[prisoner-rights] CAT 32nd session: Committee hears response from Germany

UNITED NATIONS
Press Release

--------------------------------------------------------------------

xxxxxxxxxxCOMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF GERMANY TO ITS
QUESTIONS xxxxxxxxxx

Committee against Torture
AFTERNOON 10 May 2004


The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of
Germany to questions on the third periodic report of that country on
how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against
Torture.

Asked if asylum seekers in the airport transit area were able to
receive visits from family members and lawyers, the delegation said
the authorities allowed those individuals to see family members
already living in Germany and to contact lawyers.

Foreign nationals under custody were told of the reason for their
detention through the help of interpreters, if required, the
delegation said.

Responding to a question on the use by the judiciary of testimony
extracted under coercion, the delegation said that there was an
absolute ban on such practice.

Concerning the death of a Sudanese national while being deported, the
delegation said the long period of hearings before the start of the
trial had been due to additional forensic examinations and the
hearing of witnesses abroad who had been on the plane taking the
victim to Sudan.

The delegation of Germany was invited to return to the Committee at 3
p.m. on Tuesday, 18 May, to hear the Committee's conclusions and
recommendations on its report.

As one of the 135 States parties the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Germany
provides the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has
undertaken to fight torture.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 11 May, it is
scheduled to take up the third periodic report of New Zealand
(CAT/C/49/Add.3).



Response of Germany

Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee Experts
on Friday, 7 May, the delegation, among other things, said that all
international treaties were equally applicable to Landers. The Basic
Law of Germany provided for the observation of treaties by the
components of the Federal system. In the event that an international
instrument was breached, the law provided for mechanisms to correct
the situation. Since the Landers respected international treaties on
human rights, such an incident had never occurred so far.

On the allegations of ill treatment in prisons reported by
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the delegation said that if
there was suspicion that ill treatment was taking place, it could be
brought to justice. However, there were discrepancies between the
alleged practices and reality. In certain cases, the Government had
taken appropriate measures after which the perpetrators had been
dismissed from their jobs.

The Government did not intend to establish a central mechanism to
monitor police practices, the delegation said. However, each Lander
had its own internal mechanism to monitor police practices.
The law regulated the export of materials that could serve for the
purpose of torture such as electric shock units and hand and foot
cuffs, the delegation said.

The competent authorities took article 3 of the Convention into
consideration before taking measures of deportation, the delegation
said. A finding that the individual could risk torture in the country
of destination would prevent removal. The threat of torture was
mainly attributed to political persecution. Any person subjected to
expulsion was taken to a police station before he or she was
expelled. When non-governmental actors provided information on the
risk of torture in the case of expulsion, the existence of concrete
evidence should be taken into consideration.

Ill treatment in the army was repressed by military criminal justice,
the delegation said, adding that between 1998 and 2002, 13 cases of
ill-treatment, 17 degrading acts and 2 cases of misuse of orders had
been brought to the military justice system.

Asked if asylum seekers in the airport transit area were able to
receive visits from family members already living in Germany and
lawyers, the delegation said that following the recommendation of the
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment , the authorities had given the
opportunity to such individuals to see their families and to contact
lawyers while in transit. In the airport asylum procedure, an
individual could make a claim of torture in the event of deportation
to the country of destination. Seventy five per cent of asylum
seekers were able to enter the country after submitting their cases
at the airport.

Foreigner nationals under custody were told of the reason of their
detention through the help of interpreters, if required, the
delegation said.

Responding to a question on the use by the judiciary of testimony
extracted under coercion, the delegation said that there was an
absolute ban on such practice.

Concerning the death during the process of deportation of a Sudanese
national, the delegation said the long period of hearings before the
court was due to additional forensic examinations and the hearing of
witnesses abroad who had been on the plane taking the victim to
Sudan. Aamir Ageeb died on 28 May 1999 shortly after take-off of the
flight from Frankfurt to Khartoum in which he was to be deported to
Sudan. Three officers of the Federal Border Police accompanied him.
He died after being pressed into his seat by the officers during
take-off to prevent his resistance to deportation.

The airport asylum procedure had processed the cases of 21,964
persons, out of which only 49 cases received a positive response, the
delegation said. Only after the federal law screened the application
were the asylum seekers allowed to enter the country. In most cases,
asylum seekers did not have documents identifying them.

Asked if medical examination was carried out after a failed
deportation, the delegation said that the border police had to
verify, with medical support, if the individual was fit to travel by
air. In the event that the country of destination failed to accept
the deportee, the individual should return to Germany. The use of
drugs or injections in order to ease resistance by the person being
deported was forbidden.

A private security firm had assumed responsibility to work in
Frankfurt airport, the delegation. Written regulations bound the firm
so that their personnel comported correctly in their duties in the
airport accommodations. During the day, the private security
personnel were monitored by social workers. In the event that
excessive force was used against the asylum seekers, the case was
dealt with severely.

Germany had taken measures to fight trafficking at the national
level, and had supported the passage of a resolution at the
Commission on Human Rights for the appointment of a Special
Rapporteur on trafficking in human persons, which was adopted
unanimously.

An Expert asked if the German Government might assume jurisdiction
over the case in Chile involving a German citizen living in Colonia
Dignidad where allegations of torture and ill treatment of children
and adults at a centre had arisen. The Expert said the individual
leading the centre was a German citizen and the German Government
should exercise its influence in cooperation with the Government of
Chile. In reaction, the head of the delegation said he had no
information on the direct issue but that in general, the Government
would act as appropriate.

* *** *