there was insufficient definition in the Swedish law concerning pedopornography. The member state was requested to do the necessary steps to protect minors. It was also wondered to what had happened to the disappeared asylum-seeking children.

Response by Delegation

Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Sweden said that, on the question of statements obtained under the use of torture and how they could be used as evidence, for Sweden this was a theoretical problem. There was no limitation in law prohibiting the use of any evidence. However, if there was a statement obtained under torture, it was clear that the courts would not use them as evidence, even though there are no provisions in the law against this.

As regards to the Committee’s general comments, they were not considered as being legally binding. On the scope of the mandate, it was felt that his work should not overlap with the work of the other Treaty Bodies in order for them to have defined roles. Concerning the disappeared children, some had been found in Sweden. For the remaining one it was believed that they had transited to another country.

Concerning the events in Easter Congo in 2003 during Operation Artemus, where French peacekeeping forces had allegedly tortured Congolese civilians, it was noted that the Swedish peacekeeping soldiers that were also present there at the time had not been involved in the cases but had been witnesses to the events. It was noted that the Swedish commanding officer had been late in communicating the events to the Swedish government.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT08005E