Experts of the Committee against Torture Commend Mongolia for Committing to Abolish the Death Penalty, Raise Questions on Interrogation Rooms and Extradition Agreements
The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the third periodic report of Mongolia. Committee Experts commended Mongolia for its commitment to abolishing the death penalty, while raising questions on the State’s interrogation rooms and extradition agreements.
Huawen Liu, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee commended Mongolia for its commitment to abolishing the death penalty by ratifying and upholding the obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Naoko Maeda, Vice-Chairperson and Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee welcomed the efforts of the State party to ensure interrogation rooms had closed-circuit televisions and video and audio equipment to ensure that interrogations were recorded; and that recordings were kept for at least six months. What was the State party’s strategy to ensure that equipment for recording interrogation was available throughout the country? Mr. Liu also asked if the State party could respond to reports that video recordings of interrogations, in practice, were deleted after 14 days.
Ms. Maeda also asked what kinds of elements were considered as risks of torture in extradition agreements. How was the right to appeal to courts against deportation, extradition or expulsion orders guaranteed? Could Mongolia inform of any extradition agreements concluded with other States parties?
The delegation said the police department had equipped 849 interrogation rooms to comply with the standards required, including for lighting and ventilation. Surveillance records were required to be kept for three to six months. The State was currently reviewing this process, with the aim to keep surveillance videos from between six months to one year. There was a clear need to increase the number of interrogation rooms.
The delegation also said Mongolia had concluded several multilateral and bilateral extradition agreements. Sixteen agreements had been concluded on bilateral cases. The State took into account the risk of torture when coming to a final decision of extradition. During 2024, five extradition requests had been received from foreign countries. One request was denied. Mongolia had put forward 16 requests to other countries, of which six were satisfied and the rest were denied or remained without any answer.
Introducing the report, N. Myagmar, State Secretary, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs and head of the delegation, said Mongolia had achieved several major milestones since the report was submitted. The Law on the National Human Rights Commission had been revised in line with the Paris Principles to ensure the Commission’s independent status, sufficient financial resources and to ensure it could act efficiently to resolve complaints of torture, and to establish the National Preventive Mechanism. The rule on the conditions of detention facilities addressed hot and cold water supply, sewerage systems, natural light, ventilation, sanitary and hygiene and essential infrastructure required to sustain a healthy and safe environment for detainees.
In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for engaging in the dialogue with a constructive spirit. The Committee had a follow-up procedure, which aimed to continue to facilitate a dialogue between Mongolia and the Committee.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Myagmar said the Committee’s recommendations had great importance and would serve to ensure the fulfilment of Mongolia commitments within the framework of the Convention.
The delegation of Mongolia consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Protection; the Independent Authority against Corruption; the General Prosecutors Office; the General Executive Agency of Court Decision; the National Police Agency; the General Intelligence Agency; the Immigration Agency; and the Permanent Mission of Mongolia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Mongolia at the end of its eighty-first session on 22 November. Those and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 14 November to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Report
The Committee has before it the third periodic report of Mongolia (CAT/C/MNG/3).
Presentation of Report
N. MYAGMAR, State Secretary, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs and head of the delegation, said Mongolia had achieved several major milestones since the report was submitted. The Law on the National Human Rights Commission had been revised in line with the Paris Principles to ensure its independent status, sufficient financial resources and to ensure it could act efficiently to resolve complaints of torture, and to establish the National Preventive Mechanism. The designation of a Human Rights Commission member in charge of torture prevention in 2022 by the Parliament was the starting point of anti-torture national preventive activities. The act of torture was defined as an offence under criminal law, according to the Criminal Code approved in 2015. A draft law to further identify the nature of the crime of torture was currently being assessed. The Law on Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law was introduced in January 2024 to provide for alternatives to detention for offenders. This included a travel ban introduced in the Criminal Code as a detention alternative. In total, 6,443 persons had been charged with a travel ban sentence since 2021, when the law was enacted. The Criminal Procedure Law was revised in January 2024 to mitigate the issue of arbitrary arrests and enhance court oversight of detentions.
The Law on Child Protection came into effect in September 2024. The law clearly prohibited corporal punishment and other degrading treatment of children by parents, guardians and other persons within the family and social environment. To provide a legal environment which was conducive for children, considering their age and physical and mental conditions, the Parliament of Mongolia approved a law establishing specialised family and juvenile first instance and appeal courts in June 2024, which would enter into effect in January 2026. The Government Action Programme 2024-2028 aimed to establish an investigation unit to protect victims and witnesses and carry out criminal investigations, with the overall aim of ensuring the rights of victims and providing redress. A revised law on Government special funds was approved, which legalised the provision of compensation to crime victims, including victims of torture. The 2022 Forensic Law of Mongolia established a level of severity of harm caused to the human mental state as a result of 85 types of crimes, including discrimination, violation of child rights, environmental crime, torture and groundless detention. However, no court orders had been issued that provided compensation to torture victims.
Twenty-one prisons, 28 pre-trial detention facilitates and seven arrest facilities for administrative defenders were affiliated with the Agency for Execution of Court Orders. The Government was taking measures towards improving the conditions of these facilities and providing adequate training to staff. Almost 79 per cent of pre-trial detention facilitates were newly built, with six facilities in need of substantial modernisation. New pre-trial facilities were built in nine aimags (provinces), including Arkhangai, Uvurkhangai, Tuv, Khovd, Khovsgol, Khentii, Zavkhan, Selenge and Khan Bogd soum of Umnugovi between 2016 and 2024. Medical services were provided by four hospitals, as well as by medical service stations operating in each prison, pre-trial detention and arrest facilities. Twenty-two per cent of medical equipment was modernised between 2012 and 2024, with the remaining 78 per cent being modernised gradually.
The rule on the conditions of detention facilities, approved by the Minister of Justice and Home Affairs in consultation with the Prosecutor General, provided for adequate conditions, including hot and cold water supply, sewerage systems, natural light, ventilation, sanitary and hygiene and essential infrastructure required to sustain a healthy and safe environment for detainees. There were also requirements for interrogation rooms, including the installation of a surveillance camera. Around 850 interrogations rooms nationwide were equipped and modernised as per these requirements. However, given the low density of population over the vast territory of the country, underdeveloped infrastructure, and a shortage of financial resources, interrogations rooms in remote areas were yet to reach the level stipulated in the requirements. Mr. Myagmar said Mongolia aimed to address the country’s need for effective enforcement of laws and increased human and financial resources.
Questions by Committee Experts
NAOKO MAEDA, Vice-Chairperson and Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee welcomed that, during the Human Rights 75 High-Level Event in 2023, Mongolia committed to pledges. The Government of Mongolia pledged to start an initiative called "SHE for HE" to ensure gender equality targeting men and boys. In the framework of this initiative, the Government would analyse the existing policies and activities aimed at both men and boys and further initiate policies and implement measures to solve pressing issues. She said that such a positive attitude and approach would contribute to the dialogue.
The Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs was working to improve the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes, with amendments set to be discussed by a Cabinet meeting. The Committee welcomed this. Could the delegation provide information on the status of revisions of the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code? Law enforcement officers were frequently reported as perpetrators of acts of torture, yet these cases had been dismissed. Each year, the police and prosecutor's office received between 300 and 350 complaints regarding torture; however, the number of cases that were eventually resolved in court each year from 2017 to 2023 was merely between one to three. The inclusion of “torture” in the Criminal Code as an aggravating circumstance for four types of crimes created uncertainty in the classification of crimes. The Committee also noted with concern that articles one and four of the Convention had not been adequately implemented into the amended Mongolian Criminal Code of 2017. Could the State party provide information on whether the Criminal Code covered complicity in torture or attempts to commit torture? Did the Code stipulate the criminal responsibility of superior officers who were aware of acts of torture or ill-treatment committed by their subordinates?
The Committee was also concerned that a provision in the Criminal Code allowed leeway for public officials to be granted impunity for acts that constituted torture. Could the State party provide information on the future plan to adopt a definition of torture that contained all the elements of article one of the Convention? It was commendable that the statute of limitations should not apply in cases of torture resulting in death according to the Criminal Code. However, under article 21.12 of the Code, other crimes of torture, which were punishable by up to five years imprisonment, had a statute of limitations counted as 11 years. What measures were in place to ensure there was no statute of limitations for the crime of torture? Were there domestic court judgements which applied or made reference to the Convention? The Committee welcomed that the Government of Mongolia had accepted the standing invitation to the Special Procedures under the Human Rights Council. It was duly acknowledged that Mongolia had made efforts to address the critical issues raised by Special Procedures, including by accepting the visit of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture this year.
A notable achievement was that the Criminal Procedure Law was amended in January 2024 with the aim of including new provisions regarding advanced human rights protection. One amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law aimed to eliminate the overly broad regulation of "indefinite arrest" cases and provide a detailed explanation of the reason for the suspect's immediate arrest. Despite this effort, it was still reported that a high number of arrests were carried out without a court order by the General Intelligence Agency and the Anti-Corruption Agency. Ms. Maeda reiterated the Committee’s previous recommendation inviting the State party to provide information on measures to guarantee that all detained persons were afforded all the fundamental legal safeguards from the outset of their deprivation of liberty, in accordance with international standards.
It was reported that, in recent years, there had been instances of discrimination, torture, ill-treatment, and beatings of conscripts in the armed forces. It was essential that the Government and the Ministry of Defence implemented a system of consistent monitoring and analysis to halt and prevent the occurrence of illegal treatment and torture of military personnel in military units. Could the State party provide information on legislative and administrative frameworks and guidelines to prevent the occurrence of illegal treatment in the military?
Although Mongolian law recognised the right of suspects to have access to a lawyer before making any confession of guilt, it was reported that suspects were frequently pressured to confess and statements they had previously provided as witnesses were often used to as a means of coercion. Thus, many suspects confessed responsibility prior to seeing a lawyer. What measures were taken to ensure that suspects had prompt access to a lawyer from the outset of deprivation of liberty? To what extent was legal aid available for other suspects or detainees in the legislative framework, other than minors?
What strategies were being taken to ensure sufficient human and financial resources for the improvement of facilities and adequate access to justice? How was it ensured that the role of the President in appointing judges did not risk undermining the separation of powers? The Committee expressed concern at allegations of threats and intimidation of lawyers due to their representation in sensitive cases. What measures were taken to ensure the protection of judges and lawyers from harassment, doxing or incitement to violence on social media?
The Committee welcomed the efforts of the State party to ensure interrogation rooms had closed-circuit televisions and video and audio equipment to ensure that interrogations were recorded; that recordings were kept for at least six months; and that recordings were made available, at no cost, to defendants and their counsel. However, the Committee had received reports that not all official interview rooms were equipped with closed-circuit television and video and audio recording equipment, and technical equipment to store and protect video recordings properly was absent. What was the State party’s strategy to ensure that equipment for recording interrogation was available throughout the country? What procedural safeguards were in place to ensure access to necessary documents and files by detainees and their representatives?
What requirements and standards were applied by authorities who determined whether to consent to visits to detention facilities, and what review procedures were in place to ensure transparency and impartiality? What plans were in place to amend the Criminal Code and regulations to ensure the notification of a family member or any other person of detainees’ own choice of their detention immediately after apprehension? According to the revised Criminal Procedure Code, initial detention in police custody could not exceed six hours and the maximum period of detention without judicial oversight was reduced from 72 hours to 48 hours, which was commendable. What measures were taken to ensure people would not be detained over the period stipulated by the laws, and to review the legality of pretrial detention? What were the overall number of persons deprived of liberty in Mongolia and the number of pretrial detainees?
The right to judicial review within 48 hours of being taken into custody applied from the moment a person was deprived of liberty, and the clock was not to be reset if a detainee was moved from one type of space to another. Could the State party provide information on measures to afford detainees the opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial or other authority as a safeguard against arbitrary detention? How was this type of detention registered, and were there statistics on people held in “sobering-up rooms”? How many of these people were arrested and charged?
While the 2017 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code were positive, the Committee had received concerning information that people were routinely summoned as witnesses to be interviewed by the police without the presence of a lawyer and outside the official interrogation rooms, and self-incriminating statements or forced testimonies were reportedly coerced on occasion, often resulting in arrest. Could information on legal safeguards for protecting the rights of witnesses and family members of the victims be provided?
What policies and measures had been taken to implement comprehensive reforms in the fight against corruption and strengthen institutions and their independence? The Committee positively noted that there were complaints boxes installed in prisons and detention facilities that were periodically opened by prosecutors. Could information be provided on the complaints procedures in detention, including the methods of submission and the inspection authorities?
The Committee noted positively that the Government Cabinet developed a draft amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code to establish an independent investigation service under the State Prosecutor General in 2019 and submitted it to the Parliament. However, it was regrettable that the legislature did not support this amendment. Could the State party to provide information on measures to ensure that all fundamental legal safeguards against torture and ill-treatment were guaranteed; that all acts of torture were promptly, effectively and impartially investigated; that perpetrators were prosecuted and, if convicted, punished appropriately; and that the victims received redress?
The Committee welcomed that the revised Law on the National Human Rights Commission of 2020 established a legal basis for appointing the Commissioner of Torture, the member responsible for the prevention of torture, and set out the mandate for the unit responsible for supporting this member. It was also commendable that the first selection of members was conducted online to encourage public engagement. The State party needed to ensure that the National Preventive Mechanism was able to carry out visits in the manner and with the frequency determined by the Mechanism. How did the State party ensure that the National Preventive Mechanism could visit all places of deprivation of liberty? What measures were in place to ensure the functional autonomy of the National Preventive Mechanism by allocating adequate human and financial resources? What privileges and immunities were granted to the Commissioner of Torture and staff of the national human rights institution and the National Preventive Mechanism?
The Committee was concerned about the insufficiency of the juvenile justice system. What was the roadmap for implementing the Committee’s past recommendations in this regard? Pretrial and sentenced detention of juveniles was also a concern. What measures were taken by the State party to ensure the rights of juveniles in line with international juvenile justice standards? Was legal aid provided free of charge, and were there child-friendly and accessible complaint mechanisms?
It was regrettable that no information on the legislative, administrative and judicial frameworks for asylum seekers was included in Mongolia’s report. The State party was obliged to ensure that no person was expelled, returned or extradited to countries where there were substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture under the Convention. What efforts were being taken by the State party to take effective legislative, judicial and administrative measures to comply with its obligations regarding non-refoulement? How many asylum applications had the State received, how many were successful among them and how many deportations had been carried out? What was the rate of recognition of refugee status? The Committee welcomed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mongolia, jointly with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, organised training on emergency planning and refugee protection in 2019. Could up-to-date information on training programmes be provided?
What situations were considered as risks of torture and were there cases in which the State party rejected extradition requests made under bilateral agreements with Kazakhstan, Vietnam and Belarus? How was the right to appeal to courts against deportation, extradition or expulsion orders guaranteed? Why was the State party reluctant to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention? Were there any plans to establish a registration database for persons in the situation of migration and stateless persons? What was the State party’s position regarding the ratification of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness?
Were there any articles in Mongolian domestic laws which enabled universal jurisdiction in line with the Convention? Were there any court cases that interpreted and applied these articles in domestic courts? Did the State party have a plan to address universal jurisdiction clearly in the Criminal Code or Criminal Procedure Code? Could Mongolia inform of any extradition agreements concluded with other States parties and specify whether the offences referred to in article four of the Convention were included as extraditable offences in such agreements? Was the crime of torture on the list of extraditable crimes? Could the State party provide information on any extradition cases undertaken? Had there been any developments in the ratification of mutual judicial assistance treaties since the submission of the report?
HUAWEN LIU, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said this year, the World Bank upgraded Mongolia from the lower-middle-income country to the upper-middle-income country. Meanwhile, as a developing country, it still had challenges to face and difficulties to overcome. The National Human Rights Commission of Mongolia pointed out that training for offenders in prisons and detention centres was ineffective. Were there currently specialised training programmes for law enforcement officers on how to effectively communicate with and provide training for domestic violence offenders? Were there plans to increase resources and support for training for law enforcement officers? Had there been any developments in assessing the progress of human rights training?
It was commendable that the State party had invited the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture to visit Mongolia twice. It was recommended that the State party agree to publish the visit report. How would the shift of the paradigm and judicial culture, from punitive and retributive, towards rehabilitative approaches, be reflected in practice, including in places where persons were deprived of liberty? How were “urgent cases”, for which testimonies could be taken at night, defined? How was it ensured that this exception was not misused? Could the State party respond to the report that individuals had been detained and questioned at police stations outside of the permitted six hours of police detention or the 48-hour maximum period of detention. What physical conditions were individuals kept in during these investigations? How often were individuals given access to food, water and restroom facilities? Could the State party respond to reports that video recordings of interrogations, in practice, were deleted after 14 days? Were there rules in this regard?
The Committee was concerned that although the Criminal Procedure Code stipulated that full access to case files needed to be provided to defence lawyers upon completion of an investigation, in practice, it was reported that the imposition of pretrial detention was used to deny defence lawyers full access to case files and investigatory materials. Did the case files provided to defence attorneys include materials used to determine pretrial detention? Would the State party put in place any provisions to provide defence attorneys access to materials that determined pretrial detention before the conclusion of the investigation so they could effectively challenge pretrial detention decisions?
Were there regular inspections or audits to verify that all detention facilities met the prescribed standards consistently? How had overcrowding at the armoured transfer unit of the 461st Closed Detention Unit been resolved? Although Mongolia had made some improvements in prison conditions, the National Human Rights Commission report indicated that prison conditions in Mongolia fell short of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the Rules for the Protection of Juveniles, with overcrowding, outdated facilities and inadequate sanitation compromising the rights of inmates and staff. Was the Anti-Corruption Agency an independent, third-party organization of law enforcement officials equipped to investigate allegations of torture in prison? If not, did the State party have an independent mechanism to investigate issues of police misconduct in prisons? Why were prisoners only reportedly allowed to shower every 14 days?
Reportedly, due to the insufficient number of doctors, hygienists and nurses in prisons and the lack of necessary equipment, the right of inmates to medical care was violated, symptoms of diseases were detected late, and there were cases of death due to diseases. Were such reports accurate? Were there specific rehabilitation programmes for drug users? Could the State party provide data on the number of cases in recent years where non-custodial measures, such as house arrest or probation, had been applied? What proportion of eligible offenders had been granted such alternatives to detention? What challenges had been encountered in the application of non-custodial measures?
The Committee commended Mongolia for its commitment to abolishing the death penalty by ratifying and upholding the obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Were inmates in “special security” prisons held in solitary confinement or subject to any other specific restrictions compared to inmates in regular closed institutions? Were they required to serve 10 years of their sentence in solitary confinement? What conditions, including any level of isolation, were these inmates kept in? Mr. Liu highlighted the need to establish life imprisonment as a distinct sentence with regimes and programmes that aligned with international human rights standards; was the State party working to do this?
In the cases of two prisoners convicted of torture in 2020 and serving prison sentences, how was it determined that no damages or compensation were warranted? How many acts of torture were reported during this review period? What were the steps for a victim to report an act of torture against them; what steps were taken by the State party to investigate reports; and what was the average duration of investigations? What safeguards were in place for the protection of the victim or witness after an act of torture had been reported? Were there safeguards in place to protect healthcare professionals who reported that an act of torture had been committed on their patient? What steps were taken to facilitate reporting for healthcare professionals?
It was reported that Mongolian laws currently lacked clear procedures for identifying torture victims, calculating damages and ensuring fair settlement and compensation. How could an individual file a claim for compensation? Was there a civil proceeding available independent of any criminal proceedings, pursuant to guidance in the Committee’s General Comment Three? There were ongoing efforts to bolster and reform the system to promote independence and trust in the judicial system, as well as shift from a confession-based system to an evidence-based system. Could the new change in practice be explained? The Committee commended the State party’s efforts to incorporate the principle that “statements obtained through self-incrimination shall not be considered as evidence of guilt” into the Criminal Code. However, ongoing issues of forced testimony and insufficient safeguards during criminal investigations were reported. In light of these concerns, could the State party illustrate whether there were any measures beyond training to strengthen the implementation of this principle?
While the Criminal Code did not criminalise marital rape, it was recognised as a crime under the sexual violence provisions of the Law on Combating Domestic Violence. Could more information be provided on the practical implementation of the provision of spousal rape? How many cases of marital rape had been reported, investigated and prosecuted in recent years? Did the State party plan to amend the Criminal Code to reference marital/spousal rape specifically by name?
The Committee appreciated the measures taken to combat domestic violence, including the establishment of the Domestic Violence Division and the operation of the “107” hotline. How was psychological counselling and assistance offered to victims? Did the hotline exist in cities other than the capital? The Committee noted favourably the State party’s creation and use of the Unified Domestic Violence Database to track offenders and analyse the frequency and circumstances of reported domestic disputes to generate risk profiles for victims. How often was the database updated? What information went into making a risk profile? What were the steps taken during the analysis process to determine the frequency and circumstances of domestic disputes for the database and create the risk profile? What measures were taken to ensure secondary offenders were granted adequate due process and an impartial trial?
The Committee was concerned about the accessibility and coverage of One-Stop Service Centres and shelters for domestic violence; how was it ensured in urban and rural areas? What specific steps were being taken to ensure the long-term sustainability of these facilities, particularly in light of the increased demand during the Covid-19 pandemic?
To better align with the Palermo Protocol, it was recommended that Mongolia expand its definition of exploitation in its law on trafficking, include all trafficking means and stages, increase penalties, and implement training for consistent application of the law. How did the sentencing approach to trafficking reflect the severity of these crimes? Could Mongolia report on any trafficking arrests and convictions that occurred during the review period? How many were for sex trafficking and how many were for forced labour trafficking? Could the State party describe the screening processes and procedures used by border officials to identify vulnerable groups and trafficking victims entering the State? How were immigration officers trained to recognise these indicators? What steps were being taken to bolster the availability of shelters explicitly offered for victims of trafficking? Could updated information be provided on the rehabilitation centre for child victims? Were there plans to establish shelters for male, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex victims of trafficking and victims with disabilities?
A Committee Expert asked if the State party would consider amending legislation to ensure that the National Preventive Mechanism could visit all places of deprivation of liberty?
Another Expert asked the State party to specify whether national or international law had precedence in cases of conflict. Did Mongolian courts refer to international treaties such as the Convention? Were there examples where Mongolian courts had referred to international law? Did Mongolia believe that a head of state accused of torture had immunity, such as in the case of the Russian Federation? Did the State party commit to enforcing future arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said it was correct that the definition of torture in the Criminal Code was not in line with the Convention. This definition was being revised by Parliament to bring it in line with the Convention, and its approval was a high priority. A special commission had been assigned to the National Preventive Mechanism of Mongolia since 2020, and its budget was being increased. Fifty-eight working groups and taskforces had been formed to develop new legislation with the primary purpose of upholding human rights. The law on juvenile courts would enter into effect in January 2025, and preparatory work would be done to prepare for these new courts. The Centre for the Practicians of Legal Counselling provided legal services for the low-income population. As of 2024, 85,000 legal counselling services had been provided to this group. More funds would be allocated from the State budget to facilitate the improvement of detention facilities, including of their living conditions.
The Government of Mongolia attached a high priority to anti-corruption measures, declaring 2025 as the year to combat corruption at the national level. The Commissioner in charge of the National Preventive Mechanism had access to any detention facility, including military facilities. The legislative framework did need some improvement, and this was under consideration in Parliament. In 2023, the Government approved the national programme and action plan on anti-corruption. It identified four major goals, including increasing the transparency of political parties’ funding, providing protection for whistleblowers, making public services transparent and promoting international cooperation. Funds which had been gained through corruption had been returned to State enterprises. Assets worth 13.9 billion United States dollars had been returned from abroad.
From 2017 to 2024, there had been 15 torture cases involving 31 people. Fourteen of these cases had been resolved by courts. One case had been dismissed, and another was under consideration. Eleven people had been sentenced to six to 12 years of imprisonment. Seventeen people had been established as victims.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said a legal provision was in place to ensure the independence of the judiciary. Parliament placed a high priority on ensuring sufficient funds for the judiciary and had increased the budget of the judiciary two-fold for 2024 compared to previous years. The President had a mandate to appoint judges to courts of all levels. Should any judges make any mistakes or perform acts of misconduct, an institution was responsible for the investigation and their removal if necessary, following the decision of the President.
The process of granting compensation to victims had been operational since 2012. Compensation funds were included in the portfolio of the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs. In total, more than 650 victims of crimes had received compensation from this special fund. The redress mechanism was fully functional in the country.
In cases of excessive consumption of alcohol, when a person was unable to manage themselves, the person would enter a “sobering-up process” in a detention facility for up to 24 hours to ensure their safety and health. If the person’s family came to get them before the 24 hours, they would be released. Around 4,000 citizens received sobering up services every year. An amendment was introduced to the law on police that specified that detention time began from the act of detention.
A person who committed an infringement offence would be punished with an arrest between seven and 14 days, including people who committed domestic violence or drunk driving. No arrests could be conducted without the prosecutor’s consent. As of the third quarter of 2024, over 440 people had been arrested, with ten per cent arrested with a court warrant. The remaining were the result of an “arrest without delay.”
There were several types of pretrial detention applied in the State party. The grounds of pretrial detention were clearly stipulated in the law. The duration of pretrial detention was previously specified in legislation as being one month, but this had been changed to “up to one month”. Pretrial detention could not exceed 18 months. There had been a decline in the number of people in pretrial detention each year.
There were three major types of interrogation rooms: a room to identify the personality of suspects, a room for meetings and a room for minors. The police department had equipped 849 rooms to comply with the standards required, including for lighting and ventilation. Surveillance records were required to be kept for three to six months. The State was currently reviewing this process, with the aim to keep surveillance videos from between six months to one year. There was a clear need to increase the number of interrogation rooms. The State had introduced new responsibilities to community police officers, who would be mandated to conduct investigations of infringement cases. The law stipulated that night hours lasted from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. In cases of “arrests without delay”, interrogation could take place at night. This occurred in cases where there was a risk of serious physical or mental harm to the detained person.
Mongolia’s Criminal Procedure Code and the General Prosecutor mandated the Independent Authority of Corruption to investigate all forms of torture. This special law enforcement body investigated and prevented transnational corruption and money laundering and conducted due diligence on public officials. Candidates for the Authority went through public hearings. The Authority’s training addressed standards for protecting human rights. Victims of human rights violations could make complaints to the Authority by post, email or telephone calls. The Authority had five investigation divisions, one of which solely focused on crimes of torture and ill treatment. Since 2017, 15 cases of this nature had been fully resolved, and eight were under investigation. Before 2017, torture and ill treatment convictions did not exist. One of the reasons for this was that the former article in the Criminal Code that addressed torture was limited. The new article now covered all public officials.
Training had been conducted for the prosecutors and judges of the Supreme Court. Marital rape was subject to the legal provision on rape. The Supreme Court had provided commentaries on this provision. During the reporting period, there were five cases of rape committed by ex-spouses. These five people were found guilty and were sentenced to between 3.5 to five years in prison. The legal regulation of the protection of victims and witnesses had improved substantially in the country.
As per the Mongolian Constitution, prosecutors were mandated to prosecute criminal cases and provide consent for cases to be transferred to the courts. The prosecutors law granted prosecutors access to every type of detention facility to carry out monitoring. Prosecutors carried out weekly visits to detention centres. While visiting detention and arrest facilities, prosecutors attached a high priority to monitoring the adequacy of detention facilities and ensuring the rights of detainees in these facilities. Around 586 visits to detention facilities had been carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office. Correspondence boxes in these facilities allowed detainees to submit complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office.
Mongolia had concluded several multilateral and bilateral extradition agreements. Sixteen agreements had been concluded on bilateral cases. The State took into account the risk of torture when coming to a final decision of extradition. During 2024, five extradition requests had been received from foreign countries. One request was denied. Mongolia had put forward 16 requests to other countries, of which six were satisfied and the rest were denied or remained without any answer.
The law on foreign nationals had been in force since 1993 and was amended in 2013 and 2020. Expulsion of foreign nationals was approved by the head of the immigration department. Between 2023 and 2024, 163 foreign nationals had been expelled. The destination of expulsions was either the country of birth or the country of last residence. During the reporting period, 101 expulsion decisions were cancelled. In cases of disagreement with the decision, the person involved had the right to submit a complaint within 30 days to the administrative board. Five complaints regarding an expulsion decision had been submitted between 2023 and 2024.
Although Mongolia had not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention, the State upheld the principles of non-refoulement and closely cooperated with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, having concluded a memorandum of understanding with the agency. Mongolia supported a number of training and capacity building activities in this regard. The principle of non-refoulement and providing asylum was defined in domestic legislation. The State had translated United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees manuals, guidelines and toolkits into Mongolian.
The State provided preparatory programmes for persons with disabilities and people with drug addictions who were in detention to ensured they were prepared for returning to society. Training had been launched in this regard, in conjunction with non-governmental organizations. In recent years, there had been 60 trainings carried out to “train the trainers” in the field of human rights, covering mechanisms which prevented human rights violations.
In total, 6,443 prisoners had been charged with travel ban sanctions. Medical doctors and nurses in prisons provided medical services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and conducted medical checks on a daily basis. Prisoners who participated in prison labour schemes were entitled to frequent shower services.
The death penalty had been totally removed from the Criminal Code of 2015; the maximum sentence was changed to 20 years imprisonment. Persons imprisoned for 20 years served their sentence in closed facilities. People who had unstable psychological conditions were kept in solitary confinement for a certain amount of time.
There were 22 shelters operated by non-governmental organizations in the country. The budget for these shelters had been increased. Shelters in the capital city had permanent medical staff. Those in the countryside had a contract agreement with family office doctors to provide medical services. Special centres had been established for children and victims of human trafficking, where they could receive care and medical support.
Questions by Committee Experts
NAOKO MAEDA, Vice-Chairperson and Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee duly acknowledged the ongoing reform of the Criminal Code, and looked forward to receiving the news that the Code was compatible with the Convention in the near future. The Committee was happy to hear about the ongoing collaboration between the Government and human rights mechanisms.
The Committee had received concerning information about harassment against human rights defenders, particularly those defending environmental rights in the context of mining, who were being pressured and their activities blocked. Commendably, Mongolia was the first country in the Asia Pacific to enact, in 2021, a law on the legal status of human rights defenders. However, challenges remained in practice. The Committee was concerned about specific provisions of the law which could be used to silence and criminalise the work of human rights defenders. How would the State amend the broadly-worded legal provisions of the law to guarantee the legitimate work of human rights defenders and the legitimate expression of the opinions of individuals?
The Committee noted with regret that no specific decisions were made during the reporting period on the Committee’s acceptance of individual communications. Could the State party provide any updated information in this regard? What were the obstacles? The Committee was also concerned that the presence of civil society in Mongolia in the reporting process was relatively low. How did the State party encourage civil society to participate in making periodic reports?
HUAWEN LIU, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said he was pleased to hear that the number of detainees in detention centres was trending downwards due to the application of alternative measures. Who could open the complaints box in detention facilities, and how often? Was there a way for detainees to report complaints in a timelier manner?
According to United Nation Childrens Fund statistics from its 2023 Social Indicator Sample Survey, 44.2 per cent of children in Mongolia experienced violent discipline. Over the past decade, studies had consistently highlighted the trend of violent disciplinary practices against Mongolian children. There was a need for a mindset shift in this regard. How was the increased budget for shelters allocated across the country?
Mongolia had taken steps to address violence and discrimination against lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, including criminalising discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity under the Criminal Code. However, it appeared that the protection of these rights was not yet fully reflected in access to legal remedies through the courts. How was the punishment determined? Was there ever a time when discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was punished with a jail sentence? Could the delegation report on the number of assault and battery claims involving discrimination of the victim based on their membership in the lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex community? What kind of training did medical officials receive to provide better care for members of this community? Could the State party provide an update on the development of the planned unified database for tracking lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex-related complaints?
A Committee Expert said reports had been received that children in pretrial facilities were not provided with educational facilities, while those who had been sentenced received education. Were there any improvements in this regard? Could more information be provided about access to medical and mental health services? In 2013, the law on mental health was revised to provide for involuntary admission to mental health facilities for persons with psychosocial disabilities. There were no available community services for prisoners with psychosocial disabilities who had committed crimes, and they had to spend more than 20 years in a closed wing. Would service-based centres be provided to these people? A particular facility had a strict regime in which prisoners were held in solitary confinement. Those in this facility were not able to work and were not eligible for conditional release. What was the status of these prisoners? Had there been any changes to this detention regime? Did the movement restriction from the past continue to be imposed?
Another Expert said Mongolia had failed to enforce the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against the President of the Russian Federation when he visited the State in 2023. Would the State party commit to enforcing potential future arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said since the Law on the Status of Human Rights Defenders had been in place, human rights defenders had received threats, which had been reported to the Government. In cases of defamation of human rights defenders, the police department would initiate investigation proceedings. Mongolia enacted the Child Protection Law on 1 January, 2024. A team comprised of community social workers and a community doctor was established to address the gaps and shortcomings in child protection. Mongolia had also introduced the cyber security law and the privacy protection law in the digital environment. This structure provided for protection of children against sexual exploitation and provided for the integrated activities of police and local government offices.
Consultation had been launched with civil society and other stakeholders to integrate statistics into the State party’s report. International treaties ratified by Mongolia had the same impact in law as domestic legislation.
Mongolia had formally submitted an urgent request for leave to appeal the International Criminal Court Pre-Trial Chamber decision that Mongolia had not complied with the Court’s request to arrest and surrender President Putin of the Russian Federation. Mongolia disagreed with the findings of the Pre-Trial Chamber. All parties were urged to respect court proceedings.
According to the procedure approved by the Prosecutor General, the special mechanism to receive complaints from detainees was to be undertaken on a frequent basis. Mailboxes were placed in all detention centres. The Prosecutor could conduct visits at any time of the day or night; two times per week was the minimum number of visits. Unannounced visits of the facilities were also conducted, usually taking place on holidays or weekends.
The Mongolian Government was conducting a project against human trafficking, which would be implemented over four years. Charges for human trafficking resulted in sentences of between one to seven years imprisonment. Seventy-four out of the 88 victims of human trafficking identified by the State were women.
In pretrial detention centres, education services were provided. Online platforms were engaged to enable children to enjoy online education services. The training and curricula were modelled on those used in ordinary secondary schools. A training centre funded by the Australian Government ran education programmes and offered cultural and art education to children. Five detained children had received offers to continue their studies at schools or universities upon release.
If there was a gap in the funding of shelters, new financial sources would be made available from State funds for the shelters.
Closing Statements
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for making the trip to Geneva and engaging in the dialogue with a constructive spirit. The Committee had a follow-up procedure, which aimed to continue to facilitate a dialogue between Mongolia and the Committee.
N. MYAGMAR, State Secretary, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs and head of the delegation, said the Committee’s recommendations had great importance and would serve to ensure the fulfilment of Mongolia commitments within the framework of the Convention. Mr. Myagmar expressed his gratitude to the Chair of the Committee and all the Committee members for the dialogue.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CAT24.023E