Chairman of the Committee J. Modvig Good afternoon

0 downloads 0 Views 357KB Size Report
Jul 27, 2017 - Good afternoon, today is Thursday the 27th July 2017 and we are at the 1548th meeting of the Committee Against Torture. This is a public ...
Chairman of the Committee J. Modvig Good afternoon, today is Thursday the 27th July 2017 and we are at the 1548th meeting of the Committee Against Torture. This is a public meeting that is being webcast and we are here for the consideration of the report from Ireland. Minister Stanton: Within three months of its first public meeting. Ireland excepts that it cannot be proud of certain aspects of its social history. Many of the issues which arise are addressed within the shadow reports that this Committee has received. I would like to thank the Committee through several of these difficult issues and highlight what the Government and its predecessors has done to address them. Firstly, I would like to update the Committee on the operation of the Magdalene Restorative Justice Ex Gratia Scheme. This redress scheme was set up following the publication of the report in February 2013 as an interdepartmental Committee set up to establish the facts of the sates involvement in the Magdalene Laundries. To date over 25.5 million euro has been paid out to 677 women under the Magdalene Laundries redress scheme. The scheme remains open to new applications and 10 new applications have been received this year. The independent Residential Institutions Redress Board was established in December 2002 pursuant to the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. To make fair and reasonable awards to person who as children were abused while resident in institutional schools, reformatories and other institutions subject to State regulation or inspection. By the 17th May 2017 the redress board had received a total of 16,650 applications and finalised 16,649 cases awards were made in accordance with the framework proposed by the independent compensation advisory Committee which advised on the appropriate levels of compensation for injuries related to childhood abuse and was published in January 2002. The average value of awards made at 17th May 2017 is 62,250 euro. The overall expenditure of the scheme is expected to be some 1.25 billion euro. Moving on the mother and baby homes. In 2015 the Government established an independent commission of investigation into mother and baby homes to provide a full account of what happened to vulnerable women and children in these institutions during this period 1922-1998. The commissions terms of reference provide for a detailed examination of living conditions and care arrangements at the pathways of entry and exit of these women and children who were resident in these institutions. The commission has prepared two interim reports

to date in July 2016 and September 2016 both were published by the Government. This statutory commission is a vital step on the pathway we’ve commenced to establish the truth of what happened in these institutions. The Irish Government is committed to this important and sensitive work and we will respond comprehensively to the findings and recommendations of the commission when it completes its work. Its final reports are due to be completed by February 2018. Mr Chairman this, these opening remarks are not intended to address all of the queries raised by the Committee or the shadow reports submitted to you. We look forward to an engaging and constructive dialogue over the next two days, to listening to the expert opinions of the Committee. Mr Chairman on my own behalf and on behalf of my team of senior colleagues here present we look forward to responding to the best of our ability to all the queries and comments put to us over the course of this examination. Thanks very much indeed. Chairman of the Committee J. Modvig : Thank you very much Minister Stanton for this useful introduction and update on recent developments in Ireland. At this point I would like to give the floor to the first rapporteur Ms. Gaer. Mme. Gaer Thank you very much and thank you Minister for the update and the introduction and for so much meaty information. You know review of a country report is indeed an important moment and I often asked, what difference do these reviews make? We first reviewed the first report of Ireland on May 23rd 2011. It was just days after the visit by Queen Elizabeth, a historic visit to your country, and she had gone to Croke Park and she had addressed Stormont issues, she was at the garden of remembrance and so forth and it was a reminder to us that historical events matter but that one can address them. It was also the occasion, the first time that this Committee webcast a review, we had videos and news reporters and there was of course always an audio account but it was the first webcast. Its impact and responses was quite dramatic not least on some of the issues that you raised here of the historical issues. So with that in mind, I hope you all understand the Madam Racu and I have divided up the issues a little bit out of the normal order we don’t go in the order of the questions we think it is the logic of issues we will explain to you as we go along what we are covering but I do start with

question one on our list issues which deal with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission which was in some reformulation at the last time that we met. So allow me to begin by congratulating the Government actually for having provided a good amount of staff and funding to the, I call it the, IHREC the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and also for having ensured its independence. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to ensure that IHREC has sufficient funds and the ability to carry out its work effectively. We look forward to ratification of the OPCAT as well and I’m sure Madam Racu will address that. I’m going to turn to question two which dealt with safeguards of the right to council. Our list of issues asks the Government to clarify its position on the right of persons detained by the authorises to have access to a lawyer during criminal proceedings and of particular concern is whether access to a lawyer is ensured promptly following the deprivation of liberty. In 2014, the human rights Committee which monitors the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Committee to Prevent Torture both expressed concern about the lack of clarity among some members of the Garda Síochána as to whether or not persons deprived of their liberty are entitled to have access to council during interrogations. Now the Government wrote to CPT in January 2015 that the Minister of Justice and Equality was going to ensure the right of persons deprived of their liberty to have legal representation during interrogations would be given the legislative footing. So my first question. Has this been done? And if not is the Government pursing other means to make it clear in law that detained persons have the right to access to council during the questioning by the authorities? More Broadly, I wonder if you could provide us with information on how the State Party intends to insure that the Garda provide safeguards against torture to persons deprived of their liberty? We’re concerned that the Garda Síochána Inspectorate has reported on some shortcomings in the provision by the police of safeguards against torture and ill treatment for example incomplete detention records and inconsistent use of closed circuit monitoring in interview rooms. We understand from IHREC that, and I quote: Police custodial settings are currently not subject (emphasis added by speaker) to independent oversight or unannounced inspections at the national level Regular effective independent monitoring of police custody by national institutions is surly vital to ensure that safeguards against torture and ill-treatment that are provided in law are actually respected in practice. IHREC has recommended that the Government urgently appoint an independent national body to carry out unannounced

visits on Garda stations. Your opening remarks suggested that you may be considering including provisions for this in the Inspection of Places of Detention Bill, I wonder if that is correct? Are you? Will the Bill provide for an independent monitoring body that carries out unannounced visits to Garda stations? And who would carry out this function? Would it be the Criminal Justice Inspectorate that you mentioned? We now turn to this is question 20. Which deals with the Ryan Report and I am going to talk about a few of the historical abuses, Ryan, the Magdalene Laundries, Mother and Baby Homes and the issues of symphysiotomy. Now in 2011, the Committee expressed its concern about serious physical and sexual abuse inflicted upon children in residential industrial schools and reformatories operated by the catholic church orders through 1970 these were under supervision and were funded by the Irish Government. The final report of the commission to inquire into child abuse known as the Ryan Report documented many testimonies of abuse. And they found for example that molestation and rape were “endemic”. Boys facilities chiefly run by Christian Brothers Order. The report found that at some girl’s schools supervised by orders of nuns chiefly the Sisters of Mercy a “high level of ritualised beating” with implements” designed to maximise pain” was routine. When we reviewed Ireland in 2011, we were concerned that very few criminal investigation and even fewer prosecutions appeared to have been initiated or even contemplated and in response to the findings of the Ryan Report we were also concerned that there were a great many victims of this abuse that had a right to redress, that they had not yet obtained it from the Government. It’s now nine years since the Government set out the Ryan Report Implementation plan and clearly there have been some progress been made today. Your report makes that clear, the residential institutions redress board has made redress supports to over 15,000 people and you yourself spoke about 1.25 billion euros which are expected to be dispersed, yet there seem to remain some very significant shortcomings in the Government’s response to the legacy of severe abuse of children. So my question, first question: Can the Government clarify how it will ensure the victims of these practices will receive redress. Including not only compensation and rehabilitation both of which are important but also satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. So I want to turn now to the key issue which is the need for the State Party to ensure perpetrators of violence against children including sexual abuse are criminally prosecuted. The authors of the Ryan Report were prevented from disclosing the names of the alleged perpetrators as identified to them by victims.

However, surly that does not excuse Ireland from its obligations under the Convention to investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Now our Committee is not the only UN human rights treaty body that has recently expressed concern about the Governments performance on this issue. Councillor O’Brien has told us about her experience with other Committees. In 2014, the Human Rights Committee also called on the Government to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of abuse, mistreatment or neglect at the children’s institutions. Despite those prior recommendations, it’s our understanding that only fifteen cases were brought forward even for criminal investigation and then only one resulted in prosecution and we are not sure there has been any punishment in that case. This is hugely problematic since more than 15,000 victims have come forward to the redress board. In your report to the Committee, you tell us that the Garda Síochána has “over the many years carried out many investigations into allegations of abuse associated with institutions dealt with in the Ryan Report that have resulted in prosecutions and convictions over and above” the fifteen cases in the response but what you can’t precisely correlate to cases mentioned in the Ryan Report. So I have three questions: first can the Government provide us with additional data on all of the prosecutions and convictions that the Garda has undertaken of the perpetrators of physical and sexual violence against children held in the catholic order run industrial schools and reformatories. Whether or not they are “precisely correlated” to the cases in the Ryan Report. Secondly can you describe what measures the Government is taking to ensure that all persons who went before the redress board understand that they are not gagged from reporting their claims of abuse to the Garda Síochána. Third are you now considering undertaking a broader investigation into allegations of the death of children in institutions including perhaps requiring religious orders to provide more information than they have to date. I ask this particularly following the discovery of course of the remains of nearly 800 babies and children at Tuam mother and baby home. So a broader question for you, so the issue of non-repetition which I mentioned earlier we were very concerned to hear NGOs express concern that the Government is not taking sufficient steps to ensure that the catholic orders under who’s authority these abuses were perpetrated have actually reformed. For example, we are told that even though the State Party created a national order for safeguarding children in the catholic church in Ireland that audited religious orders and dioceses to ensure that they were applying the safeguarding children standards that were adopted by the Government in 2008 we were told this board didn’t

examine whether or not the religious orders actually adopted any new measures to prevent victimisation of children in the future. So first question, how are you ensuring that the religious orders are taking measures to protect children from further physical and sexual abuse? And how is the Government ensuring that alleged perpetrators of abuse who have been identified by victims are no longer working for the religious orders in any capacity involving interacting with children or the broader community. Now I turn to the question of the redress scheme and we were very pleased to see that so many people have received redress in the residential institutions redress scheme and there are some concerns. First there are some individuals who are arbitrarily excluded from the redress scheme as we understand it. For example, unaccompanied children subjected to abuse in mother and baby homes. So I wonder can you indicate if you are at all considering revising the eligibility of the redress scheme to ensure that unaccompanied children in mother and baby homes will also be able to obtain redress? Second, the redress scheme is closed to new applicants, that’s what we understood, it has been since 2011. Now recognising that the dialogue, the right to seek access to redress has a real impact on victims of abuse, I wonder if you’d taken any efforts to ensure that those victims that did not apply to the redress scheme in 2011 or earlier will never the less have an opportunity to receive compensation. We learned from the IHREC and other non-Governmental organisations that the Government is committed to review the eligibility to the redress scheme and if it made such a commitment in 2015 but that review has still not taken place. So you can expect my questions, 1) can you provide further information on whether or when the Government intends to review the parameters of the eligibility for the redress scheme. Can you confirm whether you intend to close the redress scheme and dissolve Caranua the State body that provides the assistance to those eligible for redress under the scheme. We understand that it may be closed in 2019, is that correct? And is the Government proposing to take the step because it has run out of funds given to it by the religious congregations? Does the Government intend to ensure, to take measures to ensure, that victims obtain appropriate redress that is determined with regard to their needs and isn’t limited to a shortfall in external funding in other words can you explain whether you will provide Government funding or other funding to ensure the availability rehabilitation for the victims instead of relying on funds that have been donated solely by the religious congregations? Now IHREC and other Non-Governmental organisations especially the group reclaiming self, have also

alleged that Caranua is re-traumatising victims rather than facilitating their access to rehabilitation. And I wonder if your Government has reviewed the effectiveness of Caranua and considered victim’s complaints about it. Is there any plan to review its procedures to ensure that the very process of trying to obtain redress does not retraumatise some of the victims? Because that is what is needed. Now while according to you report 95 of the 99 recommendations in the Ryan Report have been implemented there are a few that have not and key among those is the status of the completion of the journey to life memorial project. Can you update us on that and can you tell us if there is a timeline to its completion? This brings me to the second historical subject the Magdalene Laundries, in 2011 it was recommended that the Government properly institute an independent thorough investigation into all complaints of abuses committed between 1922 and 1996 against women and girls who were involuntarily confined in the Magdalene Laundries. That you should prosecute the perpetrators of any abuses and ensure that all victims obtain redress. A great deal has happened since then, there was the McAleese Report, the interdepartmental Committee to establish the facts of State involvement in the Magdalene Laundries. The McAleese Report found that contrary to the Government representatives’ claims made to this Committee in 2011 the laundries were not a wholly private matter and confinement was not as he told us voluntary and there was indeed substantial State involvement. In February 2013, the Taoiseach made a formal apology to the survivors of the Magdalene Laundries, very dramatic, very important and the Quirk Report lead to an ex gatia redress and assistance scheme for victims. All of these were important developments. Between 2012 and 2013 this Committee also engaged in a vigorous follow-up discussion with the State Party and asked many questions about the progress made or lack of progress with respect to these recommendations. We express particular concern in our list of issues, prior to reporting, that while the inter-departmental Committee had investigated certain aspects of past practices, the State Party did not seem to intend to go further or to create an independent investigation into allegations of ill treatment that would ensure all relevant evidence and facts were disclosed by private actors such as the religious orders that ran the Magdalene Laundries and who had access to that information. We were particularly concerned that the Government seemed to consider that there was no need for it to undertake such an investigation since it was not persuaded that evidence had come to light that “systematic torture” was carried out at the Magdalene

Laundries. Now in your new report to us in 2015 you have confirmed to us that the Government considers normal criminal investigative arraignments to be adequate to address this terrible legacy of abuse because, and I quote, “no factual evidence to support allegations of systematic torture or ill-treatment of a criminal nature (emphasis added by speaker) in these institutions was found” by the McAleese Report. You also suggest 1) that the report conclusively established that the majority of women in the Magdalene Laundries were not legally confined there. 2) that representative groups indicate that the effected women do not wish to participate in any further investigation. 3) that the religious congregations offered full access to their archives to the McAleese commission and I quote you said “there is no evidence to suggest any of the sources deliberately withheld or provided false information or that there is some untapped source of information in existence”

you also said that under those

circumstances the Government is “satisfied that the report provides the best estimate of the number of persons who entered the Magdalene Laundries” and that the Government has made clear on a number of occasions “that if any women has been the victim of criminal behaviour, she should report it and it will be investigated”. You also said “there has been no demand from individual women for an investigation into specific complaints of abuse against them”. Now, since this Committee raised the issue with the State Party in 2011, a number of other UN treaty bodies have expressed concern that a wide range of the State’s human rights obligations are implicated in its treatment of these women. Even as recently as last April, the Human Rights Committee, which also criticised Ireland’s performance regarding accountability for church related institutional abuses in 2014. Reiterated its concerns in a report on follow up, they were not satisfied with the Government’s Statement that it has no intention to set up a specific Magdalene inquiry or investigation. They recommended that Ireland conduct an independent and thorough investigation and prosecute and punish the perpetrators of abuse and ill-treatment in the Magdalene Laundries. I suppose, following our lead. We have been told by NGOs that there are in fact several Magdalene survivors who made complaints, who made complaints, to the Garda Síochána regarding their treatment in the laundries. My question to you is whether, you can tell us, if you are aware or any member of the delegation is aware that some complaints have been made and can you provide us with information about why they were not acted on for the purpose of opening a criminal investigation. We’re also concerned to hear that the State Party has repeatedly claimed to have no basis for

believing serious harm was perpetrated against women and girls at the Magdalene Laundries. How can the Government say to us that it believes that the interdepartmental Committee report, the McAleese Report, established that there was not systematic ill-treatment in the Magdalene Laundries and the terms of reference of the Committee and the report did not extend to investigating allegations of abuse or establishing the whereabouts and identities of those who died, in the laundries? How can the Government claim that it established no systematic ill-treatment, when it made no public call for evidence and had no subpoena powers? Doesn’t the Government recognise that there is a great deal of information about past abuses at these institutions that has yet to be uncovered. I say this because we have received information suggesting that there is indeed a great deal of evidence of past abuse. And it had not been officially examined. We are concerned that the inter-departmental Committee, I will call it the IDC, may not have investigated the archives of the mother houses and their congregational archives including those abroad. We are also concerned that the IDC may not have investigated, at least not thoroughly, the diocesan archives related to religious congregations operating the Magdalene Laundries. Can you confirm whether it did or not it did examine those archives? And, specifically, we have received information from an individual who had access to the archives of the dioceses of Galway, stating that he discovered significant material demonstrating the extensive involvement of the bishop of Galway in the operations and financial dealings of the Sisters of Mercy Magdalene in Galway. One of the two laundries for which no records survive. This individual also brought Senator McAleese’s offices’ attention to the existence of these files. He provided the Senator with a summary of the materials but says that they were not accurately reflected in the McAleese Report. The files reportedly document physical abuse and the Galway Magdalene’s practice of calling the Irish police to prevent family members from removing women from the institutions. In 2014 when this individual notified a member of the restorative justice implementation team at the Irish Ministry of Justice that the Galway diocese and archive also contained a list of 107 women in the Galway Magdalene Laundry in December 1952 organised by name, town, land of origin, county. He subsequently received a threatening letter from the archivist of the diocese warning him not to write about the archive without permission and insisting that he destroy copies of the material and asserting that the archive of bishop Michael Brown, who was bishop of Galway from 1937 to 1976 is now “embargoed”. So, my question

to you, if the Government’s position is that the women who were victimised at the Magdalene Laundries have a responsibility to pursue justice for themselves, we would expect to see the Government at least facilitate their efforts to do so by providing access to relevant information that it has or that it knows exists. In this regard, it’s really quite troubling to hear that the inter-departmental Committee destroyed its copies of evidence received from the religious congregations that ran the Magdalene Laundries and that the inter-departmental Committee will not provide the public with access to the archive of State files or the archive from the religious congregations. So I would like at ask you sir, what is preventing the Government from providing public access to the archive of State records gathered by the interdepartmental Committee? Can you or members of the delegation confirm whether the Government has considered information in the Galway diocese and archive concerning the Galway Magdalene Laundry which the Minister of Justice was specifically informed about in 2014? And whether the fact that this information was discovered outside the IDC process has any impact on its claim that an independent investigation mechanism into the Magdalene Laundries is unnecessary? Will the Government consider amending the statute of limitations so that the civil claims/ so that civil claims can be brought forward in the interests of justice? Will the Government consider creating a publically accessible archive of institutions, including Magdalene Laundries, to which the religious congregations, the hierarchy and the State would be compelled to contribute? Will the Government consider a broader truth telling process in respect to these and other historical abuses? In that context I wonder if hr Government might consider extending an invitation to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence? An invitation to visit Ireland, that would be I think most timely and I hope you will consider that. We are also very concerned to hear that the Government seems to be walking back from that famous apology that Enda Kenny made to the Magdalene survivors by claiming that the State is not liable for any such abuse when the McAleese report found close involvement of the State in the Magdalene Laundries. It found that courts referred women to the laundries, social service workers did the same and the report found significant financial interaction between State bodies and the laundries. So my question is, simply can you confirm or not whether the Government still stands behind the Taoiseach’s 2013 apology to the Magdalene survivors and the findings of the McAleese Report? We turn to the issue of redress. In our list of issues prior to reporting we asked for information

about how the State planned to administer the ex gratia redress scheme. You responded that 593 applicants had received lump payments at a cost of nearly 22 million euros, this reflects an average payment to victims of about 37,100 euros. You told us that as of July 2015, the women would also receive a wide range of free health services and that you were studying how to provide these to those living outside Ireland. You told us that over 160 applications have been received from outside Ireland, most from the UK and the Government circulated information on the scheme to Irish communities around the world through their embassies. However, in a recent follow up exchange with the Government the human rights Committee that monitors the civil and political covenant expressed concern about the scope of the redress scheme noting the information was not provided as to whether women who were not formally held in the laundries but were force to work there were entitled to redress. So my question is, can you clarify to us why the Government is not allowing a group of women who worked in the Magdalene Laundries as girls but were actually held in children’s residential schools on the same grounds, why you are not allowing those women to participate in the redress scheme, they lived on the same grounds. We understand other schemes that they may already be benefiting from are not providing them with compensation for harm that they may have endured at the laundries. So it would be interesting to have your views on that. Also we have been told that the existence of this scheme, the redress scheme, was not widely advertised outside Ireland other than in the UK. We are concerned that only 11 applications for redress were received from victims in the United States for example when clearly the size of the US diaspora suggests that there are more Magdalene survivors there. My question is, are you considering undertaking additional outreach activities to alert survivors living outside Ireland to the existence of the redress scheme. Can you indicate how you are providing survivors living abroad healthcare, have all known Magdalene survivors living abroad been notified of their healthcare entitlements and been made aware of their eligibility for support for supplementary insurance? Are you considering expanding the range of healthcare services survivors are entitled to receive under the Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Act and ensuring their access to rehabilitation. We are also concerned that the recommendation Justice Quirk for consultation with Magdalene survivors to discuss a memorial and also to meet with each other has been fully implemented despite the States commitment to establish a dedicated unit for this purpose. Can you update us on the status of efforts to consult

survivors on the establishment of a memorial and to meet one another and visit former Magdalene sites? We turn to the issue of mother and baby homes and we share the widespread concern that Ireland has not thoroughly investigated allegations of serious abuse in mother and baby homes or prosecuted or punished perpetrators. Like the human rights Committee, we have also received reports of abuse carried out there including alleged illegal forced adoptions of children born out of wedlock. Adoptions carried out without the consent of the mothers. Now the IHREC drew are attention to the fact that the commission of investigation into mother and baby homes focuses on only a small number of institutions reportedly eighteen, where there may be as many as seventy analogous institutions omitted from investigation. So my questions 1) are you considering expanding the scope of that commission of investigation to include those seventy additional institutions? Can you confirm whether there is any possibility that criminal investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators of abuse could result from this commission of investigation. How do you intend to ensure that appropriate investigations and prosecutions regarding the mother and baby homes and the alleged illegal and forced adoptions take place and are you considering expanding the scope of the terms of reference of the commission to task it with identifying the remains of these infants that have been found in the mass graves in the mother and baby homes? The sites of the mother and baby homes some of them are no longer there of course. Is the Government also considering public access to the documentary or archival evidence that the commission is examining? I turn to another one, maybe the last of the ones that I’ll mention of the historical issues and that the practice of symphysiotomy, now the human rights Committee also expressed concern in 2014 that symphysiotomy a child birth procedure that severs one of the main pelvis joints and unhinges the pelvis was performed on approximately 1500 girls and women in public and private hospitals between 1944 and 1987 without their free and informed consent. It’s alleged that the purpose of the surgery was to increase a woman’s pelvic diameter and to guarantee her ability to have future vaginal births without limitation and thereby avert the need for caesarean sections which certain doctors considered a form of contraception. The human rights Committee called on the Government to initiate a prompt independent thorough investigation into cases of symphysiotomy and prosecute and punish perpetrators including medical personnel. And to provide survivors of symphysiotomy with an effective remedy for the damage sustained with fair and adequate compensation and rehabilitation on and individualised basis. In

June, the Committee give Ireland a C grade on this issue in its follow up report, that is not a very good grade. The Government’s surgical symphysiotomy payment scheme, which I will refer to simply as scheme, has provided 578 awards ranging from 50,000 euros to 150,000 euros, and that is commendable, but it is very concerning to hear that as a condition of accepting any award from the scheme for any victims of symphysiotomy each one must sign a deed of weaver and indemnity. A deed of weaver and indemnity that requires you to “indemnify and hold harmless” individuals and bodies responsible for harming her. This approach surly is inconsistent with the principle of accountability, the human rights principle of accountability and concerns and recommendations of the human rights Committee the CEDAW as well. My questions to you are just three 1) is the State Party considering revising the deed of weaver and indemnity requirement for the participants in the scheme? If so how will it ensure such regulations don’t impede efforts to ensure criminal investigations into allegations. That an unnecessary and harmful medical procedure was carried out on a significant number of women without their consent. Secondly is the Government considering providing women with an opportunity to challenge their awards under the scheme to ensure that redress is awarded to them on the basis of an individualised determination of their needs. Third what is the Government doing to ensure women have the right to legal counsel and independent medical assessments in the course of accessing the scheme. Now all this historical concern of course leads me to ask the question about contemporary concerns about abuse of children currently in State care. I was troubled to hear that the States Claims Agency recently Stated it will only offer out of court settlements to survivors of child sexual abuse who can demonstrate that they were abused by a primary or post-primary school employee against whom a complaint of sexual abuse had previously been made to the school authorities. The question is whether the Government is prepared to review this policy and refrain from conditioning the right of a victim of sexual abuse committed in schools to obtain redress, conditioning the right on having prior complaint of abuse made against the perpetrator. Would you refrain from doing that? We are also troubled by what we have received about allegations of severe abuse of children in foster care. While we appreciate that the State Party has established the South-East Commission of investigation to investigate allegations of abuse into a former foster home we would appreciate additional information into measures now been taken to ensure the commission’s independence in information about how the Government intends to

ensure the victims of systematic abuses in foster care settings obtain redress. We are similarly troubled to hear that large parts of the Children First Act 2015 have not yet been implemented and that the child and family agency Tusla is not adequately resourced. So my question is whether you could provide us with further information on a timetable for full implementation of the child first act and describe efforts to provide Tusla with adequate resources to protect vulnerable children from being placed into situations where they are actually at risk of physical or sexual abuse. That brings me to list of issues 3,4 and 5 dealing with domestic, gender based violence, abortion, FGM. On the issue of domestic violence, the Committee expressed concern in 2011 about the failure to collect adequate data on violence against women. Now we understand that a comprehensive study in 2002 found that more than 40% of Irish women had experienced sexual abuse during their lifetime and only, according to your study, 10% had reported about those offences. The problem of violence against women seems to continue to be widespread, the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency in 2014 conducted a study that found that 26% of Irish women have experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of fifteen. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to assess whether the Government has effectively addressed this problem because the Government does not seem to be collecting comprehensive data on this issue. In your report to the Committee especially paragraph 31 and appendix A. The Government claims to have provided statistics related to sexual offences in breach of domestic violence orders covering the years 2009-2013. The data presented to us is not all clear, can you clarify what you expect us to infer from the data presented in appendix A to the State Party Report? Please take a look at it again. What I take away from that data is that despite the fact that women filed 961 complaints of sexual offences in 2009, 1526 complaints in 2010, and 1347 complaints in 2011, not a single person was convicted of rape or a sexual assault of a women in 2009, 2010 or 2011. Moreover, we learned from this data that women filed 1482 complaints about sexual offences in 2013 and 772 in the first six months of 2014 but no information on whether anyone was convicted of rape or sexual assault in any of those cases. The chart in paragraph 24 of the State Party’s report reflects that while around 10,000 domestic violence orders were made by the courts in 2009 and 2010 combined. Appendix A suggests that fewer than 25 people were convicted of breaching domestic violence orders during that time period. And no data is provided at all indicating when anyone has been convicted of breaching a domestic violence order since 2010. So the

impression I get from these charts is that prosecution of perpetrators of violence against women in Ireland is rare. Prosecution is rare. The offense is not rare. But the prosecution as a percentage of the number of complaints received is extremely rare. This corresponds to what we hear from some of the NGOs who have told us that as of 2009 conviction rates for rape as a percentage of allegations has been falling. Since 2009. That from 1990 to the present, they say, only four individuals in total have been convicted of the crime of marital rape. My question, could you please provide us with updated statistics. As requested in the list of issues prior to reporting. We ask for incidents of domestic violence against girls and women as well as information on investigations and prosecutions and convictions related to sexual and domestic violence. And data since the period of last review on the number of safety orders and other protection orders issued annually by the court. We’ve been told by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre that the Government still has not actually undertaken a comprehensive study on violence against women since that 2002 study I mentioned before and although Ireland has established the COSC the National Office for the Prevention of domestic, sexual and gender based violence. We are told that the body has not approved data gathering on violence against women. So can you update us on the Government’s efforts to improve data collection on this issue. How will you ensure adequate funding is made available to carry out such research? What measures is the Government taking to more effectively investigate complaints and prosecute perpetrators of violence against women. Are you enhancing training of police and prosecutors to recognise the crime of violence against women to ensure that perpetrators of serious crimes such as rape, including marital rape, face appropriately serious criminal charges. In our list of issues prior to reporting the Committee requested information on measures taken by the Government to increase funding for protection and support services for victims of domestic violence. We’ve been told by NGOs that funding for these support services was subjected to severe cuts from 2008 to 2015 and that funding provided by the Government last year, 2016, is inadequate to support the crisis services that NGOs are providing around the country. My question is, do you consider that the current level of funding provided for protection and support services to victims of domestic violence is adequate? Do you intend to increase to amount of funding provided for these services? Will it exceed twenty million dollars? I turn to the question of challenges faced by migrant victims of domestic violence. And we understand that such persons who attempt that migrants

are victims of domestic violence were victims of trafficking who attempt to leave their abusers encounter difficulties accessing emergency welfare benefits and safe emergency accommodation. Is the Government taking further steps to address the particular needs of migrant women fleeing domestic violence and taking steps to ensure that such women are always able to access emergency welfare benefits and safe emergency accommodation? Will there be a legislative basis for them to request independent immigration status independent from their partners? We understand and are pleased to know that there is a Domestic Violence Bill 2017 currently being debated in the parliament. We’re concerned however at reports that the bill does not address some of the concerns that this Committee aired in its concluding observations in 2011 and that it does not address some of the pressing obstacles to access to protection from domestic violence faced by women particularly poor women. In particular, we understand the draft Domestic Violence Bill does not define a criminal defence, I’m sorry, does not define a criminal offence of domestic violence. Does not articulate the reasons for which protection orders should be granted and does not provide and exception to those who are unable to afford the minimum 130-euro contribution for legal aid. Are you taking any steps to challenge or address the short comings in the bill and are you in particular working to ensure it contains a clear definition of gender based violence. Now in you initial and opening remarks Mr. Minister you spoke about the serious and difficult subject in Ireland of abortion. In 2011, our Committee expressed serious concern about the criminal prohibition on abortion in all cases except those where the life of the mother is impearled. In our list of issues, we asked the Government whether you planned to amend or revise the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act and the access to information act of 1995 to address the uncertainty and risk of criminal prosecution. The uncertainty and risk of criminal prosecution the laws create for women and the doctors. Since we sent our list of issues to the Government in December 2013 four other human rights treaty bodies have expressed concern about the incompatibility of Ireland’s restrictive laws on abortion with its international human right obligation. Notably the human rights Committee in 2014 called on the Government to revise its legislation citing “the severe mental suffering caused by the denial of abortion services to women seeking abortions due to rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality, or serious risks to health”. More recently the Committee has adopted views on two individual communications from Irish women forced to seek abortions abroad in cases where their foetuses were not viable. The

Mellet and Wellen cases respectively, the Committee found that the combination of the State Party’s laws criminalising abortion even in cases where the foetus is not viable and its legislation restricting circumstances in which medical professionals can provide information about lawfully available abortion services. That these amount to official acts and omissions that caused the petitioners to experience “intense physical and mental suffering.” And a high level of mental anguish in violation of the prohibition on cruel treatment in Article 7 of the Civil and Political Covenant. They called for Ireland to amend its laws, including if necessary the constitution to ensure effective, timely and accessible procedures for pregnancy and termination to ensure healthcare providers are in a position to supply full information on safe services without fearing that they would be subjected to criminal sanctions themselves. Now I’ve reviewed the information proposed to the human rights Committee in March this year for follow up on the Mellet case and I note the response which is a call for compensation to Ms. Mellet and assurances that she should have access to physical counselling from a provider of her choosing. I appreciated seeing that but I was very troubled to see that the Government has not yet amended any of its laws that caused it to violate the prohibition against ill-treatment in her case. And therefore hasn’t taken effective measures to prevent future violations of the prohibition of ill-treatment. Also appreciate the convening of a citizen’s assembly to consider the 8th Amendment of the Constitution and that it recently produced a final report calling for the 8th Amendment to be repealed and replaced with a provision stating that the Oireachtas has the right to establish abortion law in Ireland and Ireland’s legislation to be reviewed and abortion decriminalised. I understand there is a Committee established, we spoke about it, according to news reports they have until November to consider the Citizen Assembly report. The papers also tell us that the Minister of Health is also drafting legislation to ensure a referendum on the 8th Amendment will be held as soon as possible. Possibly at the beginning of 2018. These are all positive steps. It is still concerning to us that there has been more than six years since the last review and actually the legal situation has not changed on the ground. A couple of questions, are you encouraging the Oireachtas to call for a referendum on the 8th Amendment? Are you encouraging the Irish population to repeal the 8th Amendment as a Government? Are you consulting with NGOs to prepare the draft legislation in the event that the 8th Amendment is repealed in order to ensure that any new legislation is consistent with the international human rights obligations of Ireland? And in line with the recommendations of the

various human rights treaty bodies, including ourselves? Are you advocating for a new legislative scheme that decriminalises abortions in all cases? Perhaps guaranteeing women the right to obtain abortions in Ireland in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life or health of the mother, fatal foetal impairment. Are you advocating for the Oireachtas to repeal the Regulation of Information Act as recommended by UN treaty bodies? Is there any other way you are advocating for action to ensure healthcare providers do not have any reason to fear that they will be investigated or punished for providing women with information about how to obtain an abortion? I mentioned the subject, you mentioned the subject too, of female genital mutilation and we’ve raised that issues before in 2006 there were an estimated 2,500 women who had been subjected to it in the 2015 report you say the number is now 3,700 based on census data of 2011. Do you have any updated statistics on the number of people in 2017 estimate in the State Party who have been subjected to female genital mutilation? You rightly pointed out that as of 2012 it’s criminal to perform FGM in Ireland and it is criminal to remove a girl from Ireland for the purpose of FGM. You tell us you have criminalised failure to report the crime of FGM. These are, this is good, but your report says that you anticipate that the criminal justice act would be amended to remove the double criminality requirement as we recommended but as the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention would require and you’ve signed that and are considering ratifying that and yet I don’t think that has happened yet so my question is, can you provide us with data on the number of investigations and prosecutions carried out on the basis of the criminal justice act 2012 on female genital mutilation? How many have been carried out since its adoption? Can you provide us with updated information on whether the Government is still seeking to amend the criminal justice act to remove the double criminality requirement for prosecution of perpetrators of FGM? And can you explain why this hasn’t happened yet? Also it does not seem that Ireland has adopted a second national action plan on combatting FGM, you indicated that it would be launched and can you update us on this? Is there a draft national action plan and does it include key performance indicators? We also received information from the Government that you have been endeavouring to provide healthcare and support for women and girls who have undergone FGM and that you opened a free confidential specialist treatment, this is good, and a welcome step along with the others that raise awareness about providing support services to victims of FGM. But can you tell us how you ensure support services to women and girls who have been subjected to

FGM but live outside the capital city have access to free confidential specialist treatment that is now offered to them. We received some NGO material regarding a different issue, a couple of the human rights treaty bodies, have encouraged the country to ensure medically unnecessary medical practices are no longer performed on inter-sex children and we have received some NGO material on this as well. I wonder if you could clarify the measures the Government has taken to respond to the recommendations by the Committee on the rights of the child and the women’s Committee the CEDAW that in the future the State Party’s should prevent and discourage the implementation on inter-sex children of unnecessary medical or surgical treatments. Particularly treatments of a kind that could cause severe physical and psychological suffering later in life. So appreciate information on measures you’ve taken to implement those recommendations of others. I turn briefly to the subject of abuses against older persons in care homes wonder if you have a timetable for the repeal of the Lunacy Regulations Act of 1871 and commencement of the provisions of the assisted decision making act of 2015. Particularly those providing for functional assessments of capacity and guiding principles for interventions with people whose capacity is in question. Are you considering extending the mandate of the office of the Ombudsman to allow receipt of complaints about clinical judgments in privately operated nursing homes. Will you ensure that the Inspection of Places of Detention Bill currently under consideration insure that the national preventative mechanism arrangement you establish will include residential and congregated care centres for older people and people with disabilities and is the Government ensuring in legislation that State agencies have a right of access to all premises and relevant documents where complaints made are made regarding allegations of abuse of vulnerable adults. Now also, are you considering enacting legislation that would ensure better monitoring any use of chemical restraints and sedation that would, and are you considering legislation that would ensure legal assistance for individuals undergoing the new capacity reviews. Under the assisted decision making act. Final subject that I'm going to raise with you at this point it deals with a list of issues are questions 6, 7 and 8 on rendition, recognition of asylum seekers, non-refoulement and detention of asylum seekers. There were questions about rendition, does the Government consider that it has a responsibility to prevent the use of its territory to facilitate rendition did the Garda investigation that took place on this issue inquiring into whether Iris airports were used to refuel aircraft linked to extraordinary renditions. The Government says that it has

sought and received assurances from the US Government that it would not carry out extraordinary renditions through Irish airports. We note that the predecessor to IHREC, the Irish Human Rights Commission, recommended that an independent body should be created to oversee verifiable inspection system in which relevant aircraft would be required to provide detailed information on the purpose of their flight, their destinations, names of passengers. Does the Government consider it sufficient to rely on diplomatic assurances to discharge it obligation to ensure its airports are not used by other Governments? To violate the prohibition against refoulement. Chairman of the Committee J. Modvig Just five more Minutes Mme Gaer This is my last subject I will do that. Is the Government considering creating a monitoring inspection regime for aircraft? Now on the issue of the recognition of asylum seekers and non-refoulement. We've been concerned about the falling numbers of positive refugee determinations by the State Party as well as that domestic procedures were insufficient to fulfil non-refoulement obligations under Article 3. we raised this in 2011, we were concerned that if an application is rejected the resulting deportation order would not be suspended pending appeal. Since the last review we understand that there have been significant positive changes in the legislative framework related to asylum in the adoption of the international protection act 2015. Which incorporates the non-refoulement obligation in Article 3 of the Convention. We remain concerned with the number of deportations being carried out by the State that is reportedly increasing. We are concerned at the number of refusals of leave to land made by the authorities has also increased. IHREC indicates that the authorities refused leave-to-land to individuals from Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria all during 2016. Can you provide us with data on the number of individuals who were denied leave-to-land and not subsequently allowed to enter the country as asylum seekers in 2016? And can you desegregate that by country of origin, can you tell us how the Government will decide whether or not to allow leave-to-land and what are you doing to ensure people who are denied leave-to-land have and effective opportunity to make asylum claims and receive an individualised determination of the merits of those claims. Do all individuals denied leave-to-land have access to legal aid

and to interpreters? Can you tell us whether individuals whose refugee claims are rejected face the prospect of being deported by the State Party even if they repealed their decision and are waiting for its outcome? Are you considering amending the act to make it clear that deportation orders can be appealed? Are you considering expanding access to legal aid for persons facing deportation orders? Are you considering seeking amendments to the International Protection Act that would clarify that domestic violence and Statelessness can be grounds for granting asylum requests. Are you considering increasing the funding provided for the preparation of the medical legal reports for asylum seekers and are you... On the issue of detention immigrants, can you indicate whether the Government has put measures in place to ensure that immigrant detainees are strictly separated from regular remand prisoners at all times at Cloverhill because the CPT has expressed concern about that issue. Can you confirm whether you intend to open a dedicated immigration centre at Dublin airport? Which you wrote the CPT about, and if so when? Will the immigration detainees held in the new dedicated immigration centre have access to council and interpreters? Will they be informed of their right to seek international protection and provided with the opportunities to access the asylum process. NGOs have told us about cases in which asylum seekers were assaulted or re-traumatised in immigration detention. So there's the question of protection for them if they're in detention. Are you considering taking measures to distinguish immigrant prisoners who may have international protection claims from those who do not and to separate them in detention? Are you going to do anything to ensure that there are vulnerability screenings to...? Chairman of the Committee J. Modvig Ok Ms. Gaer your time is up Mme Gaer And I look forward to your many responses thank you. Chairman of the Committee J. Modvig Thank you very much I give the floor to the second Ripper tour miss Rocco.

Mme. Racu Thank

you

chairman,

on

my

turn

I

would

like

to

welcome

the

delegation and congratulate you for the engagement in this important dialogue with the Committee. I hope our, today's dialogue will offer enough information and details to help us assess objectively all the efforts made by Irish Government for the implementation of our Convention and recommendations made during the last engagement with you. During this dialogue I will raise the following issues, training on prevention

of

torture

and

ill-treatment

functioning

of

the

NPM

and

independent resourcing of the Inspector of Prisons, overcrowding and material conditions in prisons, medical care, solitary confinement, inter-prisoner violence and deaths in custody, the complaints mechanism and investigations, juveniles in detention, women in detention, human trafficking and intersex persons. Regarding training and the prevention of torture and ill treatment. First of all, the Committee welcomes the fact that training in information in relation to Human Rights is provided on an ongoing basis to all prison staff and all training of recent officers assigned to the prisons. Another positive elements of the professional training is the training programme on child protection delivered in the last 2 years to the vast majority of the prison staff that come into contact with the children as well as new empirical app for staff working with women. In this respect, it would be very interesting to find whether the training envisages elements of staff interaction with other vulnerable categories of prisoners at risk of ill-treatment such as drug addicts, migrants, Travellers, Roma and other vulnerable groups. What the Committee would like to be updated on is whether professional training on our Convention and also CPT specific recommendations are carried out for the police and prison staff. At least it is not clear from the State Party Report. At the same time, the Committee would like to be informed whether the training for judges, prosecutors, court officials, lawyers, law enforcement and prison personnel on all the provisions of the Convention especially the absolute prohibition of torture is mandatory. We are interested to know if the training sessions on ill-treatment are based on the real training needs of all these target groups. Also, it will be useful for us to know how many judges, prosecutors and prison and police officers received proper training in preventing and combating torture and ill-treatment including in European Court jurisprudence in the field? Another positive initiative mentioned in the State Party’s

Report, in Paragraph 102, is that a new investigative interviewing model has been put into place. The Committee would like to receive more detailed information about the training on the new interrogation techniques for police officers. How many police officers have received such training and how effective is it? Taking into consideration that medical personal play a crucial and important role in torture documentation and investigation, we would like to be informed whether medical personnel dealing with convicts and all professionals involved in the documentation of investigations into torture received systematic training in the Istanbul Protocol? Whether the impact and effectiveness of this training are assessed? This information is also missing in the State

Party's

Report.

In

light

of

the

Committees

previous

concluding

observations please provide information of whether law enforcement agencies receive proper training on how to fulfil their duties, including on the use of force, crowd control and the use of equipment and special means that is appropriate to the type of demonstration they are dealing with. Because the State Party Report doesn't offer details on these topics and we would like to be updated on. Also, the Committee would like to be informed if the State Party provided training on the prevention of torture and the use of force and special means for the military intelligence officers and security guards. The Committee would like to welcome the publication, by the State Party, of the code of ethics for the Garda Síochána in January 2017. But reiterates the view of the National Human Rights Commission, that the code should incorporate explicit reference to the prohibition of torture under our Convention. Also, it would be useful for us to know if the law enforcement officials, investigators and prosecutors have received any particular training on combating domestic violence and trafficking in human beings during the reporting period? In line with the above, we would like to remind the State Party that training in the prevention of torture and ill treatment should be mandatorily part of the initial and ongoing professional training in all law enforcement bodies. Because, on the holistic approach, capacity building activities could contribute to the prevention of torture. Functioning of the NPM. In its initial reports to our Committee in May 2011 Ireland reported that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform started to work on a draft legislation for the establishment of an NPM. In its Statement to the Committee the Government informed that its legislation for the ratification of OPCAT was approved on the 18th of May 2011. On the same occasion the Committee recommended Ireland to speed up the process of OPCAT ratification and the establishment of an NPM. Now in July

2017, we're in a position to reiterate the Committee’s previous recommendation since the State Party Report does not provide too much detail on the establishment of an NPM.

We

would

appreciate

very

much

an

update

on

the

latest

developments regarding the ratification of OPCAT and the establishment of the NPM.

More

specifically,

on

the

status

of

the

Inspection

of

Places

of

Detention Bill, which according to your report, will facilitate the implementation of OPCAT. You mention in your report that independent bodies already inspect prisons, including the Inspector of Prisons, the Health, Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), the Inspector of Mental Health. All these entities mentioned above, act as official bodies but the Committee would like to find out if the human rights NGOs have access to places of detention and to what extent? Are NGOs allowed to carry out any monitoring visits to places of detention? Please comment on this. One of those bodies mentioned above is the Inspector of Prisons, according to the legal provisions and existing practice the Inspector of Prisons submits inspection reports to the Minister of Justice who has the authority to publish these reports. It must be acknowledged that reports and investigations into the death in custody have been published regularly and that the Inspector has also published a number of other important thematic reports. A system of inspections of prisons and other places of detention can only be effective if the inspecting mechanism is provided with sufficient resources to engage in the regular or systematic oversight of those places. In this respect we would like to clarify if the Inspector has available resources to conduct regular inspections to places of detention and if the inspector has enough resources to conduct investigations into all death occurring in prison custody and on temporary release. The Committee would like to be informed about the steps that the Government has taken in recent years to ensure that the office of Inspector of Prisons has sufficient resources to conduct regular visits to prisons and present reports for publication and also to what extent the recommendations of the office of Inspector of Prisons are taken into consideration by the prison management and by the headquarters of the Minister of Justice. And now I'm moving to other important issues that needs to be in the permanent focus of the Irish Government. The Committee welcomes transformative and very relevant improvements in relation to physical prison infrastructure and the ongoing attention paid to penal reform by the State including the implementation of the Strategic Review of Penal Policy in 2014, and the commitment to align the Prison Rules 2007 with the Mandela Rules. On

a positive note, the Committee would like to highlight that the prison population decreased in the last years. The daily average population in 2016 stood at 3.718 compared with 3.722 in 2015, however, the number of females held in the Irish prisons has continued to rise. In 2016, the daily average population of women prisoners was 140 compared to 131 the year before. On the 22nd of June this year, a number of prisons were operating above the Inspector of Prisons recommended capacity. Dóchas Centre, Mountjoy female at 113%, Limerick at 133 and Limerick Female wing at 138. Speaking about penal policy, we would like to share some concerns, especially the fact that Irish authorities are, sorry, one of our main concerns regarding the situation of overcrowding is the fact that there is an over-reliance on prison as a punishment, which leads to continued overcrowding in prisons. In line with the above, the Committee would like to be updated about the steps the Government is planning to reduce, is planning to take in order to reduce the overcrowding in prisons. Are the shortcomings the Committee came across regarding prisons up-to-date? What is the material

conditions

of

the

prison

establishment?

For

instance,

in-

cell sanitation continues to be of concern, more specifically the Committee would like to be updated about the situation with the recent developments on the construction of the Cork and Limerick prisons and I would like to thank you Mr Stantan for the update on Cork Prison. Are these facilities fully functional? Did they take into consideration the UN standards and recommendations for the prisoners? In addition, please provide an update on the Thornton Hall Prison Project since the working group was established in 2015. The Government has made strong progress towards the elimination of the so called 'slopping out' system in Irish prisons and should be commended on this achievement since this recommendation was mentioned the last Committee's concluding observation. As of April 2017, there were 56 prisoners remaining in the prison estate who were required to slop out, however, it should be noted that on the same date a further 1,539 prisoners across the estate were required to use toilet facilities in the presence of another prisoner. These toilet facilities are provided in cells were prisoners also eat their meals, which in our view amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Irish Prison Service Strategic Plan

2016-2018

promises

the

elimination

of

slopping

out

with

the

modernisation of Limerick prison and Block E of Portlaoise Prison. In paragraph 125 of the State Party's report, it is mentioned that Irish Prison Service has successfully produced a policy on Close Supervision Cells and Safety Observation Cells. This

policy provides guidance to staff on the use of Close Supervision Cells which are used to manage violent or distressed prisoners, as well as Safety Observation Cells which have to be used for medical reasons. We would appreciate very much if you could elaborate more on this issue especially: do prisoners placed an observation cells benefit from Outdoor exercise? How their cells are equipped with, including incell sanitation? What is the average length of time individual prisoners spend in Close Supervision

Cells,

and

whether

any

of

these

placements

are

continuous or repeated placements of the same prisoners? Separation of remand prisoners.

In

its

current

report

to

the

Committee,

paragraph

79,

the

Government states that "every effort is made to utilise" Cloverhill prison in Dublin in order to meet the requirements of the Prison Rules 2007 in relation to the separation of remand prisoners and sentenced persons. In practice, separation is not always achieved, and Ireland continues its reservation to Article 10.2 of the ICCPR, meaning that it is obliged to separate remind and sentence prisoners only as far as practically possible. The Committee welcomes publication by the Irish prison service

of

daily,

monthly,

yearly

statistics

of

prison occupancy, however transparencies may seem, for example, with regards the length of time spent on remand and the length of time that detainees are restricted under protection procedures, as I will refer to later on. The State Party Report does not contain any relevant figures of prisoners on remand, and I must say I hardly found relevant statistics on remand on the Irish Prison Service website. The Committee would like to be updated on the number of remand detainees including juveniles who are detained in mixed accommodation including at Cloverhill remand prison? What is the average period of time that remand prisoners have to spend in prisons? What is the concrete timeline for the State Party sets to ensure the separation of remand and convicted prisoners? Another serious concern that we came across is related to interpersonal violence. The Committee recognises the progress made by the State Party to reduce the level of violence in prisons. The major steps taken during the reporting period. However, the frequency of violent incidents among prisoners is high, we received a lot of reports indicating this finding. For instance, 770 incidents took place in 2016, 85% were interprisoner incidents. Besides classical causes of the violence, incidents which are common for most of the prisons in the world. such as: overcrowding, closed spaces, strict rules and bad communication with staff, the violent clashes in Irish

prisons was fuelled by a number of factors. Notably the existence of gangs, high prevalence of drug use, and poor offer of extra gym activities in some of the prisons. It's worth mentioning the lack of meaningful activity increasing tensions and violence and of course undermines integration and reintegration of convicts. Between January 2014 and September 2016, 73 prisoners were hospitalised as a result of actual or suspected assaults with 34 incidents coming from Mountjoy Prison. Mountjoy Prison also has the highest number of self-harm incidents about 20 cases. Also increasing levels of violence among the female prison population have also been reported. The number of recorded direct physical assault on staff also increased from 84 in 2011 to a peak of 122 in 2013 and 93 in 2015. The review found that it’s also carried out by a relatively small number of prisoners within an established pattern of challenging behaviour or mental health disease. A very interesting finding that the Committee came across, I must say it's a very controversial situation existing in one of the prisons namely Portlaoise Prison, which if I'm not mistaken is the only one that's the high security prison in the country, that has the lowest level of violence reporting 2016. Actually, 15 cases of prisoner on prisoner assault, and 5 prisoner and officer assaults. However, it has the highest number of control and restraint incidents. 373 incidents in 2016 which represent 45% of total for the entire prison estate in 2016. In this respect, can the Irish prison service explain the disproportionately high number of control and restraint incidents in Portlaoise Prison. The State Party Report does not provide relevant figures of violent incidents or self-harm that occurred in the prisons during the reporting period. Therefore, for an objective assessment on the level of violence in prisons we would like to be updated on the statistics on the instance of violence including the prevalence of sexual violence. And also please update the Committee about the Irish Government’s efforts to address the phenomenon of inter-prisoner violence including preventive measures and initiation of specific action such as drugs strategy programme and the system of recording violent incidents within prisons. Also how many complaints by prisoners during the reporting period were in relation to the excessive use of force or allegation of assault by a prison officer. Incentivise Regime. In 2012 the Irish prison service adopted the policy on incentivised regime which provides for differentiation of privilege between prisoners based on the level of engagement with the prison service and on their behaviour. The Committee would be interested to learn about results of an evaluation of the policy on their specific regime if any since its introduction in

February 2012, whether this approach is effective and whether it ensures a progressive enforcement of the punishment and may contribute to a less violent environment in the prisons. Deaths in Custody. The reports of the Inspector of Prisons into death in custody have been published regularly. Issues have been identified regarding internal reviews undertaken by the Irish Prison Service following such incidents. The most recent CPT report on Ireland noted shortcomings in the internal investigation of death in prison and particular the lack of any internal review mechanism. Furthermore, some of the Inspector’s reports on deaths in custody in recent years have identified deficiencies in terms of the mechanism of internal review into serious incidents by the Irish Prison Service and also insufficient record keeping. In his most recently published annual report the Inspector stated "when reports of incidents or operation reports are generated it appears that only the minimum is included, in certain cases search reports are incomplete, inaccurate and at times misleading”. More specifically, in its last report, the CPT expressed its concern regarding four recent cases of deaths in custody. Two self-inflicted and two preceded by assaults on the prisoners who later died. The delegation was concerned also that the Irish prison service may have failed in his duty of care to these prisoners under there had been no internal review by the prison management into all circumstances surrounding the deaths of these four prisoners. By a letter on the 6th of January 2015, the Irish authorities informed the CPT that is Director General of the Irish prison service had improved structures and methods of dealing with all deaths in custody. Every incident was subjected to an internal review and assessment of the circumstances of the death to determine their accountability. Further, each prison has established a local multidisciplinary death in custody suicide prevention group which would be chaired by the Governor. That group would play an active role in identifying the lessons to be learnt and developing and overseeing the implementation of any corrective action plan. It is expected that the local group would also carry out periodic audits to ensure that the actions agreed are followed. We would be very grateful if you could provide us with some updates on this newly introduced practice and its effectiveness. Also please provide the number of deaths in custody during the reporting period, which occurred during the reporting period and indicate whether any prosecution has been carried out as a result of the newly introduced internal reviews of death. Prisoners on protection. The Committee has been informed by various sources that prisoners on protection have a very poor prison

regime and almost no contact with the outside world since they cannot have any safe contact with other inmates. Prisoners on protection who have not committed any disciplinary offence but are unable to access activities due to their protection status should not be de facto punished by being placed on the basic level of the incentivised regime system. In addition, conditions akin to solitary confinement can have an extremely damaging effect on the mental, symantec and social health of the prisoner. The damaging effect can be immediate and can increase the longer the measure lasts for them or how indeterminate it is. The Committee wishes to stress that while pursuing their call of insuring that all prisoners can serve the sentence in safe conditions the authorities should strive to minimise the damaging effect of such segregation. For those prisoners placed on protection means 21 to 23 hour lock up for more than a few weeks additional measures should be taken in order to provide them

with

appropriate

condition

of

treatment

and

access

to

activities, educational courses and supports should be feasible. In line with the above mentioned,

please

inform

the

Committee

on

the

number

of

prisoners

detained on detention. Some of the sources say that there are less than 100 prisoners. Did these figures increase during the reporting period? And what measures have been put into place by the State Party to provide Prisoners on protection for more than a short period with a range of purposeful activities including exercise yard and family visit? And now we're moving to a very important topic, healthcare in prisons. When making its concluding observations in 2011 the Committee expressed its concern regarding deficiencies in the standards of healthcare in Irish prisons and asked the Government to improve the situation. Following its periodic visit to Ireland in 2014, the CPT expressed an almost similar concern. While acknowledging the standard of healthcare improved in some prisons, the CPT noted that it deteriorated in others. In fact, in the preliminary remarks to the Irish Government, the CPT observed that healthcare services in some prisons were in a state of crisis and highlighted poor management of services and disjointed through care, poor management support, understaffing and gaps in escort provision to ensure prisoners attend medical appointments in the community. As shown by the Investigation into the Death of Prisoner F in the Custody of Mountjoy Prison in 2013. Such gaps, in this case due to lack of escort, probably due to under staffing and poor coordination of response, following referral to accident and emergency did contribute to deaths in custody. The Inspector of Prisons stated that the provision of

healthcare to prisoners should be the sole responsibility of medical professionals and must not be dependent on operational considerations. The CPT and other national bodies urged the Government to undertake a fundamental review of healthcare in prisons. In 2016, The Inspector of Prisons published a report into the provision of healthcare services, in the report he noted it was difficult to assess the adequacy of those services in prisons, as no health needs analysis on the prison population has been undertaken. Nor has there been a staffing needs analysis, this means medical staff. In 2016, the Inspector of Prisons reported an unmanageable workload, reduction of nursing staff to dangerous levels and the absence of other night and weekend medical

cover.

Reports

of

deaths

of

prisoners

are

also

illustrative

of

under resourced health services in prisons. Deficiencies in healthcare provision have also been reported by Prison Visiting Committees. The Health Information and Quality Authority does not have oversight of healthcare provision in Irish prisons, if I'm not mistaken. The CPT noted that Irish prisons continues to detain persons with psychiatric disorders too sever to be properly cared for in a prison setting. In this connection,

CPT

observed

that

the

high

support

unit

in

Castlerea, Midlands and Mountjoy prisons where under resourced and did not meet the needs of prisoners, lacked structured activities and provided for no occupational or recreational therapy. Recent staff working in this units were illprepared for dealing with prisoners with serious mental illnesses. Another concern of the Committee relates to the psychological assistance to prisoners, in 2015 a review of psychological services noted that the service employs one psychologist for every 220 prisoners. The report also notes psychology services in the Irish Prison Service was disjointed from other services available to prisoners including physical and mental health services. Also the report noted that psychological services have very stringent referral criteria which required length of the sentence left of 18 months or more for access. A waiting list for almost one year and more. Cloverhill prison visiting Committee said that: a chronic lacking of psychology services means that prisoners can be remanded for up to two years or maybe longer and not to be seen by psychologist. Currently an average of 20 or 30 prisoners are awaiting transfer to the Central Mental Hospital. As we've been told a new 120 bed hospital to replace the Central Mental Hospital is being built. it isn't clear whether sufficient number of forensic mental health beds will be available to the Irish prison service to facilitate the removal of all prisoners with serious mental health issues requiring secure care from

the prison system. So, we would appreciate your updates regarding the transfer of the mentally ill prisoners from the prison to the newly built Hospital. 2016 review on drugs and alcohol treatment in Irish prisons identified the lack of services dealing with comorbidity. An estimated 70% of the prison population have addiction issues, with rates of addiction among the female population at 85%. Prisoner’s health and social care needs are different and are often more acute then those of the general population. Drug treatment programmes vary across prisons which is inadequate considering the recognition that addiction is a major contributory factor in criminality. The prison affords a unique environment in which to support offenders to address their addiction. Certain harm reduction measures operating in the community such as a needle exchange programme and overdose preventative drugs are generally unavailable in prisons despite evidence that prisoners inject drugs. CPT report indicates that the practice of handcuffing a prisoner to a prison officer during external medical consultations in the hospital even when the consultation takes place in a secure a room, regrettably, has not changed. In the Committee’s view to routinely apply handcuffs to a prisoner who is undergoing a medical consultation or intervention is not acceptable from the standpoint of medical ethics and human dignity. Practices of this kind prevent adequate medical examination from being carried out, will inevitably jeopardise the development of a proper doctorpatient relationship and may even be prejudicial to the establishment of objective medical observation and documentation. Taking into consideration all these findings the Committee would like to ask the State Party about its plan to improve the healthcare services in prisons and namely what concrete steps does the Government envisage to undertake in order to implement the recommendations of international bodies and Inspector of Prisons regarding healthcare services. In addition, we would appreciate your comment on bringing the present healthcare services under the responsibility of the Minister of Health. Another specific concern is related to the recording of injuries to juveniles. All juveniles are medically assessed upon arrival in the children detention schools by the nurse on the day of admission and by the doctor. The screening consists of a full medical history and a physical examination including the use of body maps to note down any injuries or marks.

If a child

alleges that he or she has been assaulted the doctor takes the statement from the child and documents the injuries and passes the information to the Child Protection Officers or the child’s solicitor. If the allegation concerns excessive use of force by the

Gardaí, the Child Protection Officer will inform the parents and it's up to them whether or not to pursue the matter. In its report the CPT delegation noted that the medical services did not keep a register for allegations or signs of injuries noted on children nor any record of allegations forwarded to the Child Protection Officer. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the State Party about the requirements that injuries should be photographed and filed in the medical records of the juvenile and all types of injury should be recorded in a special trauma register. Whenever injuries consistent with an allegation of ill-treatment made by a juvenile, which even in the absence of allegations are indicative of ill-treatment are recorded, the report is immediately

brought

to

the

attention

of

the

Garda

Síochána

Ombudsman commission regardless of the wishes of the young person concerned of his or her parents. Speaking about children in detention, we would like to mention a series of concerns and also some positive elements that we came across. The Committee is pleased to note that the detention of all juveniles is now placed under the responsibility of the Minister of Children and Youth Affairs and the much criticised St. Patrick's Institution has been closed down. It also notes positively, that the number of juveniles in detention has declined since 2010. On a positive note the Committee welcomes the opening of Oberstown Detention School and the commitment to the ending of sentencing of children to adult prisons. However, despite the good material condition adjusted to the needs of young offenders, some of the report concluded that children in Oberstown where not always safe, shortcomings in accessing medical care and medication and there are violent incidents among young prisoners. According to the Health Information and Quality Authority's report best practice was not always implemented in managing the behaviour and indication management of children in Oberstown. The Hickory report also found that children were occasionally placed in locked rooms for long period of time and not all children had care plans and where they did exist the quality of plans varied. Significant risks were identified in three specific areas:

care of young people, health and staffing and management. In

addition, some violent incidents took place last August, and May this year in the facility when a major fire, actually the incident that took place in August last year was about a major fire that broke out at the centre of the campus after young offenders climbed into the roof of the building during protest. Another point of, this incident is very emblematic it shows that actually the management is not in control of the situation. It is very regrettable that this incident took place in a quite new and well-

adjusted detention centre. Another point of concern for the Committee is the use of solitary confinement of children. The practice of isolating children is known as "single separation". Concerns have arisen before the Irish courts with regards to the segregation

of

juvenile

prisoners

in

Oberstown

in

circumstances

where

juvenile detainees claim to have been confined to the cell without respite for a period of weeks in conditions that they alleged amounted to solitary confinement. Therefore, the Committee would like to ask the State Party about the concrete measures that have been put into place in order to prevent protest and violent incidents in the campus, to stop using solitary confinement as a management tool for the less obedient children and other preventative measures. Also we would like to know what are the existing measures to encourage good behaviour of the minors in detention so called 'progressive approach of the sentence enforcement’ which implies motivational measures not only punishment? What are the educational and vocational programmes they are receiving while in detention? Are they involved in some extra regime activities such as sport, art, art therapy, anger management and other rehabilitation programmes aimed at reducing juvenile recidivism and encouraging prosocial behaviour? We would appreciate very much any relevant information in this respect. Police complaints mechanism. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission's main function is to deal as effectively and fairly as possible with matters of alleged misconduct by members of An Garda Síochána. By law the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is responsible for conducting independent investigations following referrals from Garda in circumstances in which police contact might have resulted in death or serious harm to a person. For instance,

in

2015

the

Garda

Síochána

Ombudsman

Commission initiated 52 such investigations, 15 of which involved fatalities. In February 2015 the parliament enacting legislation expanding the oversight powers of the GSOC. Despite the recent changes in the legislation some of the reports indicate ongoing concern in relation to the powers and function of GSOC. These concerns include: the limited scope of mandatory formal Investigations by GSOC to those situations involving death or serious harm resulting from police operations. The limitation of GSOC's powers to investigate the Garda commissioner which is subject to the consent of the Minister, the continued involvement of An Garda Síochána in investigating disciplinary matters including serious disciplinary problems and, the last one, the use of the officers of An Garda Síochána by GSOC rather than its

own Independent pool of investigators. On the specific issue of leaseback appointed by the Human Rights Committee in its last concluding observation as a matter of concern the practice whereby complaints referred to GSOC are referred back to the Garda for investigation it would not appear that the practice of GSOC is that the leaseback will only be employed for the service level complaints and not in cases where criminal offence has been alleged. Please elaborate on this issue in order to make it clear for the Committee. because there's a slight confusion. In 2015 GSOC received almost 2000 complaints from the public, the most common of which involved investigations, arrests, road policing, customer service and searches. the largest number of allegations against police related to abuse of authority or neglect of Duty. Please specify how many cases received and handled by GSOC were strictly related to allegations of torture or ill-treatment, including in relation to, non-fatal offences. Please update us on the final outcomes of search out complaints processed by GSOC. How many of these allegations resulted in Criminal investigations and what are the outcomes of these investigations. As per complaints mechanism in prisons I would like to raise the following issues: it has to be mentioned that oversight of this prisoner complaints procedure by the Inspector of Prisons does not extend to directing further enquiries, initiating new investigations, taking further evidence or reversing the finding of a prison governor. In April 2016, the Inspector of Prisons reviewed and evaluated the operation of the procedure and probably says report on the effectiveness of the complaints process whereby he noted the following deficiencies. Lack of or incomplete documentation of complaints selected for his review timelines for resolution of complaints not followed, delays in the appointment of external investigators especially for the category A complaints, sometimes it's up to 3 months, gaps in referrals to the police in appropriate cases, lack of communication with complainants, miscategorisation of some serious allegation, confusion about the complaints

categorisation

and

other

short

comings.

Most

importantly

prisoners expressed lack of confidence in the complaint system, they feel they would not be protected if they made a complaint and this leads to the fact that they are actually discouraged from making complaints the current system clearly does not provide for an effective remedy while also still not providing an independent appeal outside of the prison system which represent a matter of serious concern for our Committee. In its strategic plan 2016 - 2018 the Irish Prison Service committed to reviewing its complaints procedure and I quote "with the view to introducing a greater

involvement and oversight by an independent body". On a positive note, I would like to mention the recent Statement of the Minister for Justice saying that the Government has engaged with the Ombudsman with reference to the potential role in the prisoner complaints system. The Minister also stated that the new complaints procedure is being drafted to take into account the findings of the Inspector of Prisons 2016 report. Any update on these issues are more than welcome. Also, please provide an update on the number of complaints provided by the prisoners, the number of complaints upheld, the outcomes all the complaints have been successfully upheld. How many of these complaints are related to torture and ill-treatment? Because the State report contained some figures and paragraph 117, but what is not clear is, how many of these complaints are related to treatment under torture and the figures are, if I'm not mistaken, just for the years 2012 to 2015. Use of solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is regularly used in Irish prisons both as a means of protection and as a punishment. The practice of isolating children as mentioned above is known as a single separation while the use of 19+ hours is generally referred to as restricted regime. Worryingly the numbers subjected to a restricted regime in Irish prisons has shown an increase in 2016 from 339 in January to 424 in October last year. Further, the statistics published by the Irish prison service do not show how long each of these prisoners actually spent in solitary confinement nor how often they are returned to solitary confinement or whether it has simply been renewed. A prisoner may be subjected to a restricted regime under the prison rules 2007 the Committee reiterates its view that solitary confinement is a last resort, an exceptional measure that must be imposed for a short time as possible, as an exceptional measure. Prison authorities must be accountable to justify the use of solitary confinement and why less restrictive measures could not retrieve the stated objective. The loss of privilege which results in prisoners being held in conditions akin to solitary confinement is unacceptable. We would appreciate the State Party's reply regarding the review of the use of solitary confinement considering the continued prevalence of this measure. Women in detention. The number of male prisoners in Irish prisons has increased dramatically in recent years. In 2010, 1470 women were committed to prison in Ireland. Women in Ireland are detained in the Dóchas, sorry for the pronunciation, Dóchas Centre, and the Limerick women's closed prison, a number of sources indicated, in the last years overcrowding has been a persistent problem in

these two facilities. According to some of the sources, in February 2017 Ireland's two women's prisons were overcrowded. The Dóchas Centre was operating at 111% occupancy while the female wing of the Limerick Prison was operating at 125% occupancy. What significant progress was made in reducing the level of overcrowding

in

many

prisons?

Women's

prisons

have

been

chronically

overcrowded in the last years. The Committee is fully aware about some relevant steps that the Irish Government has taken in order to improve the situation for women in detention. Moreover, we very much welcome the publication of the Government's National Strategy for Women and Girls 2017 to 2020 in May this year. It shows clearly the State Party's engagement to improve the situation. The strategy aims to address the

institutional

inequalities

that

exist

between

men

and

women

in

Ireland, including, the implementation of recommendations made by the Penal Policy Review Group in order to address the improved health, well-being and rehabilitation of women offenders. Improving the standard of female accommodation in Limerick prison and improving access to rehabilitation and integration programs and development of alternative sanctions to imprisonment. The Irish Prison Service and the Probation Service committed to open a step down facility by the first quarter of 2018 for women leaving prison and we would like to receive your comments on the status of the new facility. In this respect, the Committee would also like to ask the State Party about is views to reduce the overcrowding in the above-mentioned prison establishments. We are also interested to find out what legislative and policy changes are planned to reduce the rate of women receiving custodial sentences for less serious and non-violent crimes including through alternative sentencing options. Chairman of the Committee J. Modvig Five more minutes, Ms. Racu. Mme. Racu (Audio between 02:05:23 and 02:06:00 is distorted and cannot be accurately transcribed) Trafficking and fair speech, in 2008 Human Trafficking Act amended 2013 criminalises all forms of trafficking. The criminal justice Bill 2015 was enacted in February 2017 and criminalises the purchase of sex services from a trafficked person for which prescribed significant penalties. In such cases the burden of proof shifts to the accused, who must

prove that they were unaware the victim was trafficked. The Criminal Justice Bill includes measures against child grooming and include additional support and protection for victims during the criminal trial process. We are fully aware that the Government maintain the victim protection efforts but it lacks specialised accommodation for female victims and had deficiencies in its victim identification, referral and compensation process. The authorities identified 95 suspected victims of trafficking in 2016, compared to 78 in 2015 and 46 in 2014. Experts raised concern about the Government's ability to identify human trafficking victims and efficiency in doing so. Also NGOs noted, only non-European nationals are officially recognised by the Government has suspected human trafficking victims. Another Point of concern regarding trafficking in person's is exclusion from accessing social assistance support for non-Irish citizens and deficiencies in collecting data on victims. Taking into account the recent concluding observations made by CEDAW in March 2017. We would like to bring some common efforts of our Committee and to ask the State Party to provide its view regarding the improvement of the statistics on suspected victims of trafficking and prosecutions collected by relevant agencies. What are the State Party’s plans for enhancing the States collaboration with NGOs to ensure victims of trafficking are identified at the early stage, protected and assisted? And the very last issue is related to the right of intersex to persons. The Committee's concern about reports

of

intersex

genital

mutilation,

namely

involuntary

non-urgent

genital surgery and other treatments. Often performed on children and without the consent of the person concerned which this Committee considers as illtreatment. Ireland has already been recommended by CRC and CEDAW to prevent such treatment and to adopt legal provisions in order to provide redress. In order to assess objectively this situation regarding the rights of the intersex person we would like to ask the State Party the following questions: is there any collection of data and treatment of intersex persons paid for by the Health Service Executive disaggregated by type of intervention and age including on children sent abroad for surgery? Are there any legislative measures plans to prevent involuntary treatment and to ensure access to redress? With this I think I’ve exhausted my main questions to the delegation and I will be awaiting your replies, thank you very much.

Chairman of the Committee J. Modvig Thank you Ms. Racu, I would like to ask you out of the Committee members would like to ask questions. I see Mr. Touzé, Mr. Zhang, Mr. Heller, Mr. Bruni, Madam Belmir, Mr. Hani and myself. I will have to say we have a maximum of 4 minutes each and to allow the last one on the speaker mainly myself also to speak. I will administer this quite toughly. so four minutes each. I have Mr. Touzé. Mr. Touzé (paraphrased from French audio) Thank you Mr. President, I propose to ask a few questions within the limited time. Allow me to ask during this time, to ask to the delegation and to the Minister particularly relating to certain issues. I would like to ask questions regarding historical sexual abuse in institutional schools in particular with reference to the O'Keeffe case relating to sexual abuse in certain school dwellings in the 1960s. Interpretation of the regulations of European rights most notably Article 3 and Article 13 of the European Convention in considering of the allegations received of sexual abuse in these facilitates. There were complaints that have been highlighted that were not evidenced before the European Court at the time of the case. I would just like to know that if you did follow up then what were the criteria that you used to register all the complaints I also noticed that in January 2017, there were 46 complaints on that very same matter so I wanted to know if these were new complaints or old ones that were held in avoidance at the time the ruling of the court case and I wanted to know what has become of these 46 cases or complaints. And more generally… Chairman of the Committee J. Moveg Please finish your question. Mr. Touzé So, domestic violence now that's been raised by Ms. Gear but I would just like to say on it and put a question to you. The argument of the State Party in the report is that it intends to put an end to "reasonable punishment" what are your intentions in connection with allegations of torture or ill-treatment within the family. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman

Chairman of the Committee J. Moveg Thank you, Mr. Zhang Mr. Zhang Thank you Chair, let me join my colleagues in warmly welcoming the distinguished higher level delegation from Ireland. I have a question actually regarding information provided

under

your

report

regarding

Article

10

and

the

image

you actually introduced is kind of a practice of setting up a designated liaison persons and family liaison officer for the protection of children and those young prisoners between the ages of 17 and 20. While I find them very commendable and good practice, I wonder whether you could elaborate on this system, especially, inform us whether you have an evaluation mechanism set up to find out and determine whether or to what extent these practices are effective in the protection of children, I mean child detainees in the prison. I thank you. Chairman of the Committee J. Moveg Thank you Mr. Zhang, Mr. Bruni Mr. Bruni Thank you, since the time is very limited I will limit my question to two only: the first one, I wish to refer to the reply in the report to the question 11 of the Committee's list of issues relating to the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. It says that, in your report, work continues and Inspection of Places of Detention Bill which will facilitate implementation of the protocol and in addition all applicable functions of the National Preventive Mechanism are being examined. Now, I understand this analytical approach taken by the Irish authorities to put in place the basic structure for the implementation of the Optional Protocol before it's ratification, but, I observe also that the same information was given more than 6 years ago when the initial report of Ireland was considered by our Committee and since then, it appears that not much progress has been made and because more-or-less the same information was given in the introduction this morning. So, my question is: can this process be accelerated, is there a specific agenda for the adoption of legislative measures that would enable Ireland to ratify the Optional Protocol? The other issue was to refer to, is the report, yes, paragraph 79 of the report of the Government. Which

indicates with respect to non-sentenced migrant immigrant prisoners every effort is made to detain those prisoners as possible in Cloverhill prison which is are dedicated remand prison. The problem is that during the visit to Ireland in September 2014, the European Committee for the prevention of torture found out that the conditions of detention were not appropriate in that prison. So, I will not describe what the European Committee said exactly in detail because I do not have time, but, similar concern was expressed by the visiting Committee on that particular prison in its annual report for 2015. And I go to the question, the Government replied that the dedicated immigration detention facility was expected to be in place in Dublin airport in 2016. However, according to NGOs information the opening of that detention facility was delayed for perhaps 12 months. My question is: because perhaps is not clear exactly the period. My question what is the situation today has this new facility been put in place? And what are its characteristics? And I will stop here. Thank you. Chairman of the Committee J. Moveg Thank you Mr. Bruni, Mr. Heller Mr. Heller Rouassant Thank you Mr Chairman, I will be very brief however I'm very grateful to the Minister for the statement and him updating us on the situation after this 18-month period of time. I would like to refer to the issue of the potential reform of the law on abortion and this whole political process that is within the Citizens assembly. My concrete question is this: does the Government have a policy to disseminate to society the international obligations international

that

Ireland

obligations,

has and

undertaken? does

the

That

is

population

its

human

rights

know

about

treaty

bodies recommendations that can contribute to this debate and lead to a potential referendum on an amendment to the law on abortion? That's my first question, I would just like to ask you about the Optional Protocol ratification process the OPCAT, there is a draft bill on the monitoring of detention centres. Now I was just wondering, if you are contemplating a timeline, a road map with a timeline, for the setting up of the National Preventive Mechanism. Thank you very much. Chairman of the Committee J. Moveg Thank you very Mr. Heller, Madam. Belmir

Mme. Belmir Thank you Mr Chairman. I have very few questions, but they are never the less important questions. We would like to know the positive attitude of the Government of Ireland towards Syrian refugees lately and towards unaccompanied minors. Of course, everything could be improved as to how these persons are treated but as Ms. Gear said earlier on, there is a great number of people who wish to arrive in Ireland by sea and these persons are not allowed to do so. In these cases, criteria are used for the assuming of refugee status, the State Party has referred to a number of international instruments that are used to grant that status or not. We have found that CAT, the Convention Against Torture, is very little used in all of that process. So could you comment on that, Ms. Racu referred to isolation in prisons, so you have this idea of Supervised Cells or cells in which people are placed for observation, Close Observation, the CPT in its report has referred to Article 15 of the European Convention, the UN's Convention, could you comment on that also. Also the police ethics code, it also needs to refer to the Convention Against Torture. The CAT, needs to be used as a benchmark, a reference point, how do the police deal with a person who they have to deal with. Finally, on prison violence and drugs in prisons. The argument is used that it is inevitable given that we have Travellers, in prisons, they have to have drugs or drugs end up in prison. Now in the way that you deal with this violence is there a bit of a laissez-faire, so to speak, how do you deal with these matters of drugs and violence and Travellers in prison? How do you tackle the matter, are you proactive to you really address the issues of detention conditions? And the whole question of asylum seekers, what conditions are they retained in? So whilst paying tribute to the State Party for the efforts made we would like to really encourage you to do all that you can to remedy the issues that I have referred to. Thank you. Chairman of the Committee J. Moveg Thank you Madam. Belmir, Mr. Hani Mr. Hani Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would also like to welcome the delegation in our midst this morning, Minister, Ambassador and civil society and the National Human Rights Institution. The fact that you're all here tests to the fact that your country, the Government and civil society and the National Human Rights Institution are all

committed to this process. So if I may, I would like to make three points. Number one ratification of OPCAT your Government has indeed signed OPCAT, it did so in 2007, so there is political will there it has been there for 10 years and we're still waiting for ratification. Number two the Inspection of Places of Detention Bill, I'm a little worried about that because OPCAT covers all places of detention or deprivation of liberty not just place of detention so all places of deprivation of liberty namely prisons and psychiatric hospitals anywhere where someone may be deprived of their liberty by administrative decision or someone in medical authority for example. So, could you clarify the Government's intentions will fully respect the spirit and the letter of the Optional Protocol on the Convention Against Torture. Going back to the chemical restraint issue referred to by the National Human Rights Commission also in serious scientific publications, Medical Science Review in 2008 for example, and I will read the conclusion in English "the use of specific medications is common in long-stay units in the west of Ireland" this information was also repeated in other reports and media articles in 2015 in particular they say that this practice of chemical restraint is widespread,

could

you

comment

on

that?

What

measures

is

your

Government intending to take to put an end to this practice which obviously runs counter to the spirit of our Convention. I would also like to revisit a third very sensitive point namely the transport of prisoners. In 2015, the CPT considered that handcuffing detainees during transport should only occur when the risk assessment in each case justifies the hand cuffing so namely in extreme cases but according to civil society information it would appear that the handcuffing of transferred prisoners is commonplace, the normal standard is handcuffing transported prisoners, all the more so this is serious because very often the prison transport vans do not have safety belts and they report cases of traffic accidents in which, for example, a Midlands prison detainee who was transferred had his leg broken because he was handcuffed but didn't have a safety belt. So, what is the policy of your Government to limit the use handcuffs when prisoners are being transferred. Can you adopt the policy to only use handcuffs in serious situations, extreme situations, or can you find alternative security measures? To conclude Mr Chairman, rehabilitation of victims of torture, could you provide information to us pertaining to rehabilitation services provided to survivors of torture be they victims in Ireland or people who come to Ireland from places where they have been tortured. Do you have rehabilitation services not only in the capital but also throughout the territory of Ireland? And to

conclude my last question, are you intending to increase your contribution to the voluntary fund, that is the UN voluntary fund for the victims of torture? Because rehabilitation of victims of torture indeed is a domestic obligation for each State party to the Convention but it is also an international obligation. Given the number of crises and wars that grip the world today and given the rising victims of torture there is this need for democratic countries. Chairman of the Committee J. Moveg Mr. Hanni! Thank you very much, I have a few questions myself after having assured the time as Ms. Racu has covered the issue of isolation and solitary confinement very very thorough. But I have a very concrete question in that connection because last year the UN Special Rapporteur on torture Juan Mendez criticised Ireland for its use of lengthy isolation and a figure came up in the public namely that 24 prisoners had been in isolation from more than 100 days. I just wanted to ask, if this is correct can you confirm this figure? Is it voluntary isolation or is this disciplinary isolation? In general, instead I would like to commend the prison service and its Executive Director, General Director for engaging in into research in what matters to prison and measurement of quality of prison life with prisoners and staff. I think that this is commendable activity if there's time I would be curious to see it has had any positive influence the way the prison system is managed the knowledge that came from that research. Other than that I would like to elaborate a Mr. Hanni's question on rehabilitation because we know from many studies that the proportion of torture victims among asylum seekers I meant it is typically more than 30%. So it becomes important as the refugee determination procedure actually is able to identify those victims particularly because their poor condition requires special treatment and special procedures and also the torture may have significance for the outcome of the Refugee determination procedure. So, I would like to ask how the Government ensures that screening systemically and effectively actually identify victims of torture? And what is then done to ensure that such identified torture victims are placed in reception conditions that enable their rehabilitation and avoid the risk of re-traumatisation. And thirdly in this connection, if the Government intends to collect data on persons identified as torture victims among asylum seekers. The second question was moreor-less put by Mr. Hani I just rephrased it just a bit, namely that according to our

general

comment

rehabilitation

on

which

rehabilitation. is

enshrined

Rehabilitation in

the

services,

Convention

the needs

right

to

to

be

accessible, appropriate and available. As far as we know the Government can be commended for supporting Spirasi rehabilitation centre but that's only in Dublin so we would, as Mr. Hanni also addressed, be keen to hear if the Government has any plans of enabling a wider offer of wider access also in the rest of the country to rehabilitation for victims of torture. We still have some time the delegation will have the last few minutes but if the two rapporteurs have additional questions that will be possible. Ms. Gear no? Ms. Racu no? Any other members of the Committee? This is not the case; in that case I would like to hand back the floor to the delegation from Ireland. Minister Stanton Thank you Mr Chairman and I want to thank the two rapporteurs and the members of the Committee for their questions and their comments, I've taken 14 pages of notes myself here on this issue. So I think we have very little time left I will hand over to Noel here to see if any of our people are prepared to engage at this stage with some responses we have very little time left and time is valuable now. So, Noel do you want to start that ball rolling please? Noel Thank you very much Chairman. Thank you very much for your Committee’s questions, they are very much to the point and you have used your time wisely with a great deal of questions to address mostly tomorrow. But as an initial comment I would like to ask the Director General of the Irish prison service Micheal Donnellen to make a preliminary response. Micheal Donnellen Thank you Chairman and thank you to the rapporteurs for those questions, maybe if I could pick up what are two key areas that you referred to as prison matters in relation to death in custody… End of Recording