COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE DISCUSSES FOLLOW-UP TO INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee against Torture this afternoon discussed the issue of follow-up to individual communications it has received on behalf of individuals who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Presenting the report on follow-up to individual communications, Committee Expert Fernando Marino Menendez said that several countries had not replied to requests for follow-up communications, amongst which were Canada in one case, the Netherlands in one case, Spain in two cases, Serbia and Montenegro in three cases and Tunisia in one case. He proposed to request responses from the States parties.

Concerning cases in which information had been updated, Mr. Marino Menendez noted that in a Canadian case the complainant had not provided any response. Canada had indicated twice that it would not expel the complainant. In another Canadian case involving an individual who had been sent to India, Canada had noted that as India was a State party to the Convention, India was better placed to advise on the whereabouts of the complainant. However, it was noted that India was not a party to the Convention, although it had signed it. Committee Experts said that as India was a signatory, there was still room for communicating with them.

In a case in Senegal, concerning former Chadian President Hissene Habre and an extradition request to Belgium, the Committee decided to wait for more information from the Special Rapporteur on follow-up who had met with representatives of Senegal and for Committee Experts to further review the case. In a case in Switzerland, temporary admission had been granted to the complainant and thus he no longer risked being returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A Committee Expert wondered what temporary admission meant and asked for more information in this regard. Another discussed case concerned Tunisia and the Committee decided to continue to communicate with the State party. The last case concerned an individual accused and indicted of terrorism who had been expelled by Venezuela to Peru ten years ago. Committee Experts wondered whether Peru had been contacted. They agreed to look into the matter and continue the dialogue.

According to the Convention against Torture, a communication may be submitted by any private individual who claims to be the victim of a violation of the Convention by a State party that has recognized the competence of the Committee under Article 22 and that is subject to its jurisdiction. If an alleged victim is not in a position to submit a communication, his or her relatives or representatives may act on his or her behalf.


When the Committee next reconvenes in public on Monday, 5 May at 10 a.m., it is scheduled to consider the second report of Costa Rica (CAT/C/CRI/2).



For use of the information media; not an official record


CAT08008E