COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS FOLLOW-UP TO COMMUNICATIONS AND CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The Committee against Torture this morning considered follow-up to its concluding observations on country reports and to communications by individuals alleging their rights under the Convention against Torture had been violated, hearing presentations by Committee members on each topic.

Committee Member Felice Gaer, Rapporteur for follow-up to concluding observations, said that there were some 14 follow-up reports due annually and noted that the follow-up procedure had been remarkably successful in eliciting valuable additional information from States on protective measures taken during the immediate follow-up to the review of the periodic reports. Of 67 States whose follow-up reports were due prior to the Committee's forty-third session, 50 (or 74 per cent) had provided information to the Committee. Based on those responses, she had drawn up a list of recurring concerns, including greater precision by which police and other personnel inform and instruct detainees of their rights; the protective value of investigations; the need for professional police training programmes to address torture and the sequelae of torture; and the lacunae in statistics – the need for both more vigorous fact-finding and analysis of statistics.

Ms. Gaer then presented the results of a study undertaken to assess the impact of the concluding observations, based on the first 50 per cent of the States to fall under the procedure (39 States). The top 10 most frequently addressed follow-up issues, by order of frequency, were: prompt, impartial and effective investigation; legal safeguards; the right to complain and have cases examined; prosecution and sanctions; improvement of conditions of detention (i.e. overcrowding); gender-based violence/protection of women; protection of minorities from torture and ill-treatment based on racial discrimination and xenophobia; monitoring of facilities; non-refoulement guarantees; and interrogation techniques in line with the Convention. She had been surprised to find that redress and rehabilitation for torture victims were not among the top-10 issues for follow-up, and the Committee should consider changing that.

Looking at the top five issues by region, it had been found that, with regard to the Western Europe region and other States, the top issues were non-refoulement; prison conditions; legal safeguards; extradition and diplomatic assurances; and protection of minorities, Ms. Gaer reported. With regard to Eastern Europe, the top issues were the right to a prompt, impartial and effective investigation; the right to have a complaint examined; legal safeguards; prosecution and sanction of perpetrators; and conditions of detention. In Africa, as well as in the Asia and Pacific region, the top five issues involved abolition of unauthorized places of detention, military and administrative custody; monitoring of facilities; the right to prompt, impartial and effective investigation; and prosecution and sanctions for perpetrators. In North and South America, the leading issues were prompt, impartial and effective investigation; gender violence and trafficking; data collection on torture cases; training and awareness-raising; and protection of minorities or specific populations. Based on those findings, the Committee should ask some questions about its follow-up procedure in order to make it more effective. Should they standardize the follow-up and use it to rank States by order of compliance? Should they be ranking recommendations in terms of importance? Moreover, should the Committee require visits to countries after the initial report, as had been done by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women?


In the ensuing discussion a Committee Expert was surprised to find that monitoring was not always a top-five follow-up question. Experts suggested, inter alia, that there be a greater coordination between the follow-up questions and the list of issues to be submitted to States, as well as with recommendations made by other human rights bodies, including the Human Rights Council; and that there was a need to reflect on the work of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture in the context of this Committee's follow-up procedure. An Expert did not think that there should be a standardized follow-up questionnaire, as each State had its own specific issues. Committee Chairperson Claudio Grossman observed that, while one size did not fit all, and different countries had different situations, they should still strive for a standardized approach wherever possible: once the Committee had formulated something one way they should not simply change it the next time. He also drew attention to priorities that he thought needed to be addressed in follow-up: prevention; impunity; and rehabilitation and reparation for victims.

Presenting the report on follow-up to individual communications (article 22 of the Convention), Committee Expert Fernando Mariño Menendez noted that no response had been made to requests for follow-up information from Canada (non-refoulement obligations). Canada's position was that it did not have any obligation under the Convention in regard to that case. He suggested that the Committee send a reminder to Canada, recalling its obligations, regretting the lack of reply and informing other United Nations mechanisms of the fact. Thereafter the case should be considered closed. He also suggested that they pursue remedies for the individual through other avenues, including through requests to his country of origin, India.

Other Committee Experts and the Chairperson were for keeping the case open, as the individual's rights were at stake and to close the case would set a bad example for other countries. Governments changed, and that that often led to a different perspective on these cases. They also could not forget that compensation was involved, and that India was not a party to the Convention. They could send a request for further information to Canada asking about what compensation had been paid. It was agreed that Mr. Mariño Menendez should draw up a revised recommendation, keeping the case open.

In another Canadian case, involving return of a Mexican national, the individual had since voluntarily returned to Mexico and Mr. Mariño Menendez recommended the case be discontinued. On a Spanish case alleging failure to examine a complaint promptly and to provide an impartial investigation, Spain had responded and the date for the complainant to comment on that had not expired yet. It was recommended that the Committee await that response. In another complaint against Spain, involving the duty to prevent torture, to impose appropriate punishment and to provide compensation, the Committee was awaiting Spain's response and it was also recommended that no specific action be taken. In a Tunisian case involving the request for an exhumation order to perform an autopsy so as to determine whether torture had taken place, the complaint and responses had gone back and forth a couple of times between the Complainant and the State party, and finally the Rapporteur had had a meeting with the Tunisian Ambassador in Geneva. Following that interview, in August 2009, it appeared that Tunisia had accepted the Committee's recommendations, as proceedings had been commenced in Tunisia for the exhumation of the body and for an autopsy to be performed. It was recommended that the Committee welcome the activities carried out so far and that it recommend that the autopsy be carried out by a panel of four independent experts. Finally, on a second complaint against Tunisia regarding a lack of prompt and impartial investigation and failure to redress a complaint, that dialogue was ongoing and no specific action was recommended.

The Committee agreed to adopt all the above recommendations, as discussed and orally changed in the case of Canada.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT09036E