[prisoner-rights] CAT 32nd session: Response of New Zealand

UNITED NATIONS
Press Release

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

xxxxxxxxxxCOMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF NEW ZEALAND TO
ITS QUESTIONS
xxxxxxxxxx

Committee against Torture
12 May 2004

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of
New Zealand to questions raised by Committee Experts on how it
implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture.

Referring to a question raised by a Committee member about
allegations that all asylum seekers, including children, were
detained, the delegation said that this was not correct. The United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had affirmed in 2002
that the Mangere Accommodation Centre for asylum seekers was an open
centre where children and adults had access to excellent education,
health and recreational services.

The residents could leave the Centre during the day and could receive
visitors. Parents and children were not generally separated in the
best interest of the children. Since 2001, out of 881 asylum seekers
arriving in New Zealand, 472 had been granted permits to enter the
country, 332 had resided at the Centre and 65 had been detained in
penal institutions.

On the solitary confinement -- "non-voluntary segregation" -- of the
Algerian national Ahmed Zaoui, the delegation said it was the warrant
of commitment issued by the court that required him to be detained in
a penal institution. As he was deemed to constitute a threat to
national security and a danger to the security of the country, the
Immigration Act required that he be held in detention until the
security risk certificate process was concluded. The New Zealand
Refugee Authority recognized Mr. Zaoui as a refugee.

The Committee will issue its concluding observations and
recommendations on the third periodic report of New Zealand at 3.30
p.m. on Wednesday, 19 May, in the presence of the delegation.
As one of the 135 States parties to the Convention, New Zealand is
obligated to submit periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts
to prevent and punish acts of torture. An 8-member of New Zealand
delegation responded to the questions of the Committee.

When the Committee reconvenes in public at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 13
May, it will issue its conclusions and recommendations on the third
periodic report of the Czech Republic. It will meet in private in the
morning to discuss draft conclusions on country reports already
considered this session.



Response of New Zealand

Responding to a series of questions and observations raised by the
Committee on 11 May, the delegation of New Zealand said, among other
things, that the country implemented its international obligations
through a combination of legislation and administrative measures. The
non-refoulement obligation under article 3 of the Convention against
Torture was implemented administratively and reinforced by a common
law requirement upon decision-makers to consider the obligation.

On the administrative measures and common law protections that
ensured implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the country,
the delegation said that the Government has signalled that it
intended to review aspects of the Immigration Act over the next 12
months. The scope of the review had not been finalized.

Asked if article 3 could be taken as the basis for a decision on
non-refoulement, the delegation said five claims had been made to the
Removal Review Authority and four claims to the Minster of
Immigration. The claims to the Authority were denied, but those
decisions were now subject to judicial review and appeal. Two claims
to the Minister had yet to be determined; the other two were denied;
however, temporary work permits would be issued to the people
concerned. The Government had expelled 1,603 persons until 30 June
2003.

On the solitary confinement -- "non-voluntary segregation" -- of the
Algerian national Ahmed Zaoui, the delegation said it was the warrant
of commitment issued by the court that required him to be detained in
a penal institution. There was no formal link between a "security
risk certificate" and the security conditions under which the person
was then managed. However, issuing a certificate represented a
statement of extreme concern by the country's intelligence community
which usually resulted in maximum security management, at least until
time allowed a more considered and experience-based assessment.

A question was raised on why Mr. Zaoui continued to be held in
detention despite his refugee status recognized by the Refugee Status
Appeal Authority, to which the delegation said the security risk
certificate that dictated Mr. Zaoui's treatment contained classified
security information that was not available to the Authority and
could not be made available to the Committee. As he was deemed to
constitute a threat to national security and a danger to the security
of the country, the Immigration Act required that he be held in
detention until the security risk certificate process was concluded.
That process contained measures to ensure that his rights and the
public interest were appropriately weighed.

The Ombudsman's 2003 annual report had expressed concern about delays
in reporting and investigating allegations of assault on inmates by
prison staff, particularly in the Auckland maximum-security prison,
and recommended the installation of video cameras, the delegation
said. The delays experienced at Auckland prison had been addressed by
the implementation of a more robust regional tracking and monitoring
regime, for when complaints were made. Managers involved in
investigative procedures and processes were also being more
comprehensively trained. Video cameras were progressively being
installed in prisons, and decisions had recently been made to
videotape staff when they used control and restraint.

Allegations of any assault on an inmate, including sexual assault,
were recorded and notified through the Corrections Incident Reporting
system, the delegation said. All incidents were also reported to an
Operations Advisor at National Office. When an allegation or an
incident occurred involving an inmate, immediate action was taken to
reduce the risk of harm. All allegations of an assault by a prison
staff, whether sexual or otherwise, were thoroughly investigated.
There were three major avenues that a child, a lawyer, parents, the
family or a member of the public could take if they believed that a
child had been abused or mistreated during arrest, the delegation
said.

The allegation that all asylum seekers, including children, were
detained was not correct, the delegation said. The United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had affirmed in 2002 that the
Mangere Accommodation Centre was an open centre where children and
adults had access to excellent education, health and recreational
services. The residents could leave the centre during the day and
could receive visitors. Parents and children were not generally
separated in the best interest of the children. Since 2001, out of
881 asylum seekers arriving in New Zealand, 472 had been granted
permits to enter the country, 332 had resided at the Centre and 65
had been detained in penal institutions.

The Penal Institutions Act allowed the Government to award contracts
for the private management of penal institutions, the delegation
said. The Government expected that its public and private prisons
would offer the same level of performance.

On prison population, the delegation said that as of 30 June 2003,
New Zealand's total prison population, including sentenced and remand
inmates, was 6,115. That total comprised of 5,795 male and 320 female
inmates. Maori and New Zealand European inmates made up 51 per cent
and 44 per cent, respectively.

New Zealand was currently examining the administrative and
legislative changes necessary to enable the State to ratify the
optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, the delegation
said. Final decisions had yet to be made by the Cabinet but it was
likely that there would be a number of agencies designated as
national preventive mechanisms with one agency - the Human
Rights Commission.

Asked if access to medical care had a legal basis, the delegation
said that while the right for persons arrested or detained by police
to have medical care was not specifically embodied in statute, it was
regarded as part of the State's duty to treat detained persons with
humanity and respect. In practice, the police would call a health
professional if they considered it necessary or if the detained
person requested it.

* *** *