COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF HUNGARY

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Hungary 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, Gyula Szeleikiss, Permanent Representative of Hungary to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Government of Hungary was deeply committed to combat all acts of torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The fundamental protection of the rights of persons was secured under the Constitution, which provided that everyone had the inherent right to life and human dignity, of which no-one should be arbitrarily deprived. It also provided that no one should be deprived of their liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as was determined by law.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Hungary, Committee Member Claudio Grossman said the progress that had taken place in the country was gladly acknowledged. The typification in the Hungarian domestic legal order was not, in certain cases, clear, for example in the definition of assault, and whether this overlapped with the definition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. At present, 85 per cent of persons were held in pre-trial detention in police cells, and Mr. Grossman asked what was the length of time these people were detained there, and whether this was increasing. All medical examinations of detainees in police or border guard custody were conducted by doctors from those bodies, and there were reports of these doctors attempting to influence the behaviour of the detainees, as well as of these examinations being carried out in the presence of police or border guard officials, he noted, and asked if there had been requests for independent examinations made by detainees.

The Committee Member serving as Co-Rapporteur, Nora Sveaass, said the Committee had been wondering about the issue of border guards and border detention, and knew that the time people could be held in detention had been reduced, and she asked what legal assistance was provided to those in this kind of detention, and what particular was done with regards to those who were most vulnerable, such as those suffering from post-conflict trauma and pregnant women. Being a victim of torture had additional impact and caused increased torture, and psychologically it was important to be aware of this in the rehabilitation process. In other issues, Ms. Sveaass noted that she was very impressed with the information that had been provided with regards to reforms. However, there were always concerns with regards to various situations, such as women in detention.

Also representing Hungary were representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Hungary, the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement, the Hungarian Prison Authority, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Thursday 16 November, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.

Hungary is among the 142 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.

The Committee will issue its final observations and recommendations on the report of Hungary when it concludes its session on 24 November.

When the Committee resumes its work at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the response of South Africa to questions raised by the Committee Experts on the initial report of that country on Tuesday, 14 November.

Report of Hungary

The fourth periodic report of Hungary (CAT/C/55/Add.10) deals with changes in legislation and legal and administrative practice relating to the individual material provisions of the Convention that have occurred since the Government of Hungary submitted its third periodic report (CAT/C/34/Add.10) on 15 April 1998. International monitoring of the protection of human rights is given high priority in Hungary. The Hungarian authorities undertake continuous efforts to ensure the improvement of the standard of human rights protection and are particularly interested in carrying out a continuous and fruitful dialogue with the various human rights bodies in the framework of the United Nations and the Council of Europe.

During the reporting period, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment carried out two visits to Hungary. The delegation did not receive any allegations of ill-treatment by custodial staff. Overall, staff-detainee relations appeared to be free of tension and, in each facility visited, positive remarks about some staff members were made by detainees. The Committee established that, as was the case during its last visit in 1999, it was still common for persons to be held on remand in police establishments, often for periods of several months. The Committee also stated, however, that the information received by the delegation suggested that the number of such inmates had decreased lately, as had apparently the time remand prisoners spent in police facilities.

In conclusion, the report stresses that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment did not record any hint of torture in detention facilities in Hungary during either of their visits in 1999 and in 2003. The shortcomings and deficiencies noted by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture are in the focus of actions to be taken by the Government of Hungary in the near future. Continuous efforts are being undertaken to improve the existing situation in prisons and police detention facilities, as detailed in the following parts of the present report.

Introduction of Report

GYULA SZELEIKISS, Permanent Representative of the Mission of Hungary to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said as on previous occasions, Hungary highly appreciated the opportunity to dialogue with the members of the Committee which also served as guidance on the domestic level in planning policies and in introducing new, and adjusting existing measures. The Government of Hungary was deeply committed to combat all acts of torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The fundamental protection of the rights of persons was secured under the Constitution, which provided that everyone had the inherent right to life and human dignity, of which no one should be arbitrarily deprived. It also provided that no one should be deprived of their liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as was determined by law.

Response of Delegation to List of Issues

Taking up the list of issues, the delegation of Hungary said the Criminal Code did not contain the notion of torture as defined under the Convention, but it met the requirements set forth in the Convention through its provisions regulating conducts specified under the title of Crimes Related to Office, in particular in the section on ill-treatment in official proceedings. The person giving the order should be liable for the crime committed upon order as perpetrator, and the person executing the order should not be liable only in the case of not knowing that he or she committed a crime. The fundamental protection of the rights of persons was secured under the Constitution of the Republic. It provided that everyone had the inherent right to life and human dignity, of which no one should be arbitrarily deprived. It also provided that no one should be subjected to torture, to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, or punishment. It prohibited, in particular, the carrying out of medical and scientific experimentation on a human subject without their consent.

During its 2005 inspection carried out at Hungarian penitentiary institutions, the Council of Europe’s Committee against Torture recommended to ensure for detainees the actual exercise of defence rights from the very start of their detention, the delegation said. Pre-trial detention meant the judicial deprivation of a defendant of his freedom prior to the delivery of the final decision. Decisions ordering pre-trial detention were delivered by courts. The measures applicable in the trial phase or prior to the trial phase as alternatives to pre-trial detention were governed under the code of Criminal Proceedings. Juvenile detainees were placed separately from adult detainees. Torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment was prohibited under the Constitution and under several international agreements ratified by Hungary. Crimes related to sexuality were also governed under the Criminal Code, but the prohibition of torture and forced interrogation was a general rule, not gender-specific. Therefore, there was no data on the proportion of women to men among the persons having been victims of such crimes.

There were three levels of Hungarian legislation concerning the institute of the Ombudsman. The Constitution established the institute of Ombudsman, and defined its responsibilities. The Constitution specifically mentioned a parliamentary commissioner for civil rights, and a parliamentary commissioner for the rights of national and ethnic minorities, the delegation said. The Law on the Ombudsman defined the legal status, procedures, and authority of ombudsmen. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil Rights and his General Deputy received a total of 75,165 complaints between 1 July 1995 and 31 July 2006. About 16.5 per cent of these ended with an investigation. Some 2,725 inquiries were carried out, but only in a fraction of these (0.7 per cent) did they find violation of law concerning the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. Around 12.45 per cent of the submissions concerned criminal proceedings and the functioning of investigative authorities. Since 1995, the Ombudsman for National and Ethnic Minority Rights had dealt with 4,991 complaints, 10 per cent (487) of which were filed against police organs and penal authorities. Investigations in each case were conducted, but no complaints had been filed until now about cases of torture committed by the police, but a relatively high number of complaints had been received concerning misbehaviour of police staff and other law enforcement staff.

As the main potential victims of police ill-treatment belonged to the Roma minority, projects had been launched to improve relationships between this community and the police, the delegation said. In the curriculum of high schools specialised in police training and in the curriculum of the Police Academy, the teaching of human rights was a priority. The objective was to achieve that respect for human rights formed an evident, automatic part of the everyday conduct of staff, and not just another set of rules to be taken into consideration when performing their duties. In re-trainings, emphasis was put on human rights issues and on measures applied in proceedings involving Roma and other vulnerable persons deprived of liberty. There was no data available on arbitrary detention or ill-treatment of minors by police officers.

Military and other crimes committed by the prison staff in connection with service were investigated and prosecuted by the Military Prosecution Service belonging to the Public Prosecution Service, and judged by the Military Court Division, which formed part of the general system of courts of justice, the delegation said. In 2004, 16 members of the prison service had to face criminal proceedings because of a well-founded suspicion of ill-treatment in official proceedings. Only one of these resulted in a court ruling. Proceedings against 6 persons were still underway. Under Hungarian law, victims of crimes were treated uniformly in respect of the form of assistance; there were no separate forms of aid for victims of ill-treatment in official proceedings. The medical and psycho-social rehabilitation of victims took place within the framework of the national social security system.

In 2005, a great number of criminal proceedings were initiated because of allegations containing information on confessions extracted under inhuman treatment. According to the Council of Europe’s Committee against Torture, the treatment applied in these cases could not be considered as torture. The department of the Attorney General’s Office supervising the lawfulness of the implementation of sentences and provding legal protection evaluated the lawfulness of treatment every year. According to the summary report of 2005, positive changes took place in this field, and the treatment of detainees was basically in accordance with international standards, with the requirements laid down in the recommendations and with the relevant law. Only occasional shortcomings were disclosed. In light of available data, it could be concluded that in respect of the lawfulness of treatment, there had been a clearly perceivable positive tendency for years, the delegation said. Hungary had welcomed the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and had considered positively its ratification.

Questions Raised by Committee Experts

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Hungary, said the responses were appreciated. The dialogue was a very important technique and instrument which allowed the Committee to have a clear picture of all the conditions in the country. The progress that had taken place in the country was gladly acknowledged. The problems the Rapporteur had came from the lack of precise typification of issues, as this was an important issue. The typification in the Hungarian domestic legal order was not, in certain cases, clear, for example in the definition of assault, and whether this overlapped with the definition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Further, did assault also cover the issue of acquiescence with cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by an official, he asked. Legal theory had interpreted the prohibition of this treatment to include any purpose, including confession, and penal responsibility could be avoided on the basis of intention.

The right to correspondence and to receive visitors could be restricted in the interest of criminal proceedings, Mr. Grossman said, and asked if there had been any cases of complaints of restriction of these rights. At present, 85 per cent of persons were held in pre-trial detention in police cells, and Mr. Grossman asked what was the length of time these people were detained there, and whether this was increasing. At what point after apprehension was the right to legal assistance applied, and when or whether the apprehended were informed of this right, he asked, also inquiring how many Public Defenders Hungary had in total.

On foreign nationals, at what point after detention by border guards was access to a lawyer allowed, Mr. Grossman asked. All medical examinations of detainees in police or border guard custody were conducted by doctors from those bodies, and there were reports of these doctors attempting to influence the behaviour of the detainees, as well as of these examinations being carried out in the presence of police or border guard officials, he noted, and asked if there had been requests for independent examinations made by detainees. Further, what was the average length of custody before a detainee arrived before the courts, and Mr. Grossman asked for what constituted the “exceptional circumstances” that could allow for this detention to be extended up to 30 days.

In other questions, Mr. Grossman asked whether there were disciplinary measures in place for police officers who did not follow the code of conduct and whether any cases of this had ever been prosecuted; whether there was a norm establishing the need for the police to use badges as a preventative measure to avoid them of having the temptation of hiding under anonymity; were there examples in which assessment had led to orders refusing return, refusal of entry or expulsion and whether there were statistics with regards to this and to whether there had been requests for asylum made at the borders based on fears of torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment if there was refoulement or return; what was the status of the recommendations made by the Ombudsman with regards to various legal issues and whether these had been followed; whether statistics on sex, race, age and ethnic origin would be compiled regarding allegations of infringements, to be used for academic purposes; and in how many cases were injuries noted on new arrivals in police and border guard facilities and investigations launched as a result.

There were many positive things in the report, Mr. Grossman concluded, and these would be reflected in the final observations.

NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Expert acting as Co-Rapporteur, asked whether the text of the Convention was being taught to police officers and prison officers as part of the curriculum for their training, as this was not clear. Training included broad and important issues, she noted, and asked what kind of people were included in the programmes, and whether they reached out to different groups. How were they monitored, she asked, and what was the result when those involved showed no interest or desire in assimilating or applying their lessons. There was a need to be specifically attentive to the fact that bruises or wounds could be due to ill-treatment, she noted, asking what was the situation with regards to the Istanbul Protocol in this respect.

The Committee had been wondering about the issue of border guards and border detention, and knew that the time people could be held in detention had been reduced, Ms. Sveaass noted, and asked what legal assistance was provided to those in this kind of detention, and what particular was done with regards to those who were most vulnerable, such as those suffering from post-conflict trauma and pregnant women. The defence rights of the person were very clearly stated in the Criminal Code, she noted, and asked what kind of provisions were being used to ensure that these were put into practice in effect. Ms. Sveaass also requested statistics with regards to age, gender, race and ethnic origin, pointing out that these could indeed be used to fuel discrimination, but were also useful for determining incidents of this.

There was clear evidence that the complaints system functioned, due to the large number of complaints received, but Ms. Sveaass inquired why there was a large number of these that were not carried any further, due to the lack of evidence or to the difficulty of identifying whether a crime took place. On the topic of disciplinary sanctions given to detainees in prisons, the figures for young detainees were very high, and she inquired whether this should be discussed in the context of the conditions of detention for juvenile delinquents. On compensation for torture, it would be important to specify that these were not for violence and crime, but for the specific act of torture, Ms. Sveaass said. Being a victim of torture had additional impact and caused increased torture, and psychologically it was important to be aware of this in the rehabilitation process.

In other issues, Ms. Sveaass noted that she was very impressed with the information that had been provided with regards to reforms, and she was very pleased that this had taken place rapidly. However, there were always concerns with regards to various situations, such as women in detention, even though the figures for complaints were much lower for women then for men. With regards to sexual minorities, Ms. Sveaass asked for comment on the situation of homosexuals in the country. She congratulated the country on the efforts that it made, and noted that the centres for asylum seekers had changed a lot, and a separate centre had been opened for young and separated asylum seekers.

Other Experts raised a series of questions, pertaining to, among other things, issues related to the expulsion of migrants from other countries who were expelled at the border, which was contrary to legislation, and whether there could be a clarification of this situation; that police officers who had committed torture were not aware that they had committed such a crime or offence and that they claimed that they did not know that what they had done were acts of torture; efforts to determine the maximum time of pre-trial detention; the treatment of foreigners vis-à-vis nationals, and that there was no intermediate concept in international law, and that the question of ethnic minorities in Hungary required further explanation as to whether their identification as such was discriminatory; whether the question of legal personality was recognised for foreigners; whether the Schengen Agreement was applicable to Hungary and whether the provisions for making it effective within the Hungarian legal order had been adopted; whether a foreigner arriving without appropriate papers and requesting asylum was given immediate and appropriate treatment and what procedures would follow on from this request; and whether there were open procedures for the irregular detention of foreigners or transport of foreigners with regards to counter-terrorism measures.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT06034E