COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HOLDS DISCUSSION WITH SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE

The Committee against Torture this morning met with Manfred Nowak, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

In his presentation, Mr. Nowak particularly highlighted his discouragement with regard to the situation of detainees. There was a trend among Governments not to take responsibility for providing detainees with the most basic items such as food, water and a minimum of sanitary facilities. People slept on the floors in shifts, and were dependent on food from their families. Foreigners in detention were dependent on receiving food from others, which created dependences, sometimes slavery-like dependences.

Mr. Nowak reviewed the main thematic questions that he had focused on during his mandate. Most recently, he had looked at torture and women, including issues such as domestic violence and traditional practices such as female genital mutilation. Another special area had been the relationship between torture and persons with disabilities. From all of his fact-finding missions he had found that persons with mental disabilities were especially vulnerable. Of course, torture was also a major cause of creating disabilities. Particularly destructive was the "Ethiopian hanging style" where prisoners were bound like a wheel and hung up, which engendered long-lasting consequences. Moreover, in Equatorial Guinea some persons had been in solitary confinement in cells with leg irons for up to four years and, even in countries like Denmark, solitary confinement was widely used. If it was not strictly necessary, and if it was used for a long time, such a practise amounted to at least inhuman or degrading punishment. Finally, the issue of what the difference between torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was had been a focus, Mr. Nowak said, in particular in view of the stance of the United States regarding techniques to combat terrorism.

In the ensuing discussion, Experts discussed working together to follow up on country situations; extraordinary rendition and diplomatic assurances; the need to change mentalities and educate people about torture; the death penalty; violence against women; corporal punishment; and the right to rehabilitation for victims, even in countries that did not practise torture.

The Committee will address journalists at the Information Service’s regular briefing at 10:30 a.m. at the Palais des Nations, Room III, on Friday 21 November to make public its concluding observations on the reports considered at this session. At 3 p.m. on Friday, the Committee will hold a final public meeting at the Palais Wilson to discuss follow-up to concluding observations and its future programme of work before officially closing its forty-first session.


Statement by the Special Rapporteur on Torture

MANFRED NOWAK, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said that, when he had been appointed in December 2004, he had hoped that by the end of his mandate he would have a better understanding of torture around the world so that he could give a global report. It was turning out to be much more complicated than he thought, but they were working on the idea of an atlas of torture to see how far that phenomenon was still practised in the world.

On the basis of 13 or 14 missions he had done over the past four years, Mr. Nowak said he was not very encouraged. Rather the opposite. Not only was torture practiced in so many places throughout the world, but the plight of detainees was very bad.

Mr. Nowak identified three main goals when he went on missions. One was to assess the situation of torture practised by the government or the authorities. The second was to look into prison conditions. There he was very discouraged to find out that most prison conditions could be described as degrading or inhuman treatment. To give an example from his most recent mission to Equatorial Guinea – but this was also true of many other countries – the authorities did not take responsibility for providing detainees with the most basic items such as food, water and a minimum of sanitary facilities. He was talking about the conditions in police detention, which should not exceed 72 hours, but in practice lasted months, with people sleeping on the floors in shifts, and people dependent on food from their families. The many foreigners in detention who had no families to provide them with food were dependent on receiving food from others, which created dependences, sometimes slavery like dependences. The same was true with water. It was a general tendency that Governments treated detainees – whether convicted or not – "like animals" as many of the detainees had said.

The third purpose of going on mission was to start the process of sustained cooperation with Governments, Mr. Nowak said. Of course, that was only possible if the Government was willing. Then, if he saw that willingness, he would offer his services to facilitate development cooperation either with the United Nations Development Programme or other development partners with which he was working.

However, follow-up was extremely weak, Mr. Nowak conceded. Normally, he did not carry out follow-up missions, as he was always reminded by the United Nations Secretariat to not undertake more than two missions a year owing to financial constraints. So far, he had carried out four missions a year. However, it made it very hard to contemplate follow-up missions.

In terms of missions undertaken during his mandate, Latin America had been the region that had received the shortest shrift – with only one mission there. Most of the missions he had undertaken had been Asia, and he had undertaken missions in three missions in Africa and three in Europe . Mr. Nowak said he had also done joint reports on human rights investigations in Darfur and Guantanamo Bay.

On substantive issues, having been appointed in the middle of the war on terror, most of his thematic reports had been on the absolute prohibition on torture even in exceptional circumstances, including in war and emergencies, Mr. Nowak observed. Other focuses had been issues such as the obligation against non-refoulement and the question of diplomatic assurances with regard to extraordinary renditions, which he felt was always problematic. Another area of interest was the issue of corporal punishment, including capital punishment and whether, legally, capital punishment fell within his mandate as a "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

In his two most recent reports, Mr. Nowak said he had also looked at torture related to particular groups. Most recently, he looked at torture and women, including issues such as domestic violence and traditional practices such as female genital mutilation, and he had raised those issues on his country visits. In particular, in his mission to Moldova in July, he had carried out a joint mission with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, which had led to a very good common result, with issues of reporting on domestic violence and trafficking being explored in both of their reports.

Another special area had been the relationship between torture and persons with disabilities. From all of his fact-finding missions he had found that persons with mental disabilities were especially vulnerable. He had seen that in prisons, but also on visits to psychiatric hospitals. Of course, torture was a major cause of creating disabilities. Quite a number of detainees he had met had been subjected to suspension. Particularly destructive was the "Ethiopian hanging style" where people were bound like a wheel and hung up, which engendered long-lasting consequences, rendering them unable to use their hands for months afterwards and having to be fed by others, etc. In some cases those disabilities lasted for years.

Addressing solitary confinement, Mr. Nowak noted that in Equatorial Guinea he had found some persons who had been in solitary confinement in cells with leg irons for up to four years, without even the possibility of getting an hour of exercise a day. Such treatment definitely had an impact on mental health. However, even in countries like Denmark, solitary confinement was widely used. If it was not strictly necessary, and if it was used for a long time, such a practise amounted to at least inhuman or degrading punishment. In post-Soviet States, it was still a general practice that if people were sentenced to long terms or to a death sentence, in addition, they were kept in solitary confinement.

Finally, the issue of what the difference between torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had been a focus, Mr. Nowak said, in particular in view of the stance of the United States regarding techniques to combat terrorism.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, Experts addressed the issue of lack of resources for follow-up and the fact that this was an area that was particularly useful for the two mandates to work together. On extraordinary rendition, the Committee agreed that that was always a problem. The moment someone asked for diplomatic assurances was like waving a flag signalling that there was something wrong. The door should not be left opened to that practise.

Committee Experts raised issues and made comments on areas touching on the need to change mentalities, raise awareness and educate people about torture; the death penalty, and cases of stoning of women; corporal punishment; extraordinary renditions; and the right to rehabilitation for victims, even in countries that did not practise torture. An Expert said that the Special Rapporteur had raised quite a number of issues that were considered "grey areas" by the international community, such as capital punishment, gender-related violence, diplomatic assurances, and solitary confinement. However, the Special Rapporteur appeared to see those issues as often being not grey but white and black, which was often the Committee's position as well. These were areas they needed to explore further together.

Responding to Experts questions and comments, Mr. Nowak, addressing the issue of how to assess the extent of domestic violence as balanced against privacy concerns, noted that in his visit to Moldova that issue had been raised. Governments were often very good at concealing or denying practices of torture or conditions of detention. That was not so strong with regard to violence against women or harmful traditional practices. It was possible to go to women's shelters, which was not seen from the Government's side as intrusive into their sovereignty – as a visit to a prison might be – as the issue was not wholly their responsibility.

On an enforceable right of victims to compensation, while Mr. Nowak did not believe the Convention's article 14 created a responsibility of States to provide compensation to victims of acts of torture in other States, he did think it created a responsibility for Governments to assist a victim coming from another country to access reparation and reparation, and that they had a right to pursue that through legal means. He had been very disappointed by a recent ruling by the House of Lords turning down a British Court of Appeals ruling that would allow British citizens tortured in Saudi Arabia to directly sue the various officials involved. As many victims fleeing torture needed rehabilitation in the country to which they were fleeing, more had to be done to provide such victims with help. While the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture was good, it was not enough.

On extraordinary renditions, Mr. Nowak did not know of a country that had not had such flights. Europe had acted very quickly on this matter, with an investigation and two reports by Dick Marty of the Council of Europe, with a similar investigation undertaken by the European Parliament, which had requested all members to respond to those allegations. Unfortunately, the response by countries had not been good, with many hiding behind the charge of State secrets. The "global spider web" of secret places of detention was still being investigated and they had to continue to focus attention on this issue.

Regarding solitary confinement, yes it was a grey area, and had to be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, it was Mr. Nowak's opinion that case law so far was still fairly generous to solitary confinement. Even after a few weeks, solitary confinement could have lasting psychological consequences.

The death penalty was another such grey area. A problem was how it could be possible to prohibit corporal punishment without prohibiting the ultimate corporal punishment, capital punishment. This was an area where they would have to wait for a shift in interpretation on what "cruel and inhuman punishment" meant. The South African court had rendered the best judgement in this area, concluding that, under their Constitution, capital punishment constituted cruel and inhuman punishment.

Finally, Mr. Nowak hoped that it would be possible to institutionalize the working relationship between his mandate and the Committee, and to ensure synergies between them.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT08039E