CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION

Initial reports of States parties due in 1997

Addendum

ICELAND

1. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment of 10 December 1994 was signed by Iceland on 4 February 1995 subject to ratification. On 21 October 1996 the Secretary-General of the United Nations received Iceland's instrument of ratification. The Convention entered into effect for Iceland on 22 November 1996.

2. This report is compiled in accordance with article 19 of the Convention, which provides that the parties shall submit to the Committee reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under the Convention, within one year after the entry into force of the Convention for the State party concerned. This report was prepared under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice in November and December 1997. In the course of its preparation information was collected from a multitude of sources engaged in matters to which the Convention relates. Among the chief institutions from which information was gathered were the Prison and Probation Administration, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Commissioner of Police, the Immigration Office, the Ombudsman of Parliament, the State Police School, the Ministry of Health and the Director of Public Health.

3. In completing the report, account was taken of United Nations Manual on Human Rights Reporting of 1991. Recourse was also made to the guidelines of the Committee against Torture of 18 June 1991 (CAT/C/4/Rev.2).

4. As this is Iceland's first report on the implementation of the Convention, a large part of it is unavoidably concerned with describing Icelandic law in substance and individual Icelandic statutory provisions. Instead of submitting attachments with translations of legal texts, an effort will be made to provide summaries of their substance and descriptions of them in the main text of the report. Attachment I to this report is the report to the Icelandic Government of 2 March 1994 on the visit of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) to Iceland in the summer of 1993. Attachment II* contains the replies of the Icelandic Government to the CPT of 27 September 1994. These documents contain detailed information on matters such as the administrative organization of Icelandic prisons, the treatment and conditions afforded prisoners and other persons deprived of liberty, and other matters coming under the scope of the Convention.

 

* The attachments may be consulted at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

5. The following account presents an overview of the Icelandic constitutional order and practice, and the human rights provisions of the written Constitution. Other human rights instruments to which Iceland is a party will also be mentioned and their status under Icelandic law described. A survey will be provided of Icelandic statute provisions which prohibit torture and make it a criminal act, and of rules designed to prevent it. Finally a brief account will be given of the remedies open to an individual person who alleges to have been a victim of torture. As regards further information on the country and its inhabitants, reference can be made to document HRI/CORE/1/Add.26 of 24 June 1993.

6. In this report the Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment will be referred to as "the Convention", or the "Convention against Torture".

7. Iceland is a parliamentary republic. The President of the Republic, the members of the legislature and local authorities are elected by public ballot at intervals of four years. Iceland became fully independent when the links with Denmark were severed in 1944. The Constitution dates from that year; however, most of its provisions are much older, and can be traced back to 1874, the year in which Iceland first received a written Constitution. In 1995 extensive amendments and additions were made to the human rights chapter of the Constitution, which until that time had remained almost unchanged since the first Constitution was adopted. The new human rights provisions will be described in the following. The principle of triple division of government is provided for in the Constitution.

The legislative branch

8. The President of Iceland and Parliament exercise the legislative power jointly. Parliament is composed of 63 national representatives, elected by secret, public, proportional ballot for a term of four years from eight different constituencies.

The administrative branch

9. The ministers of the Government, each within his or her own field, are the highest holders of administrative authority. The ministries are 14 in number. The ministers have usually only been 10 in number, so that some of them are in charge of more than one ministry. The distribution of duties between the ministers is determined by statute.

10. The magistrates represent the administrative branch of government locally. They, and their jurisdictions, are 27 in number. They do not wield any judicial powers. Among their duties are direction of police, crime investigation, public prosecution, direction of customs, collection of State revenues, civil marriages, separations and divorces, decisions on rights of access and support payments under family law, legal competency, real estate records, registration of deceased persons and various involvement with estates at death, enforcement of judgements, forced sales, etc. Disputes concerning the functions of the magistrates can be referred to the courts in many cases, in particular those concerning enforcement proceedings and settlement of estates at death, but if not, administrative appeal can be made to the Ministry of Justice. In Reykjavik, which is the largest administrative area, there is, in addition to the Magistrate, a commissioner of police, who, in addition to controlling the police, is in charge of criminal investigation and public prosecution within the area of his office.

11. The National Commissioner of Police is in charge of police as an agent of the Minister of Justice. His role is to perform various administrative functions in fields related to law enforcement, such as providing general instructions to regional commissioners of police and making proposals for rationalization, coordination, development and safety in policing. His office shall grant the regional commissioners of police assistance and support, and carry out any police work which calls for centralization or coordination among the offices involved. Finally, there are certain investigation departments under the office of the National Commissioner of Police, such as departments for tax and economic offences, treason and related offences, and accusations against police of unlawful conduct. The National Commissioner of Police has the authority of prosecution in cases such as those enumerated above except for cases concerning alleged criminal violations by police, where the Director of Public Prosecutions has the power of prosecution.

12. The Director of Public Prosecutions is the highest holder of prosecution authority. His role is to ensure that legally prescribed sanctions are applied against persons who have committed criminal violations, and to supervise the exercise of prosecution authority by commissioners of police. The Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutes the more serious offences against the Criminal Code, including offences committed in official capacity.

The judiciary

13. The Constitution provides that the judges wield judicial power. There are eight courts of the lower instance in Iceland, one in each constituency. These have jurisdiction in private and criminal cases, and they issue remand orders and other orders necessary in the context of criminal investigation. They also render bankruptcy orders and resolve disputes arising in enforcement of judgements by the magistrates. Judges are furthermore competent to resolve any disputes relating to the limits of administrative authority. Thus, any decisions of administrative authorities can be invalidated by the courts. The general principle is that the courts are competent to resolve any dispute if its subject matter is governed by law unless it is exempted from their jurisdiction by law, by custom, or by the nature of the matter. The resolutions of the lower courts can be referred to the Supreme Court of Iceland, which is a court of appeals serving all Iceland. Criminal judgements can be referred to the Supreme Court subject to certain conditions, and in private cases appeal is subject to certain requirements concerning minimum interests.

The Ombudsman of the Althing

14. The Office of the Ombudsman was established in 1988 by Act No. 82/1988. The Ombudsman is elected by Parliament and reports to Parliament annually, but in other respects he is autonomous. His role is to supervise State and municipal administration. He is to secure the rights of the private citizens vis-à-vis the holders of administrative authority. He investigates administrative cases either on his own initiative or upon complaint. Any person who maintains that he has suffered injustice at the hands of an administrative authority can lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman. If a matter can be referred to a higher administrative authority such complaint cannot be lodged until the superior authority has decided on the matter. The activities of the judiciary and decisions and other actions taken by administrative authorities which according to express legal provisions shall be referred to the courts, are outside the sphere of the Ombudsman's functions.

15. The Ombudsman may request from administrative authorities any information he may need. He may for example demand delivery of reports, documents, entries and other evidence relating to a matter. He is free to enter and examine the offices of any administrative authorities, and the personnel shall provide him with all necessary assistance. In his conclusions in the cases handled by him, the Ombudsman provides an opinion as to whether a measure taken by an administrative authority conflicted with law or good administrative practice. He may provide guidance or recommendations on better practices to administrative authorities. His opinion is not formally binding upon the authorities, as for example a judgement would be, and the Ombudsman cannot formally invalidate an administrative measure. His opinions, however, carry great weight and his recommendations and guidance are usually acted upon.

16. The Ombudsman keeps under observation whether laws conflict with the Constitution or suffer from other faults, including whether they are in conformity with international instruments to which Iceland is a party.

17. Constitutional Act No. 97/1995 introduced many amendments and additions to the human rights provisions of the Constitution. These measures were considered highly timely, as the provisions in effect until then were in various respects out of date, having remained practically unchanged since 1874. They had been the subject of criticism both in domestic debate and internationally. The principal criticism related to the fact that the Constitution lacked various explicit provisions on fundamental human rights. In spite of the general consensus that Icelanders enjoyed such rights in fact, as ordinary legislation or the unwritten principles of the constitution secured them, this was no longer considered adequate. The amendments to the Constitution were intended to amend this situation. They added various new rights to those already provided for, and added more detail to some of the older provisions.

18. The rights added to the Human Rights chapter of the Constitution are the following, referred to by article numbers:

Prohibition against retroactivity of criminal legislation (art. 69, para. 1);

19. In addition to the above rights introduced into the Constitution, the provisions on other rights were phrased in a manner significantly clearer and their wording modernized. This was done, inter alia, with a view to international instruments in effect in these fields, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The protection of personal freedom (art. 67), freedom from interference with privacy, home and family life (art. 71), and freedom of opinion and expression (art. 73) are examples of rights that were significantly changed in substance.

20. Other rights protected by the Constitution are freedom of religion (arts. 63 and 64); the right of private ownership (art. 72); the freedom of association and assembly (art. 74); the freedom of occupation and the right to negotiate for terms of employment and other labour-related rights (art. 75); the right to assistance in case of sickness, invalidity et al. (art. 76, para. 1); the right to education (art. 76, para. 2), and the rights of children (art. 76, para. 3).

21. The Constitution is the primary source of Icelandic law. The courts have reserved for themselves the right to determine whether statutes conflict with the Constitution, despite the fact that this power of review is not expressly provided for there. If the courts consider that a statutory provision conflicts with a constitutional human rights provision they will disregard the former in their resolutions. A number of such examples are found in Icelandic judicial practice. The courts do not, however, have jurisdiction formally to invalidate a statutory provision, even if they consider it in conflict with the Constitution.

22. Iceland is a party to numerous human rights instruments prepared under the auspices of the United Nations and the Council of Europe. The most important ones, apart from the Convention against Torture, are enumerated as follows. The year in which each agreement entered into effect for Iceland is stated in parentheses.

United Nations Conventions:

European Conventions:

23. Iceland is among the States that adhere to the doctrine of the duality of international and national law. This means that the provisions of an international human rights instrument do not achieve the status of national law unless active measures are taken to adopt them into national law.

24. Iceland has generally held the view that Icelandic legislation conforms to the provisions of the human rights instruments to which Iceland is a party. The method of implementing the provisions of such instruments has usually been adaptation of national law to their provisions. The courts of Iceland have also interpreted the provisions of national law to conform to international human rights obligations. To this extent the provisions of human rights instruments are indisputably among the sources of law to be taken into account when interpreting statutory provisions; however, they yield to express statutory provisions which directly conflict with them. In the past few decades some instances have occurred when the courts had to give Icelandic statutes, which conflicted with the European Convention on Human Rights, precedence over its provisions. In order to prevent such discrepancies between national law and the provisions of that Convention, the Convention in its entirety was incorporated into national law by Act No. 62/1994. This is the first and only instance of such incorporation of a human rights instrument into national law.

25. The influence of international human rights instruments on Icelandic legal procedure and the implementation of constitutional provisions on human rights has increased substantially since Iceland became a party to them. This has particularly been the case during the past decade. This is especially marked as regards their effect on the interpretation of Icelandic law. The amendments made to the Constitution by Constitutional Enactment No. 97/1995 can to some degree be traced to this influence. By reason of the discrepancies that could manifest themselves between the European Convention on Human Rights and Icelandic legislation, its incorporation into national law was thought necessary. The attention of the public and public debate has increasingly concerned the question whether Iceland has fulfilled its obligations under other human rights instruments. For the time being there is, however, no intention of incorporating other human rights instruments into national law. It may be noted that all the most important human rights instruments mentioned above are officially published in a law collection regularly issued by the Ministry of Justice, where only enacted statutes are generally published.

26. As mentioned above, the new provisions of the Constitution have been formulated, bearing in mind the provisions of international human rights instruments. The provisions of the Constitution remain, however, less detailed than the international provisions, as the former seek chiefly to lay down broad principles. It must be kept in mind that the foundations of these principles are of wide scope, and they can be seen in the detailed provisions of the human rights instruments to which Iceland has become a party. The Constitution now enumerates all the most important fundamental rights that these instruments aim to secure. The international instruments now play a still more important role than before in further interpretation of what these rights involve.

27. In the past decade Icelandic legislation on legal procedure and law enforcement has been profoundly changed. The new enactments have to a greater degree than before taken international human rights obligations into account, including the requirement for protection against torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

28. Icelandic legislation prohibiting torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment can be said to fall into three categories. Firstly, such conduct and treatment are prohibited in article 68, paragraph 1, of the Constitution. Secondly, a comparable prohibition is found in article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has the force of law after its incorporation into national law by Act No. 62/1994. The two provisions are identically worded, but their sphere of effect is wider than what may be inferred from article 1 of the Convention against Torture, because they are not restricted to torture applied by a person acting in an official capacity or other holder of public authority. Instead, they apply generally.

29. Thirdly, there are criminal provisions in the General Penal Code, No. 19/1940 (GPC), where torture is made a criminal act. If a public servant applies physical torture his conduct falls under the provisions on infringement of physical inviolability in sections 217 or 218 of the GPC, depending on the severity of the act. Chapter XIV of the GPC contains special provisions criminalizing offences committed in an official capacity, of which sections 131, 132, 134 and 135 would chiefly be applicable to conduct such as described in article 1 of the Convention. These would usually, in cases of physical torture, be applied jointly with the provisions concerning infliction of physical injury. In cases of non-physical torture these provisions, by themselves, make criminal sanctions possible if a person acting in an official capacity applies such torture. There is no doubt that these criminal provisions apply to any conduct described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture, despite the fact that a term corresponding to "torture" is not used there. In addition, the provisions mentioned are in some respects of more extensive scope than the definition in article 1 of the Convention, as they make punishable any misuse of public authority, not only such misuse for the purposes which article 1 describes. It should be noted that intent is not always a condition for applying these criminal provisions. Punishment may also be ordered in cases of gross negligence. The substance of the above provisions will be further described when discussing articles 2 and 4 of the Convention against Torture.

30. In addition to the above provisions on offences committed by public officials, physical torture is of course punishable under a large number of criminal provisions, despite the fact that a term corresponding to "torture" is not used. Generally speaking, all provisions of the GPC making punishable intentional acts committed against life and limb in fact make physical torture punishable as well. In addition to the provisions of sections 217 and 218 already referred to, examples such as section 225 on unlawful duress, section 226 on deprivation of liberty and various provisions of chapter XXII on sexual offences can be mentioned.

31. Various Icelandic statutes, in particular the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 19/1991 (CCP), protect the rights of arrested persons and remand prisoners in connection with police investigation of criminal cases. Their specific aim is to prevent the occurrence of torture, any excesses in order to obtain confession from persons deprived of their liberty, and any compulsion exercised by holders of public authority for investigative purposes. Section 69, paragraph 2, of the CCP and the Regulations on the Legal Status of Arrested Persons and Police Interrogations, No. 395/1997, specify the maximum duration of interrogation of a suspected person, according to which a person may not be questioned for more than six hours at a time following adequate sleep and rest. Section 42, paragraph 2, of the CCP ensures that legal counsel may always be present when a suspect is being interrogated. The Regulations on Custody on Remand, No. 179/1992, contain more detailed provisions on interrogation procedure and the treatment of remand prisoners. These will be further described in connection with article 11 of the Convention.

32. The Prisons and Imprisonment Act, No. 48/1988, contains general provisions on the treatment to be afforded convicted prisoners, for example concerning the rights they are to enjoy in prison and to what extent their special needs are to be taken into account if they suffer from physical ailments or mental deficiencies. The Act also contains clear provisions on disciplinary measures and the conditions under which a prisoner may be subjected to solitary confinement. The rights of convicted prisoners will be further described in connection with article 11 of the Convention.

33. A specific piece of legislation, Act No. 15/1990, was enacted on account of Iceland's ratification of the European Convention against Torture of 1990. Its provisions specify how Icelandic authorities are to assist the Committee for the Prevention of Torture when that Committee examines the conditions afforded to persons deprived of liberty in Iceland. The Committee came to Iceland in the summer of 1993 and visited a few prisons and police stations in order to examine the conditions of imprisonment and seek indications of whether torture occurred or whether prisoners were subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Among its conclusions was that no such indications were observed. The Committee, on the other hand, made observations on the poor condition of some places of detention which it had visited. Various improvements have been made since then. Among them are the opening of a new prison and the closure of a remand prison considered unacceptable by the Committee. The Committee plans to visit Iceland again in the first half of 1998.

34. The death penalty has long since been abolished from Icelandic law, as has corporal punishment. Article 69, paragraph 2, of the Constitution prohibits adoption into law of the death penalty. The kinds of punishment provided for in Icelandic law are only fines and imprisonment. The latter is of two kinds, i.e. commitment to prison and penal custody. There is no difference in practice between the two kinds of deprivation of liberty, but penal custody is usually ordered for a shorter period than deprivation of liberty of the other distinction. There is no provision in Icelandic law for imprisonment involving torture or any punishment regarded as cruel, inhuman or degrading.

35. Icelandic law provides for measures to protect other persons than those deprived of liberty on account of suspicion of criminal conduct or for serving a prison sentence from torture or other inhuman treatment; the danger of such treatment is deemed not only to exist in prisons, but also for example where persons have been deprived of their liberty by reason of mental illness and committed to hospitals against their will, or where adolescent persons, not responsible under criminal law, have against their will been committed to institutions. Such danger is also deemed to exist where an individual is placed in full personal charge of another individual, or where a person is dependent on another person by reason of his or her sensitive position. Situations which may be examined in this context include the treatment of children in homes or schools, and of patients in hospitals. The law responds to this, to some extent, by protective provisions regulating such situations in order to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Section 63 of the Act on Protection of Children and Adolescent Persons, No. 58/1992, makes it a punishable offence if a person who has a child or an adolescent person in his care affords such person ill-treatment, violates such person's mental or physical integrity, or endangers such person's life or health by negligence. According to its section 64 it is a criminal act to punish, threaten or intimidate a child so as to endanger its emotional or physical well-being. Section 52, paragraph 2, of the Act the subject of which is supervision of homes and institutions for children and adolescent persons, prohibits physical and mental punishment. Patients also enjoy particular protection against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, for example under the provisions of the Act on the Rights of Patients, No. 74/1997. This provides among other things for the right of patients to decline medical treatment (sect. 7) and, according to section 10, the written approval of a patient is required for his or her participation in scientific experimentation, for example in testing new drugs.

36. If a person maintains that he or she has suffered torture at the hands of a person acting in official capacity, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, Icelandic law provides for investigation of such cases and for criminal action against the perpetrator. The remedies available and the power to resolve such questions will be described here in general terms, but a more detailed account and statistical information on cases which have occurred, etc. will be included in the consideration of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention.

Complaint to the police and criminal proceedings before the courts

37. The Police Act, No. 90/1996, provides for the procedure to be applied if a complaint is lodged against a policeman on account of an alleged criminal act in the exercise of his or her duties. Prior to the entry into effect of the Act on 1 July 1997, the procedure to be employed was not provided for by law. The objective in laying down such rules by statute law was to ensure careful and impartial investigation from the beginning. Article 35 of the Police Act specifies that if a complaint is received against a policeman on account of an alleged criminal offence in the exercise of his functions, or if such an offence is suspected, the Commissioner of Police shall immediately notify the Director of Public Prosecutions. The office of the National Commissioner of Police operates a particular investigation department whose duties include investigation of all such complaints. The Director of Public Prosecutions is in charge of such investigation, but not the National Commissioner of Police, who is in charge of all other investigations coming under his office. If an investigation indicates that the conduct evidenced by a policeman is likely to lead to conviction, the Director of Public Prosecutions will bring criminal action. While a complaint of alleged criminal conduct on the part of a policeman is being investigated the policeman is temporarily suspended from his duties. It depends on the outcome of the investigation whether criminal charges are brought in court, whether the policeman is given a formal warning by his superior, that is, the regional commissioner of police in question, or whether his employment is terminated.

38. If a prisoner maintains that a prison warden has subjected him to torture, he can complain to the prison governor or to the Prison and Probation Administration, which is in charge of all Icelandic prisons, or send a complaint directly to the commissioner of police having jurisdiction in the area of the prison. If the Director of the Prison and Probation Administration receives information of torture or other ill-treatment by a prison warden, he can likewise lodge a complaint with the local commissioner of police, alleging a criminal offence on the part of a prison warden. If the conduct of a prison warden does not involve torture but is nevertheless inappropriate and unprofessional, the prison governor may give him a formal warning, which may be followed by termination of employment. A prison warden will be temporarily suspended from work while an investigation of an alleged criminal offence against a prisoner takes place.

The Ombudsman

39. A complaint of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on the part of a person acting in an official capacity may be sent to the Ombudsman of Parliament.

The European Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights

40. Iceland has accepted the power of the European Commission on Human Rights to receive communications under article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights from individual persons alleging violations of their rights under the Convention. Iceland has also accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Icelandic authorities are not aware of any complaints having been lodged with that Commission alleging violations of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Human Rights Committee instituted under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

41. Iceland has ratified the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the competency of the Committee working in accordance with its provisions to receive communications from individuals claiming violations of them. The Icelandic Government is not aware of any communications to the Committee alleging violations of article 7 of the Covenant.

42. At the end of Part I of this report it is proper to present an overview of provisions of law relating to deprivation of liberty on account of suspected criminal conduct, and of prisons and imprisonment in Iceland. This is done in light of the fact that the specific measures to prevent torture are most likely to be called for in these fields.

43. According to article 67, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, any person arrested by reason of suspected criminal conduct shall be brought before a judge without undue delay. If he is not released at once the judge shall, within 24 hours, give a reasoned decision on whether he shall be imprisoned on remand. Now the present rule is that, without exception, a person must be brought before a judge within the specified period of time following his arrest, and until this is done he is detained at the detention facility of the commissioner of police in the relevant jurisdiction. When an arrested person is brought before a judge it is customary that the judge renders, in the same court session, a reasoned decision on whether he is released or remanded, but if this is not done such a decision must be rendered within 24 hours. A person may only be remanded if accused of conduct punishable by imprisonment. The CCP presents in detail the conditions for custody on remand in other respects, and section 105, paragraph 2, provides that custody on remand must always be allowed for a limited, specified period. According to its section 108, paragraph 3, a remand prisoner can always refer to the judge any matter relating to how the remand custody is carried out. Further rules on the treatment of remand prisoners are found in the Regulations on Remand Custody, No. 179/1992.

44. According to the Prisons and Imprisonment Act, No. 48/1988, Icelandic prisons are of two kinds, namely prisons for sentenced prisoners, and prisons for remand prisoners. Remand prisons are for prisoners remanded for custody according to the provisions of the CCP for the purposes of criminal investigation. The total number of prison places in Icelandic prisons is 138. The numbers of prisoners during the past four years are as follows, referring to the average number of prisoners each day. The numbers in parentheses indicate prisoners serving their sentences outside prisons, for example in hospitals or in treatment facilities for misuse of alcohol or drugs.

45. As mentioned above, article 68, paragraph 2, of the Constitution provides that no one may be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This prohibition is unreserved and unconditional, allowing no exceptions. The provision is comparable to that of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which has the force of law in Iceland by virtue of Act No. 62/1994.

46. The term "torture" is not defined in Icelandic statute law. Given the accepted interpretation of the term in article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights the detailed definition in article 1 of the Convention against Torture will be accepted here.

47. The Constitution has no provision making possible any derogation from its human rights provisions by reason of specific circumstances, such as war, danger of war, insecure domestic political situation or any other public emergency. The question of having to derogate from the human rights provisions of the Constitution by reason of emergency, whether in time of war or peace, has never arisen. It is clear that even if a situation developed such as defined in article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention against Torture, article 15, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights ensures that the principle of prohibition of torture can never be disregarded. It may also be noted that Iceland is bound by a comparable principle in article 4, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to which no derogation may be made from article 7 of the Covenant.

48. Various measures have been taken within the fields of legislation, public administration and law enforcement in order to prevent torture. These differ in nature, and will be described further when considering the individual provisions of the Convention against Torture. Nevertheless, it is proper to mention firstly legislation prohibiting torture of any description as well as other inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. Torture is made punishable in Icelandic legislation, and special criminal provisions apply in the field of law enforcement to persons acting in an official capacity. These rules of law will be described in detail under article 4 of the Convention.

49. Secondly, the General Penal Code (GPC) makes it possible to prosecute a person for an offence described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture. Under the legislation now in effect, a person may be prosecuted before the courts of Iceland on account of such an offence, irrespective of the place of commission or the defendant's nationality. These rules will be described further in the discussion on article 5 of the Convention.

50. Thirdly, measures have been taken specifically in order to prevent torture. These include rules on the interrogation and treatment of arrested persons, prisoners and other persons deprived of their liberty, which regulate the conduct of public servants working in this field. In this context it is also proper to mention information given public servants concerning the prohibition of torture, which forms a part of their education, and the professional standards required of them. The measures taken in this field will be further described under articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

51. Criminal legislation does not provide for the defence of referring to the orders of superiors or administrative authorities for justification of torture. It is a principle of Icelandic criminal law that punishment is ordered for the individual person based on his or her criminal guilt. A person committing an act described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture will be sentenced without regard as to whether the act was committed on the orders of a superior. The GPC also allows punishment of a superior who has ordered a person subject to his authority to apply torture, even if the superior does not himself commit the act. In fact, such orders are viewed as particularly serious. Thus, section 135 of the GPC provides that if a public servant takes part in the commission of an offence by another public servant subject to his authority, or seeks to entice him to commit such offence, he shall be subjected to the penalty provided for on account of that offence; however, up to one half of the penalty in question shall be added to the sentence.

52. Icelandic law ensures that a person cannot be extradited or sent back to another State if there is a significant reason to believe that he or she faces a risk of torture there. The provisions to this effect are chiefly found in the Act on Extradition and Other Assistance in Criminal Matters, No. 13/1984 (the Extradition Act) and the Act on Supervision of Foreigners, No. 45/1965 (the Immigration Act). A separate statute, Act No. 7/1962, applies to extradition to Denmark, Finland, Norway or Sweden.

53. According to the Extradition Act a person may be extradited to a State where he or she is suspected of, or has been indicted or sentenced for a punishable offence. The Act, however, makes various reservations to this general principle. Thus, according to section 3 extradition is only allowed if the act is punishable by more than one year in prison under Icelandic law. Article 5 prohibits extradition on account of political offences. According to article 6 extradition is prohibited if the person in question faces a significant risk of being, following extradition, subjected to oppression or persecution endangering life or liberty, or any oppression or persecution which is otherwise of serious nature, on account of his or her race, nationality, religion or political opinion, or on account of political conditions in other respects. Article 7 also permits denial of extradition in special cases on humanitarian grounds, such as on account of age, health or other personal conditions.

54. The Ministry of Justice receives requests for extradition made by foreign States. The procedure for handling such requests is laid down in sections 13–18 of the Extradition Act. If the Ministry considers, on the basis of the extradition request and the attached documents, that it is to be declined at once, this shall be done. If the request is not declined at once by the Ministry it shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who shall have the necessary investigation carried out immediately. The person to whom the request relates may request a court to determine whether the legal requirements for extradition are fulfilled. At the time the Director of Public Prosecutions notifies a person of a request for his extradition and the arguments in its support, he shall inform him of his right to refer the matter to the courts and that he can have legal counsel appointed for him. The fees of such legal counsel and other costs of the case shall be paid by the State Treasury.

55. According to the rules mentioned above, the court assesses, upon the request of the person whose extradition is requested, whether the legal conditions for extradition are fulfilled. The court will then examine, among other things, whether sections 6 or 7 of the Extradition Act stand in the way of extradition. If there is a significant reason to believe that a person may be subjected to torture in the country to which he is extradited, the legal conditions are not fulfilled, and the court will then deny extradition.

56. A case of this kind was recently brought before the courts of Iceland for the first time. A judgement of the Supreme Court on 17 October 1997 confirmed a decision of the district court denying extradition of a wife and her husband to the United States. The United States authorities had requested their extradition on account of a criminal action taking place against them in their home country. The spouses challenged the request and submitted detailed evidence in court, establishing that there was significant danger that they would not receive a fair trial before a court in Arizona. There was also a significant likelihood that they would be treated inhumanely by being transported in irons to their destination in accordance with rules governing prisoner transport in the United States, and in being remanded to a prison in Maricopa County, Arizona. They demonstrated that the conditions in that prison were inhuman and degrading, and that an Icelandic decision to grant the extradition request would therefore conflict with their rights under article 68, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Supreme Court sustained the view that the legal requirements for extradition were not fulfilled and that the administrative authorities were to observe the principle of proportionality when taking a decision on the extradition, such as by seeking to negotiate with the United States authorities that the spouses travel to the United States of their own free will and that they be granted bail instead of imprisoned on remand while their case was in progress in Arizona. The spouses are still in Iceland, despite the fact that their residence permit has expired. At the time of writing a decision has not been taken on whether they shall be expelled.

57. Foreigners may be denied entry into Iceland or expelled under the conditions specified in the Immigration Act, No. 45/1985. Iceland is a party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 and the Protocol of 1967. According to section 10, paragraph 4, of the Act a foreigner cannot be denied entry to Iceland if he claims to have had to seek asylum as a refugee and this claim is considered likely to be true. Here, the meaning of the term "refugee" is as defined in article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. A particular body, the Immigration Office, decides on the request of a person for political asylum. Appeal against the decision of the Office can be lodged with the Ministry of Justice, and the person seeking asylum must be notified of his right of appeal. The Immigration Act, and the general rules of the Administrative Procedures Act, No. 37/1993, provide for procedure in such cases, including a foreigner's right of protest and his right to submit evidence on his behalf. During the past five years there have been no instances of a request for political asylum being granted in Iceland, i.e. of an applicant being deemed a political refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, but such applications have been relatively few in number. Such persons are frequently returned to the countries from which they came, most often the Nordic countries, and their requests for asylum are often under consideration by the authorities of those countries. There are, however, a few examples of foreigners seeking asylum being granted residence permits, for example on account of conditions in their home countries which nevertheless do not justify their being granted refugee status. The following table shows the number of requests for asylum in Iceland and the conclusions reached.

58. In three of the above cases (one in 1995 and two in 1996) the applicants exercised their right to appeal to the Ministry of Justice against the decision of the Immigration Office denying asylum. The Ministry confirmed two of these decisions, but granted residence in one case.

59. In the opinion of the Icelandic Government, Icelandic law makes torture, mental as well as physical, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, punishable to an adequate degree. In the following, the criminal provisions already mentioned, which make conduct involving torture punishable, will be described in further detail.

60. A term corresponding to "torture" is not used in Icelandic criminal legislation. Icelandic criminal statutes are as a general rule formulated so as to declare some specific act or conduct punishable, and the consequences of the act or conduct may be decisive as to what criminal provision is applied. Physical torture is punishable under many of the criminal provisions of the GPC. All the provisions of the Code making punishable intentional acts committed against a person's life or limb can be said to make physical torture punishable. The subject of section 217 of the Code is minor physical assault, which is punishable by fines or imprisonment for up to one year. Section 218 makes major physical assault punishable. It provides that if a person inflicts physical injury upon another person by wilful physical assault, and the perpetrator is responsible for the consequences of the act by reason of intent or negligence, he shall be subjected to penal custody or imprisonment for up to three years, or fines in cases of particularly mitigating circumstances. If serious physical injury results from such assault, or if the offence is particularly dangerous by reason of the methods or implements used, or if the victim dies as a consequence of the act, the offence is punishable by imprisonment for up to 16 years.

61. In addition to these two important provisions of the GPC on physical assault, there are criminal provisions in section 215 on manslaughter, section 225 on unlawful duress, section 226 on deprivation of liberty, and various provisions in chapter XXII, the subject of which is sexual offences. Finally, certain mental torture is made punishable in section 221, the subject of which is failure to come to the assistance of a person whose life is in danger if this can be done without endangering one's own life or health; in section 225 on unlawful duress; section 226 on deprivation of liberty, and in various provisions of chapter XXV on offences against reputation and privacy.

62. The general observations above enumerated certain criminal provisions in chapter XIV of the GPC concerning offences committed in official capacity. The provisions most likely to come into consideration in connection with the definition of torture in article 1 of the Convention will now be described. These are sections 131, 132 and 134.

63. Section 131 provides that a judge or other public servant entrusted with public authority under criminal law, who employs unlawful methods in order to bring a person to confess or to provide a statement, arrests or imprisons a person unlawfully or carries out an unlawful investigation or unlawfully seizes documents or other objects, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years.

64. Section 132 provides for fines or penal custody, subject to any heavier penalties provided for by law, if a person acting in an official capacity intentionally fails to observe correct methods in the procedure or resolution of a case, arrest, search or imprisonment, or in the implementation of a sentence or seizure, or violates other rules of similar kind.

65. Section 134 provides for penal custody or imprisonment for up to three years if a person in an official capacity misuses his position in order to compel a person to perform an act, suffer an act or refrain from action.

66. Finally, section 138 of the GPC provides that if a public servant commits an offence deemed to constitute misuse of his position, and his offence is not punishable as an offence committed in official capacity, he shall be subjected to the penalty provided for on account of that offence; however, up to one half of the penalty in question shall be added to the sentence.

67. As regards torture, sections 132, 133 and 134 of the GPC have been interpreted as relating chiefly to mental torture on the part of persons acting in official capacity. In case of physical torture, such as described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture, a person acting in an official capacity would also be indicted for physical assault on the basis of section 217 or 218 of the GPC, depending on the seriousness of the injury inflicted. According to section 138 it is possible, as mentioned above, to increase the penalty by up to 50 per cent. In two criminal judgements of recent years policemen were sentenced for ill-treatment of arrested persons. In the earlier judgement, rendered 14 November 1991, a policeman was sentenced on the basis of sections 218 and 138 of the GPC, but the additional application of section 132 was not deemed justified. In the later judgement, pronounced 21 March 1997, a policeman was sentenced for a violation of sections 217, 138 and 132 of the Code. These judgements will be further described in connection with articles 12 and 13 of the Convention.

68. The discussion relating to article 2 of the Convention described the special provision on the liability of an accessory in section 135 of the GPC, namely participation of a superior in an offence committed by a person over whom he has authority, or an offence committed on the orders of a superior. Such offences are regarded as particularly serious, as the penalty applicable to the person in authority may in such cases be increased by half. The general rules applicable to persons attempting, aiding or abetting crime are found in sections 20 and 22 of the Code. The general principle is, according to section 20, that anyone who has resolved to commit an offence punishable under the Code and overtly demonstrated this intention by an act aiming at its commission is, even if the offence has not been carried out, guilty of the attempted offence. In cases of an attempt, a sentence may be ordered which is lower than the sentence applicable to the completed offence.

69. The principle of section 22 on accessory participation is that anyone who in word or deed provides aid in the commission of an offence punishable under the Code, or has a part in its commission by persuasion, exhortation or otherwise, shall be sentenced as if he had committed the actual offence.

70. Under Icelandic law an offence as defined in article 1 of the Convention comes under Icelandic criminal jurisdiction in all the cases enumerated in its article 5. Icelandic criminal jurisdiction is governed by the detailed provisions of sections 4–6 of the GPC.

71. In order to fulfil the commitments described in article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention against Torture, amendments were made to section 6 of the GPC by Act No. 142/1995, which extended Icelandic criminal jurisdiction in cases involving torture offences. According to section 6, subparagraph 9, of the Code, a person can be sentenced under Icelandic criminal law for an offence described in the Convention against Torture even if it has been committed outside Icelandic territory and irrespective of the perpetrator's nationality. However, criminal action can only be brought under this provision if so ordered by the Minister of Justice. This requirement applies also to other cases involving exception from the main principle that Iceland only has criminal jurisdiction in cases where an offence has been committed on Icelandic territory or by an Icelandic national or a person residing in Iceland. Examples of other cases where Icelandic criminal jurisdiction is similarly extended are those described in article 1 of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of 27 January 1977, and in the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages of 18 December 1979. To date, the question of prosecution by Icelandic authorities, and consequently the power of decision of the Minister of Justice in cases of such extended Icelandic criminal jurisdiction, has never arisen.

72. Provisions enabling the measures described in article 6, paragraph 1, in the Convention against Torture, are mainly to be found in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), No. 19/1991. According to its section 97, paragraph 1, a policeman may arrest a person if there is reasonable cause to believe that he has committed an indictable offence, provided arrest is necessary in order to prevent continued commission, to secure the suspect's presence and security or to prevent concealment or destruction of evidence. According to section 99, a judge may also order an arrest upon the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police. The Extradition Act also provides, in section 19, for the arrest of a person wanted by the authorities of a foreign country as a suspected, indicted or sentenced perpetrator of an offence that could justify extradition under the Act. Such arrests, and other coercive measures, for example remand, are subject to the provisions of the CCP as if the person arrested were accused of a similar offence in Iceland.

73. The right of an arrested person to be brought before a judge without undue delay if he is to be placed in custody is protected by article 67 of the Constitution, as noted in the general observations above. Section 102 of the CCP also contains a similar rule. Chapter XIII of the CCP provides for custody on remand and related measures. According to section 103, paragraph 1, a person can only be remanded if there is a reasonable cause to believe that he has committed an act punishable by imprisonment, provided he has attained the age of 15 years. In addition to this, at least one of the following four conditions, enumerated in the section quoted, must be fulfilled:

(a) That the accused person may hinder the investigation of his case, for example by removing the evidence of his offence, concealing objects or influencing witnesses or other persons who have taken part in the commission of the offence;

(b) That he may leave the country, go into hiding or otherwise evade prosecution or sentence;

(c) That he may continue criminal activity while his case has not been brought to a conclusion;

(d) That imprisonment on remand is deemed necessary in order to protect others from the suspect, or the suspect from others.

74. Finally, section 103, paragraph 2, of the CCP provides that a person may be remanded even if the conditions in subparagraphs (a)–(d) have not been fulfilled, if there is a strong reason to believe that he has committed a crime punishable under law by 10 years in prison, and custody on remand is deemed necessary to the public interest.

75. Thus, Icelandic law provides adequately for custody of a person suspected of conduct described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture. Remand imprisonment ordered by the courts of Iceland is in practice most frequently justified by subparagraph (a) of section 103, paragraph 1, i.e. the interests of the investigation. This subparagraph may be expected to be applicable if a person is suspected of an offence involving torture. Subparagraph (b) may also be applicable, for example in the case of a foreigner who may be expected to attempt to leave the country. Paragraph 2 of section 103 may also be applied in case a person is suspected of a serious offence involving torture, punishable by up to 16 years in prison. It may finally be noted that in place of remand, a judicial order may be issued prohibiting a person from leaving a particular area. Thus a judge may, according to section 110 of the CCP, order a suspect to remain within a certain geographical boundary, or prohibit his departure from Iceland.

76. Remand custody, or a related measure such as an order to stay within a certain area, must be ordered for a specified period of time. An order to this effect may be appealed to the Supreme Court, where it is handled expeditiously. It is difficult to state the average duration of remand imprisonment. The period is of course ordered with regard to the facts and needs on which the order is based. In judicial practice remand is seldom ordered for a period exceeding four to six weeks. Shorter periods are more common, in particular when remand is ordered with regard to investigative needs. Remand can be extended for a definite period by a new order, but in cases where remand is justified by the needs of an investigation, the courts make stricter demands that the investigation authority establish the need for continued custody. During the past few years, the period of investigation of serious criminal cases where remand has been ordered, and their procedure in court, has become appreciably shorter. One of the chief aims of the new Police Act, No. 90/1996, which entered into effect 1 July 1997, was to make criminal investigation more efficient and shorten the time until an indictment is issued.

77. According to section 108 of the CCP, the treatment of remand prisoners shall be such as necessary to achieve the purpose of their custody, and any severity or harshness is to be avoided. The section then provides further for the accommodation afforded remand prisoners, for example concerning their right to receive visitors and to send or receive mail. These rules, with other matters concerning their custody, are regulated in further detail in the Regulations on Imprisonment on Remand, No. 179/1992. The main principle is that a remand prisoner is allowed the use of a telephone if this does not interfere with the interests of the investigation (section 62 of the Regulations). A remand prisoner may also send letters subject to the Regulations' chapter VII, but these may be held if they can harm the investigation of his alleged offence. The Regulations also contain provisions in chapter VI on the right of a remand prisoner to receive visitors during specified visitation hours, but this right can also be limited with a view to the interests of the investigation. This shows that a remand prisoner is fully entitled to contact the nearest appropriate representative of his country of nationality, for example an embassy, as it is very unlikely that this could affect the interests of an investigation. It should finally be mentioned that a remand prisoner is always in his right to refer matters relating to his accommodation to a judge, including any limitations imposed on his contact with others.

78. It may finally be noted that remand has never been ordered in Iceland on account of a suspected offence involving torture, as described in articles 1 and 4 of the Convention against Torture.

79. No rules have been laid down by statute concerning the matters described in the Convention's article 6, paragraph 4. It is clear, however, that Icelandic authorities would immediately contact a State where a person is suspected of having committed a torture offence. Cooperation with the authorities in that State, for example concerning collection of evidence, is a necessary precondition for prosecution before the courts of Iceland, if the suspected offender is not extradited to the country where the crime was allegedly committed.

80. If an arrest takes place on account of a suspected offence as described in articles 1 and 4 of the Convention, committed by a policeman acting in official capacity, the matter will be investigated by the office of the National Commissioner of Police. In case the offender is some other person, a prison warden for example, or some other public servant, the commissioner of police having jurisdiction at the place of commission will investigate his case. The commissioner of police in question can ask for the assistance of the investigation department of the National Commissioner of Police, which renders assistance in serious criminal cases. If a person is arrested under suspicion of having committed such offence in a foreign State and he is not extradited to that State, the office of the National Commissioner of Police would in any event take charge of the investigation.

81. When investigation has been completed, different rules apply as to the decision to be taken on prosecution, depending on whether the suspected offence was committed in Iceland or abroad. If an offence involving torture was committed in Iceland or by an Icelandic national abroad, the Director of Public Prosecutions will decide on prosecution. According to section 27 of the CCP the Director of Public Prosecutions only initiates prosecution on account of the most serious offences, including all offences allegedly committed in official capacity, but in other cases the various commissioners of police have power of prosecution. If the offence was committed abroad by a person who is neither an Icelandic national nor a resident of Iceland, the special rule described above in connection with article 5, namely that the Minister of Justice shall decide on prosecution, will apply. The reason for this arrangement is that extended criminal jurisdiction of this kind is a clear exception from the principle that a suspected offender or offence must have ties to Iceland. A decision on such a measure, involving the application of a special exception from the general rules on prosecution, is deemed to require particular care, and the Ministry of Justice is deemed to be the proper authority to assess this need.

82. Icelandic law does not provide for any reduction of the demands for available proof in connection with prosecution or determination of guilt in cases such as mentioned in article 5, paragraph 2. It is a basic principle of Icelandic criminal law that a person charged with a criminal offence is deemed innocent until his guilt is proven, and this principle is enshrined in article 70, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. A reference can also be made in this context to article 6, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. An important aspect of this principle is seen in section 45 of the CCP, providing that the burden of proving a defendant's guilt and any facts deemed to his disadvantage rests with the prosecution. According to section 112 of the CCP, criminal action cannot be brought against a person if the evidence available following investigation is deemed inadequate or unlikely to lead to conviction. There would be no purpose in bringing criminal action under such circumstances, because the courts are always bound by the rule that a person is deemed innocent until his guilt is established, and the burden of proving this rests with the prosecution.

83. The right of a person to a fair trial, both in civil and criminal cases, is secured by article 70 of the Constitution. In substance it is largely similar to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The detailed provisions on criminal investigation and court procedure in criminal cases are in the CCP. The Icelandic Government is of the opinion that these sources of law fulfil in every respect the requirements of article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention, that a person charged for an offence involving torture is ensured a fair procedure at all stages.

84. A report of this kind would be too long if the rights of a suspect and criminal procedure were described in detail, but it is well to mention a few main characteristics of criminal procedure as laid down in Icelandic legislation. The CCP now in effect, which entered into force 1 July 1992, provided for the first time for a complete separation between the role of the prosecution authority and the police on the one hand and judicial functions at the investigation stage on the other. Investigation of criminal cases is now exclusively in the hands of the prosecution authorities and the police, and a judge never takes any initiative as regards investigation, or controls investigation. The role of the judge in the investigation stage is limited to resolving various issues referred to the court by the parties.

85. In addition to abolishing completely inquisitive procedure and instituting accusatory procedure, the new act introduced various amendments with the specific purpose of ensuring fair treatment of accused persons before the courts. Thus, both article 70 of the Constitution and individual provisions of the CCP now ensure that a person accused of criminal conduct is always entitled to the resolution of an independent and impartial tribunal, within a reasonable period of time and following an open trial. The law also ensures for an accused person the rights enumerated in article 6, paragraph 3, of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 14, paragraph 3, of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Thus, his right to be informed of the charges brought against him, the right to legal counsel from the first stages of an investigation, the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, the right to question witnesses testifying against him or to have such witnesses questioned, and the right to the assistance of an interpreter free of charge, to mention a few examples, are all secured.

86. The main provisions in Icelandic law concerning extradition are found in Act No. 13/1984 on extradition of criminal offenders and other assistance in criminal matters (the Extradition Act), previously mentioned. A separate Act, No. 7/1962, applies to extradition to Denmark, Finland, Norway or Sweden, and similar legislation, with mutual extradition provisions, is in effect in the above Nordic countries. Iceland is a party to the European Convention on Extradition of 1957 and the Additional Protocols of 1975 and 1978. Some other extradition agreements, concluded with individual States, are in effect. It may also be noted that Iceland is a party to the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgements of 1970 and the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons of 1983. A particular act of law, No. 56/1993 on international cooperation concerning validity of criminal judgements, was enacted on the basis of these two Conventions. A different Act, No. 69/1963, applies to the execution of criminal judgements rendered in Denmark, Finland, Norway or Sweden.

87. An extradition agreement with a foreign State is not necessary in order to make possible the extradition of a suspected offender to that State. Section 1 of the Extradition Act provides for the extradition of a suspected, indicted or convicted person to a foreign State, if the further requirements specified in the Act are fulfilled. Among these is the principle of section 3 of the Act that the conduct on account of which extradition takes place must be punishable by more than one year in prison under Icelandic law. It is clear from the account given on article 4 of the Convention, concerning punishment of torture offences under Icelandic law, that this condition does not prevent extradition of a person to a foreign country.

88. It is proper to mention again the provisions in sections 3–7 of the Extradition Act, described in connection with article 3, to the effect that extradition may be denied if the person whose extradition is requested faces a risk of torture or persecution directed against his life or liberty on the grounds there mentioned. Extradition may also be denied on humanitarian grounds in certain instances.

89. According to section 2 of the Act, Icelandic nationals may not be extradited. If an Icelandic national is suspected of a torture offence his case must be investigated and prosecuted before the courts of Iceland. A special provision of the Act on extradition to Denmark, Finland, Norway or Sweden makes the extradition of an Icelandic national nevertheless possible, as according to section 2 of the Act, the person in question may be extradited if he or she has been a resident of the country requesting extradition for two years before the offence was committed, and if the offence, or a corresponding offence under Icelandic law, is punishable by more than four years in prison.

90. A request for extradition of a person under the extradition legislation, on the grounds of suspicion, indictment or conviction of an offence such as described in article 1 of the Convention, has never been submitted to Icelandic authorities.

91. Icelandic legislation makes it possible for Icelandic authorities to render assistance to a foreign State in the manner described in article 9 of the Convention. The rules in this respect are chiefly found in chapter IV of the Extradition Act. According to its section 22, the provisions of the CCP may be applied for collection of evidence on account of a criminal case prosecuted in a foreign State, if this is requested by the authorities of that State. Accordingly, an agreement on such judicial assistance with the State in question is not necessary. The statutory provision in question provides an adequate basis for such assistance.

92. Sections 22 and 23 of the Extradition Act provide in further detail for the handling of requests for judicial assistance. Icelandic assistance can only be granted if the act to which the request relates is also punishable under Icelandic law. There is no question of this condition standing in the way of prosecution on account of torture offences, as these are certainly punishable under Icelandic law. According to section 23, Icelandic authorities may grant the request of a State where a criminal case is in progress to send to that State a person who has been remanded or is serving a sentence in Iceland, for testimony in that case. If the person in question does not consent to such transport, a judge of the District Court of Reykjavik shall resolve whether the legal requirements for transport are fulfilled.

93. Iceland is a party to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959 and the Additional Protocol of 1978. It may also be noted that a specific statute, Act No. 49/1994, has been enacted concerning judicial assistance to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Act makes it possible to grant a request from the Tribunal or its Prosecutor for extradition, other assistance, transfer of persons deprived of liberty in order that the Tribunal may receive their statements, and for the execution of judgements pronounced by the Tribunal.

94. No requests from foreign States for judicial assistance on account of torture offences call for application of the legislation described have been received by Icelandic authorities. Nor have they received any requests for such assistance from the Tribunal.

95. The rules governing the appointment of policemen and their training and duties are found in the Police Act, No. 90/1996. The Minister of Justice appoints policemen, who must have passed an examination from the State Police School. The Icelandic police force numbers approximately 600 persons.

96. The State Police School is an independent institution coming under the Minister of Justice. The School operates a department of basic education providing general police education for the students, and a department of advanced education providing for active policemen continuing education, advanced education and special education. The National Commissioner of Police advertises for students everywhere in Iceland. He decides the number of students to be admitted each year, on the basis of a plan for renewal of the force's personnel. Applicants for admission must fulfil certain general requirements. They must be between 20 and 25 years of age, mentally and physically healthy, have completed a certain basic education, and must not have been sentenced for an act punishable under the General Criminal Code. Before admission, they must pass an admission examination. The study takes place in two terms. Before commencing the second term the National Commissioner of Police shall provide the students with practical training with the State police for a minimum of eight months. On the average, about 30 new students are admitted annually. The number of students at the present time is 48.

97. Tuition in the first term of police studies includes the basic aspects of criminal law and criminal procedure. The provisions of the Constitution are described, with a particular emphasis on its human rights provisions. The second term provides a more detailed survey of human rights. The objectives of the course are to provide the students with an overview of the history of and the reasons underlying the human rights provisions of the Constitution, as well as knowledge of international human rights