Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: Please note that violations highlighted are those issues raised with a State by more than one international human rights mechanism. This is done with the intention of identifying children's rights which have been repeatedly violated, as well as gaps in the issues covered by NGOs in their alternative reports to the various human rights monitoring bodies. These violations are listed in no particular order. ____________________________________________________ UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (Concluding Observations, February 2011) The Committee expresses its deep concern on the following issues relating to the administration of juvenile justice: (a) the Administration of Justice Act permits the placement of 14 – 17 year olds in: (i) pre-trial detention for up to eight months and that this limit is subject to further extension in cases which the State party considers to be exceptional circumstances; and, (ii) solitary confinement for up to four weeks; (Paragraph 49) In light of the above, the Committee urges the State party to: (a) ensure that, in accordance with the Committee's General Comment No. 10 on Children's rights in juvenile justice, such standards are fully implemented, in particular, articles 37(b), 40 and 39 of the Convention, as well as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines) and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Havana Rules); (b) amend its Administration of Justice Act to: (i) clearly define the conditions for pre-trial detention, and (ii) to, as far as possible, limit its duration, and prohibit the placement of persons under the age of 18 in solitary confinement; (Paragraph 50) Human Rights Committee (October 2008) The Committee expresses concern about the use of long-term solitary confinement during pretrial detention including for under-18s. The State party should review its legislation and practice in relation to solitary confinement during pretrial detention to ensure that such a measure is used only in exceptional circumstances and for a limited period of time. (Paragraph 11) Response from State party received 4 November 2009 " The Government is very keen on reducing the number and length of instances of solitary confinement during pre-trial detention and in order to ensure this the Administration of Justice Act was amended in 2006. The Government also wishes to state that there are criminal cases where it is necessary to exclude a person held in pre-trial detention from association with other detainees. This is particularly so in criminal cases with professional, strongly organised elements and international relations. Nevertheless, under Danish law the criteria for excluding a person held in pre-trial detention from association with other detainees are very strict. It is a requirement that the purpose cannot be achieved by less burdensome restrictions, including placing the detainee in another detention centre than other specific detainees or in some other way excluding the detainee from association with such other detainees. It is also a requirement that the exclusion from association with other detainees – taking into account, where relevant, the particular burden which the exclusion may be due to the detainee's youth, physical or mental vulnerability or other personal circumstances – is not disproportionate in comparison with the importance of the case and the penalty which may be expected if the detainee is found guilty. It is also a requirement that the investigation is conducted with the particular speed which is necessary when a detainee is excluded from association with other detainees, including using the possibilities of securing evidence by having a witness testify before a court prior to the trial. If the detainee is under the age of 18, it is an additional requirement that very exceptional circumstances make exclusion from association with other detainees necessary. The Government points out that "solitary confinement" means exclusion from association with other detainees. It does not mean that the detainee is "isolated" in other respects. On the contrary, personnel of the Prison and Probation Service must continuously be particularly attentive as regards the need of such detainees for more extensive contact with personnel, visit by a doctor, including a psychiatrist, more extensive access to visits, etc. Under Danish law, exclusion from association of persons held in pre-trial detention (hereafter referred to as "solitary confinement") in order to prevent interference with the investigation may be imposed by court order for an initial period not exceeding 2 weeks. The court may by subsequent orders extend the solitary confinement for periods not exceeding 4 weeks (2 weeks if the detainee is under the age of 18) at a time. Consequently, any solitary confinement is subject to regular judicial review at very short intervals. Furthermore, the Administration of Justice Act also provides for maximum periods of time of solitary confinement. In the most serious cases (punishable by 6 years' imprisonment or more), the maximum period of solitary confinement is 8 weeks which may be extended only in exceptional circumstances (4 weeks if the detainee is under the age of 18, and this may only be extended in very exceptional circumstances and provided that the investigation concerns Parts 12 or 13 of the Criminal Code (terrorism, etc.)). Before the public prosecutor requests an extension of solitary confinement beyond 8 weeks (4 weeks if the detainee is under the age of 18), the Director of Public Prosecutions must endorse the request, and the request may not be granted by the court in the absence of such endorsement. In other cases the maximum period of solitary confinement is 2 or 4 weeks which may not be extended. In conclusion, there are extensive guarantees to ensure that solitary confinement during pre-trial detention is used only in exceptional circumstances and for a limited period of time. As described in paras. 247-253 of Denmark's fifth periodic report, the Administration of Justice Act was amended in December 2006 with a view to reducing the number and lengths of instances of solitary confinement. The amendment entered into force on 1 January 2007. In order to ensure that the Prosecution Service observes these new rules concerning solitary confinement, the Director of Public Prosecutions has sent out information and issued guidelines regarding the new rules. Thus in December 2006, prior to the entering into force of the rules the Director of Public Prosecutions sent out a memo to the State Prosecutors and Police Commissioners accounting for the changes in the Administration of Justice Act in relation to the use of solitary confinement, including the new rules concerning time limits, the new requirement that a request for continuous solitary confinement must be put to the Court in writing and must entail the grounds for the request, the requirement that the Director of Public Prosecution must approve a request for continuous solitary confinement beyond 8 weeks and about the enhanced possibility to secure evidence before the main proceedings. In July 2008, the Director of Public Prosecutions sent out instructions on how to apply for the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases concerning the use of solitary confinement beyond 8 weeks. It follows from these instructions that the request for approval must entail information about the specific risk that the person in question will hamper the investigation and about the reasons to believe that such a risk is present. In 2008 the Director of Public Prosecutions approved the Police Commissioners' recommendations about the use of solitary confinement beyond 8 weeks in three cases (concerning 4 persons). In 2009 to this date the Director of Public Prosecutions approved recommendations from the Police Commissioners in four cases (concerning 11 persons). In all the above-mentioned cases the Court has accepted the Prosecutions Service's request for the use of solitary confinement beyond 8 weeks. In order to keep the application in practice of solitary confinement under constant review, the Director of Public Prosecutions submits a yearly report to the Ministry of Justice on the number and lengths of instances of solitary confinement during pre-trial detention. The Ministry of Justice forwards the report to Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee. The first annual report by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the number and lengths of instances of solitary confinement during pre-trial detention after this amendment, covering the year 2007, was submitted in the fall of 2008. The main conclusions of the report may be summarised as follows: In 2007 the number of instances of solitary confinement was 273. This was a reduction by 42.6 % in comparison with 2006 and a reduction by 50.7 % in comparison with 2001. In 2007 the proportion of detainees held in pre-trial detention who were placed in solitary confinement was reduced to a very significant degree. In 2006 8 % of persons held in pre-trial detention was at some point during their pre-trial detention subject to an order for solitary confinement; in 2007 that figure dropped to 4.6 %. The average length of solitary confinement in the period 2001 to 2006 was 28, 30, 37, 36, 33 and 29 days, respectively. The slow but steady reduction registered since 2004 continued in 2007, where the average length of solitary confinement was 27 days. From 2006 to 2007 the total number of days of solitary confinement was reduced by 48 % from 13,838 days to 7,189 days. The number of instances of solitary confinement exceeding 8 weeks has varied between 2001 and 2006, during which period the number of such cases has been between 57 and 158 per year. In 2007 the number of such cases was reduced very significantly from 57 in 2006 to 19 instances of solitary confinement exceeding 8 weeks. In 2007 five persons under the age of 18 were subject to solitary confinement. The solitary confinement lasted between 2 and 14 days. Since 2001 between one and six persons under the age of 18 per year have been subjected to solitary confinement, and the length of solitary confinement in those cases has varied between 1 and 56 days. Since 2006 no person under the age of 18 has been subjected to solitary confinement for more than 14 days. The next report is expected to be submitted before the end of the year. The Government finds that the report covering the year 2007 by the Director of Public Prosecutions shows that the considerable efforts undertaken by the Government to reduce the use of solitary confinement during pre-trial detention have been successful. In particular, the legislative amendment in December 2006 and the subsequent implementation by the police and prosecution service seem to have resulted in a very significant reduction in the number of instances of solitary confinement, the total number of days of solitary confinement and also in the number of instances of solitary confinement exceeding 8 weeks. As regards persons under the age of 18, it is noteworthy that the number of cases per year has not exceeded six since 2001, and that the period of solitary confinement in those cases has not exceeded 14 days since 2006. The Government will continue to keep the use of solitary confinement under close review, in particular on the basis of the yearly reports submitted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Committee stated in a letter dated 26 April 2010 that the information provided on solitary confinement was "largely satisfactory." UN Committee against Torture (Concluding Observations, May 2002) The Committee expresses concern that persons, including persons under the age of 18, suspected of committing offences against the independence and security of the State or against the Constitution and the supreme authorities of the State may be held indefinitely in solitary confinement during their pre-trial detention. (Paragraph 14) UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak (A/HRC/10/44/Add.2) Date of visit: 2-10 May 2008 The Special Rapporteur said the use of solitary confinement must be minimised, in accordance with the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (para 44, p.16) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (Concluding Observations, February 2011) The Committee, while welcoming Denmark's efforts to combat trafficking in children, is concerned that Denmark continues to be a significant transit and destination country for child victims of trafficking-related crimes, including forced child prostitution and labour. The Committee is also deeply concerned that the efforts taken to prosecute traffickers and persons subjecting children to forced labor and prostitution continue to require strengthening. The Committee further notes with concern the absence of a legal framework to facilitate the granting of residence permits to child victims of trafficking. (Paragraph 45) The Committee urges the State party to take effective measures to safeguard the rights of children in their territory, especially those of unaccompanied children, to ensure that they do not fall prey to trafficking. In so doing, the Committee urges the State party to: (a) ensure that children who are suspected victims of trafficking will not be imprisoned as a result of conditions which are the consequence of them being trafficked and are provided with specialized assistance services; (b) vigorously prosecute, convict, and sentence sex and labour trafficking offenders; (c) ensure that the sanctions for such offences are commensurate with the gravity of this serious human rights and child rights abuse; (d) ensure that law enforcement officials and other social officials who are working with and for the children are effectively trained in methods of victim identification and treatment; (e) encourage and support a broad, nationwide public awareness programme; (f) enhance monitoring of anti-trafficking efforts to improve the government's response to child trafficking; (g) ensure, through appropriate legislative measures, that child victims of trafficking are not repatriated except where such repatriation is in their best interests. (Paragraph 46) Sexual exploitation and abuse While noting that the State party is in the process of updating its Plan of Action for Combating Sexual Abuse (2003), the Committee is concerned that the programming process for the updated plan does not directly take into account or seek out the views of the child. The Committee is also concerned that: (a) the psychosocial support available for child victims of sexual abuse is inadequate; (b) the current reporting system on sexual abuse lacks guidelines on the involvement of professionals in the identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect; (c) there is no integrated coordination of public measures for the expeditious recovery and reintegration of children who have been subject to neglect or abuse in the Faroe Islands; (d) there have been reports of trained professionals failing to inform relevant authorities in cases involving child abuse or violence in the Faroe Islands. (Paragraph 43) In light of the above concerns, the Committee recommends that the State party: (a) provide direct channels for children to provide their views on the updating of the Plan of Action for Combating Sexual Abuse (2003); (b) strengthen the provision of holistic and long-term psychosocial support to child victims of sexual abuse in its updated Plan of Action; (c) take measures to ensure the application of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography in Greenland and the Faroe Islands; (d) ensure coordination of public measures to support the expeditious recovery and reintegration of children who have been subject to neglect or abuse in the Faroe Islands, and that professionals working with children consistently report to the relevant authorities all cases where a child is suspected of having experienced abuse or neglect; (e) ensure, through adequate legal provisions, procedures, and regulations, that all child victims and and/or witnesses of crimes, including children victims of abuse, domestic violence, sexual and economic exploitation, abduction, and trafficking, have effective access to justice and are provided with the protection required by the Convention, fully taking into account the United Nations Guidelines on Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime (annexed to Economic and Social Council resolution 2005/20 of 22 July 2005). (Paragraph 44) UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/1/Add.102) Last reported:10 and 11 November 2004 The Committee expressed concern that Denmark continues to face problems of child pornography, sexual exploitation of children, and trafficking in women and children. The Committee encouraged the State party to continue to strengthen its efforts to address the problem of trafficking in persons, especially women and children, as well as commercial sexual exploitation in the State party, and requested that the State party provide in its next periodic report detailed information on any results achieved and difficulties encountered, including the results of the Action Plan on combating sexual abuse of children. (Paragraph 19) For more details, read Concluding Observations issued to Denmark under OPSC here. -------------------------------------------------------------- UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (Concluding Observations, February 2011) The Committee regrets that the State party has yet to fully implement the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee in 2008 and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2010 to uphold the identity of the Inughuit as a distinct indigenous community capable of vindicating traditional rights in accordance with international norms. (Paragraph 51) The Committee reiterates the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee in 2008 (CCPR/C/DNK/CO/5) and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2010 (CERD/C/DNK/CO/18-19) and urges the State party to, in accordance with the Committee's General Comment No. 11 on Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention, undertake all measures necessary for ensuring that Inughuit children are able to exercise their right to grow up in a safe cultural environment, maintain and develop their identity and use their own language without being disqualified and discriminated against. (Paragraph 52) UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/DNK/CO/18-19) Last reported: 17 and 18 August 2010 The Committee notes that mother-tongue teaching is only offered to children from EU and European Economic Area (EEA) countries and those from Faroes and Greenland in order to maintain their language proficiency should they subsequently return to these places. However, there is no explanation as to why people of other ethnic groups that seek to benefit from mother-tongue tuition have not been included in the programme. The Committee recommends that the State party provide a general educational policy on this matter to cover all groups and take appropriate measures to assess whether people of other ethnic groups require mother-tongue teaching and that this be extended to their children who can then benefit on an equal footing with children from the EU, EEA countries, Faroes and Greenland. (Paragraph 16)
Report published: 18 February 2009
Concluding Observations adopted: 26 November 2004
Concluding Observations adopted: 26 August 2010