Bericht des Sexworker Vereines an die UNO - Februar 2010
Gemäß "Übereinkommen gegen Folter und andere grausame und unmenschliche Behandlung oder Strafe" berichten die Staaten regelmäßig dem Ausschuß gegen Folter über die Umsetzung. Österreich hat 2009 einen Bericht abgeliefert, über den der Ausschuß im April/Mai 2010 beraten wird. Die Vereinten Nationen haben NGOs eingeladen, eigene Stellungnahmen (Schattenberichte) dazu abzugeben.
Der Verein Sexworker Forum (ZVR-Zahl 699583522) hat eine Stellungnahme verfasst. In diesem Schattenbericht wird die erniedrigende Behandlung von Frauen im Sexwork durch staatliche Organe kritisiert.
1.) Obwohl die Regierung sich schwerpunktmäßig mit Asylfragen auseinandergesetzt hat, ignoriert ihr Bericht die Frage, wie sich asylsuchende Frauen ihren Lebensunterhalt sichern / ihren Lebensstandard verbessern können. Dass ihnen als praktisch einzige Einkommensmöglichkeit die Tätigkeit als registrierte Prostituierte bleibt, stellt eine erniedrigende Behandlung dar, erschwert durch die unten dargelegten Zustände bei der Registrierung.
2.) Frauen mit atypischem Sexualverhalten, also neben Sexworkern und ehemaligen Sexworkern z.B. Frauen aus der Swingerszene, sind das Ziel systematischer verdeckter Ermittlungen zur Ausforschung von Wohnungsprostitution, die auch ohne rechtliche Grundlage durchgeführt werden. Die betroffenen Frauen sind dabei sexuellen Übergriffen durch verdeckte Ermittler ausgesetzt, die zumindest den Schweregrad erniedrigender Behandlung annehmen.
3.) In Wien erreichen die Zustände bei der Zwangsuntersuchung von Sexworkern den Schweregrad erniedrigender Behandlung. Die Untersuchungsstelle fungiert als moderner Pranger, wo Sexworker schon beim Betreten und Verlassen der Öffentlichkeit präsentiert werden! Der (nach dem internationalen Stand der Wissenschaft völlig überflüssige) Zwang zur intimen Untersuchung ist nicht nur an sich schon in psychischer Hinsicht belastend, darüber hinaus wird dabei auch auf eine durchaus mögliche Wahrung der Intimsphäre verzichtet, und es gab auch Beschwerden über schmerzhafte körperliche Beeinträchtigung.
4.) Gegen diese Übergriffe gibt es in Österreich keine wirksame Möglichkeit zur Beschwerde, weswegen diese Missstände bereits seit mehreren Jahren zu beobachten sind. Insbesondere die Unabhängigen Verwaltungssenate haben eine Rechtssprechung entwickelt, bei der Beschwerden von vorne herein aus Formalgründen aussichtslos sind. Es gibt im Verwaltungsrecht auch kein ausdrückliches Verbot der Folter oder der Verwertung von Folterergebnissen.
Darüber hinaus hat die Rechtssprechung zur Sittenwidrigkeit der Prostitution zu einem Klima der Stigmatisierung geführt, in dem Übergriffe gegen Sexworker toleriert werden. Überhaupt wird aus dem Bericht der Regierung offenkundig, dass zuwenig Augenmerk auf Formen der psychologischen Folter gelegt werden. Gerade Frauen sind davon betroffen.
Der Schattenbericht CAT10 wurde am 17.02.10 an die UNO weiter geleitet!
Ende April/Mitte Mai wird sich der Ausschuss gg Folter mit der Situation in Österreich auseinandersetzten. Die Bundesregierung wird Stellung nehmen und der Ausschuss wird dann Schlussfolgerungen ziehen, die von den Vereinten Nationen veröffentlicht werden (ebenso wie unser Bericht) ... siehe die Homepage des OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). Dazu entwickelt der Ausschuss Empfehlungen und ein Special Rapporteur der Vereinten Nationen wird die Bundesregierung in den folgenden Jahren bis zum nächsten Länderbericht ermahnen, diese Empfehlungen umzusetzen.
Langfristig kann dieser Dialog auf internationaler Ebene bei der Bundesregierung zum Bewusstsein führen, dass auch Sexworker Anspruch auf Menschenrechte haben und dass es Aufgabe der Regierung ist, diese Menschenrechte zu garantieren. Bisher waren wir nur in der Rolle von Bittstellern um die Wahrung von Menschenrechten. Unser Bericht ist hingegen ein offizielles Dokument auf internationaler Ebene, das von der Regierung nicht ignoriert werden kann: Die Regierung hat nun auf höchster Ebene nachweisbar Kenntnis von den Vorwürfen.
Das Sexworker Forum hat sich mit dem Schattenbericht auch als internationale Menschenrechtsorganisation eingeführt, die von etablierten NGOs als seriöser Gesprächspartner akzeptiert wird, auch deshalb, weil wir eine bisher von den großen Organisationen (wie Amnesty International) nicht ausreichend beachtete Nische im Menschenrechtsschutz abdecken.
Hedera hat geschrieben:Wie, wann und wo erfährt man, was dabei rausgekommen ist?
Da Vorwürfe seitens der UNO auch immer mit einem Gesichtsverlust für den betroffenen
Staat verbunden sind, wird man vielleicht auch nie erfahren, was dabei rausgekommen ist.
Wer weiß schon, dass Deutschland im CEDAW-Bericht 2000 dafür kritisiert wurde, von Prostituierten zwar
Steuern zu erheben, ihnen aber gleichzeitig Rechte wie beispielsweise die Sozialversicherung vorzuenthalten?
Wenn der östereichische Staat also in näherer Zukunft ein progressives Amtsgerichtsurteil
nicht bis in die höchste Instanz anficht, sondern zum Anlaß nehmen sollte, ein brauchbares
Prostitutionsgesetz zu schaffen, dann könnte da unser UNO-Engagement dahinterstecken ...
Liebe Grüße, Aoife
It's not those who inflict the most, but those who endure the most, who will conquer. MP.Vol.Bobby Sands
'I know kung fu, karate, and 37 other dangerous words'
Misspellings are *very special effects* of me keyboard
Ich bin schon gspannt, wie die Regierung drauf regieren wird und wie die Stellungnahme aussehen wird (wahrscheinlich 0-8-15-Floskeln). Aber wer weiß, was sich im Hintergrund tut und welche Wellend das ganze schlägt...
Die österreichische Regierung hat inzwischen die Delegation für CAT44 nominiert (Quelle: Homepage des OHCHR):
• Mr. Helmut TICHY , Ambassador, Head of Delegation, Federal Ministry for European and
International Affairs, Vienna
• Mr. Christian STROHAL, Ambassador and Permanent Representative, Austrian Mission to the
United Nations Office in Geneva
• Mr. Wolfgang BOGENSBERGER, Head of Department, Federal Ministry for Justice, Vienna
• Mr. Johann SPITZER, Minister plenipotentiary, Deputy Permanent Representative, Austrian
Mission to the United Nations Office in Geneva
• Ms. Anna SPORRER, Deputy Head of Department, Federal Chancellery, Vienna
• Mr. Walter RUSCHER, Federal Ministry for the Interior, Vienna
• Mr. Christian SCHMALZL, Federal Ministry for the Interior, Vienna
• Ms. Irene KÖCK, Federal Ministry for Justice, Vienna
• Mr. Albert GRASEL, Federal Ministry for the Interior, Vienna
• Ms. Gerlinde PASCHINGER; Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, Vienna
• Ms. Eva SCHÖFER, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Austria, Geneva
• Mr. Peter GUSCHELBAUER, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Austria, Geneva
• Mr. Sebastian WALDBAUER, Permanent Mission of Austria, Geneva
• Mr. Matthias CERNUSCA, Permanent Mission of Austria, Geneva
• Mr. David Kevin WHITLEY, interpreter
• Ms. Nina RÖRICH, interpreter
• Ms. Dinara HÜBNER, interpreter
Der Bericht war auf jeden Fall sehr sinnvoll und hat schon erste Spuren hinterlassen - wir sind schon am richtigen Weg!!!
<i>::: Jasmin war SexarbeiterIn, später BetreiberIn und bis Ende 2010 für das Sexworker Forum mit besonderen Engagement in der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit tätig :::</i>
Committee against Torture begins examination of report of Austria
MORNING, 5 May 2010
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Austria on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Introducing the report, Helmut Tichy, Ambassador and Legal Adviser at the Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, noted that the prohibition of all forms of torture and ill-treatment were part of Austria's constitutional, criminal and administrative law and that Austria had comprehensive mechanisms and procedures to monitor compliance with its human rights obligations and international human rights standards.
Turning to new developments, Mr. Tichy pointed out that the current work programme of the Government explicitly referred to recommendations of the Committee and envisaged a number of legal amendments relevant to the Convention against Torture. They concerned, in particular, the inclusion of a specific penal provision on torture into the Austrian Criminal Code and the creation of specific penal provisions implementing the penal provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court concerning crimes against humanity and war crimes. The drafting of those new provisions was well under way. Additionally, a national preventive mechanism, as the main prerequisite for the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, would be established, and the legislative drafting for that mechanism would be concluded in the second half of 2010. Furthermore, the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had entered into force on 1 January 2008, had led to a significant improvement concerning the transparency and independence of investigations.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Austria, Committee Expert Luis Gallegos Chiriboga raised a number of issues, including if Austria would consider establishing a full fledged legal aid programme for those being held in police custody; what measures had been taken to ensure that juveniles were not questioned by police without the presence of a lawyer or a family member; and safeguards for persons with disabilities, for example, the abolition of coercive medical measures linked to the treatment of such persons. He also highlighted that several instances, including the European Parliament, had reported that Austrian territory had been used for the practice of extraordinary renditions and asked for an answer from Austria on that issue.
Claudio Grossman, the Committee Chairperson serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report, asked for further details about restrictions on the right of a detainee to consult a lawyer; whether there had been an attempt to standardize interrogation techniques of suspects; and whether medical staff were trained on the Istanbul Protocol. He was particularly concerned by a high rate of suicides among Austrian prisoners and over the deaths of detainees; a number of the causes of death of prisoners seemed to call for more explanation, including deaths by suffocation, drowning, being run over by a train, gunshot wounds, and having fallen from a window.
Also representing the delegation of Austria were Christian Strohal, the Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations Office at Geneva and members of the Permanent Mission in Geneva, as well as representatives from the Federal Ministry for Justice, the Federal Chancellery, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 6 May, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.
Austria is among the 146 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the responses of Liechtenstein to questions put by Experts on the morning of Tuesday, 4 May.
Report of Austria
The combined fourth and fifth periodic report of Austria (CAT/C/AUT/4-5) notes that, over the last two decades, dialogue and cooperation with the Committee against Torture and its regional sister institution, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, have contributed to an enhancement of Austria’s human rights standards as regards criminal procedure, measures of detention, and other coercion measures by State organs. The European Committee last visited Austria from 15 to 25 February 2009, and consideration of its last report, of 2004, has led to a thorough re-examination of regulations and policies in the fields concerned by the Austrian Authorities. Among new developments, Austria signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture on 25 September 2003. The programme of the previous national Government, whose term of office extended from January 2007 until December 2008, contained a commitment to ratify the Optional Protocol and create a national preventive mechanism. Between 2004 and 2007, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs organized two conferences, and the Human Rights Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of the Interior organized one conference on the Optional Protocol and options for a national preventive mechanism. Those conferences involved representatives from Austria’s competent Government departments, the Ombudsman Office, the Human Rights Advisory Board, the Federal Provinces, civil society and academics. Due to early national elections on 28 September 2008, it had not been possible to implement the commitment of the Government programme. Following the elections, on 2 December 2008, a new Government was sworn in whose programme reaffirms the commitment regarding the Optional Protocol.
Furthermore, the new Government’s programme contains the following commitments which are relevant to Austria’s obligations under the Convention: to increase the proportion of women in the national police force; to increase the proportion of persons with a migrant background in the national police force; to professionalize further the training of all staff of the Interior Department; to clarify, by means of legislation, the relation between asylum procedures and extradition procedures in case they concern one and the same person; to improve care and supervision in prisons, especially with respect to juvenile inmates, by increasing the number of prison staff in relation to the increased number of inmates and rendering their employment more effective; and to further strengthen the legal position of crime victims. This entails securing priority of their compensation claims before enforcement of fines and (certain) other rights of the State treasury; to expand the scope of the existing fundamental rights complaint with the Supreme Court beyond the fundamental right to liberty and security to encompass other fundamental rights; to amend the Penal Code in order to incorporate obligations deriving from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court regarding crimes against humanity and war crimes; to incorporate a definition of torture into the Penal Code and to amend provisions regarding the penal law protection from torture in implementation of a recommendation made by the Committee against Torture; and to make penal law protection from racism and xenophobia more effective, by amending the provision regarding incitement in the Penal Code and by widening the circle of protected groups and persons.
Presentation of Report
HELMUT TICHY, Ambassador and Legal Adviser at the Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, began by underlining Austria's full dedication to the promotion and protection of human rights and the rule of law, which constituted priorities of its domestic and foreign policy. The Austrian Government therefore attached great importance to the full compliance with its international human rights obligations, especially the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Mr. Tichy noted that the foregoing policy was based on a comprehensive legal framework: legal provisions on the prohibition of all forms of torture and ill-treatment were part of Austria's constitutional, criminal and administrative law. Austria also had comprehensive mechanisms and procedures to monitor compliance with its human rights obligations and international human rights standards.
Most recently, on 23 February 2010, the Austrian Government had adopted its "Pledges and Commitments" relating to Austria's candidature for membership in the Human Rights Council for the period 2011 to 2014. Those included the commitment to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, as well as the inclusion of a specific penal provision on torture in the Austrian Criminal Code.
The absolute prohibition of torture was also reflected in Austria's approach to combating terrorism, and Austria remained convinced that efforts to combat terrorism had to be carried out in full compliance with international human rights standards and the rule of law, Mr. Tichy added.
Austria had always strongly supported international initiatives to combat torture, and in particular the mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture. In that connection, Mr. Tichy highlighted that Austria had issued a standing invitation to all Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council and it supported, domestically and internationally, policies aimed at preventing and eradicating torture and ill-treatment. Moreover, Austria fully cooperated with international and regional monitoring mechanisms in this field, in particular with the United Nations human rights treaty bodies and the mechanisms of the Council of Europe, in particular the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. Last year, the European Committee and the European Commission had, respectively, undertaken their fifth and fourth visits to Austria.
Turning to new developments following up on Austria's response to the Committee's list of issues, Mr. Tichy pointed out that the current work programme of the Government explicitly referred to recommendations of the Committee and envisaged a number of legal amendments relevant to the Convention against Torture. They concerned, in particular, the inclusion of a specific penal provision on torture into the Austrian Criminal Code and the creation of specific penal provisions implementing the penal provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court concerning crimes against humanity and war crimes. The drafting of those new provisions was well under way. Additionally, a national preventive mechanism, as the main prerequisite for the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, would be established, and the legislative drafting for that mechanism would be concluded in the second half of 2010. It was envisaged to mandate the Austrian Ombudsman's Board with the monitoring task and to incorporate the existing Human Rights Advisory Board and its commissions into the new structure.
Turning to responses to specific questions submitted by the Committee, concerning the concept of "open concept" for pre-deportation detention centres for foreigners, Mr. Tichy explained that substantial structural improvement was being undertaken, with the aim of a strict separation of persons pending deportation from persons detained on the basis of a criminal sentence. As a first step, the construction of a modern pre-deportation detention centre for up to 220 persons was planned at Vordernberg in Styria. The start of construction was envisaged for Spring 2011. The "open concept" would be realized according to international standards, paying attention to the needs of persons pending deportation and guaranteeing them free disposition [sic] over their daily schedule.
With regard to allegations of ill-treatment against law enforcement officials, Mr. Tichy reiterated that there had always been a clear "zero tolerance" policy regarding any form of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Notwithstanding all the Government's efforts, unfortunately there were still some individual cases of ill-treatment. However, all allegations against members of the security authorities had to be investigated promptly, effectively and impartially.
In that connection, Mr. Tichy observed that the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had entered into force on 1 January 2008, had led to a significant improvement concerning the transparency and independence of investigations. Implementing those new rules, on 6 November 2009 the Federal Minister of Justice had issued a decree concerning the responsibilities and procedures for cases of allegations of ill-treatment. The aim of the new laws and regulations was to exclude any appearance of bias during the investigations and to clarify suspicions of ill-treatment against members of the security authorities and security services and officers of the penitentiary system.
The Austrian Authorities put great emphasis on awareness-raising and training programmes for law enforcement officials, judges and public prosecutors in order to maintain their high human rights standards throughout their practical implementation. Law enforcement officials were specially trained with regard to prevention of torture. Awareness-raising on that subject was a mandatory component of both basic trainings and advanced courses for police staff, judges, public prosecutors and the like. Those training programmes had been in existence for many years and had been constantly improved based on recommendations from this Committee, the European Committee and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, as well as from the Human Rights Advisory Board.
Among human rights training courses for the police, Mr. Tichy singled out a project that aimed to highlight the role of the police as a human rights protection organization. That modern understanding had influenced the self-perception of the police services, the management of human resources, the organizational structures and the operational procedures. On the basis of that new approach, the Federal Ministry of the Interior had established a new training course called "POLICE.(EM)POWERS.HUMAN.RIGHTS", with the aim of conveying those principles to the police in a systematic approach.
Questions Raised by Committee Experts
LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Austria, wondered, with regard to the information that the crime of torture would soon be incorporated in the Austrian Criminal Code, whether the definition would contain all the elements as set out in the Convention?
Among others, Mr. Gallegos wondered how violence was monitored in detention centres; and if Austria would consider establishing a full fledged legal aid programme for those being held in police custody, as had been recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Moreover, could the delegation explain the concrete measures already taken to ensure that juveniles were not questioned by police without the presence of a lawyer or family member?
In relation to non-refoulement obligations, Mr. Gallegos asked for further clarification about the use of diplomatic assurances in the context of returns. According to Austria's written replies, in 2009, 28 preliminary investigations had been initiated for alleged abuse by law enforcement officers reported by asylum-seekers. Proceedings had been dismissed in 16 cases and discontinued in 1, while proceedings were pending in 11 cases. The delegation was asked to provide an update on the disposition of those cases.
Mr. Gallegos was further concerned about safeguards for persons with disabilities, for example, the abolition of coercive medical measures linked to the treatment of such persons?
Mr. Gallegos emphasized the Committee's concern about issues of violence against women and domestic violence, which were clearly cases of ill-treatment that fell under the Committee's competence. In that context, he was concerned, in particular, about safeguards for asylum-seeking women and children. Was there a clear adoption of a gender perspective in the national action plan for migrants, for example?
Concerning protections for vulnerable groups, such as the Roma, Mr. Gallegos asked what measures were taken to prevent arrests, questioning or investigation on the basis of physical appearance? He further asked for a breakdown of complaints brought against law enforcement officials by race, colour, descent and national or ethnic origin.
Finally, a number of instances, including the European Parliament, had reported that Austrian territory had been used for the practice of extraordinary renditions. Mr. Gallegos wanted an answer from Austria on this issue. This was linked to the position of Austria on diplomatic assurances.
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Chairperson serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report, asked for further details about restrictions on the right of a detainee to consult a lawyer, as the report set out that "defence counsel may be put under surveillance and be restricted to the granting of a power of attorney and a short and general legal consultation ... to prevent interference in ongoing investigations or corruption of evidence". Any restrictions to detainees’ basic rights were of concern, so he asked for further details on those exceptions and examples.
In its written replies, Austria had noted that its Code of Criminal Procedure ruled out testimony to the detriment of the defendant obtained in interrogations by torture, or if the interrogation had been carried out exerting "other inadmissible forms of influence on free will" or using "inadmissible interrogation methods". In that connection, Mr. Grossman asked what were considered to be inadmissible influence to the free will of detainees and what were inadmissible interrogation methods? Had there been an attempt to standardize interrogation techniques? What guidelines were applicable?
On training, Mr. Grossman asked if medical staff were trained on the Istanbul Protocol, which helped to establish whether torture had been committed.
A further concern voiced by Mr. Grossman was a high rate of suicides among Austrian prisoners. Similarly, with regard to deaths of detainees, what medical services were available to detainees and what did the Government do to ensure that their medical condition was taken into consideration?
Moreover, a number of the causes of death of prisoners appeared to call for further explanation, including deaths by suffocation, drowning, being run over by a train, gunshot wounds, and having fallen from a window.
Mr. Grossman cited a number of specific cases where convictions of abuse or ill-treatment against law enforcement agents had been found. It appeared to him that the perpetrators had received penalties that were too light in comparison with the gravity of the crimes committed and that the compensation granted to victims was way too low.
Other issues raised by Mr. Grossman concerned prison overcrowding and measures to correct that and the situation of detainees on hunger strike.
Other Committee Experts asked questions related to extradition procedures; whether a decision by the tribunal that decided on asylum cases could be appealed; a lack of clarity in the obligation that, for interrogations without a lawyer, an audio "or" visual recording of the interrogation had to be made "if possible"; what specialized law enforcement units or personnel there were for handling violence against women and domestic violence cases; the use of caged beds or "net beds" in psychiatric hospitals; information sessions or training for professional staff involved in child care and social services; and complaints mechanisms for persons in institutional care.
Further concerns raised by Experts included the use of Taser guns, and the fact that an expert group was carrying out a study on the use of Tasers in prisons; and how the Human Rights Advisory Board coordinated with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior, including if the Advisory Board had a monitoring role with regard to those two ministries.
Zuletzt geändert von Lycisca am 05.05.2010, 17:06, insgesamt 1-mal geändert.
Der Ausschuss gg Folter hat zwar die beiden vorgelegten Schattenberichte nicht erwähnt, es ist aber auffällig, dass nunmehr auch die Regierung etwas zum Thema Frauen vorbringt (dass mehr Polizistinnen aufgenommen werden sollen) und dass von den Ausschussmitgliedern betont wird, dass Fragen der Gewalt gegen Frauen in die Kompetenz des Ausschusses fallen, dass insbesondere seitens der Regierung die Situation von Flüchtlingsfrauen und Kindern dargelegt werden soll, und dass medizinische Zwangsbehandlung, insbesondere von Behinderten, angesprochen wurde. Die Hauptaufmerksamkeit der Kommission liegt natürlich bei den allerschwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen, zum Beispiel dubiose Todesfälle und Selbstmorde in Gefängnissen. Im Unterschied zu Liechtenstein - gestern am Vormittag - wurde Österreich nicht konzidiert, dass die Regierung ein Vorbild für andere Staaten sein könnte.
[Edit Lycisca:] Die Stellungnahme der österreichischen Regierung ist inzwischen veröffentlicht unter:
Unten ist Hintergrundinformation, wer seitens der Kommission federführend für den Bericht über Österreich ist:
Der Berichterstatter über Österreich ist Luis Gallegos Chiriboga aus Ecuador, Südamerika. Er ist Jurist und Berufsdiplomat (zuletzt Botschafter bei den USA, früher Vizepräsident von UNICEF) und ist an Anliegen Behinderter (Mitarbeit bei der entsprechenden UN Konvention, Publikationen dazu) interessiert.
Der Co-Berichterstatter und gleichzeitig Vorsitzender des Ausschusses gg Folter ist Claudio Grossman aus Chile, Südamerika. Er ist Jurist und Wissenschafter in den USA (Dekan der Juridischen Fakultät, American University, Washington), mit beruflichem Background bei der Inter-Amerikanischen Menschenrechtskommission (vergleichbar zum Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte).
Committee against Torture hears response of Austria
MORNING, 6 Mai 2010
The Committee against Torture this morning heard the response of Austria to questions raised by Committee Experts on the combined fourth and fifth 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, 5 May, the delegation, which was led by Helmut Tichy, Ambassador and Legal Adviser at the Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, confirmed once again, with regard to diplomatic assurances, that any concern that a person to be extradited might be subject to torture or ill-treatment could not be compensated by diplomatic assurances. There were no cases where a person had been deported or extradited from Austria on the basis of diplomatic assurances where there was a fear of such treatment. Concerning extraordinary renditions and secret detentions, Austria had consistently expressed the view that the fight against terrorism had to be conducted in strict accord with international human rights standards and international humanitarian law. Austria had participated in all the efforts of the Council of Europe to clarify that matter with regard to detainees and transport by air, and there had been no negative mention of Austria in the Council of Europe reports. Moreover, the European Parliament had said there was no doubt that Austria had not been involved in such extraordinary renditions.
Regarding procedural safeguards for detainees, the delegation noted that every detained person had to be informed prior to interrogation of the offence for which they were being held, the right to remain silent, and the right to consult with counsel prior to the interrogation. An information sheet for detainees, which was available in 50 different languages, was handed out to all those detained and set out their rights. Moreover, since November 2008 there was a Stand-By Legal Counselling Service. Every Criminal Investigation Department was obliged to mention the availability of that Service, and provide a copy of the handout explaining their activities and assistance they provided, including a hotline number. According to the guidelines for the Austrian Bar Association, if a detainee in police custody requested the presence of standby counsel, that counsellor had to present himself at the police station within three hours from that contact.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Austria towards the end of the session on Friday, 14 May.
As one of the 146 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Austria is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes this afternoon at 3 p.m., it will consider the replies of Yemen (CAT/C/YEM/CO/2/Add.1) to the Committee's provisional concluding observations on the second periodic report of Yemen, which was reviewed in the absence of a delegation.
Response of Austria
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Wednesday, 5 May, the delegation of Austria confirmed once again, with regard to diplomatic assurances, that any concern that a person to be extradited might be subject to torture or ill-treatment could not be compensated by diplomatic assurances. There were no cases where a person had been deported or extradited from Austria on the basis of diplomatic assurances where there was a fear of such treatment.
Concerning extraordinary renditions and secret detentions, the delegation emphasized that Austria had consistently expressed the view that the fight against terrorism had to be conducted in strict accord with international human rights standards and international humanitarian law. Austria had participated in all the efforts of the Council of Europe to clarify that matter with regard to detainees and transport by air, and there had been no negative mention of Austria in the Council of Europe reports. Moreover, the European Parliament had said there was no doubt that Austria had not been involved in such extraordinary renditions.
On the issue of trafficking in children, the Austrian laws and human trafficking bodies did have a particular focus on that issue. Child victims of trafficking had access to legal assistance and the services of the youth welfare institutions. Austria was also actively involved in campaigns against sex tourism, in conjunction with the non-governmental organization End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children (ECPAT) and the Body Shop. Unaccompanied minors could request asylum, and Austrian regulations provided for special protections for such asylum-seekers, who were granted an automatic initial stay in the country of six months.
Concerning racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the delegation noted that a bill had been adopted by the Austrian Parliament in April 2010, which amended the relevant law on commission of hate crimes. The amendments aimed at transposing the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, in accord with the positions of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, as well as the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with regard to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The new provision would in particular get rid of limitations on the acts concerned and would cover all hostile acts against groups defined by race, language, religion or belief, descent, national origin, age or sexual orientation, among others. It also prohibited the stirring up of hatred among such groups, in accordance with article four of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Racism.
Regarding procedural safeguards for detainees, the delegation noted that every detained person had to be informed prior to interrogation of the offence for which they were being held, the right to remain silent, and the right to consult with counsel prior to the interrogation. An information sheet for detainees, which was available in 50 different languages, was handed out to all those detained and set out their rights. (A copy in English was provided to members of the Committee.)
Since November 2008 there was a Stand-By Legal Counselling Service. Every Criminal Investigation Department was obliged to mention the availability of that Service, and provide a copy of the handout explaining their activities and assistance they provided, including a hotline number. (A copy of that handout was provided in English.) According to the guidelines for the Austrian Bar Association, if a detainee in police custody requested the presence of standby counsel, that counsellor had to present himself at the police station within three hours from that contact.
Minors received special protections in legal proceedings, the delegation said, and the right to presence of counsel during interrogations was never restricted. A person of trust was also to be present at interrogations of juveniles, unless a counsel was already present. The Government took all efforts to ensure that juveniles were detained only as a last resort and that was reflected by statistics: while juveniles committed 20 per cent of all crimes, juvenile detainees made up only 5 per cent of cases. While detention of juveniles was the exception, prison sentences for minors were a very rare exception.
Intervention centres against domestic violence had been set up in all provinces, the delegation said. To give an idea of concrete numbers, 6,600 persons had received a "go away" order by the police in 2008.
With regard to crimes of extremism and racial hatred, the rate of convictions for acts of hostility against various groups from 2005 to 2008 was between 18 and 32, while the number of convictions had only been between 3 and 11 for that same time period. However, it was hoped that that rate would increase with the entry into force of the new amendment to the hate crimes law, which greatly expanded the scope of the crimes sanctioned.
With regard to allegations that Austria did not do enough to prosecute war criminals, the delegation would just note that, between 1945 and 1955, 2,000 persons had been convicted of war crimes in Austria. Of those, 341 had received long prison sentences; 29 had received life sentences; and 43 had been sentenced to death (with 30 of those sentences having been carried out).
On the issue of caged beds, their use had been prohibited in the prisons. In psychiatric facilities the number of such beds had been greatly reduced, the delegation said. While the practice had not been completely prohibited in psychiatric institutions, it had been so limited by case law – where it was established that it could only be used in extreme cases as a last resort – that the use of such beds was increasingly rare.
To reduce the incidence of violence among inmates, particularly violent inmates were kept in solitary confinement. In cells in which there were several inmates, attempts were made to ensure that inmates that might be likely to fight were kept apart, for example, if they were from ethnic or national backgrounds that might lead to clashes. There were no separate statistics on sexual violence among inmates, but such acts were not frequent. However, in 2008, there had been 216 cases of violence among inmates, and in 2009 there had been 153 cases. So there was a positive trend there.
There were 8,500 prisoners in Austria, and there was no problem of overcrowding in Austria's prisons (i.e. among convicted prisoners). In contrast, there was an overcrowding problem in holding facilities for detainees.
As for cases of death in Austrian penitentiaries, the delegation wished to clarify the situation, in particular with regard to the six cases cited by the Committee Chairperson. In the case of the prisoner who was run over by a train, in August 2009, that prisoner had escaped and had then committed suicide by throwing himself under a train. In the first suffocation death, the prisoner had committed suicide by putting a plastic bag over his head and sealing it; the second such death was a prisoner that had choked on his own vomit. The gunshot death was a case in which a suspect had been shot by a policeman in the course of the arrest. The suspect had then died subsequently in prison. The drowning death occurred in a bath, where the inmate suffered from a circulation disorder. The death by falling out of the window had, obviously, occurred outside of the prison, where the windows were barred. That female prisoner had escaped from prison and had subsequently committed suicide at home by throwing herself from the window.
There had been 10 cases of suicide in Austrian prisons. To combat suicides, a "traffic light" system for assessing prisoners at risk was established. Guidelines for prisoners at risk of suicide meant that they could not be kept in solitary confinement, for example.
With regard to the use of Tasers, the X26 gun which was now being used again in Austrian penitentiaries had been cleared for use following a study. The Taser had been used from 2005 to 2008 in Austrian prisons. Then its use was suspended owing to incidents in Canada, which had led to the then-Austrian Justice Minister to temporarily prohibit their further use. She then commissioned a detailed study on the use of that device, which had concluded that the use of Tasers was permissible. Since its reintroduction in 2009, the Taser had not actually been used in the prisons, but the threat of its use had been sufficient for preventive purposes. Tasers could only be used in Austrian Prisons in situations where use of a lethal weapon was justified under law. Much money had been spent on training in the use of that weapon and the Tasers now incorporated a video camera device so such use would be documented, if used.
The asylum procedure in Austria was carried out in accordance with United Nations Refugee Agency best practice. In 2008, there were 12,841 asylum applications. Of those, 706 involved unaccompanied minors, and 1,264 cases which, in accordance with the Dublin II agreement, Austria was not competent for deportation of the asylum-seekers but another country. For 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, statistics were also available, and were provided to the Committee in writing. Medical examinations were available for asylum-seekers in accommodation centres. If the asylum-seekers claimed they were victims of torture, special doctors were brought in for an examination.
The Asylum Court was a specialized administrative court and its rulings were subject to review by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court could nullify a decision that it felt was incorrect and send it back for reconsideration, or could directly grant the right to asylum by the applicant.
Turning to gender-specific asylum grounds, the delegation said that, according to around 15 decisions over the past years, asylum had been granted to women who were under threat of female genital mutilation, forced marriages and forced prostitution. In addition, a woman asylum-seeker from Afghanistan had been granted asylum last year on the basis of the fact that she lived alone and was Western oriented in her lifestyle which would subject her to threats to her physical security and integrity, including rape or other infringements of her rights, and that she would not be able to freely move about in public.
Questions by Committee Experts
LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Austria, said one of his major concerns regarded changes in perceptions regarding racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in political discourse and the need not to use that discourse to provoke torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Another concern was the need for more rigorous statistical data. For example, the delegation had acknowledged today that there were no statistics on sexual violence in prisons. That was needed, including breakdowns in statistics by gender, race and others.
Mr. Gallegos said a remaining issue that had gone unanswered was that of compensation, and he hoped that such answers would be provided in writing.
On specific cases, he would appreciate an answer on the outcome of the case of the Afro-American professor who had been visiting Vienna and had been mistaken for a drug dealer and beaten by the police.
Finally, with regard to the national human rights institution, Mr. Gallegos encouraged Austria to take measures to ensure that the Ombudsman's Board was raised from a category B to a category A institution according to international standards, in order to afford proper protections and recourse for those who had suffered human rights violations.
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Chairperson serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Austria, asked for more precision with regard to restrictions on access to lawyers by detainees. What was meant by "serious" cases? He asked for specific examples of such cases and in how many such cases there had been an appeal.
Mr. Grossman also wanted particular details on two specific cases (Bakary J. and Cheibani Wague), as well as the case reported on in The New York Times (Mike B.).
Committee Experts then made additional comments and raised some additional concerns, including whether an assessment of the suicide prevention measures taken in prisons had been successful.
Response by Delegation
Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Austria replied that, with regard to the case reported on by the New York Times, in which plainclothes detectives had thought they had identified a drug dealer who bore a striking resemblance to the American professor, that the person in question had not realized what was going on, as the police were in plain clothes, and he had put up strong resistance. In the course of the arrest, he had received bodily harm. The case was still pending, and the charges against the police were negligent bodily harm.
In the Bakary case of ill-treatment, it was quite clear that four officials had misbehaved. That case had been completely examined in court and all involved had been condemned. Bakary was to be deported and as he had resisted force was used. All four participating officers were sentenced. Three had been dismissed from service and one that had had lesser involvement was fined five months' salary. Those sentences were currently under review by the administrative court. The court had also awarded 3,000 euros in compensation. That award was, however, incorrect, as the officers acted in accordance with their duties. If they caused someone damage, it was the employer that would have to be sued, in this case the Republic of Austria. But Mr. Bakary had not filled a request to make such a filing.
In the Cheibani case, four policemen were acquitted and one convicted of the death by asphyxiation of the prisoner when he was being held on the ground. Following that case, the norms and standards for restraining prisoners were revised in the hope of preventing such cases in future.
***********
Die Schlussfolgerungen des Ausschusses werden Mitte Mai veröffentlicht
Pressebericht des Hochkommissariat für Menschenrechte: Committee against Torture concludes forty-fourth session
Committee against Torture, ROUND-UP 14 May 2010
Issues Concluding Observations on Reports of France, Cameroon, Jordan, Switzerland, Syria, Liechtenstein and Austria and Finalizes Conclusions on Yemen
The Committee against Torture concluded its forty-fourth session today, issuing its concluding observations and recommendations on reports from France, Cameroon, Jordan, Switzerland, Syria, Liechtenstein and Austria, which it reviewed during the session. It also finalized and made public its concluding observations on the report of Yemen, which it had reviewed in the absence of a delegation at its previous session, following receipt of written replies and comments and a public meeting with a delegation from that country.
All the countries reviewed are among the 146 States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and are bound by the terms of the treaty to submit periodic reports on efforts to ensure that such human rights violations do not occur on their territories. The consideration of reports takes the form of a dialogue between the delegation from the reporting State and the Committee’s members.
In its conclusions and recommendations on the combined fourth to sixth periodic reports of France, the Committee noted with satisfaction the creation of the Comptroller General of places of deprivation of liberty as its national preventive mechanism. It deplored the number of documented allegations of return of individuals to countries where they risked being subjected to torture, as well as complaints by those sent back that they had been arrested and/or received ill-treatment. The Committee recommended audiovisual recording of all interrogations, and that the Government install surveillance cameras in all police stations and gendarmeries.
Regarding the fourth periodic report of Cameroon, the Committee noted with appreciation the decree of 8 December 2004 on the organization of the Government, attaching the Penitentiary Administration to the Ministry of Justice. In that connection, it was deeply concerned at the deplorable conditions in places of detention, including reports of overcrowding; inter-prisoner violence; corruption; and lack of hygienic conditions, medical treatment and adequate food. Noting the creation of the so-called “Police of the Police”, in 2005, the Committee reiterated that the Government needed to create an independent, external body to monitor the police.
Following its consideration of the second periodic report of Jordan, the Committee noted the establishment, in 2008, of the Ombudsman’s Bureau as an independent body with a mandate to receive complaints. It was deeply concerned at the numerous, consistent and credible allegations of a widespread and routine practice of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in detention facilities and that such allegations were seldom investigated and prosecuted. Jordan was urged, inter alia, to take all appropriate measures to abolish the practice of administrative detention and to take immediate steps to ensure that the functioning of the State Security Court and other special courts were brought in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.
Having reviewed the sixth periodic report of Switzerland, the Committee welcomed ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (in 2009) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (in 2001). It was concerned about persistent allegations of ill-treatment and police violence during forced returns of foreigners by air transport, and in particular the death of a Nigerian citizen, Joseph Ndukaku chiakwa, on 10 March 2010 during a forced repatriation by air. Inter alia, Switzerland had to guarantee the presence of human rights monitors and independent doctors during forced repatriations by air.
Among positive aspects in the initial report of Syria, the Committee welcomed Syria’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (in 2009). The Committee was deeply concerned at numerous reports of torture, ill-treatment, death in custody and incommunicado detention of people belonging to the Kurdish minority, in particular political activists of Kurdish origins, and that military courts had passed convictions on Kurdish detainees on vague charges of “weakening national sentiment” or “spreading false or exaggerated information”. Syria was urged to establish a national system to effectively monitor and inspect all places of detention and follow up on the outcome of such monitoring, including regular and unannounced visits by national and international monitors.
Having examined the third periodic report of Liechtenstein, the Committee noted with satisfaction Liechtenstein’s support to United Nations mechanisms to prevent and eradicate torture, including its increased contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. It was concerned about information received that asylum-seekers might not always have an opportunity to have their claim examined in substance. The Committee recommended that Liechtenstein renegotiate its 1982 Treaty On Accommodation of Prisoners with Austria (whereby prisoners served sentences longer than two years in Austrian prisons) so as to ensure that the rights of persons deprived of their liberty were guaranteed.
With regard to the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Austria, the Committee noted the entry into force in June 2009 of the Second Violence Protection Act, expanding the range of services and support available to crime victims, including victims of gender-based violence. It continued to be concerned about the high level of impunity in cases of police brutality, including those perceived to be racially motivated. The Committee also reiterated its concern about the use of electro-muscular disruption devices (Tasers or stun guns) and asked Austria to consider relinquishing the use of such devices to restrain persons in custody.
In concluding observations on the second periodic report of Yemen, the Committee welcomed Yemen’s accession to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol. Among serious concerns were reports of grave violations of the Convention committed in the context of the fight against terrorism, such as extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, indefinite detention without charge or trial, torture and ill-treatment, and deportation of non-citizens to countries where they were in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment. The Committee called on Yemen to establish a national system to monitor and inspect all places of detention, and to ensure that forensic doctors trained in detecting signs of torture were present during such visits.
In addition to reviewing country reports in public, during its forty-fourth session the Committee considered in private meetings information appearing to contain well-founded indications that torture was being systematically practiced in the territories of some States parties. It also examined communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations by States parties of the provisions of the Convention. Such communications are accepted only if they concern the 64 States that have declared the Committee competent to receive complaints under article 22 of the Convention. Progress reviews of the status of follow-up to individual communications, as well as follow-up to the Committee's concluding observations, were also held in public meetings.
Also at this session, on 11 May, the Committee held a meeting with the Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, hearing a presentation of the Subcommittee's third annual report, and discussing areas of collaboration between the two bodies.
At the Committee’s last meeting, Committee Rapporteur Nora Sveaass, highlighting some points in the Committee's annual report, noted that, as of May 2010, the Committee had received 237 country reports. With regard to the backlog in the Committee's work and its heavy workload, it was noted that the Committee's request to the General Assembly for an additional session each year for the 2011-2012 biennium had been rejected. In its annual report, the Committee would now reduce its request to an additional week for each of its two yearly sessions – or additional meeting time of two weeks' a year. They would be able to achieve that within the Committee's current budget.
In the ensuing discussion a number of options for trying to obtain extra meeting time were discussed, and it was decided that the Chairperson would also send a letter directly to the Secretary-General requesting more time.
The Committee’s next session will be held from 1 to 19 November 2010, during which it is scheduled to examine reports from Ecuador, Turkey, Ethiopia, Mongolia, Cambodia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Conclusions and Recommendations on Country Reports
France
Among positive aspects relative to the combined fourth to sixth periodic reports of France, the Committee noted with satisfaction France’s ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention and the creation of the Comptroller General of places of deprivation of liberty as its national preventive mechanism under the Protocol. It further noted France’s accession in 2007 to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, abolishing the death penalty; its ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, in 2008; and the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol, in 2010. It also noted with satisfaction the adoption of the law of 4 April 2006 strengthening preventive and punitive measures for domestic violence, and notably increasing penalties for violence against women; steps to increase the number of convicted persons eligible for alternative sentencing, such as house arrest under electronic surveillance; and the creation of two hotlines to report acts of domestic violence.
The Committee remained concerned, however, that 22 per cent of asylum requests in 2009 were treated under a “priority” procedure, which did not provide for suspensive effect against an initial refusal of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons. Asylum-seekers could therefore be sent back to countries where they were at risk of torture before the National Court on the Right of Asylum had a chance to hear the request. The Committee further remained concerned about the provisions of the 10 December 2003 law introducing the concepts of “internal asylum” and “safe countries of origin”, which did not provide full protection against a person being sent back to a country where they might face torture. In that context, the Committee deplored the number of documented allegations of return of individuals to countries where they risked being subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as well as complaints by those sent back that they had been arrested and/or received ill-treatment on their return. The Committee was particularly concerned by persistent allegations of ill-treatment by detainees and others at the hands of law enforcement officials. Further concerns included a law of 9 March 2004 which delayed access by detainees to a lawyer for 72 hours if they were suspected of terrorism or involvement in organized crime; overcrowding in prisons in France’s overseas territories; a draft law which envisaged extending “waiting zones” along France’s frontiers, which subjected foreigners to a regime without procedural guarantees such as the right to see a doctor or to communicate with a lawyer; and the announcement that France was studying the possible use of “Tasers” or stun guns in prisons.
The Committee reiterated its recommendation that France take the necessary measures to guarantee that at no time could an individual be expelled from the country if they risked torture on their return. France should also make the audiovisual recording of interrogations the rule in all cases, and should install surveillance cameras in all police stations and gendarmeries so as to reinforce protections for detainees and those in custody. Furthermore, the Committee reiterated its recommendation regarding the fact that investigation and prosecution for torture claims was at the discretion of the State Prosecutor, i.e. that France establish a system whereby all such claims were spontaneously and systematically investigated by impartial bodies if there were reasonable grounds to believe that such an act had been committed.
Cameroon
In its conclusions and recommendations on the fourth periodic report of Cameroon, the Committee noted with appreciation a number of advances in the legislative and institutional sphere, including the decree of 8 December 2004 on the organization of the Government, attaching the Penitentiary Administration to the Ministry of Justice; the decree of 15 April 2005 on the organization of the Ministry of Justice, establishing a Directorate for Human Rights and International Cooperation; and the law of 27 July 2005 on the status of refugees. It also welcomed Cameroon’s ratification, on 18 May 2004, of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and two of its three Protocols – to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children and on Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air. It further noted with satisfaction Cameroon’s cooperation with the European Union in the Programme to Improve Detention Conditions and Respect of Human Rights (PACDET).
The Committee was concerned about reports that persons in detention in Cameroon rarely benefited, from the moment of their arrest, from the guarantees set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was, moreover, very concerned that the 48-hour time limit on police custody was not respected in practice and that such arrests were not registered. In that context, the Committee highlighted credible allegations that prolonged police custodies were used to extort money from detainees. The Committee was strongly concerned about the high number of persons in preventive detention, which, in 2009, had risen to 14,265, as compared with 8,931 convicted persons in jail. Moreover, the time limits set for preventive detention –12 months for a misdemeanour and 18 months for a crime – were not respected in practice. The Committee further expressed its deep concern at the deplorable conditions in places of detention, including reports of overcrowding; inter-prisoner violence; corruption, including charging for cell space and medical supplies; and lack of hygienic conditions, medical treatment and adequate food. A further concern was that minors and adults, convicted persons and those in preventive detention, as well as women and men, were not systematically separated in detention facilities. Among other concerns raised were allegations of harassment, detention and torture or ill-treatment of journalists and human rights defenders and impunity for such acts; credible information from diverse sources that extrajudiciary executions, arbitrary detentions, and acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, had been committed in the context of the February 2008 protests, in contradiction to a 2009 Government report establishing that the forces of order had acted in their own defence; and a high incidence of violence against women and girls, and that acts of domestic violence, in particular, went unpunished.
Among recommendations, the Committee said that Cameroon should urgently take steps to reduce the duration of provisional detention, in particular ensuring that the time limits established by law were respected. Urgent measures were also needed to ensure that conditions of detention conformed with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, including reduction of overcrowding, in particular by favourizing a policy of alternative sentences; improving food and health care for detainees; strengthening judicial oversight of conditions in detention; reorganizing the prisons so that convicts and detainees, adults and minors were separated in all cases; and ensuring that women were kept separately from men and that they were guarded by female guards exclusively. With regard to the events of February 2008, the Committee recommended that Cameroon open a comprehensive, independent and thorough investigation, including forensic and medical examinations of complaints of extrajudicial executions and acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. To combat impunity, the Government had to publicly and unambiguously condemn the practice of torture in all its forms; immediately adopt measures to ensure in practice that all allegations of such acts were promptly, impartially and efficiently investigated; ensure that suspects in such cases were immediately suspended from their functions for the duration of the investigation; and ensure that, in practice, complainants and witnesses were protected from reprisals and intimidation. With regard to the so-called “Police of the Police”, created in 2005, the Committee said that the Government needed to create an independent, external body to monitor the police.
Jordan
Following its consideration of the second periodic report of Jordan, the Committee welcomed Jordan’s ratification of or accession to a number of international instruments, including the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, in 2009; the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the involvement of children in armed conflict (in 2007) and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (in 2006); and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in 2002. Also noted were ongoing efforts to reform legislation, policies and procedures to ensure better protection of human rights, in particular the establishment, in 2003, of the National Centre for Human Rights of Jordan as an independent national human rights institution; the establishment, in 2008, of the Ombudsman’s Bureau as an independent body with a mandate to receive complaints as of 1 February 2009; and the adoption, in 2007, of the comprehensive plan for the development and modernization of correctional facilities and rehabilitation centres.
The Committee was deeply concerned at the numerous, consistent and credible allegations of a widespread and routine practice of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in detention facilities and that such allegations were seldom investigated and prosecuted. It was particularly concerned that, while no official had ever been prosecuted for having committed torture under article 208 of the Penal Code, there had been prosecutions under article 37 of the Public Security Law of 1965, calling solely for disciplinary action. It was further concerned that article 61 of the Penal Code stipulated that a person “shall bear no criminal responsibility for acts performed in accordance with orders given by someone of higher rank”. A serious concern was Jordan’s failure in practice to afford all detainees, including detainees held in facilities of the General Intelligence Directorate and the Public Security Department, with all fundamental legal safeguards from the very outset of their detention, including the right to notify a relative, and to be informed of their rights at the time of detention, including about the charges laid against them. The Committee was particularly concerned that an arrested person did not have the right to a lawyer from the moment of arrest, that the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed prosecutors exceptionally to interrogate detainees without lawyers in “cases of urgency”, and that meetings between lawyers and clients reportedly took place in the presence of numerous other persons. It was gravely concerned at the continued practice of administrative detention (with more than 20,000 persons held in such detention in 2006, that number now reduced to 16,000) and that administrative governors could detain any person suspected of perpetrating a crime or any person considered a threat to the community for a period of one year, renewable indefinitely. Another grave concern was the special court system within the security services, including the State Security Court, the Special Police Court and the Military Tribunal of the General Intelligence Directorate, which had reportedly shielded military and security personnel alleged to be responsible for human rights violations from legal accountability. Also noted with concern was that violence against women was a deeply rooted problem in Jordan and that crimes where a family’s “honour” was thought to be breached often went unpunished.
Among recommendations, as a matter of urgency, the Committee called on Jordan to take immediate and effective measures to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment throughout the country, including announcement of a policy that would produce measurable results in the eradication of torture and ill-treatment by State officials. Jordan should ensure that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment were investigated promptly, effectively and impartially, and that the perpetrators were prosecuted and convicted in accordance with the gravity of the acts. Furthermore, Jordan should amend its legislation in order to explicitly provide that an order from a superior officer or a public authority might not be invoked as a justification of torture. Jordan was further urged, inter alia, to take all appropriate measures to abolish the practice of administrative detention; to take immediate steps to ensure that the functioning of the State Security Court and other special courts were brought in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention and international standards for courts of law; and that Jordan establish a national system to effectively monitor and inspect all places of detention, including the facilities of the General Intelligence Directorate, and follow up to ensure systematic monitoring.
Switzerland
Having reviewed the sixth periodic report of Switzerland, the Committee welcomed the ratification of a number of international instruments, including the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (in 2009); the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (in 2006) and on the involvement of children in armed conflict (in 2002); Protocols Nos. 1 and 2 to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (in 2001); and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (in 2007) and its Protocols to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children and on Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (both in 2006). It further noted with satisfaction a number of legislative measures, policies and procedures, including the adoption of a Federal Code of Criminal Procedure in 2007, which strengthened the rights to a defence, and which accorded broader rights to detainees and broader protections for witnesses.
The Committee was concerned by reports of police violence or excessive use of force or other ill-treatment by police committed in the context of police interventions in their homes or at police stations. A particular concern were the allegations regarding excessive force being used against foreigners, notably asylum-seekers and migrants, mainly those of African origin, particularly in the cantons of Geneva and the Vaud. In that context, it was noted that Switzerland had not fully implemented the Committee’s prior recommendation that it establish independent bodies in all cantons to receive and investigate such complaints against the police. The Committee also noted that the popular initiative “To return foreign criminals”, currently under discussion in Parliament, provided that foreigners were deprived of their residence permits and their right to stay in Switzerland if they had committed a serious crime or were found to have abused the social service system. The application of that initiative, if adopted by referendum, would pose a serious risk that article 3 non-refoulement obligations could be violated. In that context, the Committee was concerned about persistent allegations of ill-treatment and police violence during forced returns of foreigners by air transport. It was very concerned about the death of a Nigerian citizen, Joseph Ndukaku Chiakwa, on 10 March 2010 during a forced repatriation by air. The Committee questioned the compatibility of the restraint measures authorized by Switzerland with the Convention, and was concerned about a lack of response regarding the indemnization of the families of the last two victims of such forced repatriations. Finally, the Committee highlighted the high level of overcrowding in Champ Dollon prison and the fact that the separation of minor and adult detainees was not always guaranteed.
The Committee said that Switzerland had to guarantee the presence of human rights monitors and independent doctors during forced repatriations by air; to include such persons in formulating the new regulations regarding acceptable restraining methods for such repatriations; and to continue trainings for police and other persons involved in such procedures in human rights and in particular the guarantees set out in the Convention. Furthermore, Switzerland had to undertake an independent and impartial investigation into the death of Mr. Chiakwa, to determine responsibility for the use of force that caused his death, to prosecute and punish those responsible, and to provide compensation to his family, among others. Other recommendations included undertaking measures to relieve prison crowding in Champ Dollon, including greater recourse to alternative sentencing and reduction in the length of preventive detentions; adopting a law that sought to prevent and punish violence against women, as well as the need for awareness-raising on this issue and protections for women lodging complaints; and legislating a specific prohibition against corporal punishment, in particular with regard to protecting children.
Syria
Among positive aspects in the initial report of Syria, the Committee welcomed Syria’s ratification of or accession to a number of international instruments, including the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (both in 2000); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (in 2003); the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (in 2005); and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (in 2009).
The Committee was deeply concerned about numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations concerning the routine use of torture by Syrian law enforcement and investigative officials, at their instigation or with their consent, in particular, in detention facilities. In that context, it was gravely concerned at the absence of systematic registration of all detainees in places of detention. The Committee was, further, deeply concerned at numerous reports of torture, ill-treatment, death in custody and incommunicado detention of people belonging to the Kurdish minority, in particular political activists of Kurdish origins, and that military courts had passed convictions on Kurdish detainees on vague charges of “weakening national sentiment” or “spreading false or exaggerated information”. Moreover, the Committee noted with concern reports of a growing trend of deaths of Kurdish conscripts carrying out their mandatory military service and that their bodies had been returned to the families with evidence of severe injuries. Also of concern was that the State of Emergency, first issued in 1962, had a quasi-permanent nature and allowed the suspension of fundamental rights and freedoms. Other concerns included reports that Syria had established secret detention facilities under the command of intelligence services, which were not accessible to independent monitoring and inspection bodies, and were not subject to review by the authorities; numerous reports of expulsion, return or deportation, including several cases concerning recognized refugees or asylum-seekers registered with the United Nations Refugee Agency; numerous reports regarding high numbers of involuntary disappearances; a lack of investigation into the injuries and deaths of prisoners following the riots that took place in Sednaya prison on 4 July 2008; and numerous reports that violence against women was a widespread problem and that a culture of impunity towards domestic and gender-based violence had evolved.
In order to combat impunity, the Committee said Syria should immediately adopt all necessary measures to ensure, in practice, prompt, impartial and effective investigations into all allegations of torture and prosecute and punish those responsible with penalties taking into account the grave nature of torture offences, including law enforcement and investigation officials. Syria should further ensure that all persons detained were fully and promptly registered at the place of detention, including the grounds for the detention, the date and time of admission to the detention facility and the state of health of the detainee upon admission. The Committee also called upon Syria to establish a national system to effectively monitor and inspect all places of detention and follow up on the outcome of such systematic monitoring, including regular and unannounced visits by national and international monitors. Syria should ensure that no one was detained in a secret detention facility under its de facto effective control and should close all such facilities. The Committee urged Syria to take action in a number of specific cases, including that it institute a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into the cases of Ahmed Al-Maati, Abdullah Almalki and Maher Arar (Canadian nationals detained and allegedly tortured in the largest detention centre controlled by the intelligence services, the Military Intelligence Palestine Branch Centre, due to suspected links with Al-Qaeda) in order to ensure that all persons allegedly responsible for violations of the Convention were investigated and brought to justice.
Liechtenstein
Having examined the third periodic report of Liechtenstein, the Committee noted with satisfaction Liechtenstein’s ratification, inter alia, of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture in 2006; the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women in 2001; and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 2009. It further noted with satisfaction the complete revision of the Execution of Sentences Act of 20 September 2007, strengthening legal safeguards for sentenced prisoners; the establishment, under the revised Execution of Sentences Act, of the Corrections Commission, designated as the national preventive mechanism pursuant to the Optional Protocol; and the entry into force of the amended Code of Criminal Procedure on 1 January 2008 which guaranteed the rights of all apprehended persons to inform a relative or another person of trust and a defence lawyer and to remain silent. Also noted with satisfaction was Liechtenstein’s support to United Nations mechanisms established to prevent and eradicate torture, including its increased contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
The Committee was concerned that, under its current legislation, the statute of limitations for acts that would amount to torture was limited to five years. Also, the Committee regretted that the new Public Health Act no longer contained an explicit provision regarding access to a doctor during police custody and that it was not clearly guaranteed by either the Criminal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Noting the significant increase in the number of asylum applications during recent years, the Committee was particularly concerned about information received that asylum-seekers might not always have an opportunity to have their claim examined in substance. In that respect, it noted with particular concern that the majority of asylum applications rejected, or otherwise closed, in 2009 concerned two States where the risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment could be considered substantial. The Committee was also concerned at reports that pressure by Government officials was exerted on asylum-seekers to leave Liechtenstein voluntarily, including by offering monetary rewards. The Committee was further concerned that the treaty of 1982 between Liechtenstein and Austria, whereby sentences longer than two years’ imprisonment were executed in Austria, did not contain any express safeguards for the prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.
The Committee recommended that Liechtenstein ensured a substantive assessment and review on the merits of all asylum applications, including those submitted in 2009; increased the time limit within which asylum-seekers under “preventive expulsion” might apply for restoration of the suspensive effect of the order and also guarantees their right to a proper hearing before the Administrative Court; and investigated allegations of payments by Government officials to asylum-seekers to persuade them to leave the State party. It further recommended that Liechtenstein re-negotiate its 1982 Treaty On Accommodation of Prisoners so as to ensure that the rights of persons deprived of their liberty were guaranteed, through the monitoring of their implementation by Liechtenstein’s Corrections Commission or by another independent monitoring mechanism. Liechtenstein should also ensure that the mandatory initial and continuous training programmes, as well as programmes of supervision, for prison officers were effectively implemented and attended so that they were fully aware of the rights of persons deprived of their liberty.
Austria
With regard to the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Austria, the Committee noted Austria’s ongoing efforts to revise its legislation in order to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations and to enhance the implementation of the Convention, including the entry into force, on 1 January 2008, of the Criminal Procedure Reform Act and the amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. In particular, the Committee welcomed the provisions regarding the prohibition of evidence obtained by means of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, or other unlawful interrogation methods; the obligation of courts to report cases in which evidence was allegedly extracted by such unlawful means immediately and ex officio to the public prosecutor; the express reference to the right of the defendant to remain silent; the right to contact a lawyer prior to the interrogation; the right of the defendant to be assisted by an interpreter; and the right of the defendant to inspect the police files concerning the case. Also noted was the entry into force in June 2009 of the Second Violence Protection Act, which amended the Crimes Victims Act, expanding the range of services and support available to crime victims, including victims of gender-based violence.
The Committee noted with concern that, pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, police officers could monitor contacts between the arrested or detained person and counsel and exclude the presence of counsel during interrogations if “it appears necessary to prevent interference in ongoing investigations or corruption of evidence”. The Committee had a number of concerns with regard to foreigners or asylum-seekers, including that, under the revised Asylum Law, persons basing their repeat applications for international protection on new grounds could not be granted a stay of their expulsion if they lodged their application within two days prior to the date set for deportation. Furthermore, persons whose first asylum application had not been found admissible according to the Dublin II Regulation were, in case of repeat application, now excluded from de facto protection against removal. The Committee was further concerned at the detention policy applied to asylum-seekers, including reports that they were held in police detention centres for criminal and administrative offenders, in some cases confined in their cells for 23 hours a day, only allowed visits under closed conditions and without access to qualified medical care or legal aid. The Committee regretted that Austria had provided insufficient statistical data on allegations of torture and ill-treatment, and at a lack of information on the results of the investigations undertaken in respect of those allegations. It was noted with concern that almost half of the incidents that occurred in 2009 concerned foreigners. In that regard, the Committee continued to be concerned about the high level of impunity in cases of police brutality, including that perceived to be racially motivated. The Committee was further concerned that allegations of torture and ill-treatment were investigated by the Bureau for Internal Affairs, a special unit within the Federal Ministry of Interior, which informed the competent public prosecutor about the outcome of the internal inquiry. Although the Bureau of Internal Affairs provided a copy of the report to the Human Rights Advisory Board, the members of that national human rights institution were not mandated to carry any investigative work. Regarding compensation, the Committee was particularly concerned about the case of Bakary Jassay, a Gambian national, who had been abused and severely injured by policemen in Vienna on 7 April 2006, and who had not received any compensation yet, not even the € 3,000 awarded by the Court for pain and suffering.
The Committee recommended that Austria strengthen efforts to alleviate the overcrowding of penitentiary institutions, including through the application of alternative measures to imprisonment and the establishment of additional prison facilities as needed. It should also take appropriate measures to increase the overall staffing levels and the number of female prison officers. It reiterated its concern that the use of electro-muscular disruption devices (Tasers or stun guns) could result in severe pain amounting to torture and in certain cases could even be lethal, and asked Austria to consider relinquishing the use of such devices to restrain persons in custody, as that led to breaches of the Convention. Moreover, Austria should establish a mechanism, detached from the Ministry of Interior, to carry out independent investigations into all allegations of torture and ill-treatment committed by law enforcement officials.
Yemen
Having considered the second periodic report of Yemen in the absence of a delegation during its previous session, the Committee met with a delegation from the country at the present session and finalized its concluding recommendations on that report. In it, the Committee welcomed that Yemen had acceded to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto, in 2009; and had ratified the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child – on the involvement of children in armed conflict, in 2007; and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, in 2004. The Committee also welcomed the signature of several memorandums of understanding with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (in 2004, 2005 and 2007), including a commitment to prepare a refugee law and promote it; as well as the various human rights education and training activities and Yemen’s openness to international cooperation.
The Committee was, however, deeply concerned at the numerous allegations, corroborated by a number of Yemeni and international sources, of a widespread practice of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Yemeni prisons, including state security prisons run by the Public Security Department, the National Security Authority and the Department of Anti-Terrorism under the Ministry of Interior, and that such allegations were seldom investigated and prosecuted. Moreover, Article 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appeared to provide that criminal lawsuits might not be filed against a law enforcement officer or a public employee for any crime committed while carrying out his job or caused thereby, except with the permission of the General Prosecutor, a delegated Public Attorney or Heads of Prosecution. The Committee was further concerned at the statement in the report that “persons in pre-trial detention may meet with their relatives and lawyers, provided they obtain a written authorization from the body/entity that issued the detention order”, as well as at the lack of a central register for all persons held in detention. A further concern was the proliferation of places of detention, including political security, national security and military prisons, as well as private detention facilities run by tribal leaders, and at the apparent absence of control by the Prosecutor-General of such prisons and detention centres. Among other serious concerns were reports of grave violations of the Convention committed in the context of the State party’s fight against terrorism, such as extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, indefinite detention without charge or trial, torture and ill-treatment, and deportation of non-citizens to countries where they were in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment; the reported practice of holding relatives of alleged criminals, including children and elderly, as hostages, sometimes for years at a time, in order to compel such individuals to surrender themselves to the police; reported cases of imposition of the death penalty on children between 15 and 18 years; and that women in detention were frequently harassed, humiliated and ill-treated by male guards, and that there were allegations of sexual violence, including rape, against women in detention.
Among recommendations, the Committee called upon Yemen to establish a national system to monitor and inspect all places of detention, and to ensure that forensic doctors trained in detecting signs of torture were present during such visits. Yemen should formally prohibit all detention facilities that did not fall under State authority and should take all necessary measures to counter enforced disappearances and the practice of mass arrests without a warrant; it should minimize the number of security forces and agencies with such powers; and it should consider ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
Membership and Officers
The Committee's members are elected by the States parties to the Convention and serve in their personal capacity. The current members of the Committee are: Essadia Belmir (Morocco); Alessio Bruni (Italy); Felice Gaer (United States); Luis Gallegos Chiriboga (Ecuador); Abdoulaye Gaye (Senegal); Claudio Grossman (Chile); Myrna Y. Kleopas (Cyprus); Fernando Mariño Menendez (Spain); Nora Sveaass (Norway); and Xuexian Wang (China).
Mr. Grossman is the Committee Chairman; Essadia Belmir (Morocco), Felice Gaer (United States) and Xuexian Wang (China) are the Vice Chairpersons; and Nora Sveaass (Norway) is the Committee Rapporteur.
Der volle Bericht über Österreich folgt im nächsten Beitrag. Hier ist para 22 wichtig:
22. The Committee is concerned about reports of alleged lack of privacy and humiliating circumstances amounting to degrading treatment during medical examinations at the Vienna Communal Health Office, where registered sex-workers are required to undergo weekly medical checkups, including gynaecological exams, and take regular blood tests for sexually transmitted diseases (art. 16).
The State party should ensure that these medical examinations are carried out in an environment where privacy is safeguarded and in taking the greatest care to preserve the dignity of women being examined.
Der UN Ausschuss gg Folter hat einen 10-seitigen Abschlussbericht über Österreich verfasst (oben ein Ausschnitt und die Zusammenfassung). Der volle Bericht (PDF) kann heruntergeladen werden von der Homepage des UN Hochkommissariats für Menschenrechte:
Lycisca hat geschrieben:22. The Committee is concerned about reports of alleged lack of privacy and humiliating circumstances amounting to degrading treatment during medical examinations at the Vienna Communal Health Office, where registered sex-workers are required to undergo weekly medical checkups, including gynaecological exams, and take regular blood tests for sexually transmitted diseases (art. 16).
The State party should ensure that these medical examinations are carried out in an environment where privacy is safeguarded and in taking the greatest care to preserve the dignity of women being examined.
SUPER!!!
Dass SexarbeiterInnen im Abschlußbericht ausdrücklich erwähnt werden ist ja mehr als wir zu hoffen gewagt hatten
Auch dass hier "nur" die Umstände der Zwangsuntersuchung angesprochen werden finde ich durchaus o.k.
Weil die anderen Aspekte, wie medizinische Unsinnigkeit und frauenspezifische Benachteiligung, ja nicht
zum Kernaufgabengebiet von UNCAT gehören. Und wenn jetzt überhaupt etwas daran geändert werden muß,
dann besteht ja schon die Chance, dass man das gleich grundlegend tut, um sich nicht einer
ähnlichen Blamage bei der anstehenden CEDAW-Überprüfung auszusetzen.
Ich denke wir sind auf dem richtigen Weg!
Liebe Grüße, Aoife
It's not those who inflict the most, but those who endure the most, who will conquer. MP.Vol.Bobby Sands
'I know kung fu, karate, and 37 other dangerous words'
Misspellings are *very special effects* of me keyboard
Es sind auch die anderen Punkte unseres Schattenberichts im Abschlussbericht indirekt berücksichtigt worden, z.B. das Verhalten verdeckter Ermittler oder die fehlenden Rechtsmittel. Allerdings hat in diesen Fällen der Ausschuss wesentlich gravierendere Beispiele ("police brutality") herangezogen. Insgesamt ist der Bericht für die österreichische Regierung extrem beschämend - sogar Netzbetten in psychiatrischen Krankenhäusern musste der Ausschuss ausdrücklich als unzulässig erklären (zweiter der beiden eingereichten Schattenberichte), weil die Regierung deren Verwendung nicht ausschließen konnte.
Lycisca hat geschrieben:22. The Committee is concerned about reports of alleged lack of privacy and humiliating circumstances amounting to degrading treatment during medical examinations at the Vienna Communal Health Office, where registered sex-workers are required to undergo weekly medical checkups, including gynaecological exams, and take regular blood tests for sexually transmitted diseases (art. 16).
The State party should ensure that these medical examinations are carried out in an environment where privacy is safeguarded and in taking the greatest care to preserve the dignity of women being examined.
Nachdem dieser wichtige Text bisher anscheinend nur auf English im Forum zu finden ist, hier mein Übersetzungsversuch:
22. Das Kommittee ist besorgt über Berichte, die fehlende Intimsphäre und erniedrigende Umstände bis hin zu entwürdigender Behandlung bei medizinischen Untersuchungen am Wiener Gesundheitsamt geltend machen; dort müssen sich registrierte Sexworker wöchentlich medizinischen Kontrolluntersuchungen unterziehen, einschließlich gynäkologischer Untersuchungen und regelmäßiger Bluttests auf sexuell übertragbare Krankheiten.
Der Staat sollte gewährleisten, dass diese medizinischen Untersuchungen in einer Umgebung durchgeführt werden, wo die Intimsphäre geschützt ist, und wo höchstes Augenmerk darauf gelegt wird, die Würde der untersuchten Frauen zu wahren.
Liebe Grüße, Aoife
[Edit Lycisca: Ich habe die Übersetzung etwas freier gestaltet, um den Stil als rechtliches Dokument zu berücksichtigen.]
It's not those who inflict the most, but those who endure the most, who will conquer. MP.Vol.Bobby Sands
'I know kung fu, karate, and 37 other dangerous words'
Misspellings are *very special effects* of me keyboard
