Experts of the Committee against Torture Commend Kiribati on Legislation on Gender-Based and Domestic Violence, Ask Questions about Conditions in Detention Units and the Definition of Torture
The Committee against Torture this morning concluded its consideration of the initial report of Kiribati on its efforts to implement the provisions of the Convention against Torture, with Committee Experts commending the State on its legislation on gender-based and domestic violence, while asking questions about conditions in detention units and establishing a definition of torture.
Anna Racu, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said it was positive that Kiribati had developed and implemented the gender-based violence strategy, which was an important, strategic policy document. It was also positive that Kiribati had adopted the Family Peace Act in 2014, which stated that perpetrators of domestic violence would be prosecuted.
Ms. Racu asked how the State solved problems relating to the infrastructure of detention units? How did the assessment of detainees take place? What were prisoners’ levels of access to medical treatment? Were there educational programmes on how convicted persons could obtain employment? What were disciplinary sanctions imposed on prisoners?
Todd Buchwald, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said concerning the incorporation of the provisions of the Convention in domestic laws, establishing a specific crime of torture as per the Convention played an important role. The absence of a definition of torture in Kiribati’s legislation was due partly to its recent ratification of the Convention. Did the Government anticipate incorporating a definition in domestic law? How long would this kind of legislation take to enact? Did the State see problems in enacting this legislation?
Responding to questions, Kaaro Neeti, Secretary for the Ministry of Justice of Kiribati, Chairperson of the Kiribati National Human Rights Taskforce, and head of the delegation, said the Government was trying to build new dorms for inmates in prisons as the current dorms were very old. The Government was doing its best to seek funding and build new dorms to cater for the increasing number of inmates, and to improve the ventilation of the dorms which inmates were living in. There were no medical officers at the prisons, but prisoners who required medical assistance were taken to the hospital, including for medical check-ups.
The delegation said there was no definition of torture within legislation in Kiribati. While some offences contained some elements of torture, it was very important to have a concrete definition of torture within the law. This needed to be done to ensure that torture would be analysed and differentiated from other offences outlined in the State’s legislation. It was important for the country to have a specific offence of torture.
In opening remarks, Ms. Neeti said Kiribati was tiny and made up of small islands spread across a vast ocean, with a total population of 120,000. The Convention against Torture had been ratified in 2019. While the Government of Kiribati fully supported the protection of human rights of all citizens, there was still much work to be done to comply with the treaty. In terms of the domestication of laws, Kiribati’s Constitution guaranteed the prohibition of ill-treatment to its citizens. The Penal Code also covered the criminalisation of those who committed ill-treatment in the form of torture and brutality to others, with the Mental Treatment Ordinance covering provisions for officers who caused bodily harm to patients. Kiribati acknowledged the external partners who had assisted the Government with capacity building, and hoped the dialogue would bring more insights to Kiribati on the Convention.
In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chairperson, thanked Kiribati for its participation in the dialogue. This had been important for both Kiribati and the Committee as it was hoped the Committee would be visible even in States parties which were far away. The first contact with the Committee had been a constructive and positive exercise.
Ms. Neeti thanked the Committee Experts for their insightful questions and congratulated the Co-Rapporteurs. Kiribati invited external partners and experts to support the implementation which would arise from concluding observations after the State review. It was important for the Committee to consider the limited resources of Kiribati and to start thinking of piloting certain projects that would gear up towards the full implementation of the Convention.
The delegation of Kiribati consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Attorney General, the Kiribati Police Services, the Mental Health Department, the Disability Inclusive Unit, the Ministry of Women, Youth, Sports and Social Affairs, the judiciary, the Ministry of Foreign Aaffairs, the Ministry of Education, and the Prisons Department, among others.
Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s seventy-eighth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 November to begin its consideration of the eighth periodic report of Denmark (CAT/C/DNK/8).
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Kiribati (CAT/C/KRI/1).
Presentation of Report
KAARO NEETI, Secretary for the Ministry of Justice of Kiribati, Chairperson of the Kiribati National Human Rights Taskforce, and head of the delegation, said Kiribati was tiny and made up of small islands spread across a vast ocean, with a total population of 120,000. The capital island was called Tarawa and it was where all the major activities and developments took place. It was the home of the Government and High Commissions. The small land space of the capital sometimes posed challenges. The Convention against Torture had been ratified in 2019. While the Government of Kiribati fully supported the protection of human rights of all citizens, there was still much work to be done to comply with the treaty. In terms of the domestication of laws, Kiribati’s Constitution guaranteed the prohibition of ill-treatment to its citizens. The Family Peace Act 2014 protected all families from torture and the Education Act 2013 worked to abolish corporal punishment in all schools to prevent torture of students.
The Juvenile Justice Act 2015 protected children in conflict with the law, keeping them out of prison and setting standards for the youth justice system. The Prison Ordinance provided for the rights of inmates not to be bullied or mishandled by officers. The Police Service Act served to protect detainees from the brutality of police, while the Police Powers and Duties Act was implemented for the protection of detainees, and the Police Services Standing Order was used for the measures taken when arresting and detaining citizens and others. The Penal Code also covered the criminalisation of those who committed ill-treatment in the form of torture and brutality to others, with the Mental Treatment Ordinance covering provisions for officers who caused bodily harm to patients. Kiribati acknowledged the external partners who had assisted the Government with capacity building, and hoped the dialogue would bring more insights to Kiribati on the Convention.
Questions by Committee Experts
ANNA RACU, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said in August this year, Kiribati became the first Pacific island country to submit its initial report under the Convention, which was a significant milestone for a country known globally for its vulnerability to climate change and other issues. The Committee was aware about the challenges that Kiribati was facing. There was not much data available on the correctional system in Kiribati, but it was hoped this would be received during the dialogue. What were the State’s views on improving detention conditions? Were alternatives to detention applicable in Kiribati and to what extent? How did the State solve problems relating to the infrastructure of detention units? How did the assessment of detainees take place? What were prisoners’ levels of access to medical treatment? Were there educational programmes on how convicted persons could obtain employment? What were disciplinary sanctions imposed on prisoners? Was there a possibility for them to be reviewed or appealed?
To what extent was solitary confinement applied as a sanction and what was its duration? Could updated data be provided on the amount of cell space for each individual? What measures had the State party taken to improve the material conditions of detention? To what extent did the correctional facilities have qualified and trained staff, including medical personnel? Could more information be provided on the trainings which had been provided to law enforcement personnel, including prison and police staff? Life imprisonment was provided in Kiribati for a large number of offences; were there limitations for persons under the age 18? How many inmates were currently serving life sentences?
The Committee was aware of efforts made by the State party to combat gender-based violence and to protect victims. However, there were areas of concern. Could statistics on gender-based violence and domestic violence cases be provided, including sanctions applied in such cases? What measures had been taken by the Government to prevent gender-based and domestic violence? Were there any opportunities for capacity building on this topic for judges, law enforcement and police officers? According to statistics, the number of convicted children was quite high. However, there were not enough reliable sources to assess this information; could more information be provided on the national legislation in this regard?
TODD BUCHWALD, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, noted the Committee’s appreciation of the report and the commitment to human rights it represented. Kiribati was small in land mass but widely dispersed. Could more information be provided about how the patriarchal nature of the country affected the implementation of the Convention? Kiribati’s adherence to the Convention was relatively recent and some aspects of its implementation were still work in progress. Concerning the incorporation of the provisions of the Convention in domestic laws, establishing a specific crime of torture as per the Convention played an important role. The absence of a definition of torture in Kiribati’s legislation was due partly to its recent ratification of the Convention. Did the Government anticipate incorporating a definition in domestic law? How long would this kind of legislation take to enact? Did the State see problems in enacting this legislation?
How did the role of customary law interact with statutory law? Had there been tensions or conflicts between these laws? What happened in cases of tensions or conflicts regarding obligations with international treaties? Were there standards governing a state of public emergency? Were there other tangible examples besides COVID-19 where a state of public emergency had been declared in the past?
It was welcomed that article 15 outlined that no law should be discriminatory. However, the Constitution made it possible to denigrate from this in times of public emergency; could the delegation comment on this?
What steps had been taken to address gender discrimination? What steps would be taken? What steps had been refrained from being taken, due to the risk of upsetting the “delicate social balance”? What measures were in place to prevent torture when police were detaining people? Was it guaranteed that before a person was charged, the police must inform the person of the reason for their arrest and their right to a lawyer? What was the time frame in which people needed to be informed of these rights? What did the Government do to provide people with legal aid? Was there a formal guarantee in law that any evidence gained through torture or abuse would be inadmissible in a court of law? How well had this worked in practice? To what extent were the details of detainees recorded? Could information on deaths of persons in custody be provided?
What kind of strategy did Kiribati have for working with international partners? How did Kiribati determine which human rights commitments were prioritised? One area which could be worthy to focus on was data; thoughts about data compilation as a priority would be particularly welcome. What projects would Kiribati prioritise receiving international support on?
Responses by the Delegation
KAARO NEETI, Secretary for the Ministry of Justice of Kiribati, Chairperson of the Kiribati National Human Rights Taskforce, and head of the delegation, said the Government was trying to build new dorms for inmates in prisons as the current dorms were very old. The Government was doing its best to seek funding and build new dorms to cater for the increasing number of inmates, and to improve the ventilation of the dorms which inmates were living in. There were no medical officers at the prisons, but prisoners who required medical assistance were taken to the hospital, including for medical check-ups.
The delegation said all prisoners were entered into the register without delay. Prisoner records were carefully and accurately maintained and kept up to date, including assessments of the conduct of prisoners. There were three correctional centres in Kiribati. There were no females currently convicted or remanded in the country. Kiribati lacked the expertise and knowledge to carry out specific training on how to control or secure an inmate, as well as how to deal with inmates with mental health issues. The only training staff received was on the prison modules and the discipline principles in prison. There were no prisoners on the outer islands and all prisoners had to be transported to the main islands.
Sixty-seven per cent of women and girls had experienced sexual abuse from their intimate partners. Programmes were underway within the State to combat gender-based violence. It was ensured that survivors would receive the quality services they needed. Training was provided to police officers and law enforcement to strengthen their roles under the Family Peace Act.
The delegation said there was no definition of torture within legislation in Kiribati. While some offences contained some elements of torture, it was very important to have a concrete definition of torture within the law. This needed to be done to ensure that torture would be analysed and differentiated from other offences outlined in the State’s legislation. It was important for the country to have a specific offence of torture. There had been cases in Kiribati where people had been ordered to leave their village, which could amount to torture. It was forbidden under law to send anyone from their village. A person had the right to stay where they wanted to stay. In certain cases, the Government had to interfere and discuss these matters with the village people. This was a case where customary law was in conflict with statutory law.
There were several standards governing public emergencies in the country under the Constitution, including that the state of emergency had an expiry date. From 2019 to 2021, the Ministry of Health had employed a national emergency team to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, the Ministry of Health had developed a medical assistance emergency team to receive training on emergencies and disaster management.
The Family Peace Act protected persons from domestic violence and gender-based violence. The Police Safety Order allowed for police officers to apply for emergency protection orders in the court, for victims of domestic violence. This could protect those at risk in domestic violence cases. If police received a complaint from the public relating to gender-based or domestic violence, the police were obliged to proceed with an investigation. The Act also bound the court to hear the matter as quickly as possible.
Before arresting a person, police officers let them know they had the right to remain silent and engage with a lawyer. If a person was unable to pay for a lawyer, they were entitled to apply to the Office of the People for legal aid. Those being detained were entitled to be provided with food, water and to call their parents or relatives. There had been cases where police who had committed misconduct were dismissed.
A comprehensive study of national laws was required to determine a singular act which complied with torture. Kiribati needed the experience of the international community and donors to provide technical assistance and help the State incorporate torture into domestic legislation. There needed to be a framework in place which complied with the Sustainable Development Goals. Capacity building in terms of the Convention needed to be provided, as well as funding to enable Kiribati to translate the Convention into the national language. Kiribati needed to be a peaceful country and the first country in the region to lead on the Convention. These were some of the dreams the country hoped to achieve after this review.
Questions by Committee Experts
ANNA RACU, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked for more information about the steps Kiribati was undertaking to eliminate sexual and gender-based violence? The Committee was aware that the current national action plan on this topic had expired in 2021; did Kiribati plan to adopt a follow-up to the national action plan? It was positive that Kiribati had developed and implemented the gender-based violence strategy, which was an important, strategic policy document. What steps were being taken to better educate and sensitise law enforcement and judicial officials on violence against women and girls, with a focus on protecting victims? How many cases of domestic violence had been prosecuted since Kiribati acceded to the Convention? Ms. Racu said it was positive that Kiribati had adopted the Family Peace Act in 2014, which stated that perpetrators of domestic violence would be prosecuted.
Could information be provided about access to health care for prisoners with disabilities and with mental health issues? What measures had been taken to aid children in conflict with the law, including any educational programmes for juveniles? The Committee was aware about steps taken by Kiribati to prevent human trafficking; what efforts had been made by the Government to prevent this phenomenon? Were there available services in the country for victims of trafficking? Were there any available capacity building activities on the Istanbul Protocol for medical personnel in Kiribati?
Could more information be provided on physical conditions in prisons? What was the existing complaints mechanism for inmates? What was the situation of life sentenced prisoners? How many prisoners were serving life sentences? What steps was the State party taking to improve conditions in detention units? What was the procedure of segregation of prisoners? What opportunities did prisoners have to access the outside world? Ms. Racu thanked the delegation for promoting human rights and the goodwill Kiribati had shown in implementing the Convention.
TODD BUCHWALD, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the National Human Rights Taskforce was originally the product of a merger between advisory committees. How was the Taskforce funded? Did it receive the funding needed to carry out its current mandate? What was the role of the Taskforce when it came to addressing the concluding observations of the Committee? What would be included in the mandate of the national human rights institution which the Taskforce could not provide? What would the timetable be to close such gaps? Were there organizational steps which could be taken to ensure responsiveness among stakeholders? Why were there no civil society submissions? What could be done to encourage this in the future?
The High Commissioner had made recommendations regarding accession to several key treaties. Kiribati had acceded to one of these treaties; were there thoughts on further accessions, including to the Optional Protocol to the Convention? What was the principle under which it would be determined that statutory rule or customary rule prevailed, in any situation? What situations were eligible to be declared a state of emergency? Did the complaints system in prisons operate in a confidential manner?
ANNA RACU, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said there were several non-governmental organizations in Kiribati? Did these organizations have access to places of detention and to what extent? Were they able to speak privately with prisoners? Had representatives of these organizations been trained in specific issues, including the monitoring of human rights in places of detention?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the new elimination of gender-based violence policy would run from 2023 to 2032 and covered five strategic areas. The State was working to strengthen programmes by working with communities and non-governmental organizations. Kiribati was also working to strengthen capacity building through working with stakeholders. These strategic areas would aim to address the prevalence of gender-based and domestic violence in the country. Kiribati did not have enough funding but was ready to continue the review of the Family Peace Act next year. Prevention topics on gender-based violence were included in schools. United Nations Women and other partners also provided support on this issue.
Due to lack of funds, the prisons were in a fairly bad state and required maintenance. This also related to the proper segregation of inmates. The lack of adequate cells and buildings meant segregation was mainly based on live-in dorms. It was difficult to segregate prisoners based on their classifications or the severity of their crimes. The prisoner family visits took this into consideration and scheduled visits for one day a week, every Sunday. Medical check-ups were carried out daily, if required, for each inmate. Prisoners were also escorted to daily appointments with legal officers if needed. There were four main disciplinary sanctions imposed on inmates, including confinement not exceeding four persons, deprivation of privileges, and extra work. There were only two inmates held in each cell. The number of people currently serving life sentences was 23; they were predominantly males between the ages of 30 to 60.
If a prisoner was thought to have a mental illness, they were escorted to be assessed at the nearby medical facility. If it was determined that they had a mental illness, they needed to be submitted for psychiatric care, and then returned to the prison with medication. There would be follow-up appointments to assess the prisoner’s progress. There were currently no juveniles in prison, but Kiribati had a new Juvenile Justice Act which had been amended, and was ready to be tabled in parliament. The point of the Act was not to put these children in prison, but allow them to go through certain rehabilitation programmes.
There were no cases of human trafficking in Kiribati currently. This crime was covered under domestic legislation pertaining to transnational organised crime. The Penal Code had been amended to increase penalties for offences of sexual violence. Kiribati currently had limited resources and could not collect data on gender-based violence; the plan was to have one officer dedicated to this task, to analyse how many cases had been prosecuted and the outcome of those cases. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, juveniles were young people (under the age of 18) and children. Some offences carried a mandatory life imprisonment sentence, including murder and treason, while for other offences it was discretionary. The definition of rape was also included in the revision of the Penal Code, to allow prosecutions of men and women for this crime. If a person was convicted of murder, the court would impose life imprisonment, but the accused could apply for a non-parole period.
Given the provisions in the legislation, it was important to take them into consideration. The serious cases now involved a lot of young offenders, including rape and murder cases. This issue needed to be addressed. Family or lawyer visits were supervised by correctional officers. As per the Penal Code, anyone who participated in or assisted in a crime could also be prosecuted as a principal offender. People could also be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit felony. There was a lot of training in Kiribati, but nothing specific on ill-treatment or torture.
Kiribati had not yet been able to support the building of dorms for prisoners, and was awaiting a financial development partner to provide assistance on that project. It was unsure if the Government could support this, and support was needed in this area.
The Human Rights Taskforce had its own funding, but this was very small and there was no indication that this would increase next year. The division held meetings but tried to limit spending and had partners, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Fiji and the United Nations Children’s Fund, which were the main supporters of the Taskforce. Kiribati did not have adequate resources for the implementation of the treaties to which it was party to, which made the work of the human rights division difficult. Kiribati was grateful to its partners who had provided significant external funding to assist the country in this regard.
Kiribati’s partners typically worked with non-governmental organizations. These partners, along with the non-governmental organizations, had assisted in the drafting of the report. The main issue in establishing a national human rights institution was funding support, as Kiribati did not have this currently. Regarding the Optional Protocol and other remaining human rights treaties, these were tabled to be approved on the priority list of the Human Rights Taskforce. The Taskforce was effective in terms of collecting data, but the issue lay in the changing of members and staff. Another critical issue the Taskforce was facing was the budget. The Taskforce was comprised of representatives from different ministries.
Closing Remarks
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chairperson, thanked Kiribati for its participation in the dialogue. This had been important for both Kiribati and the Committee and it was hoped the Committee would be visible even in States parties which were far away. The first contact with the Committee had been a constructive and positive exercise.
KAARO NEETI, Secretary for the Ministry of Justice of Kiribati, Chairperson of the Kiribati National Human Rights Taskforce, and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee Experts for their insightful questions and congratulated the Co-Rapporteurs. The dialogue had been intensive and Kiribati acknowledged the willingness of the Committee to allow it to be done virtually, which was greatly appreciated. Kiribati had learnt a lot from the constructive dialogue which would allow the State to realise where gaps lay pertaining to legislation and policies on torture. Kiribati invited external partners and experts to support the implementation which would arise from concluding observations after the State review. It was important for the Committee to consider the limited resources of Kiribati and to start thinking of piloting certain projects that would gear up towards the full implementation of the Convention.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CAT23.021E