COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF FRANCE
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of France to questions raised by Committee Experts on the third periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on Thursday, 17 November, the delegation, which was led by Michel Doucin, French Ambassador for Human Rights, said that on France's definition of torture, the concept of the Convention and that of France were very close to each other, and close to that recommended by the Committee. Concerning the coexistence and inter-relationship of and between the two ideas of asylum as contained in the Geneva Convention and protection against ill-treatment as included in the Convention Against Torture, there had been sweeping changes in this regard in French legislation, and the right to asylum was now granted no longer only on the basis of the Geneva Convention, but also on the basis of what was called subsidiary protection, which concerned persons whose conditions did not meet those set out in the Geneva Convention, and who were exposed to various threats, including the death penalty, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and threats against the person due to generalised violence.
With regard to a question on administrative and judicial measures taken following the urban violence that occurred recently, the delegation said the Ministry of the Interior had invited the prefects of France to be firm with the troublemakers. The measures of accompanying persons to the border targeting foreigners illegally present in France or expulsion measures for troubling public order would be applied in the context of current legislation, which would not be specifically amended in this situation. Minors would in no way be subjected to a measure of removal, and an expulsion measure could not be handed down unless the entire behaviour of a foreigner was a serious threat to public order. Certain categories of foreigners, because of their long stay in France or family links with the country, were protected from expulsion.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of France towards the end of the session on Friday, 25 November 2005.
As one of the 140 States parties to the Convention against Torture, France is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Monday, 21 November, it is scheduled to take up the initial report of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (CAT/C/37/Add.6).
Response of France
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee Experts on Thursday, 17 November, the delegation of France said all of the questions had been very stimulating, and it would be impossible to answer them in only 90 minutes. The right to asylum and protection against treatment prohibited in article 3, the judicial framework around the deprivation of liberty, responses to the congestion in prison, recent urban violence, and the training and penalties resulting in the prohibition of torture would be the five topics covered by the responses.
Concerning the interpretation of the Convention, there were fascinating questions on diversity in legal traditions. France was vigilant in applying all international texts in the widest possible manner, Mr. Doucin said. The Convention in particular, being an integral part of the law on armed conflict and international humanitarian law, was a framework for French troops operating outside France. All troops received an initial training on law regarding armed conflict and human rights. Although troops had jurisdictional immunity, the committing of a crime, including the violation of the Convention, would be prosecuted by the competent court.
In response to a question concerning the French definition of torture, the debate held yesterday had illuminated the Committee’s demands on the transposition of article 1 into national law. However, the concept of the Convention and that of France were very close to each other, and close to that recommended by the Committee. On the lack of minority-related statistics, France’s position was that as it was constitutionally “one and indivisible”, such communities were not recognised, and therefore statistical data could not be obtained on a basis of differentiation. In the current period of urban violence, the demands of “youth” were not linked to their identification as a community, but to their will to integrate. This position had, Mr. Doucin said, never stopped France from fighting against all forms of discrimination, whether they be racial, sexist, or of any type.
With regard to a question on article 3 of the Convention, the delegation said it was accurate that the law of 26 September 2003 had eliminated the automatic setting of deadlines in cases of repatriation, but the period of reprieve had not been eliminated, it was kept if persons crossing the border requested it. With respect to the modification of the rights of the person covered by a decision refusing their entry into France, this modification had to be done in a language understood by the foreigner. The assistance of an interpreter was compulsory if the foreigner did not speak French. The decision to deny asylum was taken by the Ministry of the Interior on the basis of information. A denial of asylum at the border could not be made in accordance with the law unless the application was manifestly unfounded. The volume of denials, more than 20,000 per year, could not allow France to think of systematic suspensive remedies being applied at the border. The situation of poor accommodation for refugees at Roissy airport had greatly improved thanks to the establishment of a new accommodation area.
Concerning the coexistence and inter-relationship of and between the two ideas of asylum as contained in the Geneva Convention and protection against ill-treatment as included in the Convention Against Torture, the delegation said there had been sweeping changes in this regard in French legislation, and the right to asylum was now granted no longer only on the basis of the Geneva Convention, but also on the basis of what was called subsidiary protection, which concerned persons whose conditions did not meet those set out in the Geneva Convention, and who were exposed to various threats, including the death penalty, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and threats against the person due to generalised violence. Subsidiary protection gave the right to a temporary state permit, and could be requested at any moment by a foreigner, and the right of consideration of the application was extended to all.
With regard to the removal of foreigners who were subject to risks if they returned to their country, article 3 of the Convention was applied in an absolute way, regardless of the crimes that the person concerned may have committed. Certain cases were dealt with differently, but the French authorities ensured an in-depth preliminary examination in the case of the return, and would continue to do so to ensure that persons were not exposed to genuine threats to their lives or integrity, the delegation said. A person who was at risk of the death penalty or torture, without guarantees of the State making the request, could not be extradited. If there was a risk of torture, then there were various ways of procedure.
On detention regimes, detainees in pre-trial detention had common guarantees which were set out in detail in the written report. Extending custody beyond 48 hours could only be done by introducing the person to a magistrate, and if this was extended, then the detainee was seen by a doctor, who made a statement as to the person's ability to remain in custody. In accordance with the ethics code of the public health administration, if there was a report of torture in an area of custody or detention, this was dealt with in the context of common law. Either the doctor issued a certificate describing the injuries, or there was a report made to the State Prosecutor, with the consent of the patient. If the patient was a minor, then the doctor had to report to the State Prosecutor and other authorities. On penitentiary institutions, French legislation did not allow incommunicado detention, and detainees in solitary confinement could appeal for the decision for this to be repealed, for no extension of the period, and for compensation.
With regards to confessions obtained under torture, it was up to the judge to go under their own convictions with regard to proof obtained by parties to a trial. Proof was dealt with according to case law and international conventions that France had ratified, and certain types of proof were forbidden if they were of unfair origin. If the evidence did come from unfair means, it could not be accepted. France for many years had had a jurisdictional mechanism for integral reparation for material and moral injury. Recent legislative changes had said there should be a notification of the compensation. On overpopulation in prisons, the delegation said the authorities were trying to provide measures to remedy this, and also to identify measures to remedy the situation with regards to both inmates and staff. The majority of the prison population was male and French, with an average of 116 detainees per 100 places, and this mainly affected remand centres and those serving short sentences. The national authorities were also striving to ensure that there was proper treatment of prison staff.
With regards to administrative and judicial measures taken following the urban violence that occurred recently, the delegation said 486 warrants were handed out for adults. Four hundred and eighty minors were presented to the judge for minors, out of which 107 were placed under a specific type of warrant. The Ministry of the Interior had invited the prefects of France to be firm with the troublemakers. The measures of accompanying persons to the border targeting foreigners illegally present in France or expulsion measures for troubling public order would be applied in the context of current legislation, which would not be specifically amended in this situation. Minors would in no way be subjected to a measure of removal, and an expulsion measure could not be handed down unless the entire behaviour of a foreigner was a serious threat to public order. Certain categories of foreigners, because of their long stay in France or family links with the country, were protected from expulsion.
The use of violence was totally outlawed from police interrogations, and where force was used, it had to be done in a legal action, and in a proportionate manner, and only when it was necessary, and this was taught to police officers, the delegation said. Because of deaths during deportations, specific training was given to officials, and only those who had been trained and assessed as having assimilated the training were authorised to accompany deportees. Acts which violated the police code exposed the officers who had violated them to double sanctions, both penal and disciplinary. The authorities were aware that there could not be a Republican police force unless there was stringent respect for ethics and human rights.
GUIBRIL CAMARA, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of France, thanked the Ambassador and the members of his delegation for the efforts made to provide exhaustive and clear replies to the many questions the Committee had asked. He had no additional questions, and said that with the replies, the report and the introductory statement, the Committee had sufficient information before it to convey its feelings as to the way in which the State party was implementing its obligations with regards to the Convention. Some elements should not be taken as a criticism, but the Committee had a specificity, in that the more a State exerted itself to implement its commitments, the more demanding the Committee was, and so the questions and interrogations should be taken as a compliment.
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of France, said the complete replies had in many ways allayed his fears, and he had no questions, although wanted a couple of clarifications; first, that arrest, risk arrest and final expulsion were always done on an individual basis and never a mass basis; and second, whether in the case of a European arrest warrant, there was no risk assessment; and thirdly whether France resorted to diplomatic assurances on the risk of the person to be subject to the death penalty, cruel treatment, or not. He thanked the delegation for its sincere replies and the excellent dialogue.
Other Experts then made further comments, notably thanking the delegation for the very complete responses, and asking for further clarifications, including on the number of people on remand who had finally been found innocent; the various indicators of the ill effects of over-crowding in prisons and figures on these and whether they were increasing; issues linked to electronic bracelets as used as alternatives to imprisonment; and issues connected to access to the fund for victims of terrorism.
Responding briefly, the delegation said there was always an individual review of the case, whatever its circumstances, and there were never overall assessments looking at those in the same situation. The European arrest warrant in this context also had an individual assessment. There was always an ambiguity between diplomatic assurances and contacts, but there was never contact with a country which was considered irreproachable and would stop France from making an individual assessment of the case. On persons in pre-trial detention and statistics, France distinguished between pre-trial detention, which was police custody, and provisional custody ordered by the judicial authorities, and a third type of detention. There were no figures on people in custody. Anybody detained who was found innocent was entitled to compensation. There had been no increase in tuberculosis and other illnesses in prisons. However, there was a clear increase in the numbers of inter-prisoner violence and violence perpetrated against the prison staff. On home detention regimes, where foreigners resident in France who could not be returned to their home country, this was a measure which restricted the person’s freedom to come and go as they pleased, and generally speaking when such a decision was issued the administrative authority specified a department in which the foreigner could remain. If there was a need for higher supervision, this could be further restricted to a specific municipality. On over-population, this particularly affected remand centres.
Concluding, Mr. Doucin said the delegation had appreciated the dialogue and very much appreciated the remarks made by the Committee. The delegation had wished to go in depth, examining the problems that existed, and was pleased that the Committee had appreciated this. Further written information would be sent. The meeting had been very interesting, as it had allowed the delegation to contact more international NGOs than were present in Paris, and very interesting and useful documentation had been received that should allow France to mature its reflection on various topics.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CAT05033E