HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS REPORT OF MONACO
The Human Rights Committee today concluded its consideration of the third periodic report of Monaco on its implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Presenting the report, Carole Lantieri, Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Principality of Monaco had only 36,900 inhabitants of more than 125 nationalities, of whom 8,800 had Monégasque nationality. A High Commission for the Protection of Rights, Liberties and Mediation was established in 2013 which played a central role in the protection of human rights. Additionally, an association to support victims of human rights abuses had also been established. The Permanent Representative spoke about a new 2011 law on family situations, and modification of the Citizenship Law to extend the period of naturalization through marriage from five to 10 years. A Centre for Prenatal Coordination and Family Support was established in order to provide abortions under strict criteria, and new laws to combat domestic violence had been adopted. For the last 20 years Monaco’s foreign policy had aimed at eradicating poverty and aiding vulnerable populations, such as women, children and persons with disabilities, particularly in the Least Developed Countries.
The Committee welcomed the establishment in Monaco of a High Commission for the Rights, Liberties and Mediation, legal provisions for the protection of victims of domestic violence, and for persons with disabilities. It expressed satisfaction that there were no cases of torture in police custody in Monaco and that there was sufficient provision for compensation for the victims. Committee Experts raised concerns about the definition of torture in law, potential discrimination in labour law on the basis of nationality, and that the rampant use of close-circuit cameras in Monaco may undermine the right to privacy. Questions were also asked about trafficking in persons, environmental terrorism, and racism at sporting events. Experts voiced concern that Monaco’s legal provisions on defamation and verbal assault could have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression, and that there may be some disproportionality in how defamation provisions were applied in the cases of ordinary citizens or cases involving the Monaco Princely Family.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Lantieri thanked the Committee for its comments and interest. She noted that Monaco was willing to continue cooperation with the Committee, and that the delegation was looking forward to receiving its concluding observations and recommendations.
In concluding remarks, Fabian Omar Salvioli, Committee Chairperson, said the Committee commended Monaco for making a number of advancements in its legal framework with respect to the civil and political rights but said its legal definition of torture needed to be reformed.
The Delegation of Monaco included representatives of the Department of Social and Health Affairs, the Department of Judicial Services, the Department of Public Safety, the Service for International Law, the Department of International Affairs, and the Permanent Mission of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
This was the last country review scheduled for this session. The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Friday, 27 March to discuss its methods of work.
Report
The third periodic report of Monaco can be read here: CCPR/C/MCO/3.
Presentation of the Report
CAROLE LANTIERI, Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Principality of Monaco, which covered an area of only 2.02 square kilometres, was a hereditary constitutional monarchy where the Supreme Law affirmed the rule of law and ensured the separation of powers. The Principality had only 36,900 inhabitants representing more than 125 nationalities, of whom 8,800 had Monégasque nationality. The Permanent Representative emphasized Monaco’s commitment to the protection of human rights, which was a priority of its domestic and international policy and said its engagement, including the activities of the Monaco Princely Family, focused in particular on the rights of the most vulnerable, namely children, women and persons with disabilities. On 30 October 2013 a High Commission for the Protection of Rights, Liberties and Mediation was established, which played a central role in the protection of human rights. Anyone could lodge a complaint with the High Commission, which could also receive requests for relevant opinions or studies on the protection of human rights. To provide aid, information and orientation for the victims of human rights abuses, an association was also established.
To promote and protect the human rights of women and children, the Citizenship Law was modified on 19 December 2011 to extend the period of naturalization through marriage from five to 10 years. Initiatives to combat domestic violence included a law adopted on 20 July 2011 to prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and children. The law allowed victims to receive relevant information and advice on their personal situation. Monaco had also ratified several international instruments concerning the promotion of women’s and children’s rights. A Centre for Prenatal Coordination and Family Support was created in 2009 to provide support for the medical interruption of pregnancy, and the law now provided for three specific cases for medical abortion: preserving the life of the pregnant woman, the detection in the unborn child of a serious condition recognized as incurable at the time of prenatal diagnosis, and rape, whoever the perpetrator.
On 2 December 2014 a law on the protection, autonomy and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities was adopted. The law defined the term ‘disability’ taking into consideration a person’s physical, sensory, mental, cognitive and psychological circumstances. The law contained provisions to improve independent living for persons with disabilities access to employment, provision of sufficient funds, access to public transport and other services, and access to school for children. On the protection of civil rights, Ms. Lantieri noted that the Law on National and Communal Elections was amended on 22 October 2014 to allow prisoners to exercise their right to vote through proxy. Over the last 20 years Monégasque foreign policy aimed at eradicating poverty and aiding vulnerable populations, such as women, children and persons with disabilities, particularly in the least developed countries.
Questions by the Experts
With regard to the implementation of the Covenant, an Expert recalled that the Committee had previously recommended that Monaco consult with civil society organizations on the implementation of its recommendations, but it seemed the State party had not done so. He asked how the independence of the High Commission for the Rights, Liberties and Mediation was ensured, how was the mandate holder appointed and what sort of reports did he or she publish. Another Expert asked about Monaco’s reservations and interpretative declarations on the Covenant.
Monaco’s adhesion to the International Criminal Court, and ratification of the Rome Statutes were discussed by an Expert who urged Monaco to ratify the First Optional Protocol of the Covenant, as the Covenant was slightly different from the European Convention, and it would be better for the citizens of Monaco to gain another international recourse for the protection of their human rights.
The Committee expressed satisfaction that there were no cases of torture in police custody in Monaco, and said it was encouraging that there was sufficient provision for compensation for the victims.
What legislative measures had been taken to include nationality as grounds for discrimination, asked an Expert, citing a case of a non-Monaco national being fired from his job to that a Monaco national could be hired. Would such labour discrimination be tackled with new legislation? Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was raised by an Expert who referred to a case when a person was sentenced to five days of prison and to pay a fine of €5,000. He asked how Monaco taught children about sexual orientation.
The Committee commended Monaco for the measures it had taken to combat violence against women and asked whether abortion was permitted in cases of incest. The issue of environmental terrorism was also raised by a delegate who said it appeared to cover any intentional failure to comply with sanitation and pollution regulations.
Responses by the Delegation
Responding to the questions, a delegate explained that the High Commissioner for Human Rights of Monaco was appointed by the Prince, following advice from the Crown Council and from other high-ranking officials. The High Commissioner mandate was four years, which the option for one renewal, upon consultation with the Council of the Crown. The mandate could be shortened due to professional misconduct, conflict of interest, or for personal reasons. The High Commissioner published an annual report, and his mandate closely followed the Paris Principles standards. Since 2013, 65 complaints had been received; 22 had been dismissed and 43 were being processed.
The Covenant was regularly invoked in domestic courts as in Monaco international mechanisms were directly applied in domestic law. Since 2000 there had been 22 Supreme Court decisions which invoked to the Covenant. The Appeals Court had made 15 decisions referring to the Covenant, and the Correctional Court had invoked it in three decisions. Therefore the Covenant was fully applied in case law. As for the withdrawal of reservations and interpretative declarations, the Government did not exclude the possibility to revise its decision, said a delegate.
With respect to the question on environmental or ecological terrorism a delegate explained that the term was defined in the Criminal Code as ‘an act committed intentionally and to disseminate knowingly any substance or product that might endanger the health of environment, human or animal health’. Withdrawal of substances from nature did not constitute an act of ecological terrorism. To date there had not been any prosecution or conviction on the charges of ecological terrorism.
Torture was described in law as an aggravating circumstance of a crime. Only one case of torture had been tried in Monaco, which was part of a murder case ten years ago. The Supreme Court was competent to award compensation in cases of torture. There was one case where such reparation was granted in a case of breach of the principle of non-refoulement. Detainees were protected from torture and ill treatment and officials working in detention centres were prohibited from using torture.
Parties could request damages for particular cases and each jurisdiction in Monaco assessed them individually. Compensation for victims was very common. For example, in 2010 a court condemned an individual who had issued a death threat to another individual and commanded he pay €20,000 to the victim. The creation of the new association for victims would help them invoke their compensation rights.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was part of school curriculum in civic education, taught to children from the age of 10 years. Regarding the case mentioned by the Committee, a delegate said the fine was low because there was no violence involved. The perpetrator was sentenced to pay €5,000 to the victim, which was considered a proportional fine. A draft law on civil servants contained provisions for non-discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, physical appearance and religious belief. A draft bill on technological crime referred to threats involving aggravating circumstances on the basis of individual’s sexual orientation. Both drafts were currently being reviewed by the Government.
Answering the question about discrimination on the basis of nationality a delegate said foreigners enjoyed the same rights as nationals with the exception of some very specific provisions. Monégasque nationals did enjoy certain benefits and the priority given to nationals was applied in strict adherence to relevant laws. The draft law on employment contracts had been withdrawn as a consequence of other Government priorities, and would be considered again in future. Monaco’s employment policies could not be considered discriminatory because they ensured full employment for Monégasque nationals, who only numbered 8,800 out of the overall population of Monaco of 36,900. The period of naturalization through marriage had been extended from five to 10 years but it was not applied to people who married before the law was adopted.
Abortion was permitted in cases of rape, and under Monaco law incest was considered to be rape, confirmed a delegate. Abortions had to be carried out within the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy in order to avoid medical complications for the mother. The delegate noted that police officers were trained on how to support victims of sexual violence and that there was a system for pre-natal support for women. Furthermore, training courses for judicial officials and social workers on providing assistance to and care for victims were organized periodically.
The ratification of the Rome Statutes by Monaco would require serious rewriting of the constitution and Monaco would therefore not ratify the Statutes in near future, confirmed a delegate. Nevertheless, Monaco would continue to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and it was considering ratifying the First Optional Protocol of the Covenant.
Follow-up Questions by Experts
Would the High Commissioner for Human Rights of Monaco join the International Coordination Committee of the National Institutions of Human Rights asked an Expert. Details of the one case of refoulement in Monaco were requested. What constitutional norms would have to be amended or changed if Monaco was to ratify the Rome Statutes, asked an Expert.
Torture was not criminalized as a stand-alone crime, but rather as an aggravating circumstance of another crime, which was unsatisfactory and not in line with the Covenant, said an Expert. She regretted that corporal punishment of children was not expressly prohibited by law either.
Responses by the Delegation to follow-up questions
There were no obstacles for Monaco’s High Commissioner for Human Rights to join the International Coordination Committee of the National Institutions of Human Rights, and the Government of Monaco was committed to achieving complete harmony between national and international laws. The Prince was a legal entity under the constitution and the ratification of the Rome Statutes would require change of that provision, noted a delegate.
The case of refoulement involved a person being returned on the grounds of erroneous information. The refoulement was cancelled and the returned person was compensated.
The Covenant’s definition of torture was also applied in Monaco, confirmed a delegate. The offence of corporal punishment existed in laws, and relevant convictions had been made and prosecutions brought, even if the actual term ‘corporal punishment’ was not used as such.
Questions by the Experts
Although no serious problems related to trafficking in persons had been reported in Monaco an Expert wondered whether it planned to ratify relevant international treaties and mechanisms concerning victims of trafficking. On a separate matter, Monaco had previously told the Committee that the provision for banishment would be removed from the legislation, but it had not yet been done.
Monaco needed to introduce a provision in its criminal law for racially motivated offences in particular to combat racism at sport events. An Expert asked about penalties for the public defamation of the Princely Family, and about measures to establish an independent mechanism to deal with complaints against media. The definition of ‘sect’ or ‘religion’, and the organization of trade unions were also enquired about.
Responses by the Delegation
The offence of trafficking in persons existed in law as part of the legislation on transnational crime. Trafficking in human beings was sanctioned by a prison sentence of five to 10 years. Sexual exploitation, acts of indecency, undermining of personal freedoms and other related offences were also prohibited and sanctioned by law. There had not been any convictions for cases of trafficking in persons in Monaco, but there had been one case of extradition for a trafficking offence. Therefore, the case law was not developed in that respect. Victims of trafficking in persons received the following forms of assistance: compensation for the harm undergone, assistance to remove victims from any direct contact with the perpetrator, and psychological, physical and social rehabilitation. Support services were also available in the form of psychologists and social welfare provisions. Monaco also had short-term and long-term shelters for victims of violence, including victims of trafficking.
With respect to the notion of banishment that existed in Monaco’s legal system, a delegate explained that the Government had been considering abolishing it since 2008, but it was difficult to deposit a relevant bill due to scheduling issues. The Government was looking into the issue.
There was no legal definition of a sect or religion said a delegate, as Monaco’s legislature had always refused to define them in order to avoid breach of the freedom of religion and belief. On the organization of trade unions and the nationalities of trade union leaders, a reform process was underway to rewrite the statutes of various trade unions to require that at least one member of a trade union was a Monégasque national.
Answering the question on defamation a delegate noted that a conviction in 2014 was particularly severe due to the circumstances of the case, which concerned labour accidents and sparked a violent verbal assault. It was not a question of the freedom of expression, but rather of a grave insult. Insults and verbal assaults that involved aggression, outside the context of the free debate of ideas, were punishable by law.
The lack of an independent mechanism to deal with complaints against media was explained by the low number of media establishments in Monaco. However, an ad hoc committee did exist.
Much attention was devoted to the policing of sports events in Monaco. Public drunkenness, carrying of weapons and insults at sport events could all be dealt with through adequate legal provisions. There was a set of laws to deal with racially based offences. A new draft law would focus on threats on Internet, noted the delegate.
Follow-up Questions by Experts
Regarding the transmission of Monégasque nationality to spouses, an Expert noted that a Monégasque women marrying a foreigner could keep their nationality. However, the law did not specify what happened when Monégasque men married foreign women.
The immigration status of victims of trafficking in persons and refugees were enquired about by an Expert who also voiced concerns about the legal distinction between the treatment of political expression and insults. It was underlined that such a distinction would have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech in Monaco. Was there proportionality in the application of the defamation offence?
The rampant use of close-circuit cameras in Monaco could undermine the right to privacy said an Expert, who also asked why the draft law on information technology crimes was withdrawn.
What did the notion of banishment entail asked an Expert, who also raised the issue of Monaco’s accession to the International Criminal Court, noting that the mentioned obstacles could be overcome.
Responses by the Delegation
The draft law on information technology crimes dealt with offences such as hacking and piracy, while a second draft law on the criminal protection of minors, including on the Internet, was also being discussed. As there was a great deal of overlap between the two draft laws, the first law was withdrawn and the Government had drafted a new piece of legislation on technological crime.
As for the transmission of nationality, men and women were treated equally under law when they got married. With respect to the migratory status of trafficked persons, Monaco has never had such cases but if it did, there were adequate legal provisions in place.
A judge would assess whether cases concerned the freedom of expression or insult. Persons had the right to appeal the court decision if they considered that their freedom of expression had been violated. Apart from the specific offence of defamation against the Prince, the law provided protection from public insults for all citizens.
Concerning the use of surveillance by close-circuit cameras a delegate explained that one of the fundamental missions of the Monégasque police was the surveillance of the territory in order to implement general security and regulate traffic. Police officers attended training courses on their obligations with respect to surveillance, and could be prosecuted for misusing surveillance.
Regarding the abolishment of the provision for banishment a delegate explained that there were only 25 Members of Parliament and they were not professionals, a situation which sometimes led to tardiness in procedures. The abolishment of banishment was simply a question of procedure and time. The current constitution was promulgated in the early 1960s and had only been modified once. That did not reflect lack of will to make adequate changes in line with international standards, emphasized the delegate.
Concluding remarks
CAROLE LANTIERI, Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, thanked the Committee for its comments and interest. She noted that Monaco was willing to continue cooperation with the Committee, and that the delegation was looking forward to receiving its concluding observations and recommendations.
FABIAN OMAR SALVIOLI, Chairperson of the Committee, said the Committee commended Monaco for making a number of advancements in its legal framework with respect to the civil and political rights. The Committee would closely follow Monaco’s plans to ratify the First Optional Protocol of the Covenant, he added. Other concerns included the legal definition of torture.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CT15/008E