COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF ESTONIA
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Estonia to questions raised by Committee Experts on the fourth 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 questions which were raised by Committee Experts on Tuesday, 13 November, the delegation of Estonia, led by Aino Lepik von Wiren, Under Secretary of Legal and Consular Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said torture was prohibited and criminalized using different articles of Estonian law. The delegation outlined examples of crimes and abuses that might be regarded as torture under Article 1 of the Convention, and relevant articles of the Penal Code used to prosecute these offences.
As regards punishments for crimes of torture, sanctions were comparable with those for enslavement, abduction, unlawful deprivation of liberty, and rape. Punishments for domestic violence were also cited.
Regarding expulsion, refoulement and risks of torture for returnees, the State authorities carried out assessments, the delegation said. Deportation was not enforced in cases where risks of torture, degrading treatment or the death penalty were demonstrated. The delegation listed the numbers of requests for asylum and the countries of origin of the applicants.
The Chancellor of Justice, an appointed, independent official acting as an Ombudsman, supervised public authorities’ adherence to principles of good governance, followed-up on applications, and carried out prison inspection programmes. Prison conditions were fully compatible with international standards, and decreasing prison populations as a result of increasing use of non-custodial sentences had had positive impacts on material conditions. Inter prisoner violence was now under the aegis of a special Control Unit charged with tackling violence inside prison facilities.
In further questions, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur to the report of Estonia, Nora Sveaass, said it was important to underscore the severity of torture as a criminal offence. Consolidating the various articles of the Penal Code in line with the Convention would help to signal the magnitude of the crime of torture. On trafficking, she understood this was not included as a specific crime yet, but information for victims and potential victims was crucial. Was this available in Russian?
Alexander Kovalev, the Committee Expert acting as Co-Rapporteur to the report, said it was encouraging to hear about reductions in the numbers of stateless persons, but he was worried about the reach of Estonian law in protecting stateless persons.
Other Experts asked about the duplication of roles between the Minister of Justice and the Chancellor of Justice, the issue of police brutality and the use of firearms, independent complaints/appeals procedures for expelled persons, and the concept of “administrative” detention.
Other members of the Estonian delegation were representatives from the Human Rights Division of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the healthcare and social affairs departments of the Ministry of Social Affairs, and the Estonian Mission in Geneva.
As one of the 145 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Estonia is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee next reconvenes in public on Thursday, 15 November at 10 a.m., it will consider the second periodic report of Benin (CAT/C/BEN/2).
Response of Estonia
Responding to the questions raised by Committee Experts on Tuesday, 13 November, the delegation of Estonia, led by AINO LEPIK VON WIREN, Under Secretary of Legal and Consular Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, said penal reform was conducted in the late 1990s in accordance with international principles. Torture was prohibited and criminalized using different articles of Estonian law. The concept of torture in the Penal Code was effectively wider than that of the Convention. The delegation outlined examples of crimes and abuses that might be regarded as torture under Article 1 of the Convention, and relevant articles of the Penal Code used to prosecute these offences. Statistics on unlawful exercise of State supervision, unlawful interrogation, and unlawful treatment of prisoners or persons in detention or custody, were given.
As regards punishments for crimes of torture, sanctions were comparable with those for enslavement, abduction, unlawful deprivation of liberty, and rape. Punishments for domestic violence were also cited, including up to two years in prison.
Where there was conflict between national and international articles of law, the international provisions prevailed.
The delegation said it was mandatory for counsel to participate in pre-trial proceedings, and in some case, in criminal proceedings, for example for minors or those unable to defend themselves. Evidence obtained through torture or other cruel or degrading treatment was not admitted. The Code of Criminal Procedure incorporated rights to appeal, deadlines for rulings, and redress.
Alternative punishments for minors included admonition, subjection to supervision, and placement in youth homes or special schools. Very few cases in practice ended up in youth homes or special schools, and the statistics for 2006-2007 were provided.
Compensation for victims of criminal acts amounted to 1.1 million Estonian crowns in 2006, and 1.4 million Estonian crowns in 2007.
Regarding expulsion, refoulement and risks of torture for returnees, assessments were carried out by the State authorities involving police, border guards and citizenship and migration authorities. Deportation was not enforced in cases where risks of torture, degrading treatment or the death penalty were demonstrated. The Migration Board determined which countries were “safe” based on the European Convention of Human Rights and the Convention Against Torture. Categories of discriminatory treatment and disproportionate punishment were outlined. There had been almost no denials of requests for extradition, and no cases of appeals against extradition. Estonia had never sought nor obtained diplomatic assurances and never expelled persons to countries where there were risks of torture or ill treatment.
The delegation listed the numbers of requests for asylum and the countries of origin of the applicants. Since 2000, four asylum seekers had been granted asylum and in 10 cases subsidiary protection had been applied. There had been 996 cases of illegal immigration in 2007. Over 800 had been fined, some returned and for a few, immigration procedures started. Regarding arrival and transit, Estonia had acceded to numerous international instruments and entered into several bilateral agreements. Procedures for entry at border crossings were provided in border regulations, and permission for aircraft to land or overfly Estonian territory was supervised by competent Ministerial and military authorities.
The Chancellor of Justice was an appointed official, independent of government, and the most important tasks of the office included review of draft legislation, acting as an Ombudsman to supervise public authorities’ adherence to principles of good governance, following-up on applications and carrying out inspection programmes. Inspections of prison and hospital facilities involved open interviews and ready access to complaints procedures, allowing the Chancellor of Justice to act on any violations. Everyone had the right to recourse to the Chancellor of Justice.
Prison conditions were fully compatible with international standards, and decreasing prison populations as a result of increasing use of non-custodial sentences had had positive impacts on material conditions. There was data on proceedings started under the articles of the Criminal Code governing unlawful exercise of State supervision, unlawful interrogation, and unlawful treatment. Reintegration programmes, such as language training for foreign inmates, were in place.
Inter prisoner violence was now under the aegis of a special Control Unit charged with tackling violence inside prison facilities, and examples of measures used at Murru prison, one of the old-style jails, were cited. Regarding unrest at Murru, mentioned in Experts’ questions, steps had been taken to address the shortcomings, including increased prison officer numbers and improved prison service/general public relations.
New arrest houses were planned and the Chancellor of Justice had taken steps to reduce the numbers of those held in old or inadequate facilities. There were some problems with medical care and pharmaceutical provisions in these arrest houses, and recommendations had been made to the Minister of Internal Affairs who was working to resolve the issues.
An Expert had asked about uprisings in Tallinn and in response, the delegation said 60 million Estonian crowns’ worth of damage had been incurred. The police had employed proportionate force to counteract violence and vandalism and protect public order and property. Around 1,200 persons were temporarily detained for up to six hours, with medical help provided where necessary. The Chancellor of Justice had visited detainees and heard no complaints from them about police conduct. However, there were some 69 complaints about police handling of the riots and criminal proceedings were begun in a number of cases.
The delegation provided statistics on psychiatric care, noting the decrease in numbers in psychiatric hospitals and the preferred use of outpatient treatment. The situation was being monitored. Regulations on restraint were described. Rules on involuntary treatment were under review.
The Criminal Code included provisions linked to human trafficking, the delegation said. There were shelters for victims of domestic violence, along with support services including psychological and legal counseling, including in the Russian language. Compensation was not paid in cases of moral damage. The Compensation Act demanded strict conditions but the compensation rate overall had been increasing in recent years.
On citizenship and aliens, the delegation said Estonia had been working towards resolving the problem of stateless persons. In 1992 there were about 100,000 stateless persons. As of November 2007, Estonian citizenships had been granted to 13,000 children of undetermined citizenship. Residency provisions for stateless persons were very much improved.
Questions and Observations by Committee Experts
NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Expert acting as Rapporteur for the Report of Estonia, said that while Estonian domestic law did cover torture, there was symbolic value in States parties including the crime of torture as defined by the Convention in their national legislation. It was important to underscore the severity of torture as a criminal offence. Consolidating the various articles of the Penal Code in line with the Convention would help to signal the magnitude of the crime of torture.
On trafficking, she understood this was not included as a specific crime yet, but information for victims and potential victims was crucial. Was this available in Russian?
ALEXANDER KOVALEV, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Estonia, said it was encouraging to hear about reductions in the numbers of stateless persons, but he was disturbed by the reach of Estonian law in defending stateless persons who were victims of, say, a road accident. He asked about the liability of Estonia regarding a stateless person if he/she committed a crime.
Other Experts raised further points, among them the duplication of roles between the Minister of Justice and the Chancellor of Justice, the issue of police brutality and the use of firearms, independent complaints/appeals procedures for expelled persons, and the concept of “administrative” detention.
Response of the Delegation
The delegation, answering the Experts’ questions, outlined, among other things, the scope of consular assistance to stateless persons and legal protection afforded to them, and the international references by which Courts made judgments on expulsion and extradition, as well as review of court rulings. It said information was available in Russian on trafficking as well as on psychiatric and other care facilities.
Concluding Remarks
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Chairperson of the Committee, in conclusion, said it had been a detailed and constructive dialogue.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CAT07033E