COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HOLDS FIRST JOINT MEETING WITH SUBCOMMITTEE ON PREVENTION OF TORTURE

The Committee against Torture this morning held its first joint meeting with the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and shared information and ideas of cooperation between the two bodies in order for them to pursue their common goal.

At the end of the meeting, the two bodies issued a joint statement that acknowledged this historical meeting which had been cordial and productive, with unanimous agreement that members would work together on the two complementary mandates, including by developing specific working methods for communication and cooperation among members between formal meetings, in order to pursue the common goal of eliminating torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It was agreed to create a permanent body that would promote continuous cooperation between the two bodies. Also, the Subcommittee agreed to coordinate its country visits according to the schedule of the Committee’s country reviews.

At the beginning of the meeting, Andreas Mavrommatis, Chairman of the Committee against Torture, said that as the two bodies had the same aim it was important to meet in order to discuss how to improve their work and collaboration. The Committee against Torture had always urged States parties to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol and it would continue to do so in the future.

Silvia Casale, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, said that this first joint meeting with the Committee against Torture was a great opportunity. It was also the Subcommittee’s third meeting in plenary since its creation. The Subcommittee was very thankful for the regular contacts and communications it had held since its creation with the Committee. The complementarities of the two bodies’ mandates should be used to maximum effect, as both were working for the same aim. The Committee had a wider scope than the Subcommittee, but ways of cooperation and coordination among all members of the two bodies should be developed.

In the following discussion, questions and comments were raised between the members of the two bodies. One Committee Expert noted that the Committee had always formally recommended to States that they sign and ratify the Optional Protocol and also included this recommendation in its concluding remarks. A Subcommittee Expert noted that the ideal situation would be that the increase of the Subcommittee’s membership to 50 States parties proceeded smoothly. Once this number was achieved, the Subcommittee’s number of Experts was planned to increase, thanks to the availability of more resources. Also a balance in the regional representation of the Subcommittee’s States parties was seen as important. A Committee Expert underscored that it was important that all countries should accede to the Optional Protocol. It was also suggested that a joint working group be created to carry out activities of education and promotion of the work of the two bodies. It was noted that the Subcommittee had a limited budget, thus any decision on joint projects had to take this fact into account. One Subcommittee Expert noted that the Committee could promote the preventive role of the Subcommittee.

Turning to the national prevention mechanisms, a Committee Expert saw it as important that all places of detentions were visited. These should include legitimate and illegitimate ones, as well as psychiatric institutions. It was noted that questions asked by the Committee to States parties on security facilities were the most unanswered ones and at the same time these were the places where the gravest allegations came from. A Subcommittee Expert said that guidelines for the implementation of national mechanisms were currently being drafted. A guide for visits of places of detention was also being drafted. The issue of future collaboration with the Universal Periodic Review was also raised.

On the sharing of information between the two bodies, questions included whether the Subcommittee could provide the Committee with a list of planned visits and if information could be shared in order to assist each other’s work. Confidential private meetings could take place in that regard. The Subcommittee’s country visits could maybe be coordinated with the schedule of the Committee’s country report consideration in order not to confuse the State party. On the confidentiality of information, one Expert noted that informal contacts could still take place between the members of the two Committees. It was agreed to create a permanent body that would promote continuous cooperation between the two bodies. Two Experts out of the two bodies would be nominated. Also, the Subcommittee agreed to coordinate its country visits according to the schedule of the Committee’s country reviews.

On the issue of the Subcommittee’s Annual Report to the Committee, it was noted that this would be made during a public session and it would be presented next May. Concerning the Committee’s complaints procedure, attention was drawn that some of these considerations were private and others public and might be of interest to the Subcommittee’s work when planning a visit. The Subcommittee saw it of highest importance to have access to the complaints procedures cases, in order to prepare the Subcommittee’s prevention work. One Expert suggested that the Subcommittee’s agenda of visits might be defined in collaboration with the Committee. The Committee’s work could inspire the Subcommittee to choose which country and which places would be most important to visit.

The Subcommittee is a newly created body that was established according to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It consists of 10 independent experts who work with national preventive mechanisms and carry out regular unannounced visits to places of detention in all States parties to the Optional Protocol, with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of persons deprived of liberty against torture and other forms of ill treatment. Every State party is obliged under the Optional Protocol to grant the Subcommittee unrestricted access to any place of detention and to provide all the relevant information the Subcommittee may request. The Subcommittee may have private interviews with persons deprived of liberty and any other person believed by the Subcommittee to be able to provide relevant information.

The 10 members of the Subcommittee are: Silvia Casale (United Kingdom), Mario Luis Coriolano (Argentina), Marija Definis Gojanoviæ (Croatia), Zdenìk Hájek (Czech Republic), Zbigniew Lasocik (Poland), Hans Draminsky Petersen (Denmark), Victor Manuel Rodríguez Rescia (Costa Rica), Miguel Sarre Iguíniz (Mexico), Wilder Tayler Souto (Uruguay) and Leopoldo Torres Boursault (Spain).

When the Committee against Torture next meets in public on Wednesday, 21 November at 3 p.m., it is scheduled to discuss its methods of work.