COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE MEETS WITH SUBCOMMITTE ON PREVENTION OF TORTURE

The Committee Against Torture this afternoon held its third meeting with the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and discussed areas of collaboration between the two bodies.

Claudio Grossman, Chairperson of the Committee Against Torture, in introductory remarks said that both bodies had developed good relations and the Committee Against Torture greatly valued what the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was doing.

Silvia Casale, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, said that the Subcommittee had a very good formal and informal relationship with the Committee Against Torture and they were all working to achieve the same goal. If national preventive mechanisms were doing their work properly, both bodies would have a very different job to do. Concerning the Optional Protocol, there had been two recent ratifications; those of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kazakhstan, bringing the total number of ratifications to 37. Also, 32 other States had already signed the Optional Protocol and were moving towards ratification. However, she noted that the Subcommittee did not have enough resources to do everything that needed to be done to prevent torture.

In the ensuing discussion, experts discussed various issues of collaboration between the two bodies, how the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was conducting country visits, what it had found out in its review of national preventive mechanisms and how confidential information could be shared between the two bodies.

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. Advising and assisting in the development of effective and independent national preventive mechanisms is also another key element in the Subcommittee's work and forms an important part of each visit. 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 persons believed by the Subcommittee to be able to provide relevant information.

The Optional Protocol has been ratified or acceded to by the following 37 States: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.

The 10 members of the Subcommittee are: Silvia Casale (United Kingdom), Mario Luis Coriolano (Argentina), Marija Definis Gojanovic (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).

The Committee against Torture will meet again in public on Thursday, 20 November at 10 a.m. to exchange views with the Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Opening Statements

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee Against Torture, in introductory remarks said that both bodies had developed good relations and the Committee Against Torture greatly valued what the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was doing.

SILVIA CASALE, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, said that the Subcommittee was very happy to be here, and appreciated the time spent with the Committee Against Torture. They had a very good formal and informal relationship with the Committee Against Torture and they were all working to achieve the same goal. If national preventive mechanisms were doing their work properly, both bodies would have a very different job to do.

Turning to the items they wished to discuss, Ms. Casale said that, concerning the Optional Protocol, there had been two recent ratifications, those of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kazakhstan, bringing the total number of ratifications to 37. Also, 32 other States had already signed the Optional Protocol and were moving towards ratification. This was an interesting time for the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture. However, she noted that they did not have enough resources to do everything that needed to be done to prevent torture.

Turning to the Annual Report of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture to the Committee Against Torture, Ms. Casale said that last time, it had been issued a bit late and they wished to make it available for the Committee Against Torture one month before the official presentation in the future. On regular contact and joint Working Groups between the two bodies, she noted that work had already started in this direction.

Questions and Comments by Committee Experts

Committee Experts then made comments and asked questions. They said that they were following the work of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture with great interest; the work it was doing with regard to national preventive mechanisms was very important. Experts also discussed the way that the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was conducting its visits and how to ensure that there was no overlap between the work of national and regional human rights bodies and the Committee Against Torture.

Experts also discussed Committee recommendations that were not being implemented by State parties and how to deal with them. One Committee Expert noted that the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture had visited five countries and asked what criteria the Subcommittee had used when deciding which country to visit.

Also, how was the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture monitoring national preventive mechanisms? If the Subcommittee was not convinced by the way a national preventive mechanism was operating, how did the Subcommittee monitor this and act on it? Also, how was the communication going on between national preventive mechanisms and the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture? Further, did the Subcommittee ask States parties for statistics? One Expert noted that if this work with data was public, it could be interesting information for the Committee Against Torture. Also had the Subcommittee investigated the training of staff in charge of detention and custody areas?

Concerning the national preventive mechanisms, Experts wondered if they were established by law. Had some of them been created through executive orders and if so was that a good way? Further, were national preventive mechanisms also specializing into specific issues, such as gender protection or psychiatric institutions? And how was the reporting working in countries with national preventive mechanisms? Was it adequate? Was the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture also checking that the national preventive mechanisms were being set up in line with the Paris Principles?

Experts also discussed the possibility to have experts attend each other’s meetings and other ways of collaborating. Country visits were very important and one of the issues was the sharing of information the Subcommittee acquired during its visits. As there was a principle of confidentiality on the reports of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, it was difficult for the Subcommittee to share it with the Committee Against Torture. One Committee expert thus proposed to put this question on the agenda of items open for discussions. Further, the issue of prevention was very important for the Committee and it had a lot to learn from the Subcommittee’s work.

Answers by Subcommittee Experts

In answers to the questions and remarks raised by Committee Experts, Subcommittee Experts said that out of the 37 States Parties, only some had already set up national preventive mechanisms. As it was in its first years, the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was still in construction, and especially the coordinated work and the sharing of information between the two bodies still had to be established.

Concerning national preventive mechanisms, these were one of the Subcommittee’s major areas of work. They were trying to collect as much information as possible about them. The Subcommittee however did not have enough resources and workforce to build up a complete database on them. What was obvious from their experience was that there was not one single model of national preventive mechanisms. Often, the local Ombudsman was nominated as the national preventive mechanism and was supported by national organisations or independent non governmental organizations. Further, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe had also started a review of national preventive mechanisms in its member countries and the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was collaborating with them.

One Subcommittee Expert noted that an important step would be to convince decision makers to put in place national preventive mechanisms in their countries.

Another Subcommittee Expert noted that when carrying out visits, they were often meeting people that had been victims of torture, but their work was to only look into the implementation of the prevention of torture and not into cases themselves. Thus they needed to have a joint mechanism to share such information with the Committee Against Torture, in full confidentiality. The issue of the confidentiality was an important issue, as States Parties trusted the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture not to make the information they were submitting in their reports to the Subcommittee public. They did not yet have a clear idea on how to deal with this issue, in order to share information with the Committee Against Torture.

Concluding Observations

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee Against Torture, in concluding observations said that today, they had identified important topics for further discussion. They had to find multiple forms of information-sharing. The topic of prevention was very important and this should be looked into in depth, as the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture had a lot of experience in it. They would also send an official request to the United Nations, asking that when the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was meeting, the Committee Against Torture should meet in the same place in order to facilitate collaboration.

SILVIA CASALE, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, in concluding observations said that members of the Committee Against Torture were welcome to participate in the Subcommittee’s country briefings. Further, both bodies needed to work together and to set up areas of collaboration and she believed that that way they could make significant steps forward.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT08038E