COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF COLOMBIA

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Colombia to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee members on Tuesday, 10 November, the delegation, which was led by Angelino Garzón, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, provided statistics on 10,597 torture cases brought under the previous criminal regime, which had so far resulted in seven convictions and three anticipated sentences; and 419 cases under the current system, of which 21 had so far been adjudicated, with eight convictions handed down. Information was also provided on the implementation of the Law on Justice and Peace, which, among others, had permitted the opening of mass graves. To date, 2,778 corpses had been retrieved from 2,267 mass graves. Identification had been made of 758 of those bodies, of which 647 had been given back to their families already. The Law on Justice and Peace also provided for the creation of the National Committee for Reparation and Reconciliation, which gave technical support to the Public Prosecutor's Office so that it could hold virtual hearings with victims spread all over, and a reparations fund had been created this year, with more than $100 million in funds, to benefit some 10,000 families of victims in 2009. Prosecutions under the Law of Justice and Peace were still under way and they had not finished with investigations. They had so far initiated 4,763 cases against individuals and public servants.

With regard to prisons, the delegation noted that a number of measures had been introduced to help alleviate prison overcrowding. Currently, 11 new detention centres were under construction, with a capacity for 22,703 inmates, and those would be ready by August 2010 at the latest. In addition, a pilot electronic monitoring programme had been set up, which allowed for the surveillance of persons confined to house arrest by means of electronic bracelets, and 4,900 persons had participated in that programme so far.

In further questions and comments, Fernando Mariño Menendez, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Colombia, was concerned about the low number of torture cases that had actually resulted in convictions, indicating that there was no timely and effective redress for such crimes. With regards to mass graves and exhumations, it did not seem that the national search plan was overly successful – with only some 700 corpses identified. Moreover, while they had been told that there was a presidential bill with regard to such mass graves which would allow for the establishment of responsibility for torture or crimes related to torture, that still did not address the issue of reparations for victims.

Claudio Grossman, the Committee Chairperson serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Colombia, expressed concern that judges of the Supreme Court in Colombia had had to request interim protection measures from the Inter-American Court of Justice.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Colombia towards the end of the session on Friday, 20 November.

As one of the 146 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Colombia is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 12 November, it will hear the replies of the Republic of Moldova to questions posed by Committee Experts at this morning's meeting.

Response of Colombia

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Tuesday, 10 November, the delegation of Colombia said, with regard to the independence of the judiciary, that the Judicial Branch was an autonomous branch by constitutional mandate, with 4,454 judges and magistrates and 18,441 administrative staff, who were selected upon the basis of success in public examinations and a merit-based examination. Appointment of judges to the high courts was done according to regulations set out in the Constitution, with appointments made sometimes by the Judiciary and sometimes by the Congress.

There were no ordinary judges that functioned in military barracks or police stations except those judges and prosecutors who were in the military or police system, and their functions were well defined by law. The delegation also informed the Committee that the Executive had no bill before Congress, which would grant police functions to the military.

Neither the Supreme Court nor any other high court had solicited protection orders from the Inter-American system, the delegation underscored; that had been done by two individual judges of the Supreme Court, but the State did not recognize the legality of those requests. Moreover, the Colombian justice system had its own security system that was administratively and financially independent.

Citing cases of investigations of members of the Government, the delegation noted that 70 parliamentarians or civil servants of high rank were currently being investigated or had been convicted and that 150 military personnel had been convicted, out of 300 that had been taken to court, while 800 cases of homicide of protected persons were currently being investigated.

Criminal military justice had its own procedures and jurisdiction, and did not deal with crimes involving human rights violations, crimes against humanity, sexual crimes, or crimes against the staff of the military, the delegation explained.

The delegation said that in Colombia there were no boys or girls below 18 years of age involved in the military or in the police. Colombian law specifically prohibited the recruitment of minors in such areas. In addition, starting this year, conscientious objectors were not required to perform mandatory military service.

The delegation said that, with the cooperation of the international community, the Government had been able to demobilize 3,800 children involved with armed groups. Those children were receiving attention from the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare. Moreover, as part of its voluntary obligation entered into in the context of the Universal Periodic Review of Colombia, the Government had accepted the monitoring mechanism envisaged by Security Council resolution 1612 regarding children and armed conflict.

Turning to investigations brought for torture, under the previous laws, 10,597 investigations had been carried out in cases of alleged torture, of which 6,088 were in the preliminary investigation phase; 442 were at the instruction phase, i.e. still hearing witnesses; seven had been referred to the courts; and 4,060 had been complaints addressed to national or international mechanisms and had not been brought to the Public Prosecutor for investigation. Three cases had been given anticipated sentences. Regarding investigations under the new laws, there had been 419 investigations into presumed cases of torture brought, of which 382 were in the preliminary investigation phase, eight were in the witness-hearing phase, 21 had been adjudicated and eight convictions had been handed down.

The Law on Justice and Peace had, inter alia, permitted the opening of mass graves. To date, 2,778 corpses had been retrieved from 2,267 mass graves. Identification had been made of 758 of those bodies, of which 647 had been given back to their families already. That law had also provided for the creation of the National Committee for Reparation and Reconciliation, which gave technical support to the Public Prosecutor's Office so that it could hold virtual hearings with victims spread all over and a reparations fund had been created this year, with more than $100 million in funds to benefit some 10,000 families of victims in 2009. Prosecutions under the Law of Justice and Peace were still under way and they had not finished with investigations. They had so far initiated 4,763 cases against individuals and public servants.

In 2006, a sub-unit to the exhumation unit was created in the Attorney-General's office. Here, the delegation explained that the reason that some prosecutors worked out of military barracks in remote regions was related strictly to issues of personal safety and the safety of their families. That did not mean that there was any interference of the military with the decision of the prosecutors.

Turning to issues of gender violence, the delegation noted that, by the decision of the Constitutional Court of 2008, the Attorney General had taken a number of measures, including the creation of a separate database for sexual violence cases; provision of training for judicial staff; and the creation of Prosecutor's Offices to deal specifically with violations involving sexual violence. It was also highlighted that a law of 2007 increased the penalty for domestic violence and a 2008 law incorporated the concept of violence against women in accordance with the definition set out in the Beijing Convention and the platforms of action Vienna, Cairo and Beijing.

With regard to the visits of Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial executions and on human rights defenders, the delegation underscored that those visits had been done at the invitation of the Government as part of the voluntary commitments it had entered into in the context of its Universal Periodic Review. In their press conferences, the Special Rapporteurs had noted progress made in the fight against extrajudicial executions and in protecting human rights defenders, as well as recognizing the material difficulties Colombia faced. It was further noted that the reports of both Special Rapporteurs had not been made public yet and would be presented to the Human Rights Council in 2010.

Regarding witness and victim protection, there was a victim and witness protection programme under the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, which had been in operation since December 2007. None of the 112 women and 79 men who had participated in that programme had been the killed, the delegation noted.

Turning to the issue of prisons, a number of measures had been introduced to help alleviate prison overcrowding. Currently 11 new detention centres were under construction, with a capacity for 22,703 inmates, and those would be ready by August 2010 at the latest. In addition, a pilot electronic monitoring programme had been set up, which allowed for the surveillance of persons confined to house arrest by means of electronic bracelets, and 4,900 persons had participated in that programme so far.

In detention centres there were human rights committees made up of and elected by detainees, supported by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Ombudsman's Office, as well as with assistance from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the country. There was also a Human Rights Counsel in each centre, generally a member of the prison staff, who could act as a liaison between the detainees and the Prison Director, although that did not prevent direct contacts between detainees and the Prison Director, the delegation underscored.

Further Questions by Committee Experts

FERNANDO MARIÑO MENENDEZ, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Colombia, did not believe that the delegation had responded on the issue of extradition of paramilitary leaders to the United States, and asked again if they could address that issue.

Referring to sentences for torture investigations, Mr. Mariño Menendez asked for clarification about the dates of the cases mentioned today. More importantly, if he understood correctly, there had been only 10 sentences handed down with regard to the 10,597 cases prosecuted under the prior legal procedure and only eight out of 419 cases brought under the current procedure. That required some explanation; otherwise the figures spoke for themselves. It indicated that there was no timely and effective redress for such crimes.

As regarded mass graves and exhumations, it was true that a national search plan was in operation, but it did not seem that that plan was overly successful – with only some 700 corpses identified. They had been told that there was a presidential bill with regard to such mass graves which would allow for the establishment of responsibility for torture or crimes related to torture. Even so, that did not address the issue of reparations for victims.

Mr. Mariño Menendez was also concerned about how the military technical investigation units responsible for digging up the mass graves would work with the civil bodies responsible for prosecuting such crimes.

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Chairperson serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Colombia, was concerned that judges of the Supreme Court had had to request interim protection measures from the Inter-American Court of Justice. Despite the delegation's assertion that the national judiciary had its own security system, the fact that those judges had made such requests (which were subsequently granted) raised serious questions about the ability of that security system to protect them.

Mr. Grossman asked about the provision that solitary confinement could only be applied for "serious offences" and asked what the criteria for determining a serious offence were.

Other Experts asked a number of questions including on the situation of psychiatric patients; insufficient measures to address forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings; reports that farmers were subject to land confiscations; apparent impunity for perpetrators of torture, given the low conviction rates; and whether any of the 183 cases of violence against women that had given rise to the Supreme Court's 2008 order had been investigated yet.

Response by Delegation

Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation said that, on the 18 individuals extradited to the United States, dates had been fixed as of July 2008 to hear those extradited individuals who had been linked to the Law of Justice and Peace. Recently, together with international cooperation, the Government had asked for information on other extradited individuals.

Concerning solitary confinement and the case of the man who had allegedly been in solitary confinement for one year, the delegation observed that few persons were in solitary confinement, and most of them were in maximum security prisons. It was also pointed out that isolation or solitary confinement was not only accorded as a punishment, but could be used in cases of illness or at the request of a prisoner.

As for guarantees for and reparations for displaced persons, in particular displaced farmers, the Government provided for such persons in two stages: first by attention to urgent needs; and, secondarily, in assisting them to return if possible. A number of successful returns had been carried out. However, that was not always possible. Sometimes the displaced settled elsewhere and did not want to return; and sometimes it was not possible to guarantee the safety of return. The delegation also noted that there was special legislation that benefited indigenous communities.

Regarding the three mental health units in the prisons, the delegation noted that if necessary inmates or prisoners could also be sent to other health care centres or hospitals if the appropriate care was not available.

With respect to the issue of impunity, Colombia had a fairly critical situation at present. Assassinations of public officials, in particular those investigating corruption, occurred. They were living in fear. To fight impunity they had to send the message that organized crime would not stop them. They needed to develop indicators that would allow them to measure the fight against impunity. The Government needed the Committee's help to do that. It was true; they had to find a way out of the violence. This was not something new in Colombia. That meant knowing the truth, establishing justice and providing reparations.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT09033E