COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF HUNGARY

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Hungary to questions raised by Committee Experts on the third 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 Wednesday, 15 November, the delegation, which was led by Gyula Szeleikiss, Permanent Representative of Hungary to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that human rights non-governmental organizations were very much involved in the training of Hungarian border officials, in addition to regular trainings organized by the Guards themselves. Regarding legal help for detained aliens, the delegation pointed out that, besides the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the Border Guards had cooperation agreements with various NGOs and other organizations, all of which made regular visits at places of detention.

Concerning complaints against Border Guards, the delegation confirmed over the past three years in eight cases 12 aliens had filed complaints against Border Guard personnel. Three of those cases went to court, and the complaints had been rejected by a judge. In one case the prosecutor decided not to make charges, but as it was the second complaint against the officer, and taking into consideration the opinion of the expert psychologist, the officer was transferred to a different position. Later, two aliens claimed that they were advised by other detainees to make complaints in order to get rid of stricter guards.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Hungary towards the end of the session on Friday, 24 November 2006.

As one of the 142 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Hungary is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to implement the provisions of the Convention.

When the Committee next reconvenes in public to formally close its thirty-seventh session, at 10 a.m. on Friday, 24 November, it is scheduled to discuss its programme of work for future sessions and to present its concluding observations on the reports of Tajikistan, Mexico, Burundi, Russian Federation, South Africa, Guyana and Hungary, which it has considered during the present session.

Response of Hungary

Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee Experts on Wednesday, 15 November, the delegation of Hungary said that, concerning the issue of Border Guards, every alien had the opportunity to apply for asylum at the national airport or at the border checkpoints. Information sheets from civil society organizations, such as the International Organization for Migration, were available at those locations, as were lists of counsellors that could be contacted by asylum-seekers.

Responding to a question regarding an allegation made to the Committee, the delegation confirmed that it had no knowledge of a case in which a doctor had tried to convince a foreigner not to lodge a complaint against the authorities. In fact, before undertaking any action, the border authorities or other police officials involved with foreigners were obligated to inform the persons involved about the possibility of a remedy or making an official complaint. Everyone who was taken into custody by the alien police authorities was furnished with a written decision that included information about those possibilities. The medical screening of aliens before they were taken into detention was mandatory, and doctors had to make official reports of any visible signs of injuries or wounds that were present. Furthermore, if an alien stated that they were a victim of torture, but had suffered non-visible injuries, an official investigation was mandatory in addition to the medical examination.

If there was a suspicion that an alien would be subject to torture or cruel or inhuman treatment, the asylum authorities were informed, the delegation said, and in practice those persons generally lodged an application for asylum. During the civil war in Bosnia, and after that in Kosovo, there had been a mass influx of persons into Hungary across its southern border, but the Border Guards had not applied refoulement. The delegation gave an example from recent practice: if an ethnic Albanian coming from Kosovo was crossing the Hungarian border illegally via Serbia, deportation could only be made via a direct flight to Pristina; the persons involved would not be sent back directly to the Serbian authorities.

Concerning complaints against Border Guards, the delegation confirmed that over the past three years in eight cases 12 aliens had filed complaints against Border Guard personnel. Three of those cases went to the courts, and a judge had rejected the complaints. In one case the prosecutor decided not to make charges, but as it was the second complaint against the officer, and taking into consideration the opinion of the expert psychologist, the officer was transferred to a different position. Later, two aliens claimed that they were advised by other detainees to make complaints in order to get rid of stricter guards.

Human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were very much involved in the training of Hungarian border officials. Last year, the delegation said, the Shelter Association organized a training in which approximately half of the guard staff in detention centres was trained. The programme involved lectures by a psychologist on stress management, by human rights experts, and by other professionals. A similar training had also been organized by the UN Refugee Agency for some 40 staff members. In addition, regular trainings were organized by the Border Guards themselves, including on psychological issues and stress management methods.

Regarding legal help for detained aliens, the delegation pointed out that, besides the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the Border Guards had cooperation agreements with various NGOs and other organizations, such as the Hungarian Prison Association, the Hungarian Baptist Aid, or the Hungarian Islam Community, all of which made regular visits to places of detention. In every detention centre, moreover, a psychological expert had regular visiting hours once a week, but was also available when needed in case of an emergency.

In response to the allegation that a detainee had been kept chained to a radiator, the delegation explained that a subsequent investigation showed that there had not even been a radiator in the room in which that particular detainee had been held.

The process of harmonizing Hungary’s laws with the Schengen Agreement was ongoing, the delegation said. Hungary expected to fulfil all the necessary criteria by the time of its accession to the Schengen system.

Aliens had the right to request legal counsel at any time during the asylum procedure. In practice, that meant that information on contacting a legal representative was available in all places of detention and in audition rooms. In most cases the Hungarian Helsinki Committee provided legal help and, the delegation observed, the Committee’s lawyers had professional experience in the field of asylum and aliens procedure and offered their services gratis.

Today, there were 45 persons detained by the alien police authorities. As of 19 September 2006, 11 persons had spent 6 to 12 months in detention; 65 persons had spent 3 to 6 months; 6 persons had spent 1 to 3 months; and 79 persons had spent less than 30 days.

On the issue of victims of human trafficking, the delegation noted that amendments had been introduced into Hungarian legislation to protect such victims. The Aliens Act provided that foreign nationals who cooperated with the authorities in the criminal investigation of trafficking and had provided significant assistance in gathering evidence were to be given humanitarian residence permits. A shelter for victims had also been set up by a civil organization.

In response to a question about the restriction of detainees’ rights to correspondence, to receive parcels and visitors, the delegation emphasized that those rights could only be restricted in the interest of the criminal proceedings; namely in order to prevent the defendant from influencing the witnesses; from having discussions with other defendants in a criminal case; or from threatening the complainants. Such restrictions could be imposed before the indictment by the Public Prosecutor or, after the indictment, by the competent judge. Naturally, such restrictions could be appealed.

The delegation said that pre-trial detention in a police cell could not exceed 60 days. Pre-trial detainees could be transferred to other holding facilities in exceptional cases, when it was necessary in the interests of the investigation. In 2006, 384 persons had been held for 1 to 2 months; 331, for 2 to 3 months; 252, for 3 to 4 months; and some 100 persons had been held for between 24 and 36 months.

The Ombudsmen had the right to make recommendations, but they were not legally binding in nature. However, in the majority of cases the authorities complied with the recommendations made and the Ombudsmen submitted an annual report to Parliament, which detailed instances in which their recommendations were not acted upon.

All policemen and civil servants of the Hungarian Prison Administration Authority took part in human rights training, which provided relevant information on the most important international human rights instruments, including the Convention against Torture. The delegation felt it was also very important to highlight that special training on stress prevention was also offered for prison staff.

With regard to vulnerable persons in detention, mothers in custody were allowed to raise their children for the first year, and a special facility had been dedicated to that use. Pregnant women could decide whether they wished to deliver their babies in the prison hospital or in a civil facility. Prisoners with mental disorders were placed in a separate institution, where medical services, as well as psychologists and psychiatrists were available. The capacity of that facility was 186 persons. According to relevant laws, the delegation stressed, persons with mental disorders could not be punished and could not be put in prison.

Questions by Committee Experts

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Hungary, said that he would appreciate if the Ombudsmen’s report to Parliament could be submitted to the Committee, so that they could see which of their recommendations had and which had not been taken up by the authorities.

On the incorporation of the definition of torture into Hungarian law, Mr. Grossman came back to the difference between aiding and abetting, and acquiescing, which had been raised by the delegation as an impediment to incorporating the definition in the Convention in Hungarian law. He said the Committee would have to reflect on the question and come back to the delegation.

NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Expert acting as Co-Rapporteur, said, concerning asylum-seekers, that she understood that NGOs were very much involved in the process of informing aliens of their rights. She wondered, however, what role NGOs played in monitoring the detention facilities in Hungary. She was also concerned to see that there were certain detainees who had spent nine months in solitary confinement.

Other Experts asked a number of questions and raised various concerns, including, among others, the fact that Hungarian Border Guard procedures did not appear to distinguish between asylum seekers and migrant workers.

Response by Delegation

Responding briefly, the delegation of Hungary said that the Ombudsmen’s report was posted on a website, and that the URL of that website would be provided to the delegation.

With regard to the definition of torture, the delegation observed that Hungary was in the process of preparing a new penal code, and assured the Committee that the Committee’s comments would be before the drafting committee to help them in their work.

On NGO monitoring of the detention facilities for aliens, NGOs had access, and were entitled to monitor such facilities, however, there did not appear to be any system in place. At present, the delegation said, such a procedure would have to be requested by an expert.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT06037E