COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the second periodic report of the Republic of Moldova 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, Valeriu Cerba, Counsellor of the Minister of Interior Affairs of the Republic of Moldova, said that a series of reforms had already been adopted to prevent torture in the Republic of Moldova. There was domestic legislation directly applicable to prevent torture and ill-treatment; the Government had rescinded the law on preliminary arrest; and a code of professional ethics had been introduced for the police. In 2006, Parliament had adopted a law prohibiting the death penalty. The Republic of Moldova had also been one of the first States to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. In that connection, a national prevention mechanism had been set up, the Ombudsman's Office, which was designated as the main organ responsible for protecting human rights.

Mr. Cerba noted with regret that the events of April 2009 had seriously undermined the Government's efforts to apply the provisions of the Convention against Torture since independence. The Government was deeply concerned about that fact and was looking into the reasons behind those events. Comprehensive and radical measures would be taken by all authorities to ensure that action of that kind was not repeated and that all perpetrators of such violence were brought to justice. The Public Prosecutor had examined 104 complaints of violations or abuse of force by the police in connection with the April events, seven of which had already been taken to court. At present, they were completing those seven cases brought against 19 police officers. In addition, a Parliamentary Commission to investigate the events had been set up, and seminars had been held to look into the April events and studies drawn up to see how the situation could be rectified. Particular attention was also being paid to the training of the police in human rights, and the amount of time given to the study of human rights and the elimination of torture and inhuman treatment had been doubled.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Moldova, Committee Expert Nora Sveaass commended the Republic of Moldova for the openness with which it had received a number of international experts, and for other positive achievements, including new Codes of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, and the entry into force of a law preventing and combating violence in the family. She highlighted, however, what seemed to be a serious discrepancy between theory and practice. There had been numerous reports, conclusions and even judgements against the Republic of Moldova in the European Court of Human Rights, implying strong criticism of human rights practices there. Moreover, following his visit to the country in 2008, the Special Rapporteur on torture had expressed serious concerns both with regard to ill-treatment during the initial period of police custody, and had also referred to serious allegations of torture in some police stations.

Alexander Kovalev, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Republic of Moldova, said that, with regard to the April events, he had heard that an order had been issued by the Government to all medical facilities, instructing them not to provide medical certificates indicating traces of torture, and he asked the delegation to comment. Another concern was that, while the number of detainees might have been reduced in recent years, the conditions of detention, including such limited space that detainees had to sleep in rotation, had not changed. He also asked if an autonomous body had been set up to hear and investigate complaints against the police.

Also representing the delegation of the Republic of Moldova was Tatiana Lapicus, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Moldova to the United Nations Office at Geneva, and other members of the Permanent Mission in Geneva; as well as representatives of the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and the Family; and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The delegation will return to the Committee at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 12 November to provide its responses to the questions raised today.

The Republic of Moldova is among the 146 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 responses of Colombia to questions put by Committee Experts on Tuesday, 10 November.

Report of Republic of Moldova

The second periodic report of the Republic of Moldova (CAT/C/MDA/2) notes that the new Criminal Code introduced torture as an aggravating factor to a range of criminal offences. However, these amendments did not ensure appropriate protection for torture victims and many actions that amounted to torture were still qualified as abuse of power. This has been remedied by Law No. 139 (2005), which introduced “torture” as a distinct corpus delicti. Article 3091 of the Criminal Code stipulates that torture is “the action by which strong physical and mental pain and suffering is deliberately caused to a person, especially with the aim of receiving information and confession from the person concerned or a third person, punishing for a deed that the person concerned or a third person committed or is suspected of committing, intimidating or putting pressure on the person concerned or a third person, or for any other reason based on a form of discrimination, whatever it is, if such pain or suffering is caused by an official or by any other person that acts officially or at the instigation or with the verbal or written consent of such a person, except for the pain or suffering that results exclusively from legal sanctions, inherent to such sanctions or caused by them”. Such a crime is punished with two to five years' imprisonment, and withdrawal of the right to hold certain positions or to carry out certain activities for a period up to five years. The same article stipulates that organization or instigation of acts of torture is punished with three to eight years' imprisonment, withdrawal of the right to hold certain positions or to carry out certain activities for a period up to five years.

The Concept Paper on Penitentiary System Reform for 2004-2013, approved by the Government in December 2003, provides for a range of measures envisaging the improvement of the situation in the penitentiary system that aim to bring detention conditions into compatibility with human rights standards. While carrying out the reform of the penitentiary system, the Department for Penitentiary Institutions assumed the duties of supervision and escort of inmates, health care, capital construction, provision with material and technical resources, staff training etc., which were previously within the competence of other state institutions. The actions undertaken had a favourable impact on public opinion, and the penitentiary system became open and more accessible for many national and international organizations. Currently, almost 80 per cent of the buildings of penitentiary institutions are old, and some buildings are in an emergency condition. The buildings where inmates are kept in custody do not comply with the sanitary and hygienic standards, as well as occupancy, lighting, aeration and heating standards. Because of the lack of financial resources, major repairs have not been made for over 15 years. The provision of inmates with food over the last years has been insufficient. According to a 1993 Government decision, the caloric value of the daily food norm is 3,070 kcal; yet, as a matter of fact, detainees receive only 1,730 kcal. The insufficient food and the bad detention conditions lead to a higher overall morbidity, and in particular, to tuberculosis-associated morbidity.

Presentation of Report

VALERIU CERBA, Counsellor of the Minister of Interior Affairs, said that, since independence, the Republic of Moldova had adopted a series of comprehensive measures in order to enshrine recognized principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms and in order to prevent torture and ill-treatment in the country. A series of institutional reforms had already been adopted to set up an appropriate mechanism to prevent torture. There was domestic legislation directly applicable to prevent torture and ill-treatment, with additions to and amendments of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to that end. The Government had rescinded the law on preliminary arrest and had introduced a code of professional ethics for the police in order to ensure that an appropriate mechanism was available for the implementation of that. In addition, a national action plan had been adopted and was being implemented in the area of human rights, which ensured a qualitative and comprehensive training system for members of the judiciary, law enforcement, medical professionals and other members of civil society working in the human rights field.

In 2006 the Parliament adopted a law prohibiting the death penalty. The Republic of Moldova was one of the first States to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. At the same time, a national prevention mechanism had been set up, the Ombudsman, which was designated as the main organ responsible for protecting human rights.

As a result of implementation of recommendations by a number of human rights experts, there had been considerable progress made in improving conditions in prisons and remand cells. Basic results achieved in just the past year included better sanitary conditions, renovation and re-equipping of exercise yards, improvement in the quality of medical services provided, and introduction of a mandatory medical examination. In addition, these included providing the opportunity for confidential and unlimited meetings with lawyers, improving the quality of food and ensuring that three meals were provided daily, as well as introducing various new techniques, such as music therapy, in the psychiatric wards. Those were just some of the reforms that had been carried out in a short time, Mr. Cerba observed.

Mr. Cerba also noted that eight of the 38 existing remand facilities had been closed as they were not up to standard. The 2008 budget had also been expanded to improve such facilities.

As a matter of priority, they needed to transfer the remand facilities and the police cells from the control of the Ministry of the Interior and to give them over to the Ministry of Justice, as well as to provide for arrest facilities, Mr. Cerba said. Work to that end was currently underway, and it was hoped that a draft bill to that effect would be adopted in January 2010. However, the question of funding and budgetary shortfall had meant that they had not been able to put an end to that problem once and for all. The Government was looking to international donors and others to help finance the construction and renovations needed to end prison overcrowding.

Plans were also underway to adopt a set of fundamental measures to curb torture and inhuman treatment. Just a few days ago a joint decree was concluded between the Health Ministry, the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Interior Ministry, which provided for medical help to be called in. The Department of Internal Security had also undergone reforms to make it more autonomous and independent and to pay more attention to human rights violations by police staff, and a telephone helpline had been set up to register complaints.

Mr. Cerba said the main achievements in the area of the prevention of torture included the reform underway in the Interior Ministry and ensuring that the police force was working to implement the interests of society. To do that, they were working with civil society to enhance confidence in the police.

In the Republic of Moldova, they had seen a decline in incidents of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as had been noted in the reports of the Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, and Yakin Erturk, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, Mr. Cerba continued. In 2007, there had been 33 cases of torture; in 2008, 15; and in 2009 so far there had been 18 criminal torture cases brought, including with regard to the so-called April events.

Mr. Cerba noted with regret that the events of April 2009 had seriously undermined the Government's efforts to apply the provisions of the Convention against Torture since independence. The Government was deeply concerned about that fact and was looking into the reasons behind those events. Comprehensive and radical measures would be taken by all authorities to ensure that action of that kind was not repeated and that all perpetrators of such violence were brought to justice.

The public prosecutor had examined 104 complaints of violations or abuse of force by the police in connection with the April events, seven of which had already been taken to court. At present, they were completing those seven cases brought against 19 police officers. One conclusion was the excessive politicization of police under previous administrations, Mr. Cerba explained.

Following an emergency meeting at the Ministry of the Interior, a number of measures had been put in place already, including the establishment of a Parliamentary Commission to investigate the events. Together with appropriate organizations, seminars had been held to look into the April events and studies drawn up to see how the situation could be rectified. Particular attention was also being paid to the training of the police in human rights, including doubling the amount of time given to the study of human rights and the elimination of torture and inhuman treatment. The rights of detainees were also explained in the context of the courses.

Turning to the situation of Transnistria, Mr. Cerba said that was a major concern that was being addressed in a number of ways. On 7 and 8 November, under the aegis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a seminar was held in Chisinau on cooperation of law enforcement bodies of Transnistria and the Republic of Moldova. It was hoped that within the context of the 5 plus 2 talks they would be able to resolve the issue of free movement of peoples, which was key to preventing torture.

Mr. Cerba also wished to highlight that, on 29 September 2009, the new Government had identified its priorities with regard to human rights. The main focus of the new governmental programme on European Integration: Freedom, Democracy and Prosperity, 2009-2013, was devoted to ensuring the establishment of the rule of law and the putting in place of a mechanism to ensure human rights guarantees, as well as access to justice and freedom of the press.

Summarizing achievements made by the Government with relation to the Convention, Mr. Cerba noted, inter alia, improved mechanisms for investigation and prosecution of cases of torture and ill-treatment; the start of the process of transfer of power from the Ministry of Interior to the Justice Ministry; improved human rights training for law enforcement agents; changes in the way in which police activities were assessed; and the introduction of human rights as a subject in the regular educational curricula in the schools.

Questions Raised by Committee Experts

NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Republic of Moldova, noted a number of positive achievements and commended the Republic of Moldova for the openness with which it had received a number of international experts, including Manfred Nowak and Yakin Erturk. On the national level, a three-tiered judiciary system had been adopted in 2003, new codes had been enforced and new Codes of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure had entered into force in 2003. She also highlighted the entry into force of a law preventing and combating violence in the family in September 2008.

Turning to concerns and questions, Ms. Sveaass noted what seemed to be a serious discrepancy between theory and practice – between good laws and good will, and the implementation of those on the ground. There had been numerous reports, conclusions and even judgements against the Republic of Moldova in the European Court of Human Rights, implying strong criticism of human rights practices there, and a report by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe had pointed to serious difficulties in the areas of trials and public hearings.

Following his visit to the country in 2008, the Special Rapporteur on torture had expressed serious concerns both with regard to ill-treatment during the initial period of police custody, and also referred to serious allegations of torture in some police stations. He also noted that complaint procedures were too weak. Similarly, visits and reports by the European Committee against Torture referred to torture and ill-treatment by the police, and also referred to serious problems in psychiatric hospitals, including a lack of trained personnel working with committed patients. Ms. Sveeass asked what mechanism was in place to discuss and implement those conclusions, as well as to make them public?

While Ms. Sveaass was satisfied that the new definition of torture in the Criminal Code encompassed all the elements in the Convention, she had questions about the gravity of the penalties laid down – two to five years – as well as a statement in the written replies that referred to inhuman treatment as a "moderate offence" and that penalties imposed for such treatment were "commensurate with those imposed for other offences in that category". In addition, she noted that of torture complaints which actually made it to the courts (50 per cent) and in which convictions were handed down, the courts applied conditional punishment in most cases.

Ms. Sveaass also asked if the statute of limitations could apply to torture complaints.

Regarding complaints, Ms. Sveaass asked for more information about the complaint procedures available, how many complaints were received and how the people who complained were dealt with. The Committee had information from non-governmental organizations that the Ombudsman had accepted for examination only 21 per cent of complaints and had referred 44 per cent to other institutions, for example.

Ms. Sveaass also referred to a number of specific cases of torture that had been documented in which insufficient action had been taken by the State party. In one case, involving two victims, Colibaba and Gurgurov, the European Court had found that the applicants had been ill-treated and tortured by the national police and that no effective investigations had been carried out.

Ms. Sveaass asked for certain clarifications about the rights of detainees, including whether detainees had a right to legal counsel in private during detention and whether that included an independent counsel, as well as whether legal aid lawyers were available for those that could not afford a lawyer from the time of arrest. She also asked what was meant by "incommunicado detention", as mentioned in the report?

Specifically on the events of April 2009, Ms. Sveaass noted that there were various different numbers presented as to how many individuals had been detained in that context. What were the official statistics on detentions, how many cases had been investigated by the Public Prosecutor and what was the status of those cases? She also asked for more information about the Parliamentary Commission set up to investigate those events.

ALEXANDER KOVALEV, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Republic of Moldova, asked, with regard to training, whether the Istanbul Protocol was taught and if it was applied as a guideline for examinations of prisoners and detainees? Further, to prevent a repeat of the April events, were policemen being trained in crowd-control methods?
In addition, he asked for details of the interrogation rules for police and other law enforcement agents.

Specifically on the April events, Mr. Kovalev had heard that an order had been issued by the Government to all medical facilities, instructing them not to provide medical certificates indicating traces of torture or death, and he asked the delegation to comment.

Regarding prison and detention conditions, Mr. Kovalev was concerned that, while the number of detainees might have been reduced in recent years, the conditions of detention, including even such limited space that detainees had to sleep in rotation, had not changed.

Had an autonomous body been set up to hear and investigate complaints against the police, Mr. Kovalev asked? While there had been some information on complaints provided, there had been no clear answer on this issue.

Mr. Kovalev also asked if there would be a review of prison sentences, following the legal reforms that had taken place in the country.

Other Committee Experts raised concerns and asked questions related to the treatment of juveniles in conflict with the law; the use of solitary confinement; a lack of sufficient food in the prisons; whether the Government planned to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which would ensure that no statute of limitations could apply to certain crimes of torture; reports of harassment of complainants or witnesses alleging ill-treatment or other violations of the Convention by prison staff; and reports that, during the past year, non-governmental organizations were no longer able to make unannounced visits to places of detention.


Other concerns included reports that not all trials were held publicly, or that the dates and times of trials were not made public; findings of the Special Rapporteur on torture that torture of suspects in police custody were widespread to obtain confessions; whether use of coerced confessions was prohibited in court cases; reports of forced abortions; whether “superior orders” was considered a defence for acts of torture; the high level of human trafficking and the lack of convictions of complicit officials in that area; and a need to clarify what was meant by special detentions – were those secret detentions?


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT09032E