Category: Law Enforcement

Source: United Nations – Geneva

The Human Rights Committee today concluded its consideration of the sixth periodic report of Iceland on how it implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with Committee Experts commending Iceland for achieving impressive results in gender equality, while asking questions on domestic and gender-based violence and on religious affairs.

A Committee Expert said over the past decade, Iceland had made significant progress in promoting civil and political rights, including by addressing several of the Committee’s previous concluding observations.  Notably, Iceland had achieved impressive results in gender equality, with significant representation of women in political leadership, both in Parliament and local governance. 

Several Experts asked about domestic and gender-based violence.  One Expert asked what specific measures had been taken to continue to raise awareness among the population of domestic violence, including awareness raising campaigns for migrant women?  What had been the impact of these measures on improving the criminal justice response to domestic violence?  Another Expert asked who investigated and prosecuted cases of gender-based violence? An Expert asked if there were any specialised bodies with personnel who had been sensitised to the issue of gender-based violence? 

An Expert noted that the Evangelical Lutheran Church was recognised as Iceland’s national church and had been granted legal status.  There were concerns that the Church’s status resulted in unequal financial support, compared to other religious organizations.  What measures were in place to ensure that the Constitutional recognition of the Church did not affect the equal enjoyment of rights guaranteed under the Covenant for organizations of other beliefs, particularly when it came to State funding?  How was it ensured that other groups were consulted when developing policies pertaining to religious matters?  What mechanisms were in place to allow children to change their religious affiliation before the age of 16? 

The delegation said over the past several years, the Icelandic Government had focused strongly on efforts to prevent gender-based violence, including awareness raising campaigns and action plans. There was a gender equality fund, with bi-annual allocations.  Funding had been provided to a women’s shelter in the north of Iceland.  An awareness-raising campaign would take place in the north, drawing particular attention to the women’s shelter.  The Icelandic Government had focused strongly on efforts to prevent gender-based violence with legislative amendments.  New provisions on digital sexual violence and stalking had been added to the Penal Code in 2021.  A new definition of rape was defined in 2018, emphasising consent.

The delegation said registered religious or philosophical organizations received the same amount of funding as the national church of Iceland.  If both parents belonged to the same religious organization, the child was automatically registered in that same organization.  If the parents’ religious organizations differed, the child was not registered in any and the parents were required to reach an agreement when registering their child.  Children who reached the age of 12 were required to sign the declaration on their religious affiliation with their parents.  At the age of 16, children could register or de-register from a religious organization without parental involvement.

Introducing the report, Ragna Bjarnadóttir, Director General at the Ministry of Justice of Iceland and head of the delegation, said a significant step towards advancing human rights at home was taken in June this year when the Parliament passed a law establishing a national human rights institution which would become operational on 1 January 2025.  In 2020, a new Act on Gender Equality was enacted, which included the first-ever provision on multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination.  Additionally, Iceland had adopted two Anti-Discrimination Acts that aimed to ensure equal treatment both within and outside the labour market. 

In concluding remarks, Ms. Bjarnadóttir thanked the Committee for the robust discussion.  The State awaited the concluding observations of the Committee with enthusiasm and would do everything possible to make improvements.

In her concluding remarks, Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Committee Chairperson, thanked everyone who had participated in the dialogue.  The Committee had discussed many different issues relating to the rights enshrined in the Covenant. 

The delegation of Iceland was made up of representatives of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour; the Ministry of Justice; and the Permanent Mission of Iceland to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-second session is being held from 14 October to 7 November 2024. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage.  Meeting summary releases can be found here.  The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 17 October, to begin its consideration of the second periodic report of Pakistan (CCPR/C/PAK/2).

Report

The Committee has before it the sixth periodic report of Iceland (CCPR/C/ISL/6)

Presentation of Report

RAGNA BJARNADÓTTIR, Director General at the Ministry of Justice of Iceland and head of the delegation, said Guðmundur Ingi Guðbrandsson, Minister of Social Affairs and Labour, who was meant to lead Iceland’s delegation sent his highest regards, having had to return to Iceland for parliamentary elections which had been called for November. 

A significant step towards advancing human rights at home was taken in June this year when the Parliament passed a law establishing a national human rights institution which would become operational on 1 January 2025.  Promoting equality and non-discrimination continued to be a core priority for Iceland.  Iceland had ranked first on the Global Gender Gap Index for 15 years in a row and continued to advance equality and drive progress through legislative amendments, policies and increased coordination and monitoring.  In 2020, a new Act on Gender Equality was enacted, which included the first-ever provision on multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. 

Additionally, Iceland had adopted two Anti-Discrimination Acts that aimed to ensure equal treatment both within and outside the labour market.  The State had implemented measures to promote gender equality, including through the implementation of equal pay certification. However, challenges persisted, particularly due to gender segregation in the labour market and the undervaluation of women-dominated sectors.  The focus was now shifting from pay equity, to different jobs of equal value based on factors such as education, skills, responsibility, and effort. 

Important steps had also been taken to improve the right to work of citizens from countries outside the European Economic Area, including by granting unlimited work permits to all residents holding a humanitarian residence permit.  The advancement of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons was another key priority area. Recent important legal milestones included the enactment of the Gender Autonomy Act, and in 2022, the Parliament adopted the first comprehensive action plan on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons rights and equality.  These advancements propelled Iceland from ranking number 18 on the ILGA-Europe rainbow map to second place in six years.

Regrettably, sexual and gender-based violence remained one of Iceland’s most pressing human rights challenges.  In recent years, the State had introduced several new policies and legislative reforms to address this scourge, including important amendments to the General Penal Code. In 2018 the definition of rape was amended to strengthen the legal protection for victims and survivors. Additionally, in 2021, new provisions on stalking and digital sexual violence entered into force. 

In May 2023, a bill was passed to amend the Act on Health Care Workers to clarify their permission to inform the police when survivors of domestic violence sought related health services.  In 2021, amendments were made to the General Penal Code to further increase judicial protection of victims and survivors of trafficking.  At the start of 2024, a new inter-ministerial steering committee was established to develop a new action plan to combat trafficking in persons. 

Several changes had been made to improve the rights of prisoners, including by giving more convicted individuals the right to serve their sentence through unpaid community service. The Ministry of Justice was also working on measures to reduce the overall length of proceedings within the justice system.  A permanent mental health team for prisoners had been established, and the number of team members was increased to improve the provision of services.  Ms. Bjarnadóttir said although Iceland had made significant progress, the State acknowledged that there was room for improvement.  Iceland looked forward to the discussion with the Committee.

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert said over the past decade, Iceland had made significant progress in promoting civil and political rights, including by addressing several of the Committee’s previous concluding observations.  Notably, Iceland had achieved impressive results in gender equality, with significant representation of women in political leadership, both in Parliament and local governance.  On the international stage, Iceland had expanded the role of human rights in its foreign policy, demonstrated by its recent election to the Human Rights Council for 2025-2027. The Committee was hopeful that Iceland would continue to work collaboratively with other States in the multilateral arena to advance and protect human rights.

What was the State party currently doing to educate and raise public awareness about the Covenant, its Optional Protocols, and the Committee’s concluding observations among the judiciary, public officials, civil society and the general public? What information was publicly available about filing complaints under the Optional Protocol?  Was it accessible and in languages for non-Icelandic speakers, such as migrants?  Had Iceland implemented the Committee Views in the individual communications adopted in 2020?  In January 2023, the Office of the Prime Minister published a Green Paper on Human Rights.  What progress had Iceland made to follow through on the Paper’s initiative to develop a national plan on human rights issues for Iceland?  What measures were being taken to ensure ongoing engagement with civil society in developing and implementing the initiatives outlined in the Paper?

How did Iceland ensure that draft laws which were under development aligned with the Committee’s interpretation of the State’s obligations under the Covenant?  What measures were in place to ensure that those conducting the assessments were trained and kept up to date on the application of the Covenant?  What steps would Iceland take to review and address the gaps between its international obligations and national legislation? Could information be provided on the cases since 2012 where parties had referred to provisions of the Covenant, and how the courts responded to these arguments?

The Committee welcomed Iceland’s withdrawal of its reservations to the Covenant’s article 10, which mandated the segregation of juvenile offenders from adults, as well as article 14, concerning the principle of double jeopardy.  Iceland, however, retained its reservation to article 20 of the Covenant on prohibiting propaganda for war.  What actions were being taken to remove the reservation to article 20?

What steps would be taken to fully incorporate articles 10 and 14 into Iceland’s domestic laws and practice?

Another Expert said the Committee welcomed the recent enactment of legislation by Parliament establishing the Icelandic Institution for Human Rights, a national human rights institution.  What was the timeline for the establishment of the Institution?  How did the new Institution align with the Paris Principles in terms of addressing human rights issues and fulfilling its functions of advising, monitoring, and reporting?  Did it have a mechanism to handle individual complaints?  Could details be provided on the relationship between the new Institution, existing institutions, and civil society?  Were sufficient human, technical, and financial resources available to fully execute its mandate?  Were there any specific unresolved obstacles that had been identified in achieving the Institution’s mission, and if so, how would these be addressed? 

Were the various agencies sufficiently coordinated so that no critical areas were being overlooked in efforts to address corruption?”  Regarding Act No 40/2020 on the Protection of Whistle Blowers, how many undertakings and other workplaces had introduced procedures for handling internal whistleblowing cases?  What percentage of workplaces with more than 50 eligible employees had implemented this internal whistleblowing procedures, and were these procedures aligned with the recommended model rules?  Had any fines been imposed on employers who had failed to establish such procedures?  It had been reported that Iceland amended its Information Act in 2013 to enhance transparency and freedom of information. However, press freedom advocates raised concerns about certain provisions, citing them as insufficiently robust.  Could a response to this be provided?  What was the current status of the ‘Fishrot’ case? 

The State party report noted that “No specific plan had been made to implement a more robust framework for conduct for public servants and increase the capacity of the Parliamentary Ombudsman to counter corruption.” Could the State party clarify its position on these points?  Did the new Prosecutor’s Office have sufficient resources to effectively fulfil its mandate?  The State party referred to the establishment of the Judicial Administration.  What was the organizational structure of the Administration?  How were its members appointed? 

According to the report, “The Act on Prevention of Conflicts of Interest banned the most senior officials within the government offices taking on lobbyist roles for six months after leaving their former position in the Government.”  While this framework was more stringent than before, was it sufficient to apply these restrictions solely to lobbyist positions?  Was a six-month period adequate to mitigate the potential influence of former positions?  How many cases, if any, had the oversight mechanism identified as violations of the law?

Another Expert commended Iceland on its election to the Human Rights Council.  The State party mentioned that complaints could be lodged to the Equality Complaints Committee, which handed down written decisions on possible violations.  Was this Committee the only complaints mechanism that Icelandic society had?  How many complaints had been registered by the Committee?  What measures had been taken, in consultation with civil society, to guarantee reparation for the victims?  How many decisions published by the Committee had been referred to the courts? 

Could further information be provided about measures taken to combat hate speech?  What was the role of the Working Group to combat hate speech?   What steps had been taken to implement the recommendations of the Working Group?  Did Iceland include Christian churches in efforts to prevent hate speech against Muslim minorities? 

A Committee Expert congratulated Iceland for its progress in ensuring pay equality, stemming from the 2018 reforms.  What were the sectors of the economy where the majority of workers were men?  What had been the result of media campaigns aimed at reducing gender segregation in the labour market?  What progress had Iceland made in reducing the pay gap since the introduction of the pay equality system?  Could recent data be provided on gender distribution in decision-making positions in key sectors, including the foreign service, academia and the judiciary? What was being done to ensure there were more women in senior decision-making posts in the private sector? How had cases of multiple discrimination been tackled? 

Since the implementation of the service law on persons with disabilities, how often had priority been given to persons with disabilities when recruiting staff in the public sector? 

The Committee noted that the State party had taken significant steps to raise public awareness of domestic violence and sexual assault, including through the provision of training to judges, prosecutors, police officers and health workers.  Awareness-raising campaigns had also been organised to inform Icelandic and migrant women of their rights, including the “Breaking the Silence” project, implemented between 2017 and 2019.  However, in spite of these initiatives, conviction rates for sexual offences remained low and victims faced barriers in accessing justice.  What specific measures had been taken to continue to raise awareness among the population of domestic violence, including awareness raising campaigns for migrant women? 

What results had initiatives like the “Breaking the Silence” project had?  What had been the impact of these measures on improving the criminal justice response to domestic violence?  Could data be provided on investigations, prosecutions and convictions, as well as protection measures, and how were they accessible to vulnerable populations, including women of foreign origin?  What steps had Iceland taken to increase resources for services for victims of domestic violence?  How was it ensured these resources were accessible to victims in all regions?

What measures had the State party taken to ensure intersex children did not undergo unjustified surgical operations?  Despite important legislative measures prohibiting unnecessary surgery on intersex children without their free and informed consent, some reports claimed that these measures still contained worrying exceptions for certain types of variations of sex characteristics.  Since the adoption of law no. 154/2020, what concrete measures had Iceland taken to monitor and ensure compliance with this ban?  What safeguards were in place to ensure that evaluations of interventions on intersex children respected human rights, and how did the State party plan to address the shortcomings identified by certain stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations?  What were the objectives of the working group regarding interventions on intersex children? 

Responses by the Delegation 

The delegation said there was a special human rights section on the Government’s website where the Covenant could be found in English and translated into Icelandic.  The last report to the Committee was also published on this site.  There was also a special section on the Optional Protocol and the complaints procedure.  The Covenant was part of the syllabus in law and police studies.  The Judicial Administration oversaw the training of judges, including on human rights.  While there had not been a special course on the Covenant, there had been several courses on human rights issues. 

A Green Paper published in 2023 was prepared for further policymaking in human rights.  It had been essential in the preparation of the bill on the national human rights institution.  In Iceland, domestic legislation was adapted to instruments or treaties that Iceland had ratified, rather than those treaties being incorporated in their entirety.  The Constitution was clearly connected with the Covenant.  It was not common that the Covenant was directly referenced in the courts.   

Iceland had legislation on the new human rights institution which was passed in June and would begin operations in January 2025. The Icelandic Institution for Human Rights would operate under parliament but would be fully independent and in line with the Paris Principles.  The Institution had a budget of around 1.62 million USD.  Any further financing was up to Parliament.  It was anticipated that the Institution would be up and running by 1 January. 

Iceland had a multi-faceted approach to anti-corruption and was a signatory to various treaties in the area of anti-corruption. In a recently adopted amendment to the Police Act, an independent quality control service within the police had been established, tasked with promoting better law enforcement and supervision.  A revised code of conduct was adopted this year with Icelandic law enforcement.  The Prime Minister’s Office had an overall coordinating role in regard to the Whistleblowers Act.  The law on access to information provided for several exceptions. Constant awareness raising among civil servants took place, with seminars on access to information. 

The budget for the District Prosecutor increased in 2019 and 2020. Last year, the Ministry of Justice presented an action plan which included strengthening measures against organized crime.  Police received funding to strengthen their capacity in this regard, including in relation to corruption.  The District Prosecutor led the steering group for the investigative teams. Iceland participated in European financial and regulatory bodies. 

A special Government agency was responsible for anti-discrimination legislation. There was a special complaints committee which handled complaints submitted under the Equality Act.  It provided written rulings if a provision of the Act had been violated.  From 2020 to 2023, the Equality Committee received 86 complaints of alleged discrimination.  Most of these cases involved discrimination on the basis of gender. The Equality Committee was the main body to address complaints about discrimination, but further complaints could be lodged with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.  Several steps had been taken to raise awareness on the anti-discrimination legislation, including a poster which was produced in multiple languages and distributed in schools. 

Over the past several years, the Icelandic Government had focused strongly on efforts to prevent gender-based violence, including awareness raising campaigns and action plans.  There was a gender equality fund, with bi-annual allocations.  Funding had been provided to a women’s shelter in the north of Iceland.  A grant had been received to start an awareness campaign on gender-based violence. Information about the women’s shelter was available in many different languages.  An awareness-raising campaign would take place in the north, drawing particular attention to the women’s shelter.  The Icelandic Government had focused strongly on efforts to prevent gender-based violence with legislative amendments. 

When it came to investigations of sexual and gender-based violence, Iceland had focused on the training of the individuals responsible for handling these cases.  In police studies, there was a mandatory course on violence and power relations. Special attention was paid to sexual violence, including rape, digital sexual violence, and child sexual abuse. Research on how unequal power positions could lead to gender-based violence was examined.  The centre for police training and professional development regularly had courses relating to gender-based violence.  New provisions on digital sexual violence and stalking had been added to the Penal Code in 2021.  A new definition of rape was defined in 2018, emphasising consent. 

In recent years, Iceland had emphasised protecting vulnerable groups from hate speech.  Hate speech and discrimination were now punishable under the Penal Code.  The Prime Minister appointed a Working Group on hate speech in 2022, which was tasked with coordinating measures on hate speech.  An action plan was presented based on the Working Group’s recommendations, although this was not adopted.  The Icelandic Media Commission could issue a fine if media was found to initiate hatred. Hate speech on social media fell under the scope of the Icelandic Penal Code. 

The law on equal pay certification came into force in 2018. As of 30 June this year, 607 companies and institutions had received equal pay certification, covering 83 per cent of the total workforce.  Smaller companies went through a simpler system to obtain equal pay recognition. Fines could be imposed on non-certified companies.  Software had been developed to support these efforts, making it easier for companies to implement equal pay systems.  Despite progress, gender pay remained a challenge, particularly due to gender segregation in the labour market.  The Government was working on a plan to address this.  Women remained underrepresented in leadership roles and Iceland continued to work towards this.  Recently, an agreement had been signed to increase the number of women in management positions in the business sector.  To increase the number of teachers, the Government started a plan in 2019, with a focus on young men. 

The Act on Gender Autonomy prohibited unnecessary surgical procedures on inter-sex children.  The Act stipulated that carrying out surgical procedures on intersex minors who were unable to provide consent was prohibited unless the operation was completely necessary for medical reasons. 

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert said in 2022, after the Committee’s list of issues was developed, the Icelandic police commenced investigations against four journalists who had conducted investigations against a large fishing company which had allegedly bribed officials.  There was concern that the investigation was used to suppress investigative journalism. What measures were in place in Iceland to ensure that investigations into journalists’ work did not create a chilling effect on journalism?  What specific steps were being taken by the State party to guarantee free and independent media in order to protect journalists from harassment and reprisals? 

Another Expert congratulated Iceland for the attention shown to human rights matters, particularly equality.  What legal aid services were provided for victims of domestic violence?  What resources were available to families challenging medical procedures?  What efforts were being made with regards to the internet and technologies in rural areas? 

An Expert asked if all hate speech fell under hate propaganda?  To what extent had the State involved civil society in combatting hate speech?  What was Iceland’s position on defamation, and how did this affect victims of gender-based violence?  Did Iceland intend to amend its Criminal Code to prevent a prison sentence for defamation? 

Another Committee Expert asked why Iceland did not plan to raise the capacity of the Ombudsperson? 

A Committee Expert asked about horizontal discrimination in the labour market, particularly pertaining to persons with disabilities.  Were measures being taken to reduce discrimination?

Another Expert asked what awareness raising and training campaigns were in place for members of the Prosecution?  What was the type of independence that the Prosecution enjoyed in Iceland?  Who investigated and prosecuted cases of gender-based violence? 

An Expert asked if there was any type of specialisation of the judicial bodies? Were there any specialised bodies with personnel who had been sensitised to the issue of gender-based violence? 

Responses by the Delegation 

The delegation said the length of pretrial detention had been an issue.  Iceland was undergoing significant work within the Ministry of Justice, including on pretrial detention.  The issue of solitary confinement was also being examined.  The two domestic violence shelters were strategically located to cover as much of the country as possible.  Social services visited the shelters. 

The Judicial Administration belonged to the judicial branch. The Director of Public Prosecutions was appointed by the Ministry of Justice.  The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was an independent authority, and Iceland took great steps to uphold this independence.  Cases of gender-based violence were investigated by the police or the Public Prosecutor, depending on the gravity of the case. Regarding legislative reforms on the definition of rape and consent, Iceland was investigating how this worked in practice. 

There was a successful programme in place which promoted the participation of persons with disabilities in the labour market. However, it was difficult to have figures on this programme.  The segregation in the labour market for migrants was due to language proficiencies. Migrants heavily dominated two fields in the labour market – the tourism industry and construction – where the language barrier had been lessened.  These were considered to be low-skill work sectors.  Social partners, and unions in Iceland were very strong with a high participation.  Unions in Iceland attended also to complaints raised by non-Union members. 

The Icelandic police had received training on the timeline of risky relationships to assess risks of gender-based violence.  What had initially served as training for the police had been shared on social media with the intention of reaching victims, or those close to them, to help them recognise the signs and seek help. Iceland was aware there were language barriers when it came to assisting the migrant population.  Telephone interpretation was used with operators who spoke English to overcome the language barrier.  Interpretation could be provided in over 200 languages in a few minutes.  The Government tried to target the migrant population in other languages through social media. 

All operations on intersex children without their consent were prohibited, unless medically necessary.  When a child was older and able to consent, the consent of the child was required. 

The Icelandic Equality Act protected individuals from harassment on the grounds of their religion. 

The delegation said there was no specific body responsible for the coordination of the State’s anti-corruption policies.  Rather, it was the Prime Minister’s office that was responsible for this, with a focus on corruption within the executive branch, while the Ministry of Justice focused on corruption within the police.  The Parliamentary Ombudsman and others were also responsible for tackling corruption.  The Ministry of Justice was in the process of drafting a national corruption strategy with a focus on coordination.  The Whistleblower Act protected individuals who reported acts from the past.  The Ombudsman could initiate an investigation resulting from information received from the public. 

Another significant step towards combatting corruption was improving access to public information.  Both the public and the media had the right to challenge decisions in the court.  An act had been passed to prevent conflict of interest in the executive branch, preventing senior Ministers from becoming lobbyists for up to six months after leaving their positions, unless granted an exemption. 

Allegations into the “Fishrot” case were ongoing, and indictments had not yet been issued.  In criminal cases, journalists were protected from disclosing their sources.  There was no legal system in Iceland which prevented journalists from carrying out their work.  However, journalists were not immune from criminal charges, including in activities they had conducted when carrying out their work. 

Freedom of expression was not seen as unlimited.  It could be curtailed, but this could only be done by law, and if necessary.  This needed to be kept in mind when deciding if expression was punishable as hate speech under the Penal Code.  The Media Commission was responsible for oversight of the media, and complaints could be made to this body.  No one had been sentenced to prison for defamation in Iceland for decades. 

Icelandic authorities were introducing activities aimed at promoting employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.  This was modelled after initiatives in the United Nations disability strategy, with a focus on inclusive workplaces. 

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert thanked Iceland for the answers on the issue of anti-corruption efforts.  It was vital to make the system easier to understand.  According to the report, Iceland had agreed to begin efforts to include torture as a specific crime in the Penal Code.  What was the current status of these amendments?  What changes were anticipated in the proposed amendments? Would these include penalties proportionate to the crime of torture? 

The Committee noted that the national preventive mechanism had been established as part of the Ombudsman office, which was under the legislative branch.  This was concerning as the Ombudsman did not consider itself able to comment on judicial decisions.  Could more information be provided on the legislation which was currently being prepared? Did the legislation include provisions to empower the Ombudsman to comment on judicial practices, as well as sufficient resources to enhance its capacity as an oversight mechanism?  Was the Ombudsman independent from Parliament? How was it structured?  What was the timeline for the legislation’s implementation?   There had been concern about the use of pepper spray, spit guards and tasers by the police.  Could the State party comment on this?

Another Expert said the Committee had noted that the State party had strengthened its mechanisms for the protection of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, including ensuring respect for the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with its Foreign Nationals Act.  However, according to information provided, some shortcomings remained, particularly with regard to appeal procedures and access to adequate legal representation.  What measures had the State party implemented to ensure the quality and fairness of the procedures for examining applications for international protection?  There were reports that following a change to the system of legal representation for asylum seekers in 2022, asylum seekers would no longer receive adequate legal assistance; could the State party comment on this? 

Iceland’s Directorate of Immigration and the Immigration and Asylum Appeals Board assessed each application for asylum on a case-by-case basis. However, the Committee was concerned about reports received indicating that the principle of non-refoulement was indirectly violated.  Could the State party comment on these allegations and provide information on the measures put in place to ensure full respect for the principle of non-refoulement in any application for asylum?  Did the State party plan to take concrete steps to improve the efficiency of the processing of refugee claims while ensuring proper hearings?  Were there mechanisms in place to quickly identify and address delays or inefficiencies in the processing of applications? 

In March 2023, the Government of Iceland amended its Foreign Nationals Act, aimed at enhancing the efficiency and quality of decision-making with humanitarian concerns.  What were the main changes brought about by this amendment to the Act, and how would these amendments contribute to strengthening the protection of the rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers?

The Committee was pleased to note Iceland’s accession to the United Nations Statelessness Conventions in 2021 and the State’s efforts to align its national legislation with international standards.  How did the State party ensure that the definition of statelessness was applied consistently and in line with international standards, including in statelessness determination procedures? 

The State party had taken steps to improve the protection of children from violence, including through the development of the (Children’s House), a multidisciplinary centre model that provided a safe environment for dealing with cases of abuse and sexual violence.  However, there were reports that resources for these services remained insufficient.  What steps had the State party taken to ensure that financial and educational resources for support centres for abused children were provided to make these centres accessible and responsive to the needs of all populations, including those in rural areas?  What specific measures had been implemented to integrate the prevention of sexual violence and harassment into educational and recreational activities for young people? How did Iceland ensure that online training on sexual violence and harassment was widely accessible and effectively attended by relevant professionals?  What had been the impact of the measures adopted on the effectiveness of the criminal prosecution of violence against children, including sexual violence? 

Another Expert said there had been ongoing progress in assisting migrants with disabilities.  What were the entities involved in the procedures of identification of victims of trafficking in persons, and under whose coordination were their actions and functions carried out?  Were there plans to increase the resources of this national mechanism to improve identification and support to these victims?  How many victims of trafficking in persons had received legal aid since 2020?  What support was offered to men who were victims of trafficking? 

In the report, it was noted that employers that exploited workers had acted freely with impunity, due to an inadequate Governmental response. There had been many cases of forced sexual work in nightclubs.  How could it be ensured that the recent legislative amendments in 2023 dealt with the exploitation of migrant workers who worked in areas including construction, tourism and domestic work?  How was it ensured that they were not exposed to abusive practices?  What safeguards had been implemented since 2022 to guarantee that victims were able to report cases without any reprisals? 

A Committee Expert asked what criteria were used to determine when a minor could be held in the same centre as an adult in prison facilities? The Expert congratulated the State for the implementation of plural-disciplinary measures for mental health. However, the Committee was concerned about allegations regarding isolation cells.  How could Iceland justify the frequent use of these isolation cells?  What were the guarantees put in place when it came to holding minors and vulnerable people in isolation cells.  How was it ensured that these people were not put in isolation without medical screening? What possibilities were provided in Iceland for distance learning?  Were those suffering from mental health problems given appropriate help?  How was it ensured that those prisoners who had urgent needs, including drug addicts, had immediate care? 

Another Expert said that given the establishment of the Court of Appeal, were there plans to extend the appeal process to minor cases? Recent amendments to the Police Act granted the police broader powers to conduct surveillance without an oversight mechanism.  What steps were being taken to ensure the amendments to the Police Act were not being used to violate privacy rights?  It was noted that the Evangelical Lutheran Church was recognised as Iceland’s national church and had been granted legal status.  There were concerns that the Church’s status resulted in unequal financial support, compared to other religious organizations. 

What measures were in place to ensure that the Constitutional recognition of the Church did not affect the equal enjoyment of rights guaranteed under the Covenant for organizations of other beliefs, particularly when it came to State funding?  How was it ensured that other groups were consulted when developing policies pertaining to religious matters?  How did Iceland ensure that the registration processes for other groups, which did not apply to the Evangelical Lutheran Church, were fair and equal?  What mechanisms were in place to allow children to change their religious affiliation before the age of 16? 

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said Iceland intended to add torture to the Penal Code as a specific criminal offence, including a punishment which was fitting to the crime.  Iceland had ratified the Optional Protocol in 2019, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman had been serving the role of the national preventive mechanism ever since, conducting unannounced visits to places of detention.  Recommendations by the Ombudsman were taken very seriously.  A full review of the prison system was underway, which included taking the recommendations of the Ombudsman into account.  The Ombudsman was a fully independent body, and the Parliament had no authority on which cases it investigated or on the conclusions.  The Ombudsman had been effective in its role, visiting all the prisons in Iceland and four police stations. 

According to relatively recent changes, it was permitted for the police to use electro-static weapons when police believed other less severe measures would not be sufficient. 

The Icelandic authorities were on a good path in processing asylum applications before the start of the war in Ukraine, when there was a surge in asylum applications.  Strict procedural guidelines were in place.  Staffing had been significantly increased, and digital tools had been introduced to improve efficiency and quality within the protection system.  Currently, 100 lawyers who had been thoroughly reviewed were considered as eligible spokespeople for asylum seekers.  An appeal could be considered in the case of compelling reasons. 

The Directorate of Immigration determined statelessness. Stateless individuals who did not qualify as refugees did possess an independent right to international protection. After receiving refugee status, a stateless person could apply for Icelandic citizenship.  Various grants were available for voluntary return, including a reintegration and travel grant.  However, if an individual refused to leave the country, authorities were left with no choice but to initiate a forced deportation.

A family justice centre was established for survivors of violence.  The centre led a specific unit which responded to human trafficking cases. The unit included representatives from the police, the directorate of immigration, social services, and the Women’s Shelter, among others.  Female victims were provided with secure housing in the women’s shelter.  Social services provided male victims with secure housing in a guesthouse and other accommodation when necessary.  Victims and presumed victims of human trafficking were entitled to emergency health care.  A leaflet had been produced on trafficking, which included a special section on children.  In June 2022, the Nordic Ministers of Justice established a Working Group on human trafficking, which met twice per year. 

The principle of non-refoulment had been enacted in the Foreign Nationals’ Act.  Icelandic authorities respected and agreed with the principles of non-refoulement. It was clear in Icelandic legislation that children should never be held in the same prisons as adults, unless it was determined that it was in their own best interests.  There was constant and regular evaluation as to what was the best interest of the child.  Children could not be deprived of liberty for more than 14 days in the specialised centre. However, the situation was evaluated in each case, and sometimes it was determined it was better for the child to stay for a longer period of time.  Work was underway to revise the Child Protection Act, and put even more emphasis on the rights of children, including children deprived of liberty. 

According to Icelandic legislation, police were obligated to release suspects after 24 hours or bring them before a judge and apply for pretrial detention.  This short time period explained why Icelandic authorities used pretrial detention more often than other countries.  In 98 per cent of cases, people were released after 24 hours. Pretrial detention was only used on around 2 per cent of cases, which was not excessive.  However, Iceland understood there were things to improve. Efforts had been made to diminish the effects of solitary confinement as much as possible, including by increasing access to physical exercise.  The accused always had the right to assistance from a legal counsel.  Nurses monitored new arrivals to the prison and screened them for medical issues and mental health, referring them to doctors if necessary.  All Ombudsman findings were public, and the Ombudsman followed up on the recommendations made to ensure they had been addressed.  There had been serious attempts to increase the collaboration between prison hospitals and the prison facilities. 

The Ministry of Justice was reviewing the Act of Legal Competence and a bill had been drafted.  The bill aimed to strengthen individual rights when it came to involuntary hospitalisation, among other measures.  The bill was currently under review.  The added authority for the police on additional surveillance measures only applied to public areas; these rules could not be applied to private areas. These measures could only be instigated upon suspicion of a direct link to organised crime, or terrorism. 

Registered religious or philosophical organizations received the same amount of funding as the national church of Iceland.  If both parents belonged to the same religious organization, the child was automatically registered in that same organization.  If the parents’ religious organizations differed, the child was not registered in any and the parents were required to reach an agreement when registering their child.  Children who reached the age of 12 were required to sign the declaration on their religious affiliation with their parents.  At the age of 16, children could register or de-register from a religious organization without parental involvement.

Measures had been taken to improve the Barnahus system. The Government had formed a working group focused on different forms of violence against children. 

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert referred to the case of the four journalists; had the charges been dropped or were the cases still proceeding?  What steps had Iceland taken to ensure the push towards Christianity in education did not result in discrimination?

Another Expert noted that the law on foreign nationals was in line with international standards.  What were the follow-up mechanisms which had been implemented to assess training programmes for professionals, to afford protection for stateless persons?  Could statistics on stateless persons be provided?  What mechanisms were available for access to justice for children who had experienced infringements of their rights?

An Expert asked for the expected timeline for torture to be included within the Criminal Code.  In situations where there were concerns about the legal process, how were such issues addressed?  Did the national preventive mechanism have the authority to comment on judicial practices? 

Another Committee Expert asked if there needed to be a judicial decision to enforce solitary confinement?

An Expert asked what “social dumping” was and what the legislation entailed? 

A Committee Expert said there were certain parts of the Covenant which were not similar to the European Conventions on Human Rights.  In cases of conflict, which were the guiding principles used? 

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the cases of the four journalists were not ongoing; the investigation had been terminated without indictment.  Reasons for this were publicly available.  According to the national curriculum guidelines, it was important that pupils learned about various religions and other beliefs in schools. 

The United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees’ office for the Nordic countries had provided training to the Directorate of Immigration and other key holders on statelessness.  A foreign national who did not meet the criteria for a humanitarian visa was required to leave the country and return to their home country. An emergency shelter was provided by the Icelandic Red Cross which provided emergency assistance to foreign nationals who had received the final rejection of their application for international protection.  They could receive accommodation and food at this shelter. 

The Parliamentary Ombudsman examined the access to education and work in prisons.  There was significant cooperation with non-governmental organizations.  Solitary confinement was always based on a judicial decision.  It was always the role of the Prosecutor to request pretrial detention, with solitary confinement only requested if necessary.  Proportionality was strictly upheld by the Prosecution and the courts. Efforts had been made to improve the number of health care staff in prison facilities. 

There was an Ombudsman for Children in Iceland who acted as a spokesperson for all children.  Children could seek support and counselling from the Ombudsman.  A special action plan on “child friendly Iceland” focused on making justice mechanisms more child friendly. 

The election of Iceland to the Human Rights Council was the result of significant work and formed part of the State’s strategy in mainstreaming human rights, both at home and abroad.  Equality and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons were a key focus.  Iceland continually strove to do better. 

Closing Remarks 

RAGNA BJARNADÓTTIR, Director General at the Ministry of Justice of Iceland and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the robust discussion.  The advancement of human rights was an ongoing process; Iceland remained committed to protecting the human rights of everyone. The State awaited the concluding observations of the Committee with enthusiasm and would do everything possible to make improvements. 

TANIA MARÍA ABDO ROCHOLL, Committee Chairperson, thanked everyone who had participated in the dialogue.  The Committee had discussed many different issues relating to the rights enshrined in the Covenant.  The Committee was committed to ensuring that the highest level of civil and political rights was being achieved in Iceland.

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.

CCPR24.021E

MIL OSI United Nations News –