CAT/C/NLD/CO/7

the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Murray v. The Netherlands (application
No. 10511/10);
(c)
The launch of a three-year programme called “The power of difference” and
a campaign, “Strike out discrimination”, which aim to prevent ethnic profiling by the police,
in 2015;
(d)
The appointment of a programme manager by the police to oversee domestic
violence and child abuse projects, in 2015;
(e)

The adoption of a national action plan on human rights, in 2013;

(f)
The conclusion of a memorandum of understanding on human trafficking and
smuggling and illegal immigration by the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and
Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius, which sets out an agreement to update the crime pattern
analysis every two years;
(g)
The establishment of a commission on the supervision of detainee care by the
Ministry of Justice to ensure the supervision and investigation of the treatment of persons
held in detention facilities in Curaçao;
(h)
The establishment of a trafficking and migrant smuggling taskforce and the
appointment of a national counter-trafficking coordinator in Aruba.

C.

Principal subjects of concern and recommendations
Pending follow-up issues from the previous reporting cycle
6.
In paragraph 35 of its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/NLD/CO/5-6), the
Committee requested the Netherlands to provide further information regarding areas of
particular concern identified by the Committee in paragraph 10 on ensuring or
strengthening the right of access to a lawyer for persons in police custody; in paragraph 23
on conducting, prompt, impartial and effective investigations; and in paragraph 30 on
statistics on prosecuting suspects and sanctioning perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment.
The Committee expresses its appreciation for the State party’s follow-up response on those
matters and the substantive information provided on 31 July 2014 (CAT/C/NLD/CO/56/Add.1). In view of that information, the Committee considers that the recommendations
included in paragraphs 10, 23 and 30 mentioned above have been partially implemented
(see paras. 9, 32 and 56 below).
Criminalization of torture
7.
While noting the State party’s willingness to consider torture as a “manifestly
unlawful” crime set forth in section 11 (3) of the International Crimes Act, the Committee
is concerned by the absence of specific legislation defining torture in conformity with
articles 1 and 2 of the Convention applicable in all the constituent countries of the State
party. It also regrets the lack of clear information on whether a crime of torture is subject to
a statute of limitation in all constituent countries of the State party. In addition, it is
concerned that domestic legislation concerning torture is not harmonized throughout the
State party (arts. 1, 2 and 4).
8.
The State party should take all necessary measures to promote the adoption of
specific national legislation defining torture in line with articles 1 and 2 of the
Convention throughout all the constituent countries of the State party. It should also
ensure that (a) an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be
invoked as a justification of torture, (b) a crime of torture is not subject to any statute
of limitation and (c) legislation concerning torture is harmonized throughout all
constituent countries of the State party.
Fundamental legal safeguards
9.
While taking note of the efforts made by the State party to strengthen the right to
legal counsel, including by adopting legislative measures to implement the European

2

Select target paragraph3