CAT/C/LIE/CO/3
Appropriate penalties
8.
The Committee, recalling that penalties that are commensurate with the gravity of
the crime of torture are indispensable in order to have a successful deterrent effect,
considers that the current criminal provisions of the State party under which acts of torture
are prosecuted (two years’ imprisonment in the case of torment and neglect of a prisoner,
(art. 312 of the Criminal Code) and up to five years in the case of bodily injury (arts. 83–85
of the Criminal Code) provide for very lenient punishment. The Committee reminds the
State party that, in accordance with the Convention, each State party should make these
offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature (art.
4).
The State party should make the offences that amount to acts of torture punishable by
appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature, in accordance with
article 4 of the Convention.
Statute of limitations
9.
The Committee is also concerned that, as a result of criminalizing acts of torture
pursuant to articles 83–85 and 312 of the Criminal Code, the statute of limitations with
respect to offences that would amount to torture is limited to five years. In this respect, the
Committee is concerned that the State party does not intend to amend the Criminal Code
“so as to eliminate the statute of limitations applicable to cases of torture”. No justification
for imposing time limits on the obligation of the State party to investigate and prosecute
crimes of torture, including the lack of court decisions as referred to in the State party’s
written reply, is acceptable (arts. 2, 4 and 12).
The State party should ensure that acts amounting to torture are not subject to any
statute of limitations.
Fundamental safeguards
The right to have access to a medical doctor
10.
The Committee welcomes the new Execution of Sentences Act which, inter alia,
guarantees the right of sentenced prisoners to be examined by a doctor upon admission or
as soon as possible thereafter. The Committee is concerned, however, that the same right is
not legally guaranteed to all persons deprived of their liberty as from the very outset of their
detention. In this context, the Committee regrets that the new Public Health Act no longer
contains an explicit provision regarding access to a doctor during police custody (former
section 7a, para. 3 (b)) and that it is not clearly guaranteed by either the Criminal Code or
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Also, while appreciating that the handouts of legal
instructions on legal safeguards provided by the National Police to persons deprived of their
liberty provide for the exercise of the right to access to a doctor as from the very outset of
their detention, the Committee is concerned that the legal handouts to foreign nationals do
not explicitly provide this right (arts. 2 and 11).
The State party should ensure that the right of all persons deprived of their liberty,
including foreign nationals, to have access to an independent doctor, if possible of
their own choice, as from the very outset of their detention, is explicitly guaranteed in
its domestic law.
Right to have access to a lawyer and to inform relatives
11.
The Committee notes with appreciation that, pursuant to the revision of the Code of
Criminal Procedures, “all apprehended persons” are legally guaranteed the right to have
access to a defence lawyer and to inform a relative or another person of trust of their arrest
3