CAT/C/LVA/CO/6
Definition of torture
6.
While noting the amendments to the definition of torture included in article 24 1 of
the Law on Entry into Force and Implementation of the Criminal Law of 2015, and
recalling its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/LVA/CO/3-5, para. 7), the
Committee remains concerned that the definition of torture in national legislation does not
reflect all of the elements contained in article 1 of the Convention – such as the inflicting of
torture on a person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, and an explicit
mention of pain or suffering inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official – which may create loopholes for impunity, as outlined in
general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 (arts. 1, 2 and 4).
7.
The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the State party amend its
legislation to include a definition of torture in conformity with the Convention, which
covers all the elements contained in article 1, including the inflicting of torture on a
person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, and an explicit mention of
pain or suffering inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
Torture as a specific criminal offence, penalties and the statute of limitations for acts
of torture
8.
While noting the 2014 amendments to the Criminal Law that determine torture as an
autonomous offence under article 1301, and recalling its previous concluding observations
(CAT/C/LVA/CO/3-5, para. 8), the Committee remains concerned that the penalties for
acts of torture continue to be incorporated into some 14 different articles of the Criminal
Law, including articles 125, 126, 2721, 294, 301 and 317. It is also concerned that the
penalties for acts of torture applicable under article 130 1 of the Criminal Law range from
short-term deprivation of liberty, for a period of up to 1 year, to community service or a
fine, and that the penalty for a public official for the crime of exceeding official authority
under article 317 is up to 5 years if the acts are related to violence or threatened violence
and up to 10 years if they are related to torture, which are not appropriate sanctions for the
crime of torture. It is further concerned at the absence of information on the minimum
sentence for acts of torture. The Committee is seriously concerned that acts of torture under
article 1301 of the Criminal Law are subject to a statute of limitations of five years from the
date on which the crime was committed, which is not commensurate with the gravity of the
crime, and that crimes of a serious nature under other articles of the Criminal Law are
subject to longer statutes of limitations (arts. 1, 2 and 4).
9.
The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the State party:
(a)
Amend its legislation to include torture as a specific offence in the
Criminal Law that incorporates all the aspects contained in the other articles of the
Criminal Law under which it can also be prosecuted; ensure that the prohibition of
torture is absolute; and ensure that penalties for torture are appropriate to the gravity
of the crime, as set out in article 4 (2) of the Convention;
(b)
Ensure that, since the prohibition of torture is absolute, there is no
statute of limitations for acts of torture, so that persons who commit or are complicit
in such crimes can be effectively investigated, prosecuted and punished;
(c)
Provide information on the minimum penalty for acts of torture and on
the number and type of officials or other persons acting in an official capacity who
have been prosecuted for acts of torture during the period under review.
Fundamental legal safeguards
10.
The Committee is concerned that persons deprived of their liberty do not enjoy in
practice all the fundamental legal safeguards that should be afforded from the very outset of
their deprivation of liberty, including being informed about the reasons for their arrest and
the charges against them or about their right to prompt access to a lawyer and, if necessary,
to State-ensured legal aid so that they are interrogated in the presence of their legal counsel.
It is also concerned that the quality of State-ensured legal aid does not always effectively
3