Udenrigsudvalget 2008-09
URU Alm.del Bilag 149
Offentligt
ADVANCE EDITEDVERSION
Distr.GENERALA/HRC/10/44/Add 218 February 2009Original: ENGLISH
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCILTenth sessionAgenda item 3
PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS,CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURALRIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degradingtreatment or punishment, Manfred NowakAddendum*MISSION TO DENMARK**
Late submission.The summary of the present report is being circulated in all official languages. The report itself,contained in the annex to the summary, is being circulated in the language of submission only. Theappendix is circulated as received in the language of submission only.**
*
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 2SummaryThis report presents the findings and recommendations of the Special Rapporteuron torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his missionto Denmark which took place from 2 to 9 May 2008.The Special Rapporteur paid tribute to Denmark's long-standing leadership inanti-torture efforts worldwide, including within the Human Rights Council and theGeneral Assembly, as well as within the European Union. Moreover, he noted thecountry’s long history of generous support to civil society both at home and abroad,particularly in the area of rehabilitation for victims of torture. A significant focus of themission was visiting places where persons are deprived of their liberty, such as policestations, prisons, psychiatric institutions, and detention centres for asylum-seekers.The Special Rapporteur reports that no allegations of torture and very few complaints ofill-treatment from detainees were received. Nevertheless he strongly cautioned againstcomplacency, encouraged the Government to ensure that all allegations and suspicions oftorture and ill-treatment are meticulously investigated, and that perpetrators areappropriately punished. Noting recent legislative initiatives to add torture as anaggravating circumstance of various criminal offences, which is not subject to the statuteof limitations, the Special Rapporteur regretted that a specific crime of torture is stillmissing in Danish criminal law.The hallmark of the prison system in Denmark, the Special Rapporteur observed, is the"principle of normalization", meaning that life behind bars reflects life outside to as greatan extent as possible. Taken together with an attentive approach to the concerns ofdetainees by prison staff, the result is generally a high standard of conditions of detentioninside Danish prisons, both in terms of infrastructure and day-to-day living standards. Inthis regard, the Special Rapporteur noted that in Denmark and Greenland a significantproportion of prisons are open institutions. He noted initiatives to accommodate thespecial needs of children of imprisoned parents through establishing, for example, child-
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 3friendly visiting rooms in prisons, as well as initiatives to consider the impact on childrenof a parent being taken into custody. The Special Rapporteur also noted the mixing ofmale and female prisoners. While the positive effects of such arrangements have longbeen accepted in Danish society, in light of international standards which advocatesegregation of the sexes, concern must be expressed for the need to rigorously ensure thatappropriate safeguards are in place.The Special Rapporteur commended the efforts of the Government in carrying outsuccessful awareness-raising campaigns on domestic violence and trafficking of women,which have contributed to the reduction of gender-specific violence, including throughsuccessive plans of action. Concerning trafficking, the Special Rapporteur considered thatthe efforts of the Government are aimed less at the rehabilitation of victims of traffickingin Denmark than on their prepared return to their countries of origin. In Greenland, it is aserious concern that action against domestic violence has so far not received adequateattention, despite the severity of the problem.Notwithstanding the Government's efforts to restrict the use of solitary confinement, theextensive recourse to this remains a major concern, particularly with respect to pre-trialdetainees. Solitary confinement has a clearly documented negative impact on mentalhealth, and therefore should be used only in exceptional circumstances or whenabsolutely necessary for criminal investigation purposes. In all cases, solitaryconfinement should be used for the shortest period of time.The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the establishment of an inter-ministerialworking group to investigate alleged Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) rendition flightsoperating through Denmark and Greenland, and strongly encouraged the inclusion ofindependent experts and civil society in a fully transparent process. The SpecialRapporteur expressed concerned about recent plans to employ diplomatic assurances toreturn suspected terrorists to countries known for their practice of torture.
AnnexREPORT OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE AND OTHERCRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT,MANFRED NOWAK, ON HIS MISSION TO DENMARK(2 to 9 May 2008)CONTENTS
ParagraphIntroductionI. LEGAL FRAMEWORKA. International levelB. Regional levelC. National levelII. THE SITUATION OF TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENTIII. CONDITIONS OF DETENTIONA. Principle of normalizationB. Solitary confinementC. Detention of foreigners and asylum-seekersIV. WOMENA. Domestic violence against womenB. TraffickingC. Non-separation of men and women in prisonsV. COUNTER-TERRORISMA. Extraordinary renditionsB. Diplomatic assurances27 – 2829 – 4829 – 3637 – 4647 – 4849 – 6349 – 5455 – 5758 – 6364 – 696566 – 691–89 – 2691011 – 26
Page
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 5
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSAppendix
70 - 79
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 6Introduction1.The Special Rapporteur was invited by the Government of Denmark to undertake a
visit to the country. He conducted his mission to Denmark, including the self-governingprovince of Greenland, from 2 to 9 May 2008.1Due to time constraints he did not pay avisit to the other self-governing province of the Faroe Islands. The purpose of the visitwas to assess the situation of torture and ill-treatment, including conditions of detention;and intensify cooperation with the Government in the fight against torture.2.The Special Rapporteur expresses deep appreciation to the Government, not only for
its full cooperation, but also for the spirit in which it was extended. He is grateful for thedetailed information provided in writing and the complete freedom of inquiry he enjoyed(i.e. unannounced and unimpeded access to any place of detention that he chose to visit,private interviews with detainees and staff, and access to documentation).3.In Denmark, the Special Rapporteur held meetings with Government officials,
including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Justice, and seniorrepresentatives of the Ministries of Justice (including the Director-General of the Prisonand Probation Service, the Deputy-Director of Public Prosecutions, the Deputy AssistantNational Commissioner of Police), Integration, Health, Defence, Welfare and GenderEquality, as well as representatives from the Faroe Islands. Furthermore, the SpecialRapporteur met with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and members of parliament, theDanish Institute for Human Rights, the International Rehabilitation Council for TortureVictims (IRCT), a broad range of civil society organizations, and representatives ofinternational organizations.
1
Since 1979 Greenland has been a self-governing province of Denmark. According to the Greenland HomeRule Act, home rule authorities consist of a Landsting (Assembly) and an administration headed by aLandsstyre (Executive). The Greenlandic authorities are bound by obligations under international treaties ofwhich Denmark is a State party. In practice, the Greenland Landsting administers almost all legislativematters. Greenland is a separate police district subordinate to the Danish National Commissioner of Police.The enforcement authority is the Prison and Probation Service in Greenland which reports to the Ministerof Justice and to the Danish Department of Prisons and Probation. The Chief Constable being the ChiefProsecutor, prosecutions are under the Danish Director of Public Prosecutions (Rigsadvokaten).
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 74.The Special Rapporteur visited Police Headquarters Prison, Copenhagen,
Herstedvester Prison, Vridsløselille State Prison, Ellebaek Closed Detention Centre forForeigners and Vestre Prison.5.In Greenland, the Special Rapporteur met with the Permanent Secretary of the
Home Rule Government, the Chief Constable, the Head of the Prison and ProbationDirectorate, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and visited Nuuk policestation, Nuuk Prison, and the psychiatric ward in Queen Ingrid’s Hospital.6.At the outset, the Special Rapporteur must draw attention to Denmark's long-
standing leadership in anti-torture efforts worldwide. At the international level, Denmarkplays a central role in mobilizing the international community by proposing resolutionson combating torture at the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly every year.Within the European Union, Denmark leads the efforts to implement the European Union(EU) foreign policy guidelines on torture in third countries.7.The Special Rapporteur shared his preliminary findings with the Government at the
close of his mission, to which the Government responded with constructive commentsand additional written information. On 1 October 2008, a preliminary version of thisreport was sent to the Government. On 8 December 2008, the Government provideddetailed comments which have been included in this report.8.The Special Rapporteur wishes to acknowledge with appreciation the support
provided by the Director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) NordicOffice and his staff in the United Nations Country Team; the Office of the United NationsHigh Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); Dr. Jonathan Beynon, consultantmedical expert; and Ms. Isabelle Tschan of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of HumanRights in Vienna.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 8I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. International level9.Denmark is party to all major United Nations human rights treaties including the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment (the Convention against Torture) and its Optional Protocol. Furthermore,Denmark has recognized the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive andconsider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction underarticle 22 of the Convention against Torture, and the competence of the Committee toreceive inter-State complaints regarding Denmark under article 21 of the Conventionagainst Torture.
B. Regional level10. As a member of the Council of Europe, Denmark is party to all relevant regionalconventions including the European Convention on Human Rights and all additionalProtocols, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman orDegrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Council of Europe Convention on Actionagainst Trafficking in Human Beings.
C. National level
1.
Constitutional and legislative provisions criminalizing torture
11. The Constitution provides for a large set of human rights and fundamental freedoms.There is no specific provision concerning the prohibition of torture or other cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 912. The Criminal Code does not contain any express provision prohibiting torture, butacts amounting to torture are punishable under the Code’s provisions on assault (sections244-246), on placing another person in a helpless position (section 250), on causingdanger intentionally (section 252), on unlawful coercion/duress (section 260), onunlawful deprivation of liberty (section 261), on threats to commit an unlawful act(section 266) and on crimes committed on public duty (chapter 16) carrying maximumpenalties of 10 years. Section 8(5) of the Code provides for universal jurisdiction overcrimes covered by an international convention to which Denmark is a State party.213. Despite the absence of a specific provision, there have been moves by the Ministryof Justice and the legislature towards tightening the legal framework in relation totorture.3However, instead of making torture a specific offence, as envisaged by article 4of the Convention against Torture, the newly introduced section 157 A only refers totorture as aggravating circumstance in relation to existing crimes and increases themaximum penalties for such acts :“(1) In the determination of a penalty for violation of this Act it shall beconsidered an aggravating circumstance that the violation has been committed bytorture.(2) A violation of this Act shall be considered to have been committed by tortureif it was committed in the performance of Danish, foreign or international publicservice or duty by inflicting harm on the body or health of another or causingsevere physical or mental pain or suffering to another1) for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession from another,2) for the purpose of punishing or frightening another or forcing another to do,suffer or omit an act or3) due to the subject’s political belief, gender, race, skin colour, national orethnic origin, religious belief or sexual inclination.”2
See also the Military Penal Code, where military personnel suspected of having committed acts of tortureand CIDT could be charged under section 27 for neglect of duties in military service, or under section 36(2)for acts contrary to applicable international law.3Justitsministeriet, Straffelovradets betaenkning om en torturbestemmelse i straffeloven.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 10
In the situations enumerated above the statute of limitations has been abrogated.414. The Government is of the opinion that section 157 (a) of the Criminal Code servesthe purpose of a provision criminalizing torture since it reflects the seriousness of tortureand allows for keeping a record of crimes of torture. According to the former Minister ofJustice, even without an express provision prohibiting torture, acts of torture areeffectively criminalized and appropriate penalties are prescribed commensurate with theirgravity.515. However, the Special Rapporteur considers that the absence of a specific crime oftorture and mere characterization of acts amounting to torture as aggravatingcircumstances of other offences do not afford torture - among the most fundamentalviolations of human rights which Denmark has globally championed to combat - theweight and gravity that it deserves. Moreover, since torture is not included as a specificcrime in the Danish Criminal Code, but only as an aggravated circumstance of a seriousor repeated breach of duty or carelessness in public service, the application of theuniversal jurisdiction clause for acts of torture might be hampered.16. In Greenland, the Criminal Code contains neither a definition nor an explicitprohibition of torture. A person can be sentenced to an indeterminate period of detentionin case of aggravated offences such as homicide, robbery, aggravated violence, rape orother aggravated sexual offences.
2.
Safeguards against torture and ill-treatment during arrest and detention
17. In general, the Special Rapporteur is highly satisfied with the legal frameworkproviding for procedural safeguards against torture and ill-treatment during arrest and
4
Act No. 316 of 30 April 2008, section 93B. When a criminal offence is covered by section 157A of thisAct, it shall not be subjected to the rules of limitation.5See also CAT/C/81/Add.2, para. 155.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 11detention,6above all the short maximum period of police custody of 24 hours after whicha detainee must be brought before a judge.718. He notes that upon arrest a medical examination depends upon the request of thearrested person or the police deeming an examination to be necessary.8However, itseems that little or no information on exercising this right is provided to the arrestedpersons, although, according to the Government, upon arrest detainees receive a formwhich explains their right to contact and to be examined by an independent doctor.9Theform also requests detainees to inform the police of any disease requiring treatment. Ageneral medical screening is not required upon the prisoner’s arrival at the prison.However, according to the Government, the executive order on health care for inmates inthe institutions of the Prison and Probation Service prescribes that all new prisoners beoffered (orally) a consultation with the nurse or doctor of the institution andconsequently, in practice, prisoners might have a brief interview with medical staff.19. The Administration of Justice Act of Greenland provides only a limited number ofsafeguards. Safeguards are also contained in Chief Constable of Greenland order No. 1 of2 May 2008 on confinement in prison and detention cells, which lays down rules relatingto order and security, to the tasks of staff and to the rights and duties of detainees.Further, the order regulates searches and the locking of cells, provides for measures to betaken in case of illness and prescribes that complaints regarding treatment in detentioncan be made in writing to the Chief Constable, or to the competent district judge. The
6
For example, provisions concerning arrest (Administration of Justice Act, sections, 730, 755(4), 758,, and821); use of force by police (Police Act No. 444 of 09/06/2004); safeguards for remand prisoners(Administration of Justice Act, sections 764 (1), 767(1), and 768); safeguards for convicted prisoners(Execution of Sentences Consolidation Act No 1337 of 03/12/2007, sections 4, 24, 31(1), 43, 51 (1)-(2),and 53 (1)); and coercive measures against prisoners, such as searches (Execution of SentencesConsolidation Act, sections 60, and 61), and use of force (section 62 (1)). Prisoners who are fixated shall beunder permanent supervision, and a doctor shall see to the fixated prisoner, unless the doctor deems thisclearly unnecessary (sections 65 and 66).7Constitutional Act, section 71(3) and Administration of Justice Act, section 760.8Ministry of Justice circular of 20 January 1997 and revised circular of 20 June 2001. See also ExecutiveOrder No. 374 of 17 May 2001 on medical and health-related assistance in institutions under the DanishPrison and Probation Service, which provides that staff shall immediately comply with a request by aprisoner to see a doctor.9Available in Danish, English, German, Arabic, French, Spanish and Turkish.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 12regulation on institutional stay in Greenland, see section 48, also outlines rules regardingconditions for detainees in police detention.10
3.
Complaints and investigations of acts of torture
20. The body of rules concerning complaints against the police is to be found in theAdministration of Justice Act, sections 93 b – 93 d.11Complaints against police conduct(e.g. violence and heavy-handed treatment in connection with arrest, etc.) or criminaloffences (e.g. violations of provisions cited in paragraph 14, above) are filed with theregional public prosecutors, who examine the complaints, investigate them and decide onwhether to proceed with prosecutions. Where a person has died or has been seriouslyinjured as a consequence of police action, the prosecutor initiates the investigation exofficio. The regional public prosecutor notifies the complaint to the regional policecomplaints board (PCB), which is a panel comprised of a lawyer and two lay persons,appointed to monitor the regional public prosecutor’s processing of the complaint. ThePCB has no investigatory power, but may indicate to the regional public prosecutor itsopinion on how to proceed with the complaint. Appeals against the decisions of theregional public prosecutors can be made to the Director of Public Prosecutions(Rigsadvokaten). Annual reports to parliament and the Ministry of Justice, which arepublicly available, aim to increase the transparency of the activities, initiatives,challenges of the complaint system, as well as to highlight selected cases.21. The Special Rapporteur notes that, according to information provided by theGovernment, in the period 2004 to 2007 criminal charges against police personnel inrelation to assault (sections 244-246), or causing danger intentionally (section 252) werebrought by the regional public prosecutor in about one or two cases per year. In thisperiod all such cases resulted either in the acquittal of the police personnel or inconvictions without penalties.A new Administration of Justice Act and Criminal Law for Greenland containing more detailedsafeguards has been adopted and will enter into force in January 2010.11See Director of Public Prosecutions (Rigsadvokaten),Police Complaints Board Cases in Denmark,2002.See also overview in CAT/C/34/Add.3, paras. 84-86.10
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 13
22. In Denmark it is the Ministry of Justice which has authority over the police, theProsecution Service and the Prison and Probation Service.12This has been one of the keygrounds for criticism levelled at the current complaints system, in combination with thepotential for conflict of interest. For example, concern has been expressed that theindependence of investigations of acts by police personnel might be compromised in lightof the customary close collaboration between prosecutors and the police in fightingcrime. Criticism has also been voiced as to the efficiency in handling cases in a timelymanner. The Special Rapporteur notes that the Ministry of Justice established acommittee to review the system of complaints in October 2006.23. The Police Complaints Board for Greenland13can receive complaints regardingpolice conduct and criminal proceedings brought against police officers and request andadvise the Chief Constable to investigate the cases. In addition, the Chief Constable caninitiate investigationsproprio motuon the basis of a reasonable presumption that a policeofficer has committed a criminal act while on duty. He is obliged to carry out aninvestigation when a person has been seriously injured or has died as a result of policeintervention. The PCB can take disputes which arise with the Chief Constable, includingdisputes over his decisions on complaints, to the Director of Public Prosecutions.According to the Government, out of 12 criminal indictments brought against policepersonnel in the period 2004-2007, three resulted in convictions in relation to ill-treatment and/or sexual abuse and one in relation to a lack of observation of a detaineewho committed suicide. The corresponding penalties ranged from fines up to six months’imprisonment.
See http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/english/.Act No. 905 of 16 December 1998 on consideration of complaints and criminal proceedings concerningpolice staff in Greenland entered into force on 1 January 2000.13
12
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 144.Parliamentary Ombudsman/national preventive mechanism
24. The parliamentary Ombudsman is inter alia mandated to inspect institutions wherepersons are deprived of their liberty and to handle prisoner complaints.14However, ingeneral, since there is an established complaints mechanism to deal with police conductand criminal offences, the Ombudsman typically refers related complaints to thismechanism.25. In October 2007, as required by the Optional Protocol to the Convention againstTorture, the parliamentary Ombudsman was designated as the national body responsiblefor monitoring all places of deprivation of liberty in Denmark, the national preventivemechanism (NPM). Given that inspecting places where persons are deprived of theirliberty is one of the core activities of the Ombudsman, this designation was notsurprising. However, some observers pointed out that, although the institution of theOmbudsman carries out inspections regularly, it is presently unable to carry out visitssystematically as envisaged by the Optional Protocol. Apart from the fact that asignificant increase in resources, including staffing (e.g. health professionals), would beneeded, it has been argued that the designation as NPM would transform the characterand functioning of the current institution of parliamentary Ombudsman into a moreinspection-focused body, which may require legislative amendments.
5.
Rehabilitation of torture victims
26. The Special Rapporteur notes that Denmark is playing a leading role in the area ofrehabilitation for victims of torture. In Copenhagen, it hosts the InternationalRehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT), which is a pioneering institution inthis field. The nationally-focused Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims(RCT) was established in 1982. Up to 2005 the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairsfinanced the rehabilitation of torture victims. Since 2006, the costs for the rehabilitationThe Ombudsman Act, Act No. 473 of 12 June 1996 available athttp://www.ombudsmanden.dk/english_en/14
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 15of torture victims by RCT in Denmark have been covered by the Danish health-caresystem. Denmark has a “free choice hospital act”, which allows patients to choose thehospital or institution at which they wish to receive their treatment. The act refers to RCTand several other Danish rehabilitation centres for torture victims. Thus, the rehabilitationof torture victims is integrated into the public health system, and torture victims receivetreatment at specialized rehabilitation centres free of charge.
II. THE SITUATION OF TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT27. The Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize with satisfaction that he did notreceive any allegations of torture prior to or during his visit to Denmark. Also, hereceived only very few complaints of ill-treatment of detainees during the visit (seeparagraphs 7, 26 and 33 of the appendix).28. In these cases, the Special Rapporteur appealed to the authorities to ensure that theallegations were effectively addressed and wishes to express his gratitude for thethorough responses he received (reflected in paragraphs 8, 27 and 34 of the appendix).The Special Rapporteur encourages the Government to continue to ensure that allallegations of torture and ill-treatment are meticulously investigated and perpetrators areappropriately punished, in a manner that ensures public confidence in the system.
III. CONDITIONS OF DETENTION
A. Principle of normalization29. The Special Rapporteur was impressed with the conditions of detention in the eightfacilities he visited in Denmark and Greenland. The hallmark of the prison system inDenmark is the “principle of normalization”,15meaning that life behind bars shall reflectto as great an extent as possible life on the other side. Taken together with an attentive15
www.kriminalforsorgen.dk:“A Programme and Principles for Prison and Probation Work in Denmark”.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 16approach to the concerns of detainees by prison staff, the outcome is a prison system thatstands apart from others. The result is generally a high standard of conditions of detentioninside Danish prisons, both in terms of infrastructure and day-to-day living standards.Prisoners are accommodated in single cells which they can arrange as they like, thusgranting each prisoner privacy and autonomy to the extent possible. The facilities arekept clean and decorated and prisons are equipped with libraries, computers and sportsgear.30. Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of exercising responsibility, a varietyof activities in workshops are offered to prisoners, and most detainees are on self-cookingregime. Additionally, in line with the principle of openness, inmates have numerousopportunities to make and maintain contacts outside prisons, including through veryliberal visiting policies.31. One particularly impressive area which the Special Rapporteur wishes to highlightare the Government's efforts, together with civil society, to aid and encourage contactbetween prisoners and their children by establishing a child-friendly environment withindetention facilities.16He notes that children of convicted prisoners up to three may livewith their mother or father in prison, provided that he or she is capable of taking care ofthe child (e. g. Horserød State Prison).17Engelsborg Prison has a family house with fiveflats where inmates may stay together with their partner and children of up to 15 years ofage.32. With regard to child visitors, in 2004 the Department of Prisons and Probation setout minimum standards for visiting facilities: they must appear light and friendly, benicely decorated, and have a suitable selection of toys to stimulate contact betweenprisoners and their children. Some prisons are equipped with play areas and family roomswhere visiting families may stay overnight. East Jutland State Prison offers two visitingflats where inmates may receive family visits for up to 48 hours. In many prisons visiting1617
Det Kriminalpraeventive Rad, Faengsledes born - en udsat gruppe, February 2005.Executive order No.737 of 25/06/07, sections 16 and 17.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 17children are allowed to move about in the entire prison area, so that prisoners may takethem to sports facilities and play and cooking areas. In the opinion of the SpecialRapporteur, the refurbishment of the children’s visiting area of Vridsløselille State Prisonstands out as an excellent example of how a child’s meeting with their incarcerated parentcan be positively transformed in an inexpensive manner through the joint efforts of prisonstaff, prisoners and civil society.33. Furthermore, with reference to the principle of normalization, a significantproportion of prisons are open or semi-open institutions. In Greenland, there is no closedprison, which reflects the culture of Greenlandic society. Prisons are also characterizedby the fact that male and female prisoners are not separated (see chapter IV below), andmale and female staff can work together in male and female sections.34. The Special Rapporteur commends the excellent conditions of detention andpsychological treatment provided to detainees with special needs, including sexualoffenders in Herstedvester Institution. He was also informed of the libido-suppressingtreatment for sexual offenders (“medical castration”). He notes that such therapies allowsexual offenders to be released and lead a life outside prison. Whereas extensiveconsultation and preparation seems to be undertaken prior to such treatment and theprinciple of informed consent appears to be respected, the Special Rapporteur learned thatoften the detainee’s consent is motivated by the fact that he otherwise cannot obtainpermission for leave or release on parole/conditional discharge. The Special Rapporteurconsiders that such treatment should only be used as a last resort where other therapieshave failed to help the detainee.1835. Since no closed prisons presently exist in Greenland, Greenlanders convicted ofserious offences, or committed to psychiatric institutions must serve their sentence inDenmark, mostly in Herstedvester Institution. On the positive side, the Prison and18
According to the Government, the treatment is only offered as a last resort to persons who havecommitted very serious sexual offences and are at risk of relapsing into the same type of offences and onlywith the agreement of the Medico-Legal Council. Only two to four prisoners per year commence suchtreatment.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 18Probation Service has taken steps to improve the conditions for Greenlanders inHerstedvester Institution by ensuring that staff from Greenland who speak the samelanguage and understand the culture, are rotated through the unit. In this context, theSpecial Rapporteur welcomes the decision by the Government and Greenlandicauthorities to build a new closed prison in Greenland in order to avoid Greenlandershaving to serve their sentence a long way from home and relatives. The SpecialRapporteur encourages the Greenlandic authorities to ensure that Greenlandic detaineeswith special needs get equally professional treatment in the new prison in Greenland asthey receive in Herstedvester Institution.36. The Special Rapporteur notes that, as a matter of policy, gang members are strictlyseparated from other detainees, mostly in special prison wings. While he fullyunderstands the Government’s argument that placing gang members in special units isnecessary to maintain reasonable conditions, including safety for other inmates, theSpecial Rapporteur is of the opinion that a total separation of convicted gang members asa rule might run against the principle of normalization.
B. Solitary confinement37. The practice of solitary confinement has a long tradition in Denmark. Solitaryconfinement of remand prisoners on the basis of a court decision is used to isolatesuspects during criminal investigations in pre-trial detention, whereas administrativesolitary confinement (reduced19or total exclusion from association with other detainees)may be imposed on remand and convicted prisoners on the basis of an administrativedecision by the prison authorities as a punishment for disciplinary infractions.38.At the request of the police, under the Administration of Justice Act, the court candecide that a detainee be remanded in solitary confinement for investigative purposes fora maximum period of up to eight weeks. In exceptional circumstances, this period may beReduced exclusion from association with other detainees means that the detainee is allowed associationwith one or a few other fellow detainees.19
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 19extended at the request of the prosecutor to six months or even longer.20In this regard,the Government emphasized that solitary confinement of remand prisoners based on acourt decision is strictly restricted to situations where there are specific reasons topresume that the accused will impede the prosecution of the case, particularly byremoving evidence or warning or influencing others. It further stated that the number ofremand prisoners in solitary confinement on the basis of court decisions had droppedfrom 475 in 2006 to 273 in 2007. Also, the number of persons held for more than eightweeks in solitary confinement had dropped from 55 in 2006 to 19 in 2007.21Since theGreenlandic Administration of Justice Act contains no provisions according to whichsolitary confinement can be imposed following a court decision, the decision to exclude aprisoner from association with others is to be made after having presented the case to thelegal staff of the Chief Constable’s office.2239.Prisonersmay be held in administrative solitary confinement on the basis of anadministrative decision inter alia to prevent escape, criminal activities or violentbehaviour. It shall be carried out as leniently as possible and shall cease as soon as theconditions for applying this measure no longer exist and must be reconsidered at leastonce a week by the prison authorities.23In case of exclusion from association for moreSee Act on the Administration of Justice, sections 770 (b),(c), (d).. Unless exceptional circumstancesprevail, pre-trial solitary confinement cannot: exceedtwo weeks, where the person is charged with acriminal offence punishable by less than four years’ imprisonment; four weeks, where the person is chargedwith an offence punishable by more than four and less than six years’ imprisonment; and eight weeks,where the person is charged with an offence punishable by six or more years’ imprisonment. In exceptionalcircumstances, in cases where the person detained may, if convicted, be sentenced to more than two yearsof imprisonment, the period of solitary confinement may be extended at the request of the prosecutor,during the pre-trial phases of the proceedings. In such cases, solitary confinement may not exceed sixmonths, unless the person is charged with drug trafficking, homicide, a crime against the state or aterrorism offence under chapters 12 and 13 of the Criminal Code (section 770(c)(4), Act on theAdministration of Justice). Solitary confinement beyond eight weeks is subject to approval by the Directorof Public Prosecution (section 770 (d) (3) Act on the Administration of Justice). Minors may only be heldin solitary confinement if most exceptional circumstances make this necessary (section 770 (b) (2), Act onthe Administration of Justice). The maximum length of solitary confinement without interruption is fourweeks, unless the person is charged with an intentional violation of a provision of chapter 12 or 13 of theCriminal Code (crime against the State/terrorism).Solitary confinement of minors beyond four weeks issubject to approval by the Director of Public Prosecution (section 770 (d)(3) Act on the Administration ofJustice).21Statistics for 2008 are not yet available.22The new Administration of Justice Act of Greenland which will enter into force in January 2010regulates in detail (section 373-377) solitary confinement based on a preceding court decision.23Enforcement of Sentences Act, section 63 (1) and (7).20
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 20than four weeks, the prison must report the case to the Department of Prisons andProbation, and submit a report every four weeks. Administrative solitary confinement in adisciplinary cell may be imposed for a maximum of four weeks on a convicted prisoner24and for a maximum of two weeks on a remand prisoner25as a disciplinary punishment.Similarly, a prisoner suspected of having breached rules which prima facie result indisciplinary cell punishment may be placed in an interrogation cell for at most fivedays.2640. During the visit the Special Rapporteur came across a number of prisoners that wereheld in solitary confinement, i.e. obliged to spend 22-23 hours per day in their cell (seeappendix paragraphs 6, 9, 10 and 15). No communication with other prisoners ispermitted. Prisoners are allowed 30 minutes of outdoor exercise on their own, twice aday. Three meals a day are served inside the cell.41. Whereas the Government stressed that solitary confinement of pre-trial detaineesmay not be used as a means of coercion to extort a confession or information, the SpecialRapporteur noted instances where pre-trial detainees reported that the police used thethreat of extending solitary confinement to coerce detainees to cooperate in aninvestigation (see e.g. appendix paras 8 and 9).27If prolonged solitary confinement isused for the purpose of extracting a confession, it may amount to torture.42. In the face of significant evidence which points to the serious and adversepsychological effects of solitary confinement, especially on pre-trial detainees, who are atEnforcement of Sentences Act, section 70.Act on the Administration of Justice, section 775 (1).26In 2007, 631 prisoners were held in administrative solitary confinement, of whom 306 were isolated for amaximum of 7 days; 159 for between 8 and 14 days; 127 for between 15 and 28 days; and 39 for more than28 days. In the first six months of 2008, 300 prisoners were held in solitary confinement based on theorders of the prison authorities, of whom 152 up to 7 days; 74 between 8 and 14 days; 54 between 15 and28 days; and 20 for more than 28 days.27See also Report on the visit to Denmark carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention ofTorture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 28 January to 4 February 2002,CPT/Inf (2002) 18, para. 39: “many prisoners perceived solitary confinement and restrictions on contactswith the outside world as a means of pressure to make them confess; some prisoners alleged that the policehad plainly stated that those measures would be eased or lifted if they cooperated. It would appear that itwas not uncommon for confessions to be immediately followed by the discontinuation of such measures.”2524
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 21increased risk of self-harm within the first two weeks of detention,28Denmark has comeunder sustained criticism for its extensive use of solitary confinement.“[The] last thirty years has seen a certain response from the Danish authorities,and, compared to the original situation in the 1970s, a significant decline in theuse of pre-trial solitary confinement. But the Danish State has always been veryreluctant to acknowledge any problems officially, and solitary confinement is stillnot used just in exceptional circumstances as recommended by the CPT(European Committee for the Prevention of Torture). Altogether one mustconclude that Denmark’s willingness to uphold a practice which doctors andpsychologists recommend abolishing and its reluctance to meet internationalrecommendations reveal qualities which run counter to the Danish (andScandinavian) self-image of humanitarian leniency and decency in all areas ofstate and society.”2943. According to rule 43.2 of the European Prison Rules, “the medical practitioner or aqualified nurse reporting to such a medical practitioner shall pay particular attention tothe health of prisoners held under conditions of solitary confinement, shall visit suchprisoners daily, and shall provide them with prompt medical assistance and treatment atthe request of such prisoners or the prison staff.”30It is noteworthy to recall that when theEuropean Prison Rules were adopted, “the Representative of Denmark reserved the rightof his government to comply or not with Rule 43 paragraph 2 … because it is of theopinion that the requirement that prisoners held under solitary confinement be visited by
See P. Scharff Smith, "The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: a brief history and reviewof the literature",Crime and Justice, Vol. 34,Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, M. Tonry, ed.(Chicago University Press, 2006), pp. 441-528; and P. Scharff Smith, “Solitary confinement: anintroduction to the Istanbul Statement on the use and effects of solitary confinement”,Journal onRehabilitation of Torture Victims and Prevention of Torture,vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 56-62.29P. Scharff Smith, “Prisons and human rights: the case of solitary confinement in Denmark and the USfrom the 1820s until today”,Human Rights in Turmoil,S. Lagoutte, H-O. Sano, P. Scharff Smith, eds.(Netherlands, Brill, 2006), pp. 221-248.30Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministersto member states on the European Prison Rules, 11 January 2006.
28
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 22medical staff on a daily basis raises serious ethical concerns regarding the possible role ofsuch staff in effectively pronouncing prisoners fit for further solitary confinement.”3144. The Special Rapporteur, in a recent report (A/63/175, paragraphs 77-85), pointedout that he shares the concern of the Human Rights Committee, the Committee againstTorture and the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which have recommended that theuse of solitary confinement be minimized. Regarding Denmark, the Committee againstTorture called on the Government to reduce the use of solitary confinement under strictsupervision and with a possibility of judicial review, and recommended that Denmarkshould aim to abolish the practice, particularly during pre-trial detention.3245. The Special Rapporteur, echoing the findings of the Council of Europe’s Committeeon the Prevention of Torture,33considers that the use of solitary confinement should bekept to a minimum; used in very exceptional cases, for as short a time as possible andonly as a measure of last resort. Whereas solitary confinement for a maximum limit ofjust a few days may be necessary as a last resort for grievous breaches of prisondiscipline, its use in pre-trial cases may amount to a form of coercion, and as such couldconstitute ill-treatment or torture. Furthermore, prisoners with known mental disordersare at increased risk of harm from solitary confinement and should never be held in theseconditions.46. Regardless of the specific circumstances of the use of solitary confinement, effort isrequired to raise the level of social contacts for prisoners: prisoner contact with prisonstaff, allowing access to social activities with other prisoners, allowing more visits, andproviding access to mental health services.
Ibid. footnote 1.CAT/C/DNK/CO/5, para. 14.33Report to the Government of Denmark on the visit to Denmark carried out by the European Committeefor the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), CPT/Inf (2008)26, para. 42.32
31
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 23C. Detention of foreigners and asylum-seekers47. The Special Rapporteur visited the Ellebaek closed detention centre for foreigners, ahigh-security facility for rejected or incoming asylum-seekers. He was encouraged by thelow number of asylum-seekers held in detention,34and found the conditions to besatisfactory, but well below the high standards found in the Danish prison system ingeneral.35The primary concern of the Special Rapporteur related to the detainees’perception of uncertainty as to how long they would remain in detention, since Danishlegislation does not provide for a maximum period of deprivation of liberty. He wasinformed of cases where persons had been detained for 18 months. In the opinion of theSpecial Rapporteur, deprivation of liberty for administrative reasons for a prolongedperiod without knowing the length of the detention may amount to inhuman anddegrading treatment.48. The Special Rapporteur notes that an alien must be brought before a court for it torule on the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty (section 37(1) of the Aliens Act). Thecourt must fix a time-limit for the detention, which it may extend repeatedly by fourweeks each time. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that such a mandatoryhabeas corpus procedure exists and that free legal aid is provided to all aliens indetention. However, according to information received, in the past five years, on only twooccasions did the court not confirm the prolongation of detention when requested by thepolice. Furthermore the Special Rapporteur was informed that about 50 per cent of theinmates of Ellebaek accept an automatic prolongation of their detention by signing adocument to that effect in advance.36To the Special Rapporteur, these are signs that defacto the procedure of legal challenge of deprivation of liberty under article 37 of theAliens Act is not as effective as one might expect.
Fifty-eight persons on the day of the visit of the Special Rapporteur. According to the Government, on 1November 2008, 41 asylum-seekers were held there, which indicates a further decrease.35See footnote 33 above, para. 85.36According to the Government, in cases where a person has accepted and signed the prolongation of thedetention, this prolongation must always be approved by the court.
34
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 24IV. WOMEN
A. Domestic violence against women49. In light of the Special Rapporteur’s report to the Human Rights Council on using theanti-torture framework to strengthen the global campaign to end violence againstwomen,37he is pleased to note that the attention to domestic violence by the Governmentof Denmark has begun to show positive effects as the number of cases reported seems tohave decreased.3850. A number of provisions in the Criminal Code are relevant in this regard: rape iscriminalized under sections 216 and 217 of chapter 24 on sexual offences; section 237, onhomicide; section 244, on less severe violence; section 245, on more severe violence; andsection 246, on severe violence, generally with permanent injury of the victim. Undersection 265 the police can issue a warning, prohibiting a person to intrude on, pursue inwriting or otherwise molest a specific person, and often used in cases concerningharassment of a former partner or spouse. Disregarding such a warning, the person shallbe liable to a fine of up to two years of imprisonment. Act No. 449 of 9 June 2004 (Acton Expulsion) establishes that the police under specific circumstances can expel a personfrom the home. The police can also prohibit the person in question to intrude on, pursuein writing or otherwise molest a member of the household, and likewise the personsubject to the expulsion can be prohibited from staying within a determined distance fromthe home, work place or educational institution of a member of the household. Further thepolice can lend assault alarms to women at risk of assault.
A/HRC/7/3.SeeMen’sVviolence Against Women, Extent, Characteristics – and the Measures Against Violence -2007(National Institute of Public Health, Syddansk University and the Minister for Gender Equality,Copenhagen, 2008). See also Department of Gender Equality, “Report on initiatives to combat domesticviolence against women”, 23 April 2008.38
37
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 2551. Denmark has made female genital mutilation a separate crime under section 245a ofthe Criminal Code, which is subject to a maximum penalty of a six-year prison term.39Inthe first case under the provision, the Special Rapporteur notes that in June 2008, aDanish couple of Sudanese origin were arrested on suspicion of having taken their twodaughters to Sudan in 2003 for circumcision.4052. The Special Rapporteur notes that a nationwide network consisting of free local andindependent counselling services for victims has been established pursuant to Act No.349 of 23 May 1997 concerning the strengthening of the legal status of crime victims,The legal status of victims of crimes has also been strengthened as a result of Act No. 558of 24 June 2005 and Act No. 517 of 6 June 2007. In 2000, the Director of PublicProsecutions issued a special directive concerning investigation in relationship matters tothe effect that the police should carry out an ex-officio criminal investigation, when it isobvious that one of the parties has been the victim of an assault. In 2008, the directivewas replaced by a new one containing further instructions for investigations, as well asfor the support given to victims. On 30 June 2006, the Director of Public Prosecutionsissued a circular note entitled “Honour killing and other punishable offences related toculturally or religiously conditioned norms or conceptions of honour” and, on 22 January2007, a “Strategy for the police effort in honour-related crimes”. Another strategy on,among other things, cooperation in the area of domestic violence cases, and establishmentof special units within the police districts was developed by the National Police, togetherwith the Prosecution Service, in 2007.53. The Special Rapporteur commends the Government’s efforts in carrying outsuccessful awareness-raising campaigns on domestic violence, which have contributed tothe reduction of gender-specific violence, including through successive plans of action.For example, the “Action plan to stop men’s domestic violence against women andchildren 2005-2008” aims to provide support to victims, treatment facilities forIn combination with section 7(3) of the Code, acts abroad by nationals or residents, may be covered evenif excision is not punishable under the law of the foreign State.40Politiken.dk, "Forældre anholdt for omskæring af døtre," 12 June 2008,http://politiken.dk/indland/article523017.ece.39
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 26perpetrators, strengthen cooperation between Government agencies and increaseknowledge about the phenomenon of domestic violence.54. In Greenland, the Special Rapporteur expressed serious concern in relation to thehigh incidence of assault and sexual offences against women. A study by the NationalInstitute for Public Health showed that 60 per cent of women in Greenland aged 18 to 24were victims of assaults or threats; a third of whom were victims of aggravated assaults.41Thirty-four per cent of these women were victims of sexual assaults; 12.5 per centalready when they were children. Among female victims, 58 per cent claimed that theoffender was their husband or live-in partner. The Special Rapporteur regrets that actionagainst domestic violence has so far not received adequate attention in Greenland despitethe severity of the problem. In this regard, he welcomes information that the Home RuleGovernment has committed to elaborating a “National strategy for prevention of rape,sexual harassment and sssaults.” Cooperation with authorities, such as the Department forGender Equality and relevant organizations in Denmark, is encouraged.
B. Trafficking55. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the Government’s holistic approach towardsaddressing the problem of human trafficking, which includes coordination and cross-sectoral collaboration of various ministries and other partners.42The establishment of theCentre for Human Trafficking to coordinate action is one concrete example of theGovernment’s commitment in this regard. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur notes thatthe “Action plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings 2007-2010”43builds upon theexperience of earlier plans of action. He notes that the latter focuses on strengtheninginvestigation efforts in order to identify and have the men responsible for traffickingbrought to justice; supporting the victims by strengthening the social services inDenmark; prevention by limiting demand and enhancing the population’s awareness oftrafficking; and improving international cooperation.4142
Quoted in the 2007 Activity Report of the Greenland Police.Department of Gender Equality, “Report on initiatives to combat human trafficking”, 23 April 2008.43Available at http://ligeuk.itide.dk/files/PDF/Handel/Menneskehandel_4K.pdf.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 27
56. In addition to section 262a of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes trafficking inhuman beings, pursuant to the 2007-2010 plan of action, on 1 August 2007, anamendment to the Danish Aliens Act came into force to put into effect the ratification ofthe Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Womenand Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against TransnationalOrganized Crime and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking inHuman Beings. It provided for the so-called “assisted voluntary return programme”,which entails three key improvements over the existing regime on trafficking: anextended “reflexion period” lasting up to 100 days, up from 30 days, where victims canstay in Denmark provided they agree to be repatriated and cooperate in investigations;victims are offered a prepared repatriation, which includes legal and psychologicalassistance, health treatment and social-pedagogical support, and reception by a socialorganization or NGO in the country of origin; and victims will no longer be punished byexpulsion.57. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that the efforts of the Government in relationto the phenomenon of trafficking in persons are a significant improvement on whatexisted previously. However, despite greater attention to victims, in the opinion of theSpecial Rapporteur the efforts are not sufficiently victim-centred; the efforts appear to beaimed less at the rehabilitation of victims of trafficking in Denmark than at repatriatingthem to their countries of origin.
C. Non-separation of men and women in prisons58. During his visits to detention facilities, the Special Rapporteur observed the practiceof accommodating male and female detainees in the same premises, based on theprinciple of normalization. While in most places such arrangements were voluntary, thiswas not the case in Nuuk Prison in Greenland. As regards non-separation of men andwomen in places of detention, the Special Rapporteur recalls that international standardscall for the segregation of men and women. In the Standard Minimum Rules for the
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 28Treatment of Prisoners, rule 8 (a) provides: “The different categories of prisoners shall bekept in separate institutions or parts of institutions taking account of their sex, age,criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment.Thus, men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate institutions.”44Similarly, the European Prison Rules provide in Rule 18.8 (b): “In deciding toaccommodate prisoners in particular prisons or in particular sections of a prison dueaccount shall be taken of the need to detain male prisoners separately from females.”4559. In accordance with these rules, on previous country visits he has called on States torigorously observe them where he has found evidence of non-separation.46The SpecialRapporteur notes that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture andInhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has previously commented on thepractice of non-separation in Denmark.47In more general terms, the CPT stated:“The duty of care which is owed by a State to persons deprived of their libertyincludes the duty to protect them from others who may wish to cause them harm.The CPT has occasionally encountered allegations of woman upon woman abuse.However, allegations of ill-treatment of women in custody by men (and, moreparticularly, of sexual harassment, including verbal abuse with sexualconnotations) arise more frequently, in particular when a State fails to provideseparate accommodation for women deprived of their liberty with apreponderance of female staff supervising such accommodation. As a matter ofprinciple, women deprived of their liberty should be held in accommodationwhich is physically separate from that occupied by any men being held at thesame establishment.”48
See also rule 53, paras. 1-3.See footnote 30 above.46See for example A/HRC/7/3/Add.4, para. 75(s) and para. 52 of the appendix.47See footnote 33 above, para. 45.48European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,The CPT Standards, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2006, p. 77.45
44
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 2960. During his visit to Denmark, the Special Rapporteur discussed the practice of non-separation with a broad array of actors, including Government officials, women’sassociations, the parliamentary Ombudsman, and female detainees themselves. TheSpecial Rapporteur notes that the positive effects of such arrangements have long beenaccepted in Danish and Greenlandic society (e.g. free association eliminates the climateof institutionalization by allowing, to the extent possible, exercise of the kind of socialcontacts which exist outside institutions; it reduces aggression and other negative effectsof deprivation of liberty; and the co-mingling of sexes tends to reduce the powerdynamics at play amongst otherwise single-sex prisoner populations, either female ormale), as reflected in the principle of normalization.4961. On the other hand, while most female detainees appeared to be in favour ofcommunal living, it became apparent that they commonly formed relationships with maleinmates for purposes of protection, from either female detainees or from other males.Thus, while non-separation of sexes may diffuse female-female or male-male prisonerpopulation conflicts, in some cases it acts to reinforce male-female hierarchicalrelationships and carries the risk of violence against women and sexual abuse. Thesearrangements were confirmed by female detainees that the Special Rapporteur spoke within the institutions in Nuuk, Herstedvester and Vestre (see appendix paragraphs 17 and18). In fact, it is believed that the rate of marriage within prisons, which is on averagehigher than outside, is explained primarily by this.62. The Special Rapporteur fully appreciates the reasons provided by the Governmentand prison officials for allowing male and female detainees to be accommodated in thesame premises and recognizes that it is a widely accepted practice based on the opennessof Danish society, the principle of normalization and the progressive situation prevailing49
According to the Government, since in Greenland most institutions are small and not divided intosmaller units, it is impossible to offer women the opportunity to serve their sentences in units without men.Therefore, women, like men, serve their sentence close to their homes with the possibility of staying intheir local area. With regard to pre-trial detainees in Denmark, the Government confirmed that situationsmay occur in which there is only one female prisoner in a local prison who cannot be separated from maledetainees. If the woman wishes to be segregated from men, it is possible to arrange a transfer to anotherprison which has a female unit for pre-trial detainees.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 30in the prison system in Denmark and Greenland. However, given the risks of reinforcinghierarchical relationships and violence against women inherent in this practice, theinternational prison standards rightly call for a strict segregation of sexes. In light of thelatter, he urges the Government to ensure that communal living arrangements are alwaysvoluntary: placing a woman together with male prisoners must be based on hercompletely free and informed decision. The decision of a woman not to be together withmen must have no negative consequences and should not unduly restrict her access toeducation, work and recreational programmes.50Furthermore, he urges the Governmentto ensure that appropriate safeguards protecting women from violence and abuse are putin place and continuously monitored.63. The Special Rapporteur wishes to stress that the Danish policy is unique and canonly be justified in light of the special circumstances prevailing in Danish prisons inaccordance with the principle of normalization. It cannot serve as a model for othercountries where these particular conditions do not exist.
V. COUNTER-TERRORISM64. The Special Rapporteur expressed his concerns about recent developments orpractices in Denmark which may undermine the absolute prohibition of torture throughthe use of certain counter-terrorism strategies. Beyond any doubt, cooperation betweenvarious intelligence services is a necessary feature of the global fight against terrorism.However, where such cooperation involves the use of diplomatic assurances andcooperation in extraordinary renditions, it carries the risk of leading to complicity inhuman rights violations.
50
See M. Bastick and L. Townhead,Women in Prison: A Commentary on the UN Standard Minimum Rulesfor the Treatment of Prisoners,(Quaker United Nations Office, June 2008), p. 31.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 31A. Extraordinary renditions65. A Danish documentary broadcast on 30 January 2008 alleged that Danish andGreenlandic airports (e.g. Narsarsuaq) were used by the United States of America CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA) to transport prisoners as part of its renditions programme.51The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the establishment of an inter-ministerialworking group to investigate these allegations. The Special Rapporteur stronglyencourages the inclusion of independent experts and civil society to ensure a fullytransparent process.
B. Diplomatic assurances66. In accordance with section 45 (b)(1), Aliens (Consolidation) Act No. 945 of 1September 2006, non-nationals considered a threat to national security can be expelledupon the decision of the Minister of Integration (after recommendation by the Minister ofJustice and the Civil Security Service, PET). However, section 31(1) of the Aliens Act, inaccordance with article 3 of the Convention against Torture and articles 6 and 7 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, provides that an alien may not bereturned to a country where he or she will be at risk of facing the death penalty or ofbeing subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where thealien will not be protected from being sent on to such country.67. The Special Rapporteur is alarmed about consideration being given by theGovernment to employ diplomatic assurances to return suspected terrorists to countriesknown for their practice of torture.52The Special Rapporteur also refers to theInternational Herald Tribune, "Denmark to investigate reports of secret CIA prisoner flights landing onGreenland", 31 January 2008; and DR, "Dokumentar: CIA-fly mellemlandede i Grønland", 30 January2008 available athttp://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2008/01/30/050608.htm.See also EuropeanParliament, Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for thetransportation and illegal detention of prisoners, “Report on the alleged use of European countries by theCIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners”, A6-0020/2007, 30 January 2007, andworking document No. 8 (PE 380984).52Berlingske Tidende, "Lene Espersen: Vi skal ikke være en magnet for terrorister", 20 April 2008, andPolitiken.dk, "Denmark unable to return terror suspects to nations unwilling to sign agreements", 28 April51
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 32Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Defence of Afghanistan and theMinistry of Defence of Denmark of 8 June 2005 concerning the transfer of personsbetween the Danish contingent of the International Security Assistance Force and theAfghan authorities. According to the Committee against Torture, the principle ofnon-refoulementin article 3 of the Convention against Torture applies to transfers of detaineeswithin a State party’s custody to the custody whether de facto or de jure of any otherState.5368. As he has pointed out on numerous occasions, diplomatic assurances with regard totorture are nothing but attempts to circumvent the absolute prohibition of torture andnon-refoulement.54Further, diplomatic assurances are unreliable and ineffective in protectionagainst torture and ill-treatment. The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the opinion thatStates cannot resort to diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture and ill-treatment where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be indanger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment upon return.69. As the country leading diplomacy for anti-torture efforts worldwide, the SpecialRapporteur calls upon Denmark to also lead by example and refrain from usingdiplomatic assurances. Rather than pursuing efforts at the EU level aimed at introducingthe practice of diplomatic assurances, he encourages the Government to consider takingthe lead in efforts to develop a common European policy or approach aimed at theimprovement of conditions of detention and the situation of torture and ill-treatment inthe potential countries of return.
2008, and "Tunisian suspect in cartoonist murder plot leaves Denmark", 22 August 2008. The Governmentstated that a working party was established to consider the procedural rules related to administrativeexpulsion of foreign nationals, who are deemed to be a danger to national security, without risking thedeath penalty, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The mandate includes, interalia, the consideration of diplomatic assurances.53CAT/C/CR/33/3, 5(e); see also M. Nowak. and E. McArthur,The United Nations Convention againstTorture – A Commentary,Oxford Commentaries on International Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.198-199.54See for example, E/CN.4/2006/6, para. 32; and A/60/316, para. 51.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 33VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS70.The Special Rapporteur reiterates his appreciation to the Government ofDenmark for extending him an invitation to visit the country, and looks forward tocontinued cooperation in combating torture and ill-treatment.71.Denmark has a long-standing commitment to and leadership in combatingtorture world-wide. At the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, it isthe central player in mobilizing the international community by proposingresolutions on combating torture every year. In Europe, Denmark leads efforts onthe implementation of the European Union's foreign policy guidelines on torture inthird countries. Moreover, it has a long history of generous support to civil societyboth at home and abroad, particularly in the area of rehabilitation for victims oftorture. But apart from its role in international diplomacy, the Special Rapporteurwitnessed over the course of his visit, Denmark's genuine commitment toeradicating torture and ill-treatment first and foremost within the country. In fact,he did not receive any allegation of torture and only very few allegations of ill-treatment. Without question, the international community has much to learn fromDenmark's example.72.Based on his visits to prisons in Denmark and Greenland and his interviewswith prison inmates, as well as discussion with staff from the Prison and ProbationService, the Special Rapporteur concludes that in most institutions the conditions ofdetention are of a very high standard. The principle of normalization which servesas a backbone of Denmark’s prison system not only implies that many prisons inDenmark, including Greenland, are open prisons, but also brings about very goodday-to-day living standards for detainees who benefit from an excellentinfrastructure and a variety of activities. Particularly noteworthy are the veryliberal visiting policies, which allow detainees to maintain good contacts with theoutside world, and Denmark’s efforts to establish a child-friendly environmentwithin detention facilities. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur was impressed by
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 34the excellent conditions of detention and psychological treatment provided todetainees with special needs in Herstedvester Institution.73.The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that Denmark’s particular practice ofallowing male and female detainees to associate freely, based on the principle ofnormalization, is widely accepted in Danish society, including by female detainees.However, in light of international standards which advocate a segregation of thesexes and the risks of the practice of non-separation of men and women, he points tothe need to rigorously ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place and thatfemale detainees can freely decide whether or not they want to mix with men.74.Notwithstanding the Government’s efforts to reduce the use of solitaryconfinement, the Special Rapporteur, in line with the opinions expressed by theCommittee against Torture and the European Committee for the Prevention ofTorture, is concerned by the extensive recourse to this practice during criminalinvestigations in pre-trial detention, in order to manage certain categories ofconvicted prisoners or as a form of punishment for disciplinary infractions.Whereas solitary confinement may be used in very exceptional cases and for as shorta time as possible, its prolonged use may lead to severe mental suffering, which inparticular circumstances may be qualified as inhuman treatment. If prolonged pre-trial detention is used as a means of coercion to extort information or a confession, itmay amount to torture.75.With regard to detention of foreigners and asylum-seekers the SpecialRapporteur, while being encouraged by the low number of asylum-seekers indetention as compared with some other European countries, is concerned by the factthat there is no maximum period for such administrative detention. Prolongeddeprivation of liberty for administrative reasons without knowing the length of thedetention may amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. Furthermore,although mandatory habeas corpus proceedings exist, the Special Rapporteur
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 35received information indicating that legal challenges to administrative deprivationof liberty of foreigners are not effective in practice.76.The Special Rapporteur commends Denmark’s efforts in addressing domesticviolence against women and the trafficking of women, inter alia by amending itsdomestic legislation and carrying out successful awareness-raising campaigns,including through successive plans of action. However, in his opinion the efforts ofthe Government are aimed less at the rehabilitation of victims of trafficking inDenmark than preparing their return to their countries of origin. While regrettingthat in Greenland domestic violence has so far not been adequately addressed,despite the particular severity of the problem in this self-governing province, theSpecial Rapporteur is encouraged by the plans of the Home Rule Government toelaborate a national strategy for action with regard to this issue.77.The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the establishment of an inter-ministerial working group to investigate the alleged CIA rendition flights operatingthrough Denmark and Greenland. Nevertheless, he is alarmed about theconsideration recently being given by the Government to employ diplomaticassurances to return suspected terrorists to countries known for practising torture.Such practice would constitute an attempt to circumvent the absolute prohibition oftorture.78.The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government:
(a).
Incorporate a specific crime of torture in the criminal law;
(b).
Further reduce the use of solitary confinement, based on the unequivocal
evidence of its negative mental health effects upon detainees;
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 36(c).Set an absolute limit to the length of detention of foreigners pending
deportation, and review the practice of habeas corpus proceedings under section 37of the Aliens Act;
(d).
Give greater attention to the rehabilitation of victims of human trafficking in
Denmark;
(e).
Ensure that, where arrangements exist for male and female detainees to be
accommodated in the same premises, the decision of a woman to be placed togetherwith men is based on her completely free and informed decision, and scrupulouslymonitor appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse;
(f).
Refrain from the use of diplomatic assurances as a means of returning
suspected terrorists to countries known for practising torture;
(g).
Ensure that investigations into alleged CIA rendition flights using Danish
and Greenlandic airports are carried out in an inclusive and transparent manner;
(h).
Continue to promote and support international and national efforts relating
to the rehabilitation for victims of torture.
79.
Finally, the Special Rapporteur recommends, as a priority for the Greenland
Home Rule Government, that it develop and implement an adequately resourcedplan of action against domestic violence in Greenland in cooperation with actorswith relevant experience, such as the Ministry of Welfare and Gender Equality.
Appendix - cases
Introduction1.General information:The following are selected accounts of interviews of
detainees who consented to be interviewed by the Special Rapporteur and to be includedin the report. The Special Rapporteur conducted visits to detention facilities unannouncedand was able to hold private interviews with detainees in all facilities he visited. Ifdetainees did not wish that their interviews are recorded, the information provided is onlyreflected in the general findings of the report. Some detainees only agreed to ananonymous publication of their interviews.
NUUKPOLICESTATION(Visited on 2 and 3 May 2008)2.General information:The police station had four cells, each equipped with a
mattress, a blanket and a chair. The cells were used for police custody, but also forpersons in pre-trial detention because of lack of space in Nuuk Prison.aThere was a smallroom equipped with a fridge, a table, chairs, a sofa and a TV which could be used bydetainees who are not held in solitary confinement. All cells and rooms were undercontinuous video surveillance and illuminated 24 hours per day. On the evenings of theSpecial Rapporteur´s visit one person was detained in the facilities. The officer in chargereceiving the Special Rapporteur was Johan Westen.3.Mads Strom Hansen,aged 50, was arrested on 18 April 2008 at his apartment in
Nuuk and taken to the police station. After 24 hours he was brought before a court, whichremanded him to pre-trial solitary confinement. He was allowed to receive a visitor oncefor ten minutes in the presence of three police officers. Mr. Hansen sought and receivedmedical treatment for back pain, for which a doctor prescribed pain killers. Mr. Hansen
a
The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that in case a police cell is used for pre-trial detention,it is possible to equip the cell with one chair, one table and one bed.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 38reported that he had difficulties sleeping since the light in his cell was switched on 24hours per day because of the video surveillance system. He further complained that theunder-floor heating in the cell was set too high, and that he sometimes had to wait up to90 minutes until a police officer was available to escort him to the toilet outside his cell.4.With regardtothe light switched on for 24 hours in the cell of the detainee, the
Government stressed that there have been many suicide attempts in police detentionfacilities in Greenland. Video surveillance has contributed to preventing and reducing thepossibility of detainees to commit suicide or in other ways injure themselves. However,upon the Ombudsman’s request, revised Order No.1 of 2 May 2008 now contains rulesallowing for the light in police detentions to be switched off between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.,on the basis of a concrete estimate and following elaborate guidelines.
NUUKPRISON(Visited on 3 May 2008)5.General information:The prison has a total capacity of 64 inmates. On the day of
the visit the total number of detainees was 62, of whom seven were women. Seventeendetainees were held in pre-trial detention, and 45 were convicted. The institution is a“semi- open prison”. The majority of the convicted prisoners were allowed to go to workoutside the prison during the day. Men and women were detained together. The 24 prisonofficers were Danish and Greenlanders and included eight women. The prison wasdivided into a section for remand prisoners with eight cells, as well as two additionalsections (section A of 13 cells and section B of 14 cells). There were also two annexes forconvicted prisoners with 10 and 14 beds, respectively. Prisoners working outside theprison had furnished their rooms with items, including wide-screen televisions, stereos,etc., purchased with their wages. The prison has two observation cells, and one securitycell equipped with a bed with a five-point restraint system. The Special Rapporteur wasreceived by the officer in charge, Poul Hard.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 396.Female detainee,aged 30, was arrested on 6 April 2008 and has since been held in
pre-trial solitary confinement. The cell was equipped with a TV, sink and cupboard. Afterher arrest by two male police officers she was taken to the police station in Nuuk, whereshe stayed for some hours before being transferred to Nuuk Prison. Although she had theright to spend 30 minutes twice per day outside in the fresh air, she almost never madeuse of this right. She reported that she was not allowed to receive visitors, although hadseen her boyfriend three times since her arrest. She was in contact with her lawyer overthe phone. On 2 May, the court reportedly decided to prolong her solitary confinementfor another three months. During that period she was to undergo a psychologicalexamination pursuant to her criminal case. It was obvious from the interview that shesuffered severely from the one month she had spent in solitary confinement.7.Angunnguaq G. Fly,aged 19, was arrested in January 2008. After one week of
detention in pre-trial solitary confinement at Nuuk Police Station he was transferred toNuuk Prison. He was convicted in March 2008 and was detained in the semi-open wingfor convicted prisoners. He had been held in solitary confinement for two months, duringwhich he had been allowed to receive visits from his mother. He reported that in January,in response to his playing loud music in his cell, two prison officers entered his cell andpunched him in the face. He was dragged out of his cell and was punched again in thecorridor, which resulted in his mouth bleeding. He did not officially report the incident,though he informed his lawyer and was examined by a doctor.8.Accordingto the Government, the Department of Prisons and Probation requested
the Nuuk institution manager to make a statement. The institution manager stated that nonotes appeared to have been taken in connection with the incident mentioned. Nor hadany information surfaced elsewhere, and no actual complaint had been lodged by theinmate. However, based on the information in the Special Rapporteur’s report, theinstitution management interviewed the relevant inmate who maintained having been hit.The matter had therefore been reported to the police, which initiated an investigation. Inthis regard, the person in question, his defence attorney, as well as the doctor who carriedout the treatment would be contacted. Furthermore, the Government informed the Special
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 40Rapporteur that, by letter dated 13 October 2008, the institution in which the convictedperson was placed maintained that he had not been kept in solitary confinement in theinstitution. He had, however, been repeatedly placed in a single cell for different periodsranging from 24 hours up to seven days in connection with a number of disciplinaryoffences.9.Detaineeaged 30, reported that he was being held in pre-trial detention, pending a
criminal investigation. He was confined to his cell for 23 hours per day with two halfhour periods alone in the exercise yard. He was unable to speak with others except hislawyer. He was remanded for an additional 14 days at the request of the police. His co-accused were released on bail for cooperating with the police.10.Accordingto the Government, the person was held in solitary confinement from 11
April to 24 July 2008 for investigation purpose as part of a case, involving other persons.One person was released by the police as he had made an elaborate confession in relationto the charges raised against him before the District Court so that a continued detentioncould not be justified.
QUEENINGRID´SHOSPITAL, (PSYCHIATRICWARDA), NUUK, GREENLAND(Visited on 3 May 2008)11.General information:An overview of the facility was given by Dr. Jonna
Jacobsen. The psychiatric ward had 12 beds plus a capacity for seven outpatients. On theday of the visit, there were 10 in-patients, including three under compulsory treatmentorders, and one under the Court for psychiatric supervision. The Special Rapporteurspoke to a few patients who did not complain about their treatment.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 41POLICEHEADQUARTERSPRISON, COPENHAGEN(Visited on 6 May 2008)12.General information:Located in the headquarters of Copenhagen Police, the
Police Headquarters Prison is part of “Copenhagen Prisons,” which include the PoliceHeadquarters Prison, Vestre Prison and Nytorv Prison. Built in 1924, this high securityprison is a remand prison for so-called “negatively strong prisoners”, i.e. prisoners seento be exerting a highly negative influence on other prisoners. Prisoners detained in PoliceHeadquarters Prison are divided into five categories: Copenhagen-area convictedprisoners who are gang members; Copenhagen-area gang members in pre-trial detention;gang members from outside the Copenhagen area in pre-trial detention; convicted gangmembers with a sentence of less than 4 months; and persons in need of witness protectionor voluntary protection. All inmates were held in single cells and were allowed to have socalled “community time” of between two and four hours per day in their cells withanother inmate, as decided by the prison management, as well as one hour of open airexercise on the roof per day. The inmates had the right to receive one visit of 90 minutesper week. The prison had a total capacity of 25 inmates and 24 cells were occupied on theday of the visit. Eight of the detainees were convicted and 16 were held in pre-trialdetention, two of whom were in solitary confinement pursuant to a court decision, andone was prevented from association with others as an administrative measure. TheSpecial Rapporteur was received by Morten Gudman-Høyer, Deputy Governor ofCopenhagen Prisons.13.Velimir Mujovic,aged 39, had been detained in solitary confinement since 17
March 2008. He had been transferred to Police Headquarters Prison on 5 May. Hereported that he could not inform his family in Montenegro of his detention, although hedid have contact with his lawyer. Mr. Mujovic had no complaint regarding his treatmentin Police HQ Prison, but complained about the treatment in the prison in which he hadbeen detained previously.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 4214.Jørn Jønke Nielsen,aged 48, leader of a motorcycle gang, had been in pre-trial
detention since 2 January 2008. He was arrested on 27 December 2007. Before histransfer to the Police Headquarters Prison he was treated in the hospital for injuriessustained at the time of his arrest. Mr. Nielsen appointed himself as spokesperson ofdetainees, and the other detainees could see him privately (once per week). He waswriting a report about his 19 years of experience in Danish jails and claimed that he wasinstrumental in bringing about certain achievements in the treatment of prisoners throughhis complaints. He had no complaints about the prison staff.b15.Detainee,aged 25, gang member, had been detained for over one week in solitary
confinement at the Police Headquarters Prison with three months remaining of hissentence. His cell was approximately 4 m x 2 m with a bed, chair, television, and washbasin. Because of his aggressiveness, he chose to be brought to Police Headquarters inorder to be segregated from other prisoners and reduce the potential for violent conflict.But after having spent just over one week there he expressed his wish to go back. Hedescribed how difficult he found the regime, confined alone in his cell for 23 hours perday with one hour of open air alone on the roof. In the first days of his detention hecrushed a light bulb, and cut his arms with the broken glass, threatening to kill himself ifhe was not able to see his family, and was subsequently taken overnight to theobservation cell. He spent much of his day watching television, trying to exercise in hiscell, or packaging wall plugs as assigned work. For long periods he found himself staringat the walls, rocking his body and trying to suppress aggressive thoughts. He hadrequested to see a psychologist.
The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that the detainee had been formally appointed asspokesman.
b
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 43HERSTEDVESTERINSTITUTION, ALBERTSLUND(Visited on 7 May 2008)16.General information:Herstedvester was built in the early 1930s, and serves as the
treatment institution of the Prison and Probation Service for inmates in need ofpsychiatric or psychological treatment, particularly sexual offenders, or for inmates whocannot be housed in other prisons because of their behaviour. The institution has a totalcapacity of 153 places out of which 15 are open places and 138 are in the closed section.The closed section for women can accommodate 10 female detainees. All female inmatesstay in this separate section, but can mix with male inmates during the day if they chooseto do so. On the day of the visit the prison population was 152 inmates, including eightwomen. All except one were convicted. The closed institution is for convicts only,however, on occasion the institution receives remand prisoners who are detained undersection 777 of the Administration of Justice Act. The prison has a special section forGreenlandic inmates (21 on the day of the visit) who were supervised by two Greenlandicprison officers, two social workers, and Greenlandic interpreters. The prison has fourobservation cells and one security cell. It also has two single cells (equipped with a TVand fridge) which are mostly used for persons who voluntarily want to be separated fromother inmates; are persons with deviant behaviours; or are suicidal. The institutionincludes a sexual offender’s assessment centre that can accommodate 18 persons. Theprisoners usually spend 5-7 weeks in the assessment centre, and are then transferred toanother prison for treatment. The institution had 250 full-time staff members, including167 prison officers, 20 workshop masters, a librarian, teachers, six psychiatrists, ninepsychologists, a medical doctor, nine social workers and eight nurses. Eighty-seven percent of the inmates were serving a sentence of more than eight years, eight were serving alife sentence and 32 were serving an “indeterminate” sentence, according to Danishlegislation. The conditions of detention were excellent. The prison was equipped withworkshops, a library and computers for the use of prisoners. The institution wassurrounded by a large green garden. All inmates were detained in single cells which theycould decorate according to their will, and they were allowed to keep pets (e.g. oneprisoner kept an Australian parrot) in their cells. In one case, the Special Rapporteur
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 44received allegations of ill-treatment by the police. However, according to the forensicexpert accompanying the Special Rapporteur, the pattern was suggestive of self-inflictedwounds. The Special Rapporteur was received by the Deputy Governor, Ms. HanneHóegh Rassmussen and the Clinical Director, Ms. Birgit Jessen-Petersen.17.Female detainee,aged 23, was arrested in September 2003 and was detained in
Esbjoerg Arrest House and Ringkøbine until May 2005. In Ringkøbine she formed arelationship with a male inmate and became pregnant. After her conviction she wastransferred to Herstedvester Institution (and was separated from her boyfriend). She waslater transferred to Ringe Prison, where she gave birth. Following a psychologicalassessment it was decided that she was unable to care for her baby. She was separatedfrom her baby four days after the birth and given medicine to stop the production ofbreast milk. After eight months at Ringe Prison, she was transferred back toHerstedvester where she was held in isolation for some time as a protective measure fromexcessive attention she was receiving from the male prison population. In Herstedvester,she married an inmate but later separated. At the time of the interview, she was engagedwith another inmate who protected her. She cut herself twice but received appropriatetreatment for this. She was eligible for release in mid-May but preferred to stay atHerstedvester, because she was afraid of life outside the prison and wished to be with herboyfriend. Despite her traumatic experiences, she was in favour of the system of mixingmen and women in prison.18.Female detainee,aged 39. Before her transfer to Herstedvester Institution she had
been held for almost two years in pre-trial detention in Vestre Prison, the first 16 days ofwhich she spent in solitary confinement. On the second day of solitary confinement shetried to commit suicide by hanging and was subsequently transferred to another cellwhere she was able to look out of a window. She asked to see a psychologist orpsychiatrist but was treated only some week later. As a consequence of her experience inisolation she feels claustrophobic when entering small rooms. She reported that inHerstedvester Institution she received very good treatment to overcome these fears.Further, she reported that in Vestre Prison she witnessed an incident where violence
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 45against an inmate was used. She allegedly was told by the respective guard “you have notseen anything”. She prefers to be separated from men despite the fact that this leads to aloss of certain educational or recreational opportunities but reported that she is in favourof the system in which female detainees can choose whether to be or not with men.19.Withregard to this case, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that
Copenhagen Prisons have a special scheme under which a nurse carries out a healthcheck within 24 hours after imprisonment. This may be brought forward if the prisonstaff is worried about the inmate’s condition and requests such a check. If the nurse findsit necessary, medical attendance may be provided on the same day, as doctors are presenton all workdays. Outside normal working hours and on Sundays/public holidays, a doctorcan be called from home. If an inmate requests a consultation with a psychologist orpsychiatrist, he/she will first have to see a prison doctor, who will assess the need forreferral to a psychologist/psychiatrist. The consultation with the doctor will typically takeplace the day after the inmate has made the request, unless in case of an emergency.20.Male detainee,aged 63, Greenlander. Since 1975 he has – with some short
interruptions – repeatedly been in prison in Greenland and Denmark for rape. From 1994to 1997 he was detained in solitary confinement in Asiat and Nuuk in Greenland and thentransferred to Herstedvester. He reported that for two years he refused medical castration,but eventually agreed to this treatment since the only alternative was a life in prison. Hehad been undergoing this treatment for three years and was allowed to go out of prisonevery two or three weeks for three days at a time. For these occasions, the prisonauthorities and social workers worked together with him to develop a visit plan. Helearned Danish during his imprisonment in Denmark and he wished to stay in Denmarkafter his release. In his opinion imprisonment of Greenlanders in Denmark was difficultsince it resulted in separation from family, friends and Greenlandic cultural life.21.Abdulay Anderson,aged 34. At the time of his arrest, two years earlier, his arms
were forced behind his back and the wrists tied with flexi-cuffs. A hood was placed onhis head. He remained handcuffed for three hours, the cuffs cutting into his wrists and
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 46leaving his hands numb. The numbness persists two years later. Some hours later, whendetained in Randers Police Station, he was stripped naked by an officer who performed arectal examination using a finger. No medical examination was conducted. He allegedthat, while in the cell he was not handcuffed, police officers entered and hit him on thebody with truncheons, particularly on the upper arms and thighs. He sustained bruises.22.Detainee,sentenced to indefinite imprisonment, had been detained since the 7
March 2006 at Herstedvester Institution. He reported that, whereas the treatment at theInstitution was satisfactory, he personally would prefer to go back to a psychiatricinstitution or receive a limited prison sentence. He reported that the prison guards overallwere doing a good job, but he wished that some of them were more active. Further, hesaid that it was difficult to lodge a complaint, but he welcomed the existence of aspokesperson representing the detainees. During the time he had spent in detention, noviolence was used against him. Once he was taken to the observation cell at VridslóselilleState Prison for 24 hours, but no force was used against him. The cells were locked atnight, but prison staff reportedly opened the cells within a reasonable period of time if adetainee had to go to toilet at night.
VRIDSLØSELILLESTATEPRISON, ALBERTSLUND(Visited on 7 May 2008)23.General information:Dating from 1859, the prison was a model of a “Philadelphia
prison”, where inmates were held in isolation during work and in their leisure time. Theprison was star-shaped with four three-storied wings emanating from the centre point.The prison had a capacity of 250 inmates. On the day of the visit, the total prisonpopulation amounted to 240 (all males), out of whom 215 were convicted and 25 in pre-trial detention. The prison had a high security unit for 15 persons (convicted and remandprisoners) which was occupied by eight inmates (four pre-trial and four convicted). Oneof the remand prisoners was in solitary confinement pursuant to a court decision; two ofthe convicted prisoners were in isolation based on a disciplinary sanction and two other
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 47convicted prisoners were in voluntary isolation. The different sections were very wellkept. The whole prison was very clean and decorated with plants. There were varioussport activities for inmates. Apart from the inmates in the high security unit, all were on aself-cooking regime. All inmates were detained in single cells. The prison had newlyrenovated visiting rooms with colourful paintings and child-friendly furniture. TheSpecial Rapporteur was received by the Governor Mrs. Marianne Secher.24.Gazmen Mustafaj,aged 40, ethnic-Albanian from Montenegro, was arrested on 17
March 2008. Until his transfer from Vestre Prison on 6 May, he had been held in pre-trialsolitary confinement. He reported that during his solitary confinement he did not makeuse of his right to spend one hour per day in the yard outside since he felt like an animalin a cage. He was not allowed to talk to his family, although his wife was informed abouthis detentionc. He reported that he was suffering from stress symptoms.
ELLEBAEK- CLOSEDDETENTIONCENTRE FORFOREIGNERS(Visited on 8 May 2008)25.General information:Ellebaek was a detention centre for incoming or rejected
asylum seekers. Adjacent to the detention centre was the “Sandholm Red Cross Centre”which is an open centre for asylum seekers. Detention orders were requested by thepolice and sanctioned by a court, and the centre was run by the Danish Prison andProbation Service. The centre had a capacity of 118, which could be increased throughthe addition of another 19 beds. On the day of the visit, 58 persons, including four womenand one juvenile were detained at the centre. Female detainees were detained in aseparate building, but were allowed to mix with male detainees during the day. Thecentre used the same disciplinary system as prisons, however it did not have a securitycell. Medical screening of a detainee was performed by a nurse within 24-48 hours uponarrival at the centre. A doctor visited the centre twice per week. The medical staff usedinterpreters for examinations. The inmates were allowed to do very basic work for whichc
According to Vridsløselille State Prison, the above person was subject to supervised visits and checks ofhis letters.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 48they earned between 500 and 1000 DKK (approx. US$ 100 to 200) per week. The SpecialRapporteur was received by the Head Constable, Niels Etlard, and the Prison Governor,Hendrik Boe Pedersen.26.Yuri Nikolaev,aged 36, a Russian national. He was arrested and taken to Kastrup
Airport Police Station on 2 May 2008 upon arrival in Denmark by train from Sweden. On3 May, he was transferred to Ellebaek detention centre. He reported that a few days priorto the Special Rapporteur’s visit, in the observation cell, he was recently forcibly grabbedon the left arm by a guard and pushed onto the bed. The following day, an officer kickedhim with the sole of his shoes on the right side of the chest, when the detainee went tonote the guard’s name. The prison doctor’s medical report indicated allegations of assaultby the guard and noted bruising on the right side of the chest. A forensic examination afew days later found that the bruising on his arm was consistent with a grab mark, andthose on his chest consistent with a blow from a blunt object, such as a shoe, and werecompatible with the allegations described.27.TheGovernmentinformed the Special Rapporteur that, on 8 May 2008, the Prison
and Probation Service reported the matter to the police on behalf of the detainee.However, the person left Denmark before the police could interview him. Subsequently,it was found that he had moved to Sweden. The public prosecutor therefore requested thathe be interviewed by the Swedish police. The Danish police is currently awaiting aresponse from Sweden.
VESTREPRISON(Visited on 8 May 2008)28.General information:Vestre was built in 1895, in the form of a cross-shaped
panoptic cell prison with a total capacity of 545. On the day of the visit there were 514inmates: 477 remand prisoners (out of which seven were in solitary confinement); 30women (remand and convicted prisoners); Women were detained in a separate wing (30
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 49cells on two floors) but were allowed to mix with male prisoners during the day. Whenthe wing was not fully occupied by women, some men were placed in the female wingand it was found that this improved the atmosphere. The 15 “negatively-strong”convicted prisoners, i.e. prisoners seen to be exerting a highly negative influence on otherprisoners (e.g. members of motorcycle gangs) were detained in a special wing with acapacity of 18, completely separated from the rest of the inmates. The prisoners in thissection were allowed to cook their own food, while remand prisoners were served prisonfood. The staff at Vestre Prison was comprised of 620 persons. The prison was very cleanand many sport and work facilities were offered to inmates. All inmates were detained insingle cells. The courtyard, which was used for outdoor visits of detainees in solitaryconfinement, was divided into several triangular shaped cages. This space was fairlysmall and there were no chairs and benches. The Special Rapporteur recommendsrebuilding the courtyard, increasing the space available for detainees.dEach newlyregistered prisoner was examined by a nurse usually within the first 12 hours in theArrival Section. According to one prisoner the “examination” was more of an interviewabout illnesses and prescribed medications. The prison had a hospital wing, whichincluded 36 cells/beds divided between two floors. One floor was mainly used forpsychiatric cases. A drug program was available in the prison. On the day of the visit, 65prisoners were enrolled in individual drug counselling programmes. Methadonemaintenance therapy (substitution therapy) was available to prisoners and often thistreatment started after arrival at the prison. In 2007, three inmates committed suicide. Inthe first four months of 2008, there have been three suicides, all men between the age of30 and 40 years who died by hanging. None of the suicides took place in the isolationregimes. The Special Rapporteur was received by Peter Vesterheden, Prison Governor ofCopenhagen Prisons.29.Andres Bering Bryld,aged 38, was arrested on 4 April 2008 at his home and taken
to Vestebod City Police Station. In the evening of the same day he was transferred tod
See also Report on the visit to Denmark carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention ofTorture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 11 to 20 February 2008, CPT/Inf(2008) 26, para. 55.
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 50Vestre Prison. On 5 April 2008, he was taken to court and was remanded to two weeks ofpre-trial detention in solitary confinement in order to prevent collaboration with othersinvolved in his case. The solitary confinement was subsequently prolonged by the court.He was due to return to the court again on 14 May. He stated that he missed interactingwith others, but from previous isolation experience in 2003, he was able to cope. He waspermitted one hour of exercise in the yard. The toilet was outside his cell and he neededto signal an officer to escort him whenever he needed to use it. He had access to books,magazines and a television in the cell. He asked to do some work and was placed on awaiting list in this regard. He received three meals a day, breakfast, a hot meal for lunchand a cold meal in the evening and had no complaints about the quality or quantity. Hewas allowed one hour of family visits per week, but a police officer from his case wasnormally present in the room. He reported that most of the prison staff treated the inmateswell.30.Female detainee,aged 25, Hungarian national, was arrested on 25 April 2008 at
her boyfriend’s apartment in Copenhagen and taken to Belahoj Police Station. The sameday she was transferred to Vestre Prison where she was held for 12 days in solitaryconfinement. She was not allowed to call her boyfriend or family but could correspondin writing. She reported that the prison staff treated the inmates in a correct and respectfulmanner and welcomed that there were also male prison officers working in the women’ssection. Furthermore, she liked being able to mix with male detainees during the day. Shedid not feel harassed.31.Ji An Shi Zy,Chinese national, was arrested at his home on 17 April 2008. He was
examined at the hospital and was shortly held at a police station before being remanded toVestre Prison, in solitary confinement. He reported that the police and his lawyer tried toinform his wife about his detention. He had no complaints and was satisfied with thetreatment by the guards.32.Niels Poulsen,aged 35, leader of a motorcycle gang, serving a life sentence. He
was detained in the wing for “negatively-strong” prisoners, i.e. prisoners seen to be
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2.page 51exerting a highly negative influence on other prisoners, together with other convictedgang members. He complained about this separation and preferred to be part of thenormal prison population. He complained also about an earlier solitary confinement ofabout one year during which he was afraid he would go insane.33.Christine Kristianson,aged 33, a spokesperson of female detainees. She was
arrested on 8 August 2006 taken to a police station where she was held for 12 hours, andlater transferred to Vestre Prison. In Vestre Prison she was held in isolation for one dayfor investigative reasons. She was also held in administrative solitary confinement forthree weeks. She reported to the Special Rapporteur that one day the prison wardensuspected that she had swallowed drugs. When she refused to follow the special protocolin such circumstances (i.e. wear special underwear), six guards came in her cell, strippedher naked and escorted her naked to the security cell, where she was restrained to the bednaked until she passed the drugs. She further reported that in Ringe Prison (where shewas previously detained) the conditions of detention were better because detainees wereallowed to go to the garden and more activities were offered. However, she thought thatmore separation was needed between male and female detainees at Ringe Prison. InVestre prison she was allowed to go to the courtyard for 30 minutes per day.34.TheGovernmentinformed the Special Rapporteur that the Department of Prisons
and Probation requested the prison to make a statement, which indicates that thedetainee’s statement according to which she was placed in a security cell and evenstripped naked must be rebutted. According to Copenhagen Prisons, she was admitted tothe prison on 17 July 2006. It appears from the observation cell report that there was asuspicion of possession of drugs in the abdomen. She was asked whether she wanted toundergo a recto-vaginal examination, or whether she wanted to put on a body packer suit.She chose the body packer suit and was placed in an observation cell. No force wasapplied in connection with the suspicion/confinement. Half an hour later, she allowed thedoctor to perform a recto-vaginal examination. The examination was performed, and nodrugs were found. Immediately thereafter she returned to her own cell. The Government
A/HRC/10/44/Add 2page 52assumes that this must be the incident referred to by the inmate as no other incidentsduring incarcerations since 2001 have been reported.-----
