COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE MEETS WITH SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE TO DISCUSS SYNERGIES IN THEIR WORK
The Committee against Torture this afternoon held a meeting with Victor Manuel Rodriguez Rescia, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, hearing a presentation of the Subcommittee's third annual report, and discussing areas of collaboration between the two bodies.
Claudio Grossman, Chairperson of the Committee against Torture, in opening remarks, said the Committee was very happy to see the excellent work the Subcommittee had done. He was pleased to note that, following the fiftieth ratification of the Optional Protocol, the number of the members would grow this year.
Mr. Rodriguez Rescia, presenting the third annual report of the Subcommittee, noted that the Subcommittee was now becoming a mature body, and that would be underscored next year when it had its full complement of 25 members. In that connection, the issue of increased quality of the membership was an issue that the Subcommittee was concerned about – not just in terms of geographical distribution, but also in terms of variety of professionals. Some 80 per cent of the Subcommittee members were currently lawyers. But they also needed medical doctors, psychiatrists and other professionals to promote a multidisciplinary approach to their work.
The Subcommittee had undertaken three visits during the reporting period, April 2009 to March 2010, to Paraguay, Honduras and Cambodia. To date, the Subcommittee had issued seven visit reports, only three of which were public: the reports of Maldives, Sweden and Honduras. The issue of follow-up visits was just emerging, and Paraguay had been identified as a country that would merit such a visit. In the following biennium it was hoped to implement more follow-up visits, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia added.
There was a chapter in the report on national preventive mechanisms, and Mr. Rodriguez Rescia noted that there were different models found in different countries. The Subcommittee had not wished to get into a certification procedure in that regard, such as existed for the national human rights institutions, for a number of reasons. The Subcommittee did not believe in prototype models. Each country had its own context and approach.
Mr. Rodriguez Rescia noted that, unfortunately, one area of the Subcommittee's mandate had not been explored: the obligation to provide advice and assistance to parties on training to generate capacity for the national preventive mechanism. There had been no budget for that. To fill that gap, they had been working with civil society organizations to that end. Among trends, it had been noted that Asia was currently lagging behind in terms of ratifications and setting up of national preventive mechanisms. The Subcommittee had also established links with regional bodies as well. The report also emphasized the need to further strengthen cooperation among United Nations bodies mandated to fight torture and coordination regarding the various instruments, including the Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, the Istanbul Protocol, the Special Rapporteur on Torture and others.
Finally, the report contained a section on budgetary issues, in which it asked for further resources. It would be a shame if it were only to receive extra funds to accommodate meetings in Geneva for an additional 15 members, when the real work of the body took place in the field.
Other Committee Experts then made comments and asked questions. Noting that 21 States parties had not yet developed national preventive mechanisms, an Expert wondered what action the Subcommittee or the Committee could take to ensure that those countries established one. Also, while noting the Subcommittee's position that it would not certify national preventive mechanisms, what kind of evaluation would be provided for such mechanisms? A Committee Expert noted the Committee's prior recommendation that consultation be undertaken if the Subcommittee planed to undertake a country visits within six months prior to a scheduled review of that country by the Committee. There should not be confusion in the messages being sent to the State party concerned. It was probably time now to look at concrete coordination questions in a more structured way.
A Committee Expert raised the issue of urgent situations and what recourse the Subcommittee had to deal with them. For example, following the Subcommittee’s visit to Honduras in September, had the Subcommittee considered undertaking an urgent follow-up visit? What were the obligations of the Subcommittee in regard to any urgent issues or criminal actions it discovered, and to whom did it report on the country level? Another Expert raised the issue of what would happen if the Subcommittee uncovered the systematic practice of torture during one of its visits, given that the Subcommittee's mandate regarded prevention. In areas such as this, it was clear that neither the Subcommittee nor the Committee could remain silent, and there was an urgent need for coordination between the two bodies. Other concerns and issues raised by Committee members included regional distribution of membership, and a certain weakness in membership by African and Asian States, and the need to involve regional groups in changing those numbers.
Responding to comments and suggestions, on the issue of countries without national preventive mechanisms, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia noted that the figure really stood at 14 countries that were beyond the one-year deadline for establishing their national preventive mechanisms, while 7 countries were not late in doing so as of yet. To encourage compliance, the Subcommittee had been sending letters of reminder, and was tracking the effectiveness of those reminders. He also noted that States could complain that the Subcommittee had not been able to fulfil its mandate to provide assistance and advice to States on how to set up such a mechanism, as it lacked the resources to do so. The first systematic exercise in looking at whether States were complying with their obligations under the Optional Protocol would be undertaken this year.
Turning to the issue about timing visits in coordination with the Committee, in particular when a country review was scheduled, was something they needed to work on more, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia agreed. The Subcommittee was very conscious of the issues of overlap and complementarity. For that reason, the Subcommittee had given up the idea of undertaking visits to Europe, as such visits were already being undertaken by the Council of Europe mechanism.
Regarding evidence of systematic torture, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia observed that States liked to hear that the Subcommittee's reports were confidential. But that did not mean that they had to close their eyes. The reports were prudent, they did not print the names of the individuals concerned, but the Subcommittee did take note of the names and channel that information to the relevant committees or part of the United Nations Secretariat. If a crime was committed, that information was transmitted as well, and, according to the Subcommittee's mandate, it was able to inform the national mechanism of the facts of the case.
At the end of the meeting, Mr. Grossman strongly underscored the need for more informal contact between the two bodies. The Committee and Subcommittee needed to advocate for scheduling synergies; if they met at the same time and place, they would be able to meet informally more.
The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was established according to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which entered into force on 22 June 2006. It consists of 10 independent experts (soon to be expanded to 25) who work with national preventive mechanisms and carry out regular unannounced visits to places of detention in all States parties, with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of persons deprived of liberty against torture and other forms of ill treatment. The Optional Protocol also obliges States to set up independent national preventive mechanisms to examine the treatment of people in detention, to make recommendations to Government authorities and to strengthen protection against torture and comment on existing or proposed legislation. The Subcommittee is mandated to assist and advise the national preventive mechanisms about ways to strengthen safeguards relating to detention and reinforce their powers and independence.
When the Committee against Torture next meets in public on Friday, 14 May at 3 p.m., it will make public its concluding observations on State party reports before formally closing its forty-fourth session.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CAT10/020E