COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE OPENS THIRTY-EIGHTH SESSION

The Committee against Torture this morning opened its thirty-eighth session by hearing an address by a representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as well as a briefing on treaty body reform from another representative of OHCHR. The Committee also adopted its agenda and programme of work.

Alessio Bruni, Officer-in-Charge of the Treaties and Council Branch of the OHCHR, said that, among the developments relating to human rights treaties and their monitoring bodies since the Committee's session in November 2006, the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture established under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture had held its first session in Geneva from 19 to 23 February 2007 and had also elected its first Bureau, for a two-year term. Since November, Brazil, Cambodia, Estonia, Liechtenstein, New Zealand and Slovenia had become parties to the Optional Protocol, bringing the total number of States parties to 34.

In addition, on 13 December 2006, the General Assembly had adopted the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol. In direct relation to the work of the Committee, article 15 of that Convention contained specific references to the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in respect of persons with disabilities. On 20 December 2006, the General Assembly had also adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which constituted a great step forward in the historical development of international law on the issue. That Convention outlawed secret detention and required that States hold all detainees in officially recognized places, maintained up-to-date official registers and detailed records of all detainees, allowed them to communicate with their families and counsel, and gave access to competent and authorized authorities. Mr. Bruni highlighted that those were all critical measures for preventing enforced disappearance and for minimizing the risk of torture and death.

Turning to the Committee's present session, Mr. Bruni noted that the Committee would consider seven reports – those of Denmark, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and Ukraine – and a large number of communications. In addition, it would adopt lists of issues to be addressed to States parties whose reports would be examined next November. Finally, with the receipt of five reports from States parties since the Committee's last session, the total number of reports awaiting consideration had now risen to 31.

Also at the morning meeting, Jane Connors of OHCHR briefed members on developments with regard to treaty body reform. She recalled that, on 19 and 20 April in Geneva, the Working Group on the Harmonization of the Working Methods of Treaty Bodies had agreed that a mechanism should be established to strengthen the harmonization of the work of the treaty bodies, and had put forward two options to that end for the consideration of the Inter-Committee Meeting and the Meeting of the Chairpersons of the Treaty Bodies. She also highlighted that some countries had already submitted their reports following the new guidelines for a common core document – Timor-Leste, and Turkey – and that Australia was in the course of completing its common core document.

The Committee next reconvenes in public on Wednesday, 2 May, at 10 a.m., when it is scheduled to begin its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Denmark (CAT/C/81/Add.2 (Parts I and II)).

Statements

ALESSIO BRUNI, Officer-in-Charge of the Treaties and Council Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said that, among the developments relating to human rights treaties and their monitoring bodies since the Committee's session in November 2006, the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture established under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment had held its first session in Geneva from 19 to 23 February 2007, and would begin its work which would involve monitoring of places where persons might be deprived of their liberty. The Subcommittee had also elected its first Bureau, for a two-year term. Since the Committee's last session, Brazil, Cambodia, Estonia, Liechtenstein, New Zealand and Slovenia had become parties to the Optional Protocol, bringing the total number of States parties to 34.

In addition, the body of human rights norms and standards had been enriched with the adoption of three new instruments, Mr. Bruni highlighted. On 13 December 2006, the General Assembly had adopted the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol – landmark instruments that set out to protect the rights of some 650 million people worldwide. Eighty-six States and the European Community had signed the Convention, and Jamaica had become the first State party to that treaty. Forty-seven States had signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention. In direct relation to the work of the Committee against Torture, article 15 of the Convention contained specific references to the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in respect of persons with disabilities.

Moreover, on 20 December 2006, the General Assembly had adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The text had been opened for signature on 6 February 2007, and 59 States had already signed. The Convention constituted a great step forward in the historical development of international law on the issue, and recognized that, in certain circumstances, forced disappearances could even be considered a crime against humanity. The Convention outlawed secret detention and required that States held all detainees in officially recognized places, maintained up-to-date official registers and detailed records of all detainees, allowed them to communicate with their families and counsel, and gave access to competent and authorized authorities. Those were all critical measures for preventing enforced disappearance and for minimizing the risk of torture and death, Mr. Bruni said. The Convention also established the right of families to know the fate and whereabouts of relatives who had been detained.

Since the Committee's last session, the Human Rights Council had held its second, third and fourth sessions, as well as two special sessions: on the Israeli military incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and on the situation of human rights in Darfur. The deadline by which the Council was expected to conclude its institution-building processes was now close at hand. Hence, during its fifth session, to be held from 11 to 18 June, the Council would focus on the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, as well as the review of all mandates and mechanisms inherited from the former Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Bruni explained.

Turning to the reform of treaty bodies, Mr. Bruni informed members that, as a follow-up to the recommendations of the Fifth Inter-Committee Meeting and the Eighteenth Meeting of Chairpersons of Treaty Bodies, the Working Group on Reservations – attended by Committee Expert Guibril Camara – had reconvened on 14 and 15 December 2006. Mr. Camara would provide the Committee with details on the outcome of the meeting, including recommendations for the harmonization of working methods of treaty bodies vis-à-vis reservations in the list of issues and concluding observations. Also, the International Law Commission would hold a discussion on reservations to human rights treaties with United Nations experts in the field of human rights from 15 to 16 May 2007 in Geneva.

OHCHR continued to engage in action at the country level, Mr. Bruni said, including with respect to the implementation of the Committee's recommendations. In that context, OHCHR had organized a seminar on technical cooperation and follow-up to concluding observations on 9 and 10 November 2006 in Geneva. The meeting had been attended not only by treaty body and special procedures experts, but also by members of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation, representatives of the United Nations specialized agencies, and staff of OHCHR field presences. Ms. Sveaass had represented the Committee against Torture at that seminar.

Turning to the activities of the Committee for the coming three weeks, Mr. Bruni noted that it would have a heavy agenda with the consideration of seven reports – those of Denmark, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and Ukraine – and a large number of communications. In addition, the Committee would adopt lists of issues to be addressed to States parties whose reports would be examined next November.

Regarding reporting obligations under article 19 of the Convention, Mr. Bruni informed the Committee that since its last session, a further five reports had been received: from Chile, Belgium, Israel, New Zealand and Slovakia. That brought the total number of reports received and awaiting consideration to 31.

Speaking on treaty body reform, JANE CONNORS, of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, recalled that, at its second meeting, on 19 and 20 April in Geneva, the Working Group on the Harmonization of the Working Methods of Treaty Bodies had agreed that a mechanism should be established to strengthen the harmonization of the work of the treaty bodies, and had put forward two options to that end for the consideration of the Inter-Committee Meeting and the Meeting of the Chairpersons of the Treaty bodies. The first option was to create a small working group, whose membership would be drawn from the treaty bodies, which would meet two or three times a week to consider the issue and make recommendations to the Inter-Committee Meeting and the Chairpersons Meeting. The second proposal was for a more policy-oriented body, composed of the Chairpersons of each of the treaty bodies, as well as other treaty body representatives. That body would be responsible for the overall harmonization of treaty bodies, including communications procedures. That body would likely replace or complement the Inter-Committee Meeting and the Meeting of Treaty Body Chairpersons. In that event, it was contemplated that the new body would have a direct relationship with the Human Rights Council, in particular with regard to the Universal Periodic Review process.

With regard to guidelines for the common core document, which had been adopted by the Inter-Committee Meeting and Chairpersons Meeting, Ms. Connors wished to highlight that some countries had already submitted their reports following these guidelines. Timor-Leste had submitted a common core document to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Turkey had submitted a common core document, and Australia was in the course of completing its common core document.

In the ensuing debate, an Expert wondered about the second option put forward for the creation of a new body to replace the Inter-Committee Meeting and the Meeting of the Chairpersons of the Treaty Bodies. Why was it not contemplated that the Inter-Committee Meeting or the Meeting of Chairpersons take on the mandate of harmonization? Responding, Ms. Connors noted that neither of those bodies really had real decision-making power; they had to go back to the Committees themselves for approval of their decisions. As those bodies only met once a year, that made for a very slow process of change, she observed. At the end of the discussion among members, the Chairperson recalled that the Committee would have to come back to this issue so that it could formulate a position on treaty body harmonization.