CAT/OP/UKR/1 A. Legal framework The criminalization of torture 18. The SPT considers that the legislative prohibition of torture has several weaknesses. Ukrainian authorities continued to perceive the application of articles 127 and 365 of the Criminal Code to be compliant with the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). Amongst its concerns regarding the definition of torture under the current national legislation, the SPT would like to mention in particular the absence of the “public official” as comprising an element of the definition, as well as the restriction of torture to include only suffering as a result of physically violent acts. 19. As a State party, Ukraine is bound by the definition contained in UNCAT article 1. The SPT believes that defining the offence of torture in accordance with article 1 fulfils a preventive function and that discrepancies between domestic law and the definition contained in UNCAT article 1 can create actual or potential loopholes for impunity. 8 Domestic legislation should provide for investigation, prosecution and punishment of any act of torture or ill-treatment. Furthermore, the severity of the penalties for such acts should match their gravity. The SPT received information that torture and ill-treatment were de facto prosecuted under article 365 of the Criminal Code – if at all, as there were few recorded prosecutions and convictions. 20. The SPT recommends that the provisions regarding the definition of torture be brought fully into compliance with the Convention. In addition, the SPT recommends that an overall revision of the legal framework relating to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment take place, bringing it in line with Ukraine’s international human rights obligations. Finally, the SPT recommends that the offence of torture be prosecuted under the provision relating to torture, and not as abuse of power, and that acts of torture or ill-treatment be punishable by penalties commensurate to their gravity. B. Institutional framework 21. The prevention of torture and ill-treatment in places of deprivation of liberty is the shared responsibility of several institutions working in the field of administration of justice, including the police, the public prosecution, the legal aid system, the judiciary, and the State Penitentiary Service, as well as any other authority with jurisdiction to detain persons. The SPT is concerned that the current institutional framework in Ukraine does not provide for a sufficiently robust protection against torture and ill-treatment. 1. Police administration 22. In light of serious allegations received (see Chapter IV), the SPT was alarmed to note that the police apparently continued to be under informal pressure to ensure that a high number of crimes were solved, which encouraged the practice of extracting confessions. The SPT met persons who had confessed to up to 10 different crimes. The SPT welcomes statements made by the Minister of Internal Affairs in April 2011, indicating the official intention to reduce the emphasis on crime solving rates. The SPT noted that the police force is reportedly underfunded, and officers earn very low wages. 8 General comment No. 2 of the Committee against Torture, CAT/C/2, para. 9. 5