COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS EXAMINATION OF BELARUS

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the fourth periodic report submitted by Belarus on how it implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Introducing the report, Mikhail Khvostov, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Belarus to the United Nations at Geneva, said that Belarus recognized the principles of international law, and the forbiddance of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment was insured by the Constitution. There was no specific definition of torture in national legislation but there was criminal liability for acts of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, and the Convention’s definition of torture was also used in Belarus. A bill to amend the criminal code of Belarus was currently under discussion, which would include a definition of torture. The Prosecutor’s Office confirmed there was no record of any criminal case related to torture, and that nobody had been imprisoned for reasons of torture. Responsibility for acts of torture was covered by article 426 of the criminal code, which dealt with “abuse of authority or official discretion”, and also covered actions accompanied by violence, use of weapons or special measures. Torture was categorized as a heinous crime punished by three to ten years custodial sentence. Respect for human dignity was a universally recognized principle that was protected by the Constitution of Belarus and all persons detained in custody benefited from it.

Felice Gaer, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus, asked several questions about the events of 19 December 2010 and the many detentions and allegations of torture that followed. She confirmed that no circumstances whatsoever made torture permissible, and that it was crucial Belarus included a definition of torture in its Constitution. Many 19 December detainees were denied access to lawyers or family members, and detention conditions were extremely poor. Ms. Gaer asked whether about investigations into allegations of torture, and whether independent medical examinations were permitted.

Other Committee Experts raised questions about a possible moratorium of the death penalty, complaint mechanisms, the national watchdog commission, asylum seekers, human trafficking, prison conditions, hard labour in prisons, overcrowding and penitentiary reform, and about juvenile justice.

The delegation from Belarus included five representatives from the Permanent Mission of Belarus to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

At the start of the meeting it was announced that the Committee accepted a request from Greece to postpone the presentation of its combined fifth and sixth periodic report of Greece (CAT/C/GRC/5-6) from Monday and Tuesday 14 and 15 November 2011 until its next session in May 2012.

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Friday, 11 November to hear the responses of the delegation of Belarus.

Report of Belarus

The fourth periodic report of Belarus (CAT/C/BLR/4) covers the period from September 1999 to August 2009. Legislative reform in Belarus included revisions of the Criminal Code, Penal Enforcement Code and Code of Criminal Procedure in order to bring them into line with the Convention; the amended codes entered into force on 1 January 2001. Under article 3 of the Criminal Code, a criminal sanction may entail deprivation or restriction of the rights and freedoms of a convicted person but may not be aimed at causing physical suffering or at demeaning him or her. Article 128 of the Code provides that deportation, unlawful detention, delivery into slavery, mass or systematic punishment without a court hearing, abduction leading to the victim’s disappearance, torture or other acts of cruelty committed on grounds of the racial, national or ethnic affiliation, political beliefs or religion of the civilian population are punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of from 7 to 25 years, life imprisonment or death.

Under article 10 of the Code, convicted persons have the right to be treated politely by employees of penal institutions and agencies. They must not be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Coercive measures used against them must be applied in strict compliance with the law. Convicted persons may not be subjected to medical or other experiments, even with their consent. Article 5 of the Act on the Granting of Refugee Status and Subsidiary and Temporary Protection to Foreign Nationals and Stateless Persons in the Republic of Belarus guarantees that foreign nationals present in the territory of Belarus may not be returned or expelled against their will to the territory of a State where they are at risk of torture.

In accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, investigations into complaints concerning the acts envisaged in article 1 of the Convention, as well as preliminary investigations in criminal cases involving misconduct in a public office, are conducted by the procuratorial bodies. This ensures that the complaints mechanism is independent and that investigations are prompt, impartial and full. As stipulated in the Constitution, the Procurator-General and the procurators reporting to him are responsible for overseeing the correct and uniform application of laws, decrees and other legal acts.

Presentation of the Report

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Belarus to the United Nations at Geneva, said that Belarus recognized the principles of international law, and the forbiddance of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment was insured by the Constitution. There was no specific definition of torture in national legislation but there was criminal liability for acts of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, as ensured by articles 128 and 394 of the criminal code. The definition used in article 1 of the Convention was also used in Belarus. A bill to amend the criminal code of Belarus was currently under discussion, which would include a definition of torture. The Prosecutor’s Office confirmed there was no record of any criminal case related to torture, and that nobody had been imprisoned for reasons of torture. Responsibility for acts of torture was covered by article 426 of the criminal code, which dealt with “abuse of authority or official discretion”, and also covered actions accompanied by violence, use of weapons or special measures. Torture was categorized as a heinous crime punished by three to ten years custodial sentence. Respect for human dignity was a universally recognized principle that was protected by the Constitution of Belarus and all persons detained in custody benefited from it.

The provision of temporary protection for refugees and foreign nationals was guaranteed. In 2008, a law was adopted on the foundations underlying activities to prevent violations of rights. It allowed detection of problems in the family, and creation of preventive measures. The right to integrity of the person as well as the protection from exploitation of the person were enshrined in the Convention on the Rights Of The Child as well. On 2 October 2010 a presidential decree launched a State program to combat human trafficking, which included protection and rehabilitation of victims of human trafficking and measures to increase the effectiveness of actors involved in fighting human trafficking. A 2001 decree provided for watchdogs at both local and regional levels to fight human trafficking, and the creation of compulsory rehabilitation centres.

The State had provided assistance to correctional facilities in insuring the re-socialization of persons freed from prisons. Proposals to improve conditions of detention and the persons used for labour in places of detention have also been formulated, as have monitoring visits to correctional facilities. Belarus was creating a system to prevent torture both in correctional facilities and in the private sphere. Mr. Khvostov said that he hoped cooperation with the Committee Against Torture would help to build on the progress made already by Belarus.

Questions from Committee Experts

FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur for the report of Belarus, regretted that no one from the capital was able to attend the meeting. The Committee appreciated receiving the fourth report, although it was almost ten years late. Ms. Gaer welcomed the closing of ten temporary detention facilities that did not meet official criteria. Ms. Gaer noted that Article 2 was key to the implementation of the Convention because it affirmed that there were no exceptional circumstances whatsoever that allowed torture. It also proscribed superior orders as justification for torture.

Access to lawyers was the first crucial point, because the Committee received allegations of harassment of lawyers, and a lack of independent investigations. Defence lawyers in connection to the December 2010 events were unable to see their clients for 30 days or more. How did Belarus monitor the requests to contact lawyers, and were they granted? Was there an independent authority? Was any officer ever punished for not granting access to a lawyer for a detainee? Many lawyers had to reschedule the meeting because there were only two rooms available for these appointments. Why were there not more rooms made available for them? Could Belarus prove that all detainees had private access to their lawyer? The events of December 2010 took place in the capital city. Could the delegation say how many inspections of detention facilities took place, and were any resulting reports acted upon by the authorities?

There were allegations that the detainees were denied contact with their family members – was that monitored? Detainees needed to be able to explain in their own words what happened and whether or not they had been victims of abuse or not.

There had also been denials of safeguards. How many appeals had been made due to denial of safeguards? The report stated that no complaints were made by detainees of the 19 December 2010 events, which was surprising.

Did the law allow for an independent medical exam? Were employees other than the doctor allowed to be present during the exam? It was alleged that detainees were not allowed independent medical examinations, for example Andrei Sannikov and Vladimir Neklyayev, individuals who both claimed they were subjected to torture by persons wearing black face coverings. Had there been any investigation into the treatment of Andrei Sannikov? Sannikov’s wife submitted information on how her husband was tortured but the prosecutor’s office refused to investigate, and said they did not investigate torture claims from pre-trial detention.

Most questions on issue 25 were not answered and this was disappointing. Was there another body that could receive allegations of torture? The Committee wished to receive a list of all the bodies that could receive complaints of torture and whether they could be considered as independent. Could the following institutions receive allegations of torture: the Commission for Human Rights, Community Relations and Mass Media; the public advisor in the Office of the President, and the Public Watchdog Commissions?

The Working Group on Disappearances was examining three cases of disappeared persons from Belarus. Had these cases been clarified by the Belarusian authorities? Who had access to the register of detainees? What steps needed to be taken by families in order to access this register? Had any officer been subjected to punishment for failing to register properly the names of detainees? Were independent media allowed to visit prisons?

International instruments asserted the inadmissibility of information obtained during torture. Was this principled safeguarded by Belarus?

A report by the human rights office of the Warsaw-based Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) stated that judges relied on pre-trial statements for 19 December cases which contradicted statements made during the trial.

Concerning intimidation of lawyers, Alyaksandr Pylchanka was expelled from the bar commission following his involvement in the defence of 19 December detainees. The lawyer licensing scheme should be reviewed and the Ministry of Justice should stop being involved in it. Also, had there been an investigation into the case of Aleh Hulak?

The Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers said that the case of Belarus was concerning. Could the delegation comment on this? The conviction rates were very high and this could indicate little judicial independence.

Upon the release from prison of Alyaksei Mikhalevich, a former political opponent, he held a press conference in which he said that he was tortured, along with other 19 December detainees. He subsequently left the country and his case was dismissed because Mikhalevich did not want to return to Belarus for it. Could that case be re-opened?

Had any prosecutions been held against Belarusian riot police? One individual was being detained with criminal case, because he severely beat Maya Abromchik. Yet who was this person that was arrested? Was he part of the riot police? Vladimir Neklyayev was abducted, and subsequently made several complaints, yet no investigations were led on his complaints. Andrei Sannikov’s case had gained a lot of attention because of his prominence - he was a former presidential candidate – but were there any investigations into his allegations of torture?

NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Expert who served as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Belarus, noted a high number of arrests of civil society members and human rights defenders, who had allegedly been ill-treated in detention. On 22 December 2010 the Rapporteur on Arbitrary Detention and the Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders made a statement about allegations of torture in Belarus. Ms. Sveaass reminded the delegation of their obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment. There was a sense of willingness on part of Belarus to get rid of torture, so the Committee wished that the State party would take note of those reports and lead investigations.

What laws provided protection to women and children? How did the systems of complaint work, especially through the police? Did persons dealing with the complaints have any training? Women arrested and detained after the 19 December events said they had been threatened with rape.

The Committee would like to receive more information on the fight against human trafficking in Belarus.

Much could be done in efforts to combat torture through better training. Were doctors involved in the assessment of asylum seekers and had they been informed about the Istanbul Protocol? The Committee would like more information on training programmes for police and the legal sector, and on evaluations following that training. Why had the collaboration with the OSCE been terminated, and what impact had that had? How did doctors assess bruises or allegations of ill-treatment and torture? Were the forensic doctors independent doctors?

The Committee asked about the systematic review of rules of interrogation as there was no reference to torture during interrogation in the criminal code

There were issues with detention conditions such as over-crowding. Was there a plan to align the conditions with international minimum standards? Non-governmental organizations sent reports to the Committee about the lack of medical care for detainees, especially detainees that had been tortured.

Some 19 December detainees had to perform very hard labour. It was very regrettable that some detainees sustained injuries in performing hard labour, but were forced to keep working. Detainees were being held in stress positions to the point that it reached torture. Belarus had to establish independent monitoring authorities. Prison capacity, and the number of cells available, did not meet the international standards. Overcrowding led to very bad ventilation and detainees taking turns to sleep.

Under what provisions were the human rights commissions working to monitor prisons, and was civil society represented in those commissions? How long were the people in charge? Were the visits unannounced, did they have access to medical files and was it possible to meet in private with detainees? Photos were apparently forbidden. The Commission met collectively with representatives of the detention facility, which did not make it an independent review mechanism.

It was still dangerous to be a journalist and a human rights defender in Belarus, especially given that some were even detained in psychiatric clinics.

Was there any compensation for persons that were tortured? Were there rehabilitation mechanisms for them?

With regards to the death penalty, the Committee was aware of the call for a moratorium in Belarus by other countries. Were families informed about executions? Were they allowed to see the body afterwards? Were there any plans to entirely abolish the death penalty? There were allegations that some people were sentenced to death due to confessions made under torture.

An expert asked how the separation of juveniles from adults in prison was ensured. Concerning the structure of the judicial system, there was a civilian jurisdiction and a military judicial system but there was no specific system for juvenile delinquency. Pre-trial detention was an exceptional measure that could not be used all the time and not for the detention of minors.

Democratic courts had investigators, prosecutors and judges. The minimum rules of justice demanded that the first two should do their work and the judge should supervise it and say how long people could be detained. Why was the judge not allowed to have a supervisory role in Belarus? The physical integrity of persons was crucial. The first few hours of detention were the most difficult time and the rules concerning this time should be respected; presumption of innocence should be respected for example.

How did Belarus decide on returning asylum seekers? Did the authorities check whether the country the asylum seeker was being sent back to was safe and whether the person was at risk of being tortured in that country? Was the Belarusian language commonly used to communicate with asylum seekers? Could the delegation provide examples of cases where a person was not deported because they were at risk in that other country?

At its May 2010 Universal Periodic Review Belarus committed to improve detention conditions. Could the delegation give examples of such measures?

The national watchdog commission had apparently led 38 visits to detention facilities and communicated with the Ministry of Interior on possible actions to take – could the delegation elaborate on what actions had subsequently been taken?

What was the intention of the State party to ratify the Optional Protocol? Was the Convention’s definition of torture directly applicable in court?

An expert noted that a member of a non-registered organization could be considered a criminal. Was that correct? He also remarked that the delegation had a lot of questions to answer, but confirmed that all State parties went through the same process.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT11/041E