DOCSLIB.ORG

Royal Warrant Governing the Maintenance of Discipline Among Prisoners of War

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Royal Warrant Governing the Maintenance of Discipline Among Prisoners of War Royal Warrant governing the Maintenance of Discipline among Prisoners of War ELIZABETH R. WHEREAS WE deem it expedient to amend the Regulations governing competent tribunals to determine status pursuant to Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949, attached to Our Warrant dated the ninth day of November, 1956 ; AND WHEREAS WE further deem it expedient to amend the Regulations for the Maintenance of Discipline amongst Prisoners of War, attached to Our said Warrant, of such nations as have, or may in future, become parties to the said Geneva Convention of 1949, whether detained in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; OUR WILL AND PLEASURE is that Our said Warrant dealing with these matters shall be cancelled. OUR FURTHER WILL AND PLEASURE is that the status of prisoners of war shall be determined in accordance with the Regulations attached at the First Schedule of this Our Warrant which Regulations shall be the sole authority on the matters therein treated of. OUR FURTHER WILL AND PLEASURE is that the custody of and maintenance of discipline amongst prisoners of war detained in the custody of Our forces raised in the United Kingdom or Our colonies, protectorates, protected states and trust territories for the time being administered under the authority of Our Government in the United Kingdom under the trusteeship system of the United Nations shall be governed by the Regulations attached at the Second Schedule of this Our Warrant, which Regulations shall be the sole authority on the matters therein treated of. OUR FURTHER WILL AND PLEASURE is that this Our Warrant shall be known as Our Royal Warrant Governing the Maintenance of Discipline among Prisoners of War . Given at our Court at St. James's this seventh day of August in the seventh year of Our Reign. By Her Majesty's Command CHRISTOPHER SOAMES First Schedule: Convening of board of inquiry to determine the status of persons 1.–(1) Whenever it appears to an officer (hereinafter called the unit commander) who is the commanding officer of a body of Her Majesty's forces or who is the commandant of any camp or other place set apart for the internment of prisoners of war, that a doubt exists as to whether any person in his custody who has committed a belligerent act before capture, belongs to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949, he shall, subject to Regulation 4, convene a board of inquiry under these Regulations as soon as may be for the purpose of inquiring into, and determining by report, the status of the person in respect of whose status a doubt has arisen as aforesaid, and pending determination of that status, that person shall be treated for all purposes as, and enjoy the full privileges of, a prisoner of war. (2) If, in any case to which the preceding paragraph applies a unit commander does not convene a board of inquiry in accordance with that paragraph or cannot do so by virtue of Regulation 4, he shall, as soon as may be practicable, notify a superior authority of the fact that he has not or cannot convene the board of inquiry and it shall thereupon be the duty of that superior authority to convene the board of inquiry. (3) Nothing in the preceding paragraphs of this Regulation shall be construed as limiting in any way the power of a superior authority to convene a board of inquiry for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Regulation. Action to be taken where insufficient evidence of belligerent acts 2. If at any time before making such report it shall appear to the board of inquiry convened under these Regulations that there is insufficient evidence to establish that a belligerent act has been committed by the person whose status is the subject matter of determination before the board it shall so state when making the report. Application of the Army Act 1955, s. 135 and the Boards of Inquiry (Army) Rules, 1956 3. Except insofar as they shall be inconsistent with anything contained in these Regulations, the provisions as to the constitution of a board of inquiry and as to the procedure thereof contained in section 135 of the Army Act, 1955, and any Rules made thereunder and for the time being in force, shall apply to a board of inquiry under these Regulations as if the said provisions were set out herein. Persons who cannot convene boards of inquiry 4. Such a board of inquiry shall not be convened by a unit commander unless he is of or above the rank of major or corresponding rank. Presence at inquiry of person whose status is being determined 5. So far as practicable the person whose status is to be determined shall be present throughout the inquiry and have all the rights and privileges that a person who may be affected by the findings of a board of inquiry convened under section 135 of the Army Act, 1955, and any Rules made thereunder and for the time being in force would have. Effects of reports of boards of inquiry and convening of fresh boards 6. The report of any board of inquiry shall not require the confirmation of any superior officer or authority, and shall be effective for the purpose of determining the status of the person concerned under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949 : Provided that any officer or authority superior to the officer who convened the board of inquiry may, if of the opinion that the report of the board of inquiry is not supported by any evidence recorded before the board of inquiry, convene a fresh board of inquiry under and for the purposes of these Regulations and thereupon the report of the first board of inquiry shall be void and of no effect. Disposal of records of proceedings 7. The record of the proceedings of a board of inquiry held under these Regulations shall be forwarded to the Ministry of Defence and retained there. Reports not binding on civil courts or courts-martial 8. The report of any board of inquiry under these Regulations shall not be binding on any civil court or court- martial. Citation 9. These Regulations may be cited as the Prisoner of War Determination of Status Regulations, 1958. Second Schedule: Orders and Notices Orders relating to the custody and discipline of prisoners of war 1. The custody of prisoners of war and the maintenance of discipline among prisoners of war, shall, so far as circumstances admit, be regulated by orders issued under the authority of the officer commanding the command, district, area, garrison, or other place where the prisoners of war are held, subject to such instructions as may from time to time be issued by the Defence Council, such orders shall, so far as practicable, follow the specimen orders contained in the First Appendix of these Regulations. Method of communicating orders to prisoners of war 2. The orders referred to in Regulation 1 shall be communicated to each prisoner of war in a language which he understands. In addition:– (a) a copy of such orders in which the language of the prisoner of war shall be posted at a place where he may read it; and (b) the prisoners' representative shall be handed a copy of such orders in a language which he understands. Publication of text of the Convention in camps 3. In every camp, the text of the Convention and its annexes and of any special agreements concluded thereunder shall be posted in the prisoners' own language at places where all may read them and copies thereof shall he supplied on request to those prisoners of war who are unable to have access to the copies which have been so posted. List of approved types of work 4. Wherever practicable the Defence Council shall cause a list of the types of work approved by them to be posted in working camps for prisoners of war. Offences against discipline Offences other than civil offences 5.–(1) Subject to paragraph (3) of this Regulation, any prisoner of war who is guilty of any act, conduct, neglect of a type which, if committed by a member of the regular forces, would be punishable (otherwise than by virtue of section 70 of the Act) shall on conviction be liable to suffer such punishment or punishments not greater than imprisonment for a term of two years as may be permitted by Regulation 9 if the proceedings in respect of the offence are judicial proceedings, or such punishment or punishments as may be permitted by Regulation 10 if the proceedings in respect of the offence are disciplinary proceedings: Provided that:– (a) a prisoner of war who attempts to escape and is recaptured before having made good his escape shall be liable only to disciplinary punishment in respect of such attempted escape even if it is a repeated offence; (b) offences committed by a prisoner of war against these Regulations with the sole intention of facilitating his escape and which do not entail any violence against life or limb such as offences against public property, the drawing up or use of false papers, theft without intent of self-enrichment or the wearing of civilian clothes shall occasion disciplinary punishment only: and (c) any prisoner of war who aids or abets an escape or an attempt to escape shall be liable on this count to disciplinary punishment only. (2) Subject to paragraph (3) of this Regulation and without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing paragraph, any prisoner of war who is guilty of any act, conduct or neglect to the prejudice of: (a) the safety or well-being of Her Majesty's dominions, armed forces or subjects; or (b) the safe custody, control or well-being of any prisoner of war (including the person accused); or (c) good order and discipline among prisoners of war, shall on conviction in disciplinary proceedings be liable to disciplinary punishment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prisons in Yemen
    [PEACEW RKS [ PRISONS IN YEMEN Fiona Mangan with Erica Gaston ABOUT THE REPORT This report examines the prison system in Yemen from a systems perspective. Part of a three-year United States Institute of Peace (USIP) rule of law project on the post-Arab Spring transition period in Yemen, the study was supported by the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau of the U.S. State Department. With permission from the Yemeni Ministry of Interior and the Yemeni Prison Authority, the research team—authors Fiona Mangan and Erica Gaston for USIP, Aiman al-Eryani and Taha Yaseen of the Yemen Polling Center, and consultant Lamis Alhamedy—visited thirty-seven deten- tion facilities in six governorates to assess organizational function, infrastructure, prisoner well-being, and security. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Fiona Mangan is a senior program officer with the USIP Governance Law and Society Center. Her work focuses on prison reform, organized crime, justice, and security issues. She holds degrees from Columbia University, King’s College London, and University College Dublin. Erica Gaston is a human rights lawyer with seven years of experience in programming and research in Afghanistan on human rights and justice promotion. Her publications include books on the legal, ethical, and practical dilemmas emerging in modern conflict and crisis zones; studies mapping justice systems and outcomes in Afghanistan and Yemen; and thematic research and opinion pieces on rule of law issues in transitioning countries. She holds degrees from Stanford University and Harvard Law School. Cover photo: Covered Yard Area, Hodeida Central. Photo by Fiona Mangan. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: Pre-Trial Detention
    Detention Monitoring Tool Factsheet Pre-trial detention Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment ‘Long periods of pre-trial custody contribute to overcrowding in prisons, exacerbating the existing problems as regards conditions and relations between the detainees and staff; they also add to the burden on the courts. From the standpoint of preventing ill-treatment, this raises serious concerns for a system already showing signs of stress.’ (UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture)1 1. Definition and context 2. What are the main standards? Remand prisoners are detained during criminal Because of its severe and often irreversible negative investigations and pending trial. Pre-trial detention is effects, international law requires that pre-trial not a sanction, but a measure to safeguard a criminal detention should be the exception rather than the procedure. rule. At any one time, an estimated 3.2 million people are Pre-trial detention is only legitimate where there is a behind bars awaiting trial, accounting for 30 per cent reasonable suspicion of the person having committed of the total prison population worldwide. They are the offence, and where detention is necessary and legally presumed innocent until proven guilty but may proportionate to prevent them from absconding, be held in conditions that are worse than those for committing another offence, or interfering with the convicted prisoners and sometimes for years on end. course of justice during pending procedures. This means that pre-trial detention is not legitimate where Pre-trial detention undermines the chance of a fair these objectives can be achieved through other, less trial and the presumption of innocence.
    [Show full text]
  • Imprisonment: Where?
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. IMPRISONMENT: WHERE? -- --- - --5 DEC "1 '\918 Imprisonment: where? Institutions (prisons and remand houses) to which persons* sentenced to tenns of imprisonment may be committed There are various types of t)(ison in the Netherlands, each type being intended for a particular category of piisoner, for instance young persons or aduits, prisoners serving short-term or long-term sentenQ~S, men or women. Selection for any of these institutions takes into account: - age; - length of sentence. Another important factor is whether or not the person concerned wa~ already in custody when sentenced (i.e. on remand in a rgrnand house). Age As far as age is concerned, a distinction is drawn between adults (persons aged 23 and over} and young p1'lrsons (the 18 -23 age-group; in some cases, persons under 18 Or ;:,VGii persons of23 and 24). length of sentence When distinguishing between persons serving short-term and long-term sentences, the actual du ration of the sentence is taken into account, that is to say, the sentence imposed less any period spent in custody awaiting trial or sentence (Le. in preliminary detention). The length of sentence is important since, as already * the only establishment to which women sentenced to imprisonment are committed Is the Rotterdam Women's Prison; the information given in this pamphlet, therefore, refers only to male prisoners. 1 stated, a number of institutions are intended for prisoners serving short-term sentences and a number of others for those serving long-term sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Trial Detention Addressing Risk Factors to Prevent Torture and Ill-Treatment
    Detention Monitoring Tool Second edition FACTSHEET Pre-trial detention Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment ‘Long periods of pre-trial custody contribute to overcrowding in prisons, exacerbating the existing problems as regards conditions and relations between the detainees and staff; they also add to the burden on the courts. From the standpoint of preventing ill-treatment, this raises serious concerns for a system already showing signs of stress.’ (UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture)1 1. Definition and context 2. What are the main standards? Remand prisoners are detained during criminal Because of its severe and often irreversible negative investigations and pending trial. Pre-trial detention is effects, international law requires that pre-trial detention not a sanction, but a measure to safeguard a criminal should be the exception rather than the rule. procedure. Pre-trial detention is only legitimate where there is a At any one time, an estimated 3.2 million people are reasonable suspicion of the person having committed behind bars awaiting trial, accounting for 30 per cent of the offence, and where detention is necessary and the total prison population worldwide. In some countries, proportionate to prevent them from absconding, pre-trial detainees reportedly constitute the majority of committing another offence, or interfering with the course the prison population, and in some settings even over of justice during pending procedures. This means that 90 per cent of detainees.2 They are legally presumed pre-trial detention is not legitimate where these objectives innocent until proven guilty but may be held in conditions can be achieved through other, less intrusive measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Detention Prior to Adjudication
    CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL MEASURES Detention Prior to Adjudication Criminal justice assessment toolkit 2 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL MEASURES Detention Prior to Adjudication Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit UNITED NATIONS New York, 2006 The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations, the Secretariat and Institutions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Belgian 2006 OSCE Chairmanship concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has not been formally edited. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................ 1 2. OVERVIEW: GENERAL AND STATISTICAL DATA.................................................... 5 2.1 DETENTION TRENDS AND PROFILE OF PROCESS .................................... 5 2.2 LEGAL REPRESENTATION ............................................................................. 6 2.3 PROFILE OF DETAINEES................................................................................ 7 2.4 KEY CHALLENGES: OVERCROWDING, TB, AND HIV .................................. 7 2.5 QUALITY OF DATA........................................................................................... 8 3. LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oral Argument Of: Page
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ------------------- AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION, ) Petitioner, ) v. ) No. 19-251 ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL ) OF CALIFORNIA, ) Respondent. ) -------------------) THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER, ) Petitioner, ) v. ) No. 19-255 ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL ) OF CALIFORNIA, ) Respondent. ) ------------------- Pages: 1 through 110 Place: Washington, D.C. Date: April 26, 2021 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 206 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 www.hrccourtreporters.com Official - Subject to Final Review 1 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 ------------------- 3 AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION, ) 4 Petitioner, ) 5 v. ) No. 19-251 6 ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL ) 7 OF CALIFORNIA, ) 8 Respondent. ) 9 -------------------) 10 THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER, ) 11 Petitioner, ) 12 v. ) No. 19-255 13 ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL ) 14 OF CALIFORNIA, ) 15 Respondent. ) 16 ------------------- 17 Washington, D.C. 18 Monday, April 26, 2021 19 20 The above-entitled matter came on for oral 21 argument before the Supreme Court of the United States 22 at 10:00 a.m. 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 DEREK L. SHAFFER, ESQUIRE, Washington, D.C.; on behalf 4 of the Petitioners. 5 ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR, Acting Solicitor General, 6 Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for 7 the United States, as amicus curiae, 8 supporting vacatur and remand. 9 AIMEE A. FEINBERG, Deputy Solicitor General, 10 Sacramento, California; on behalf of the 11 Respondent. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 3 1 C O N T E N T S 2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF: PAGE: 3 DEREK L.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrest, Remand and Awaiting Trial Syndrome in Criminal Justice: Fixing the Jigsaw to End Prison Congestion
    ARREST, REMAND AND AWAITING TRIAL SYNDROME IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE: FIXING THE JIGSAW TO END PRISON CONGESTION A PAPER PRESENTED BY: HON. JUSTICE PETER. A. AKHIHIERO LL.B (HONS) IFE; LL.M LAGOS; B.L. AT THE LAW WEEK OF THE EKPOMA BRANCH OF THE NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION (N.B.A) HELD AT EKPOMA ON FRIDAY 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2018 ARREST, REMAND AND AWAITING TRIAL SYNDROME IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE: FIXING THE JIGSAW TO END PRISON CONGESTION 1.01 INTRODUCTION: A viable criminal justice system is expected to secure the lives and property of members of the society. Crime prone societies will invariable result in low productivity, strife, discord, lawlessness and indiscipline. It is an invitation to the status of a failed State. This presentation will focus on the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria with particular references to the issues of arrest, remand and the challenges of awaiting trial suspects. In his dissertation on the subject of personal freedom, the Rt. Honourable Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls posited thus: “It must be matched with social security, by which I mean, the peace and good order of the community in which we live. The freedom of the just man is worth little to him if he can be preyed upon by the murderer or the thief. Every society must have the means to protect itself from marauders. It must have powers to arrest, to search and to imprison those who break its laws. So long as those powers are properly exercised, they are the safeguards of freedom. But powers may be abused, and if those powers are abused, there is no tyranny like them.”1 In safeguarding our freedoms, we need an efficient and effective criminal justice system that will protect us from the unwholesome activities of miscreants in our society.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Remand for Women
    Reset: Rethinking remand for women Key points • The presumption of innocence and the right • Under a law redolent of Victorian values, too to liberty are fundamental principles of a fair many women are remanded to prison for their criminal justice system. Remanding a person “own protection” to prison runs contrary to these key notions • The current approach to remand hearings and should be an exceptional measure penalises women – remand decision-making • Too often women are inappropriately needs to be rethought and reformed to remanded into custody – almost two-thirds of enable judges and magistrates to take a women remanded to prison by magistrates distinct approach to women are either found not guilty or are given a • Remand decisions for women are critically community outcome important and often complex and demanding. • The vast majority of women remanded to They need to be acknowledged as such prison to await trial or sentence could safely • In order to make fair and appropriate remand be released on bail, to the advantage of their decisions, judges and magistrates need families, their communities and the wider guidance and good information about those criminal justice system appearing before them, particularly women, • Being remanded to prison is a particularly and about the services they can access in devastating and punitive experience for the community women, and it is damaging to any children • The Howard League for Penal Reform is who depend on them working for significant legislative and practice • Foreign national and Black, Asian and reform of remand processes to ensure that minority ethnic women are even more likely women are only remanded to prison in the to be remanded without sufficient reason most exceptional and serious cases.
    [Show full text]
  • LIST of PRISONS (Updated 29/09/11)
    LIST OF PRISONS (Updated 29/09/11) PRISON ADDRESS TELEPHON FAX & CATEGORY E EMAIL HMP ACKLINGTON Nr. MORPETH, (01670) (01670) M C Northumberland 762300 762301 NE65 9XF HMP ALTCOURSE * Higher Lane, Fazakerley, (0151) 522 (0151) M L www.hmpaltcourse.co. LIVERPOOL L9 7LH 2000 522 2121 uk HMYOI ASHFIELD * Shortwood Road, (0117) 303 (0117) M J http://www.serco.com/ Pucklechurch BRISTOL 8000 303 8001 markets/homeaffairs/of BS16 9QJ fendermanagement/juv enilecustody/ashfield/in dex.asp HMP ASKHAM Askham Richard, YORK (01904) (01904) F O GRANGE YO23 3FT 772000 772001 HMYOI AYLESBURY Bierton Road, (01296) (01296) M YOI AYLESBURY, 444000 444001 Buckinghamshire HP20 1EH HMP BEDFORD St. Loyes Street, (01234) (01234) M L BEDFORD MK40 1HG 373000 273568 HMP BELMARSH Western Way, (020) 8331 (020) M L A Thamesmead, LONDON 4400 8331 4401 SE28 0EB HMP BIRMINGHAM * Winson Green Road, (0121) 345 (0121) M L www.hmpbirmingham.c BIRMINGHAM B18 4AS 2500 345 2501 o.uk HMP BLANTYRE Goudhurst, (01580) (01580) M C HOUSE CRANBROOK, Kent TN17 213200 213201 2NH HMP BLUNDESTON LOWESTOFT, Suffolk (01502) (01502) M C NR32 5BG 734500 734501 HMYOI BRINSFORD New Road, Featherstone, (01902) (01902) M YOI WOLVERHAMPTON 533450 533451 WV10 7PY HMP BRISTOL 19 Cambridge Road, (0117) 372 (0117) M L Horfield, BRISTOL BS7 3100 372 3113 8PS KEY 1 YOI – young offenders J – juveniles RC - remand centre RES – resettlement L – local HC – holding centre IRC – immigration removal centre CL – closed O open S-O – semi-open M – males F – females A B C D - Prisoner categories (see Prison Service
    [Show full text]
  • The Death Knell Tolls for Reparations in in Re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 3, Issue 2 Spring 2008 THE DEATH KNELL TOLLS FOR REPARATIONS IN IN RE AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION * CHRISTINA E. LUTZ Cite as: Christina E. Lutz, The Death Knell Tolls for Reparations in In re African- American Slave Descendants Litigation, 3 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 532 (2008), at http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr/v3-2/lutz.pdf. INTRODUCTION The Seventh Circuit, in its recent decision, In re Slave Descendants Litigation, dismissed the claims of plaintiffs seeking disgorgement of the profits earned by Northern companies as a result of their illegal involvement in slavery.1 It is the latest in a long line of reparations cases dismissed by courts for various reasons, including lack of standing and statute of limitations. Part One of this Comment outlines the history of Northern involvement in slavery. Part Two traces the legal hurdles faced by African American plaintiffs during and after the statutory time period in which to bring reparations claims. Part Three explores the law of reparations, and the relevant case law. Part Four of this Comment delineates the holdings of the district court and the Seventh Circuit opinion in Slave Descendants. Part Five explains the various tolling doctrines available to courts to remedy time-barred claims. Part Six * J.D. candidate, May 2008, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology; B.A. 2000, Swarthmore College. 1 In re African American Slave Descendants Litigation (“Slave Descendants”), 471 F.3d 754, 763 (7th Cir. 2006). 532 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 3, Issue 2 Spring 2008 outlines the manner in which the court should have applied the standard for equitable estoppel, and the considerations of efficiency, equity, and history such an application would have satisfied.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative Detention
    http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 14079 06 June 2016 Administrative detention Report1 Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Rapporteur: Lord Richard BALFE, United Kingdom, European Conservatives Group Summary The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights stresses the importance of the right to liberty and security guaranteed in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is worried that administrative detention has been abused in certain member States for purposes of punishing political opponents, obtaining confessions in the absence of a lawyer and/or under duress, or apparently for stifling peaceful protests. Regarding administrative detention as a tool to prevent terrorism or other threats to national security, the committee recalls that purely preventive detention of persons suspected of intending to commit a criminal offence is not permissible and points out that mere restrictions (as opposed to deprivation) of liberty are permissible in the interests of national security or public safety and for the prevention of crime. All member States concerned should refrain from using administrative detention in violation of Article 5. Instead, they should make use of available tools respecting human rights in order to protect national security or public safety. Giving examples of such tools, the committee recalls their legal requirements, including a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality. 1. Reference to committee: D oc. 12998, Reference 3900 of 1 October 2012. F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Doc. 14079 Report Contents Page A. Draft resolution......................................................................................................................................... 3 B. Explanatory memorandum by Lord Richard Balfe, rapporteur.................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Response of the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein to The
    CPT/Inf (2002) 34 Response of the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Liechtenstein from 31 May to 2 June 1999 The Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein has requested the publication of the CPT's report on the visit to Liechtenstein from 31 May to 2 June 1999 (see CPT/Inf (2002) 33) and of its response. The response, translated into English by the Liechtenstein authorities, is set out in this document. The German text of the response can be found on the CPT's website (www.cpt.coe.int). Strasbourg, 27 November 2002 Working Group Assistance to Detainees and Execution of Sentences Report to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on the questions, recommendations and comments arisen during the visit to Vaduz Prison and Police Station from 31st May to 2nd June, 1999 The Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein wishes to give the following response to the questions, recommendations and comments stated in the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) dated 9th December, 1999. B. Police custody 1. Preliminary remarks 8. Criminal suspects under detention by the police without a written instruction by the investigating judge are presented to the latter within 48 hours. Those criminal suspects under detention due to a judge’s written order are presented to the investigating judge within 24 hours.
    [Show full text]