Committee against Torture

Forty-sixth session

Summary record of the 999th meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Thursday, 19 May 2011, at 3 p.m.

Chairperson:Mr. Wang Xuexian (Vice-Chairperson)

Contents

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention (continued)

Fifth and sixth periodic reports of Finland (continued)

In the absence of the Chairperson, Mr. Wang Xuexian (Vice-Chairperson) took the cha ir.

The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m.

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention (continued)

Fifth and sixth periodic reports of Finland (continued) (CAT/C/FIN/Q/5-6)

At the invitation of the Chairperson, the members of the delegation of Finland took places at the committee table.

The Chairperson said that nine was a lucky number in Oriental culture. The fact that the current meeting was number 999 was an auspicious omen for the dialogue with the delegation from Finland.

Ms. Oinonen (Finland) said that international treaties were not binding in Finnish domestic law unless brought into force by a parliamentary act or presidential decree. According to the Constitution, it was the Chancellor of Justice and the Ombudsman who monitored the implementation of basic human rights. Finland subscribed to what was known as “human rights friendly interpretation” as evinced by the rulings of the Supreme Court and the decisions of the Ombudsman. The judgements of the European Court of Human Rights constituted an authoritative source of interpretation for Finnish authorities.

The Åland Islands were a neutral Swedish-speaking area of Finland, which had enjoyed self-government since 1921. Its status was regulated by the Act on the Autonomy of Åland, changes to which had to follow the same legislative procedure as constitutional amendments and needed the consent of the Åland parliament. Åland regulated its own internal affairs and budget. The Finnish President had power of veto but only on questions of national security or if the Åland parliament had exceeded its authority. Foreign affairs remained the prerogative of the Government of Finland but Åland had a say on international treaties relating to areas under its authority. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was fully enforced in Åland.

Finnish law did not separate migrant workers from other immigrants. The rights of immigrants, including migrant workers, were already covered by domestic and European legislation, and other human rights treaties. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs was looking into ways of removing obstacles to the ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

It had been suggested that Finnish legislation did not comply with International Labour Organization Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, especially with respect to the land rights of the Saami people. Finland was actively committed to promoting the Saami and had tried to find a balanced solution acceptable to all sides for the lands they traditionally occupied, unfortunately without success. The Government was committed to ensuring constitutional protection for the Saami language and culture and had taken measures to improve legislation concerning the status of the Saami as an indigenous people.

Ms. Mohell (Finland) said that Government proposals before Parliament included a new provision on torture phrased so as to cover the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention. Torture was treated more severely than aggravated assault and attracted the highest fixed-term punishments in the Criminal Code, excluding life sentence.

The Ministry of Justice had appointed a committee to examine provisions concerning the presentation of evidence in court. Current provisions were outdated and made no explicit mention of evidence obtained under torture. The committee would give careful attention to the matter, taking account of fundamental human rights and of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

Statistics showed that inter-prisoner violence in Finnish prisons was falling; 94 cases had been punished in 2010. A study was currently under way, on the basis of which the Criminal Sanctions Agency would plan long-term measures to reduce the incidence of such violence.

There was no prison overcrowding in Finland, but owing to the implementation of a long-term renewal project additional places had to be found for inmates during renovation work. Despite that, all prisoners had access to normal toilet facilities at all hours of the day. Ethnic minorities and foreigners accounted for about 14 per cent of the prison population. The isolation of Roma prisoners ordered by the courts was based on the provisions of the Coercive Measures Act. Replying to an earlier question, she said that parents had to be consulted when the child of a prisoner was placed in the parent-baby unit.

According to Finnish law a prisoner could be restrained, by handcuffing or other means, to prevent escape during transportation or to deter violent behaviour. Such restraint could not continue for longer than necessary. She would provide the Committee with written information on the role of the Criminal Sanctions Agency, which had been established in 2001 and functioned under the Ministry of Justice’s Department of Criminal Policy. Prison and probation staff received basic and vocational training at a special institute. The institute also cooperated with Laurea University in organizing degree-level courses. She confirmed that Finland did not have juvenile courts for minors.

In February 2009 the Ministry of Justice had decided against the extradition of a Rwandan citizen detained in Finland since April 2007, stating that Finland had to guarantee that people under its jurisdiction enjoyed the right to a fair trial. That decision was based on similar decisions made by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The Rwandan citizen was currently on trial in Finland.

A remand prisoner’s contact with others could be restricted by the courts but only for justified reasons and never for longer than absolutely necessary. The remand prisoner’s contact with his or her legal counsel could not be restricted. According to Finnish law, remand prisoners were to be held in prisons but kept separated from sentenced prisoners. Lastly, she said that discussions between the Parliamentary Ombudsman and a prisoner were always confidential, although the Ombudsman could sometimes make visits to prisons without meeting prisoners.

Mr. Kosonen (Finland) said that in March 2010 the Institute of Legal Policy had prepared a memorandum, according to which prison sentences for rape in Finland were 10 to 25 per cent lower than in other Nordic countries, but 10 to 20 per cent higher than in Germany. The average duration of imprisonment was equal to that of Norway and Sweden, higher than in Denmark but lower than in Germany. In relation to the population, the amount of prison years in Finland was lower than in Sweden and Norway and higher than in Germany and Denmark.

Ms. Pietarinen (Finland) said that the Pre-Trial Investigations Act laid down rules governing detention and interrogation. According to that Act, detained suspects had to be informed of their right to consult a lawyer. Their interrogation had to be handled appropriately and adequate food and rest provided. An audio or video recording could be made of the interrogation, and a written transcript had to be prepared and approved by the detainee.

The Aliens Act contained provision for an accelerated procedure, the aim of which was to speed up the asylum process. The accelerated procedure could be used to deal with asylum requests from applicants from a safe country of origin, with applications that were manifestly unfounded, or with applicants making new applications containing no new grounds that would influence an earlier judgement. The Helsinki Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court had the power to rule against a decision to refuse entry under an accelerated procedure. No statistics were currently available on the number of times such rulings had been granted.

People who were not citizens of the European Union could be prevented from entering Finland, or removed from the country, if they were not in possession of a valid visa or had not sought asylum. They could be held at the Metsälä detention centre or in police or border guard facilities. Prior to June 2009, the possibility had existed of granting a residence permit based on a person’s need for protection. Since that date residency could be granted based on the need for subsidiary or humanitarian protection. A residence permit could be granted on compassionate grounds with regard to an alien’s health, ties to Finland, or the circumstances he would face if returned to his home country. Decisions based on compassionate grounds did not include decisions based on non-refoulement. The possibility of female genital mutilation could be considered as grounds for granting at least subsidiary protection.

According to the Coercive Measures Act, the request to detain an arrested person had to be lodged before a court by noon on the third day after the arrest. It was up to the court to decide the time limit for detention, which had to be no longer than necessary to complete the pretrial investigation and prepare the prosecution. The average number of people detained in police facilities in the period 2002–2010 had remained fairly constant, but the average duration of detention had fallen by three days over that period.

Detained aliens had to be moved to a detention centre as soon as possible, though in certain circumstances they could be held in police facilities for a maximum of 4 days, or in border guard facilities for a maximum of 48 hours. The courts had to be informed within 24 hours if the detained alien was held by the police or the border guard, and in all cases within 4 days.

The authorities were required by an amendment to the Aliens Act that had entered into force on 1 April 2011 to order the immediate release of a detained alien once the requirements for detention ceased to exist. The period of detention could be extended to a maximum of 12 months where removal from the country was prolonged on account of the alien’s failure to cooperate or a third State’s failure to provide the requisite documents. District courts were required to reconsider within two weeks any decision to detain an alien or to transfer him or her to police premises when the detention units were temporarily full. The number of foreigners detained by the police pursuant to the Aliens Act in 2011 had been reduced by half compared with the corresponding period of 2009 and 2010.

In August 2008 the Ministry of the Interior had set up a Steering Group to monitor the implementation of the Revised Plan of Action concerning trafficking in human beings. The Group had adopted recommendations for improvements in the relevant legislation and in action to combat human trafficking in March 2011. The Ombudsman for Minorities had submitted a report on trafficking in June 2010, which required the authorities to report on action taken to implement the report’s recommendations by the end of 2011. The legislature was in the process of ratifying the Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. The Directive of the European Parliament and the European Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims had been adopted in March 2011. The Steering Group had proposed that a national operational model should be developed to identify victims of human trafficking at the earliest possible stage in the asylum procedure.

The Ombudsman for Minorities was to be notified pursuant to the Aliens Act of any decision to grant or refuse a residence permit, to deport an alien or to place him or her in detention. The Ombudsman was also entitled to request notification of other decisions under the Act and to be heard on matters pertaining to asylum or deportation.

The Committee had criticized a decision made by the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman in connection with police measures concerning a large demonstration. At a subsequent meeting attended by relevant members of the National Police Board, a representative of the Ombudsman’s Office and representatives of the Ministry of the Interior, a decision had been taken to use a police patrol vehicle rather than a bus in similar situations in the future. As persons would be held only for short periods in the vehicle, problems such as access to a toilet would not arise.

Initial and in-service police training was conducted by professionals and monitored by the National Police. Strategic guidelines developed by the Ministry of the Interior required the National Police Board to negotiate with the Police College on training procedures and to ensure that the training was effective.

The guard who had been given an 80-day suspended prison sentence by the Helsinki District Court in a case concerning ill-treatment of a foreigner in the Helsinki Police Detention Establishment in 2006 had been ordered to pay, jointly with the State, damages of 9,000 euros. Police officers received only rudimentary medical training because of the ready availability of nurses and doctors. However, the Istanbul Protocol was briefly discussed in their basic medical training. The National Police Board had a separate unit to control the lawfulness of police action and to handle complaints. Complainants could also address complaints to the Chancellor of Justice and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The control procedures were being constantly improved.

When asylum-seekers were interviewed by the Immigration Service, they were asked about persecution in their country of origin and other violations or threatened violations of human rights. The interviewers also enquired about other grounds for receiving a residence permit such as family ties to Finland or health-related issues. Vulnerability and torture were also taken into consideration, but no statistical data concerning asylum-seekers invoking such grounds were available because they were not mentioned as separate grounds in the Aliens Act.

The two institutions providing services for victims of torture were the Centre for Torture Survivors in Finland and Rehabilitation Services for the Tortured. They were run by the Helsinki and Oulu Deaconess Institutes and offered facilities for the assessment, treatment and rehabilitation of refugees and asylum-seekers and their family members resident in Finland. Under a three-year project launched in 2010 at the Centre for Torture Survivors in Finland, therapeutic services were offered to tortured and severely traumatized refugee and asylum-seeking children and adolescents. There was currently one special detention unit for aliens in Metsälä (Helsinki). The establishment of a second unit had been delayed by lack of financial resources.

Police and Border Guard officers attended training courses in fundamental human rights. Police staff at all levels as well as Border Guard and Coast Guard officers were trained to respect the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and to refrain from the excessive use of force. Special emphasis was placed on the provisions of the Convention against Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The forms issued to detained persons informing them of their rights were currently available in a variety of languages, including Finnish, English and Russian. The principles applicable to non-refoulement were based on the Geneva Conventions, the Convention against Torture, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Finnish Constitution.

Mr. Kosonen (Finland) said that the Centre for Human Rights was subject to the administrative jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, who appointed the Director and guaranteed its independence. Its mandate included the obligations to be assumed by national human rights institutions under the Paris Principles. Judges operated independently and were not subject to interference from any quarter, particularly the executive.

If the excessive duration of legal proceedings was due to a judge’s lack of due diligence, the judge could be punished and there had been some such cases recently. The phenomenon of unreasonably lengthy proceedings had been virtually unknown prior to the 1999 economic recession. Since then there had been a number of unduly lengthy criminal, civil and administrative cases. In 2008, at the request of the Constitutional Committee of the Finnish Parliament, he had enquired into the matter, together with representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Prosecution Service and the Bar Association. The European Court of Human Rights had handed down some 130 decisions and judgements concerning Finland since the country’s ratification of the Convention in 1990. Violations had been found in 6 or 7 cases; there had been some 48 friendly settlements; and the Government had stated in 21 cases that it was willing to pay compensation, following which the cases had been struck off the list. The problem of unreasonably lengthy legal proceedings had now been resolved. Parties could apply under the new Compensation Act for the acceleration of proceedings. If they failed to do so, the European Court of Human Rights would conclude that they had not exhausted domestic remedies. A penalty might also be mitigated to compensate for the duration of legal proceedings. The Compensation Act was applicable to criminal and civil cases but not to cases in administrative or special courts.

Ms. Jouttimäki (Finland) said that the Ombudsman paid regular visits to psychiatric hospitals. In fact, he had visited the psychiatric hospital in the metropolitan area the previous day. His report would shortly be available on the Internet. In his report on a visit to Nuivanniemi Psychiatric Hospital in autumn 2010, he had offered guidance to the hospital and urged the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to amend the relevant legislation. The Ombudsman could issue a reprimand, express an opinion on what kind of procedure was lawful, draw attention to the requirements of human rights and sound administrative practice, recommend the rectification of an error, draw the Government’s attention to flaws in the legislation and initiate a prosecution. A study commissioned some years previously had found that the impact of the Ombudsman’s decisions on legislation and official action had been impressive.

With regard to paragraph 33 of the report, she said that detainees were free to choose any doctor from the list of medical practitioners with a practice in the neighbourhood. Finland had signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol in 2007. Ratification was under way but would require a number of legislative modifications. For instance, the provisions restricting the right of self-determination of clients or patients of social welfare and health-care services would have to be amended. Separate legislation regarding forensic psychiatry would be required. A working group of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, whose mandate would expire on 31 December 2011, was seeking to strengthen inter-professional cooperation and to improve the availability and effectiveness of services.

A study financed by the European Commission, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Affairs on violence against men had been published in 2010. Data concerning women had been included for comparative purposes. The report had found that 16 per cent of men had experienced violence or threats from their partners at least once during the partnership. However, men had been victims of violence committed by a former partner less often than women and suffered physical and psychological consequences of such violence less frequently. In the case of men, violence committed by strangers accounted for most injuries. The full report on violence against men in Finland would be published in English in 2011.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) was punishable under the Finnish Criminal Code as aggravated assault, even when a female resident in Finland was subjected to the procedure abroad. Persons performing FGM or assisting in its performance were liable to several years’ imprisonment. No cases had been verified to date. Efforts had therefore concentrated on community-based campaigns to ensure that public and private health-care services provided appropriate care for FGM victims. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health was developing an action plan comprising more than 60 measures to prevent FGM. The plan would seek to make accurate information available in all applicable local languages and to persons without reading skills. Legislation would provide for adequate child protection services and funding for the implementation of the action plan. There were also plans to establish a steering committee composed of health-care professionals, social workers, researchers, representatives of NGOs, human rights activists and community leaders to prevent any practice that violated the rights of immigrant women and girls.

Unfortunately physical, sexual and psychological violence against women and girls, in the family, at school, at work and in society at large, remained a serious human rights problem in Finland. The National Institute for Health and Welfare had prepared a cross-sectoral action plan for the period 2010–2015 in cooperation with the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Violence would be tackled proactively by influencing attitudes and behaviour; preventing repeated violence; improving the support provided to victims of sexual violence; developing methods for identifying and intervening in the violence experienced by vulnerable groups; and enhancing the knowledge and skills of authorities and professional service providers with a view to preventing violence against women and helping victims. The priority areas of the action plan included protection of vulnerable groups. For instance, immigrant women, persons with disabilities and members of sexual and gender minorities might find it particularly difficult to talk about violence they had experienced. Training materials for professionals focusing on detection of the needs of vulnerable individuals would be produced.

The action plan also provided for the renewal of shelters. Measures would be taken to ensure that shelter services were based on legal principles, and the central Government would transfer funds to municipalities for the organization of such services. The issue of shelters would also be taken into account in the current updating of social affairs and health-care legislation.

Mr. Halttunen (Finland) said that the State party had followed the growing trend in international law to apply the principle of due diligence to situations of violence against women. The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence adopted the same approach and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women had, in its general recommendation No. 19, defined violence against women as a form of discrimination and hence a violation of human rights. The European Court of Human Rights had also confirmed the principle in several landmark judgements.

Turning to the matter of the Roma people, he said that a Europe-wide policy was needed on the Roma because they constituted a pan-European minority, whose standard of living and level of social inclusion had fallen significantly behind those of the majority of the population of Europe. The working group set up to prepare the State party’s strategy on the Roma had therefore published a handbook, The Objectives of Finland for Advancing the European Policy on Roma. As part of its strategy, the State party wished to share its experiences in enhancing equality for the Roma and their participation in society and to learn from the experience and best practices of other countries. Finland’s strategy dovetailed with that of the European Union and similar undertakings by the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The European Union would be presenting a draft framework for national Roma integration strategies up until 2020 in the near future.

The handbook set out the principles of Finland’s policy, which aimed above all to enable the Roma to participate in and influence the planning, implementation, evaluation and monitoring of measures designed to improve their situation. The European Union’s 10 common basic principles on Roma inclusion were presented in the handbook, along with the State party’s policy guidelines and good practices in areas affecting Roma such as: education; housing; health care; adult education and employment; language and culture and the promotion of equality. A national database for those good practices would be established. He added that the disaggregation of statistical data by ethnicity ran counter to the State party’s legislation on discrimination.

Finland’s policy with regard to combating terrorism followed the standards of international, human rights and humanitarian law. Replying to questions on cases of unjustified deprivation of liberty, he said that such cases arose only if pretrial investigations were discontinued, charges were dropped or dismissed, or the statutory prerequisites for arrest or detention were not fulfilled. In such cases, compensation, which generally amounted to €100 a day for “direct costs, loss of income and suffering”, could be awarded under the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person. The Act was also applicable to cases of extradition and complainants could sue the State if they considered the compensation received to be insufficient. Compensation awards had to be made within six months of the moment in which it had been confirmed that a person had been unjustifiably deprived of his or her liberty. Compensation was also payable in cases where torture had been carried out during periods of unjustified deprivation of liberty. Such cases were, however, hypothetical.

With regard to human trafficking, information leaflets addressed to victims were translated from Finnish into Swedish, English, Thai and Russian, the latter two because the majority of victims tended to be nationals of those countries. However, as was the case with asylum-seekers, information was provided to victims of trafficking in whatever language was understandable to them. The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings would be brought before Parliament for ratification in the course of the current year.

Mr. Kosonen (Finland) noted that there was no general compensation act in Finland and that the State party needed to consider whether to introduce legislation or whether court jurisprudence would lead to a change in practice, which would eventually obviate the need to take certain compensation claims in human rights cases to international courts.

In the light of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights against Belgium for returning asylum-seekers to Greece, which had been their point of entry into the Schengen area, Finland had decided not to return asylum-seekers present in the State party to Greece and would itself investigate their applications. With regard to asylum-seekers in the State party who had entered the Schengen area through Italy and Malta, Finland was awaiting a further decision by the court. In all, about 250 asylum-seekers were concerned.

Mr. Mariño Menéndez (Country Rapporteur) asked whether the Nordic Saami Convention, which was still being negotiated, would include the principle of participation of the indigenous people concerned in decision-making and the protection of their natural resources. He wondered if he had understood correctly that ratification of the International Labour Organization Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (No. 169) was not a priority for the State party.

He asked whether it was true that cases of non-refoulement were considered on compassionate grounds. Non-refoulement was not a matter of emotions but a specific right not to be deported to a country in which the person concerned could be exposed to a real and personal threat of torture. He also asked the delegation to clarify whether asylum-seekers whose applications had been refused could be deported before a decision was made on their appeals to the Administrative Court. He asked again whether the State party had ever extradited anyone suspected of acts of terrorism to a country from which it had requested diplomatic assurances that the extradited person would not be subjected to torture or other ill-treatment.

Lastly, he welcomed the fact that the State party applied the principle of due diligence in cases of violence against women.

The Chairperson asked whether the provisions of the Convention were applied to the Åland Islands and, if so, whether the Government monitored its application. The Committee welcomed efforts by the State party to prevent violence in prisons and would like to be kept informed of developments in that area. The Committee would also appreciate any further clarification the delegation might wish to provide on the comparatively numerous cases of unjustified deprivation of liberty in the State party. He also wondered whether the Police Board was the appropriate authority to evaluate police training programmes. The Committee generally encouraged more independent evaluation of such training.

Ms. Kleopas asked whether the use of video recordings during interrogation in police stations and other places of detention was obligatory and, if not, why not.

Ms. Belmir said that remand prisoners should not be held in police station cells, which in some cases were inadequate even for persons held temporarily for questioning, but rather in suitably equipped remand prisons. She expressed concern about indications in the State party’s periodic report that minor offenders were held separately from adults unless a derogation from that requirement was considered to be in their best interests. Was she to understand therefore that minors and adult offenders could be brought together while in detention? With regard to claims by the State party that accelerated asylum application procedures were employed in order to prevent abuses of the system, she asked who performed such abuses and whether they were asylum-seekers or other individuals. Were the claims not simply a pretext for tightening the asylum application process?

Ms. Gaer joined other Committee members in welcoming the application of due diligence to cases of violence against women in the State party and its inclusion of a definition of torture in the Criminal Code. She requested that a copy of the book on violence against men be forwarded to the Committee when it was published.

Mr. Kosonen (Finland) said that the draft Nordic Saami Convention had been prepared by representatives of the Governments and the Saami Parliaments of Finland, Norway and Sweden and would serve as the basis of negotiations between the Nordic countries. The negotiations and adoption of the draft could take up to five years.

Ms. Oinonen (Finland) said that the initiative to draft a Nordic Saami Convention had been launched by the Saami Parliaments in the early 1990s. An expert group had been appointed in 2002 to draft the Convention, which had taken three years. The draft comprised 51 articles, and was divided into seven chapters. Its overall aim was to affirm and strengthen the rights of the Saami, with an emphasis on securing and developing Saami culture, status in society and livelihood, in particular reindeer herding, and to recognize the Saami as one people living across national borders. The Convention would provide a set of minimum standards, based on existing and developing international requirements. The drafting and adoption process was legally complex, since the document required the absolute approval of the three Saami Parliaments.

Mr. Kosonen (Finland) said that ratification of ILO Convention No. 169 would require very careful consideration of the land rights of the indigenous and non-indigenous people alike. Although Finnish legislation had always provided for the prevention of torture, recently, on the Committee’s recommendation, a definition of torture had been added, which was considered to be in line with article 1 of the Convention. No incidences of torture had been reported before or after the addition of that definition. A working group had been established to prepare for the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which it was hoped would take place before the end of 2011. Rulings on interim measures for protection could be issued by the Administrative Court in Helsinki and the European Court of Human Rights.

Ms. Pietarinen (Finland) emphasized that decisions on asylum applications on compassionate grounds did not include non-refoulement. Subsidiary or humanitarian protection was granted to uphold the principle of non-refoulement. Compassionate grounds for granting residence permits included health issues or personal ties to Finland.

Mr. Kosonen (Finland) said that in 2009 a number of government ministries and other stakeholders, when asked, had opposed ratification of the International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Further discussions on that issue were under way. To his knowledge there had not been any cases of extradition on grounds of suspected terrorism. Cases in which diplomatic assurances were requested were very rare, and Finland had opposed the idea of drafting a Council of Europe recommendation on the use of diplomatic assurances.

On the question of domestic violence, he said that Finland had recently signed the European Convention to Combat Violence against Women. The handbook on violence against men would be sent to the Committee as soon as it was published in English. Since the Government was responsible for the whole nation, no distinction was made between monitoring the application of the Convention on the Åland Islands and on the mainland.

Ms. Piet a rinen (Finland) said that police trainees evaluated their training courses. The public response to policing could be considered to be the ultimate evaluation of police training. The Police College in Tampere also evaluated training. Before the end of 2011 an independent evaluation body, under the aegis of the Ministry of Culture and Education, would begin an evaluation of human rights training in all higher education institutions, including the Police College. Turning to the conditions of provisional detention, she said that police detention facilities were undergoing continual improvement and a plan was currently being drawn up for the renovation of those facilities.

Ms. Mohell (Finland) said that under Finnish law, prisoners aged below 18 years must be held separately from adults, unless that was deemed to not be in the best interests of the child. Of the total 3,200 prisoners in Finland, only 4 were minors, 2 of whom were remand prisoners. Under the principles of detaining minors separately from adult prisoners and holding them in detention as close to their family or home as possible, the two convicted juvenile detainees in Finland would have to be detained on their own, which was not considered to be in their best interests. Education and activities were provided for juvenile detainees, in line with the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Mr. Kosonen (Finland) said that the Council of Europe had established a working group for the consideration of human rights protection in the context of accelerated asylum procedures. That procedure was necessary when an arguable claim had been presented on the need for swift examination of the case. If it were deemed necessary, cases could be removed from the accelerated procedure list and examined in substance.

Ms. Kleopas asked on what basis decisions were made to record police interrogations.

Ms. Pietarinen said that decisions to record interrogations were made purely on the basis of available technical and financial resources.

The Chairperson thanked the delegation of Finland for its replies to the Committee’s questions, and said that any further information to be provided in writing should be submitted before Monday, 23 May 2011.

Mr. Kosonen (Finland) said that the new list of issues prior to reporting was a positive development in the Committee’s procedure, since it had streamlined the dialogue and enabled the delegation to prepare in a more thorough and targeted manner. The Finnish authorities would hold a press conference on receipt of the Committee’s concluding observations, in order to inform the public of the Committee’s opinions.

The meeting rose at 5.55 p.m.