A/HRC/23/11 24. With regard to corporal punishment, Barbados indicated that, with the assistance of UNICEF, it had implemented the Schools Positive Behaviour Management Programme (SPBMP) aimed at developing positive behaviour-management strategies, thereby eliminating the need to resort to corporal punishment. 25. Barbados then explained that the Police Complaints Authority met every four to six weeks to interview complainants. 26. Barbados responded to information included in the UPR reports compiled on Barbados. It stated that the negative and generalized statements in these reports seem to suggest that the Barbados Police habitually violated the rights of citizens and residents of Barbados. Such statements unfairly impugned the integrity of the Police Force. It was stressed that police command remained committed to the principles of integrity and accountability of law enforcement personnel. The behaviour of officers was governed by the Instructional Manual, especially with relation to the use of force. Training on human rights issues and related matters were a part of the accreditation process for police officers. Every effort was made to provide officers with the requisite training and the police were committed to respecting constitutional guarantees of all people in Barbados. 27. Current policy, practice and legislation, precluded the police from being the sole adjudicator of the outcome of any investigation pertaining to the death of persons in police custody. Findings from such investigations were forwarded to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the Coroner for an appropriate determination to be made. In all instances of death of unnatural or suspicious circumstances, an autopsy was conducted by a pathologist who was independent of the Office of the Commissioner of Police. 28. The relationship between the police and the public was systematically examined by the Government with a view to improving understanding and dialogue. Where there was evidence of police misconduct or where officers were found to have broken the law, they were subject to prosecution like any citizen. 29. Barbados was also extremely concerned at statements that purported that rape was commonplace in Barbados. The delegation stated that it did not believe such a statement to be borne out by the facts and referred to data issued by UNODC which belied information contained in the OHCHR report. It noted that between 2008 and 2012 the number of reported cases of rape had decreased. In fact, the number of reported cases of rape in Barbados per 100,000 was lower than the comparable average rates in Western Europe. 30. The delegation expressed concern about negative generalizations that emanated from the United Nations reports. It found the use of anecdotal material to come to unfounded and/or unsubstantiated conclusions extremely disconcerting as such reports could be viewed as authoritative statements. 31. With regard to the claim that the law in Barbados did not permit Barbadian women to confer nationality on their children, the delegation stated that this was not the case, as the Constitution was amended in 2000 to allow both men and women to confer Barbadian nationality on their children. 32. On the issue of statelessness, Barbados explained that it had sought the intervention of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the only case in which a claim of statelessness had been made; the case was ongoing. 33. Though Barbados was not party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, it recognized its obligations with respect to refugee protection and its responsibility to carefully consider each asylum claim. As such, Barbados was committed to the principle of non-refoulement. In the few instances where a claim had been made, the matter was referred to UNHCR. 6