COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF SERBIA

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Serbia to questions raised by Committee Experts on the initial 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 Wednesday, 5 November, the delegation, which was led by Svetozar Èipliæ, Minister for Human and Minority Rights of Serbia, speaking on the issue of cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, noted that, today, there were no open questions regarding the submission of information to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had so far reviewed 26 files submitted by the police authorities. Out of 46 indicted persons the Tribunal had requested, 42 had been turned over. Among those who had been extradited were the former heads and deputy heads of government, including the former head of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadic. Regarding the arrest of General Ratko Mladic, Serbia was making every effort to find that individual and would turn him over to the Tribunal in The Hague. The Government was offering a reward of 1 million euros for information leading to his arrest. As for paramilitary members who had taken part in the war in the former territory of Yugoslavia, the Government had established competence for all crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, regardless of their nationality. There were proceedings against persons who had taken part in war crimes both within the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia and the War Crimes Chamber of the Belgrade District Court, established in 2003. So far, 123 persons had been processed before those bodies, and for comparison, 161 persons had been processed by the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague.

The delegation also provided information on the reform of the judiciary; detention of juveniles; the complaints process for allegations against police; the reform of social care institutions, in particular those for psychiatric disorders and for the care of children; and provided statistics on investigations into complaints of torture by the police.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Serbia towards the end of the session on Friday, 21 November 2008.

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

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 7 November, in Room XII of the Palais des Nations, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the fourth periodic reports of China (CAT/C/CHN/4) and the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions (CAT/C/HKG/4 and CAT/C/MAC/4, respectively).

Response of Serbia

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Wednesday, 5 November, the delegation of Serbia, with regard to the legal framework and the new Constitution adopted in 2006, noted that now it was important that the new Constitutional foundation for the judicial system was established. The Government had therefore adopted a package of laws regarding the organization of the judicial system, using the example of the French legal system. They had therefore established the relationship of the courts, the prosecutor and judges, along those lines. A primary target of the reforms was the inefficiency of the old system and the need to guarantee the right to trial within a reasonable time.

Regarding activities to protect the enforcement of the Convention in the Provinces of Kosovo and Metohija, the delegation noted that, with regard to the Security Council resolution granting administration to the United Nations Administrative Mission there, Serbia was no longer able to do that, and that included for Serbian citizens living in those Provinces.

On cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Serbia had undertaken measures to ensure better cooperation with the Tribunal. Today, there were no open questions regarding the submission of information to the Tribunal, the delegation affirmed. The Tribunal had so far reviewed 26 files submitted by the police authorities. All witnesses, with no exception, had been released from the obligation to keep certain information confidential. Out of 46 indicted persons the Tribunal had requested, 42 had been turned over. Among those who had been extradited were the former heads and deputy heads of government, including the former head of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadic.

Regarding the arrest of General Ratko Mladic, Serbia was making every effort to find that individual and would turn him over to the Tribunal in The Hague. Rewards of 1 million euros for information leading to the arrest of Mr. Mladic and of 250,000 euros in the case of Mr. Hadzic, were being offered by the Government.

As for paramilitary members who had taken part in the war in the former territory of Yugoslavia, the situation was quite clear, the delegation said. The Government had established competence for all crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, regardless of their nationality. There were proceedings against persons who had taken part in war crimes both within the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia and the War Crimes Chamber of the Belgrade District Court, established in 2003. So far 123 persons had been processed before those bodies, and for comparison, 161 persons had been processed by the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. The majority of those prosecuted were members of the paramilitary groups which not only had been active in crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but in Kosovo as well.

As for the judgement on the International Court of Justice regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, in which Serbia had been held responsible for not preventing the 1995 genocide in Srebenica, it had not held that the Government was liable to pay reparations, but was ordered to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and to turn over those accused of acts of genocide. Serbia had done that. It had also demonstrated its intolerance for war crimes by prosecuting the members of paramilitary as well as in the regular military who were responsible for war crimes in other areas of the former Yugoslavia.

In addition, in December 2004, the President of Serbia had presented apologies for the crimes committed in Srebrenica, the delegation added. Serbia was therefore giving its best contribution to the normalization of relations and the best possible cooperation with the other members of the former Yugoslavia.

In the Criminal Law of Serbia there was no definition of torture as set out in the Convention. However, there were other similar provisions under which torture could be prosecuted. Moreover, the process of harmonizing Serbian law with its international obligations was under way and the adoption of amendments to the Criminal Code was expected in 2009, the delegation stressed.

As for statutes of limitations, currently, crimes of torture were subject to such limits. However, war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity were not.

With respect to medical examinations of detainees, the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for detainees to request an examination by their own doctor without delay and if they did not have their own doctor, one would be appointed, the delegation confirmed. Convicts were also entitled to free medical care. If the appropriate facilities were not available in the prisons, the prisoners would be transferred to appropriate facilities, and the time spent there was considered to form part of their prison sentence. In the case of pregnant women, they were transferred to the appropriate hospitals. Medical care was available almost immediately to all prisoners, and was immediately available in all urgent cases.

On the responsibility of doctors to report cases of use of force by law enforcement authorities, the Law on the Chamber of Medical Experts provided the possibility for revocation of a doctor's licence for improper carrying out of medical examinations of prisoners.

As for the procedure for submission of complaints, the delegation said that convicted persons had the right to appeal to the head of the prison of violations of their rights in the prison. A reply to that complaint had to be delivered within 15 days. If the convict was dissatisfied with that reply, he could file another complaint with the Director of Prisons, who again had 15 days in which to respond. Those communications were confidential. Convicts who wished to appeal the decision of the Director of Prisons could lodge a complaint with the Court of Judicial Protection. In 2007, 322 complaints were lodged by prisoners with the heads of prisons. Of those, 72 cases were appealed and 15 were accepted by the Court of Judicial Protection and sent back for reinvestigation.

With regard to juveniles in detention, they were still required to pursue their education and take classes, the delegation said. In this area, Serbia was in line with European Court of Human Rights guidelines and judgements.

A system of monitoring had been established to ensure that prison sentences were being properly carried out, the delegation noted. Wardens were under an obligation to allow monitors to come and examine the situation and to report on it. Wardens were also bound to comply with any recommendations made as a result. The National Assembly had established a five-member commission familiar with sentencing guidelines, but who were not staff of the prisons administration. The commission submitted a report at least once annually on the issue. In addition, the Ombudsman's Office was mandated to control and supervise any complaints by citizens that their rights were being infringed by public officials.

Persons deprived of liberty without a decision of the court had to be informed immediately of their right to remain silent and to the right to a lawyer of their own choosing, or to have a lawyer appointed in the case that they could not afford one. Persons detained had to be presented before a competent court within 48 hours or released, the delegation said. The duration of detention was prescribed by the Constitution as a maximum of one month, which could be extended by another two months by a court of second instance. In cases involving severe criminal charges, with penalties of up to five years imprisonment, the detention could be extended up to another three months. After that, the detainee would have to either be handed over for trial or released.

Regarding solitary confinements, by law, prisoners who were sanctioned to solitary confinement had to be examined by a doctor daily. There were 4,503 cases of disciplinary measures ordered in the prison institutions, with 1,097 of them involving isolation for periods of up to 15 days. Of those isolation sentences 285 were not enforced, owing to medical findings against such a measure. In addition, a number of those sanctions were ordered stopped before the full period had elapsed, because the prison director deemed that the object of the sanction had already been achieved, the delegation added.

Of the five special hospitals for psychiatric disorders in Serbia, in 2006 there were 1,669 patients in 2006 (the bulk of them, 1,228 in one hospital); 1,795 in 2007 (1,339 in one hospital); and 760 in 2008 (461 in one hospital). There was reform under way in this field to deinstitutionalize social care and care for persons with disabilities. On the basis of a report by Mental Disability Rights International, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, on 20 November 2008, had submitted a proposal to the Government for the improvement of the State institutions involved. Since 22 November 2007, seven long-term decisions were taken to improve the conditions of persons with disabilities, including a ban on the further acceptance of children at such institutions. A by-law had been adopted so that the network of social care institutions would have reduced capacities (fewer persons in care). In that regard, young children had been placed in different institutions, placed with foster families, or transferred to special care facilities.


In all 16 social care institutions in Serbia, the development of the placement of children in foster families had started, the delegation stressed. In Serbia there were 11,249 children with mental disabilities that accessed social care and about 1,000 of them were in institutions. Following the report of Mental Disability Rights International, the Government had also decreed the carrying out of a study and review of all those institutions in Serbia.

Turning to criminal investigations of allegations of torture by law enforcement officials, the delegation noted that the Internal Control Unit, which had started work in 2003, was in charge of controlling the enforcement of laws regulating the police. The Unit acted upon complaints and motions by legal persons, but was also able to act on its own accord on the basis of information it had collected on the activities of police officers. Up to today, 1,012 complaints of excessive use of power had been received by the Unit, out of which 153 were found to have legal grounds, about 400 were found not to have legal grounds, and 371 were resolved in another manner. A total of 31 criminal charges were brought against 43 police officers, and disciplinary proceedings were also instigated against 41 police officers.

For questions that had not been answered, the delegation would supply written responses to the Committee.


Additional Questions by Committee Experts

FERNANDO MARIÑO, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Serbia, said, with regard to Kosovo, that it appeared that the authorities in Serbia were monitoring the situation in that area, in particular with regard to Serbs living there, and he would appreciate confirmation of that. As to future activities, he had understood that a new Criminal Code would enter into force on 1 January 2009, and he would appreciate more information on that. He also asked if the new judicial system had already been adopted or not. In addition, did non governmental organizations need prior authorization from prison authorities before they were allowed to visit those facilities? They had heard reports that that was the case.

ABDOULAYE GAYE, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Serbia, asked once again for explanations on prison overcrowding, whether that could be explained by the lack of prompt consideration of cases before the courts, and what Serbia was doing to address that. He also requested more information on training for prison officials; the role of the justice system in oversight of detention; clarification on the dialogue and links between civil society oversight bodies and State structures; and compensation in civil law for victims of torture.

Other Experts asked about rehabilitation programmes for victims of torture; in addition to the reforms and studies on serious allegations of abuse in mental institutions, would any prosecutions be carried out; what had been the outcome of programmes to improve the situation of the Roma; procedures to remove judges, who were appointed for life; and whether the Government had held responsible persons who had committed acts of violence against international peacekeeping personnel in Kosovo.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT08027E