COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS FOLLOW-UP TO COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee against Torture this afternoon considered the issue of follow-up to individual communications, hearing an oral presentation by Committee Expert Fernando Mariño Menendez on the status of pending cases, and taking ad referendum decisions on further action.

Presenting the progress report on this issue, Mr. Mariño Menendez said it contained information received since the Committee's fortieth meeting, in April and May 2008. The majority of cases in which the Committee had adopted a decision had been closed, and there were a small number where the Committee was still awaiting replies from States parties. The oldest of those cases was from Canada, which involved a complaint from 1994, but there was also a case from Spain from 1996, one from Serbia and Montenegro, in which only Montenegro had responded, and complaints against Tunisia. It was suggested that letters be sent in all cases. In the cases of Serbia and Montenegro, if no response was received, the Committee could then request a meeting with Permanent Representatives of those countries to discuss the situation.

The Canadian case involved a ruling by the Committee that an expulsion of an individual to India – who had been bound during the flight back, and who had subsequently been beaten and humiliated on his return – had been in violation of article 3 of the Convention (obligation not to send an individual back to a country where he was at risk of torture or ill-treatment). Canada had not followed the Committee's View, which also called for reparations, that it had violated the Complainant's rights by basing its deportation decision on information that had not been available to the individual. However, subsequently, Canada's had modified its legislation in this area, and the Constitutional Court had issued a judgement that such determinations on information to which the Complainant was not privy were unconstitutional. There had been an exchange of letters between Canada and India, but the whereabouts of the person remained unknown. For the time being, the person was under conditional liberty but continued to be under surveillance. Canada's position was that it could not take any further action. The Committee wanted further information from the Complainant and to hear further from Canada on the treatment meted out to the complainant both by the Canadian authorities prior to his arrival and by the Indian authorities upon the Complainant’s arrival. It was suggested that the Committee continue the dialogue with the parties in this case.

In addition, there was a case against Senegal for the prosecution or extradition for trial of Hissène Habré (former President of Chad), on which the Committee had adopted Views in 2006. Senegal had said that it would prosecute the case, but as it did not have the financial means it requested funds to do so. It was suggested that the Committee could write to the authorities asking them where they stood in the process of prosecution and reminding them of their obligation to act in a timely fashion. They should also remind Senegal that Mr. Habré should not be expelled to any other country, with the exception of Belgium, where the authorities had issued an extradition request. Experts also discussed the option of sending an envoy from the Committee to Dakar to discuss the matter with the Senegalese Authorities or having a meeting with the Permanent Representative here in Geneva. An Expert felt there was a real risk that Senegal might expel Mr. Habré to a country other than Belgium soon, and, in view of that risk supported the sending of a representative from the Committee to Dakar. Following a discussion, the Committee decided, ad referendum (i.e. pending approval of absent members), to ask for a meeting with the Permanent Representative here with a view to discussing a follow-up visit to Dakar by a representative from the Committee.

Other active cases included a complaint against Switzerland, involving the forcible return of an individual to the Democratic Republic of the Congo who would be at risk. In that case, Switzerland had granted temporary admission. The Committee made an ad referendum decision to close that case.

In some general comments on article 22, an Expert wondered if the Committee could change the language it used regarding non-compliance with its Views, and suggested that the Committee look at the practice of other human rights committees in this regard. He also suggested that a stronger emphasis was needed on outstanding article 22 cases in country reviews and in drawing up the list of questions.

A member of the Secretariat confirmed that language used by the various human rights committees with regard to follow-up was basically uniform. Of course, this Committee could look at changing its language. She also noted that, although follow-up to Views on article 22 cases were not systematically raised in the list of written questions submitted to countries, they generally were, as had been done with Serbia and Montenegro, reviewed at this session. It was, however, worthwhile to explore making that a systematic practice.

It was decided that Mr. Grossman and Mr. Mariño Menendez, in collaboration with the Secretariat, should draw up a draft proposal on how to provide better follow-up to article 22.

When the Committee next reconvenes in public, at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 November, it will meet with representatives of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Subcommittee was established by the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and oversees a system of regular visits by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT08037E