COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE MEETS WITH SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE TO DISCUSS SYNERGIES IN THEIR WORK

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. It also held a joint meeting with the Subcommittee and representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to discuss the issue of torture and ill-treatment with regard to persons with disabilities.

Claudio Grossman, Chairperson of the Committee Against Torture, in opening remarks, noted that he and the Chairperson of the Subcommittee had made a presentation before the last session of the General Assembly, noting their joint work together, and they had elaborated a draft resolution which had stressed the need to continue with their work together.

Victor Manuel Rodriguez Rescia, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, observed that there had now been 50 ratifications of the Optional Protocol, which meant that the Subcommittee membership would increase from 15 to 25 members. That would require a rethink about the nature of the Committee. Some of that related to the budget, but it also related to the Subcommittee's relationship with other bodies, including the Committee, as well as with non-governmental organizations. There had been seven visits and seven reports so far, and there was one more visit to be made this year. Among ways the Committee could help the Subcommittee was by encouraging States in its concluding observations to periodic reports to ratify the Optional Protocol, as well as to contribute to the Voluntary Fund for the implementation of the Optional Protocol.

Committee Experts then made comments and asked questions, including on methods for assessing the effectiveness of the Subcommittee's work; how the Committee could best support the Subcommittee; how much the work of the Committee influenced the Subcommittee in drawing up its programme for country visits; and how the two bodies could work to prevent torture in the context of anti-terrorism legislation. Making comments in turn, Subcommittee members identified a number of common areas on which the two bodies could work, including budgetary problems; weak follow-up on implementation; and a lack of coordination with other United Nations bodies.

The Committee then held a meeting on the issue of persons with disabilities in the context of torture and ill-treatment, hearing presentations by Silvia Lavagnoli, Human Rights and Disability Adviser with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who presented an overview of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in relation to torture, and Birgit Kainz-Labbe, Assistant to the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, who presented an overview of the interim report of the Special Rapporteur to the General Assembly on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Subcommittee 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 (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 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. 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).

When the Committee against Torture next meets in public on Friday, 20 November at 10 a.m., it will make public its concluding observations on State party reports considered over the past three weeks before formally closing its forty-third session.

Meeting with the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee Against Torture, in opening remarks, noted that he and the Chairperson of the Subcommittee had made a presentation before the last session of the General Assembly, noting their joint work together, and they had elaborated a draft resolution which had stressed the need to continue with their work together. Also noted was the ratification of 50 countries of the Optional Protocol, in such a short time, and the good work that had been done by the Subcommittee so far.

VICTOR MANUEL RODRIGUEZ RESCIA, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, noted that this was the third joint meeting with the Committee against Torture. As had been noted, there had now been 50 ratifications of the Optional Protocol, which meant that the Subcommittee membership would increase from 15 to 25 members. That would require a rethink about the nature of the Committee. Some of that related to the budget, but it also related to the Subcommittee's relationship with other bodies, including the Committee, but also with non-governmental organizations and others. There was a need to extend cooperation.

Regarding the implementation of the Optional Protocol Mr. Rodriguez Rescia reported that there had been seven visits and seven reports so far, and there was one more visit to be made this year. Next year, the Subcommittee planned to make three visits. The budget for the Subcommittee was very focused on visits, but the Subcommittee had other responsibilities, including providing advice and training regarding national prevention mechanisms. That required some attention.

Among ways the Committee could help the Subcommittee was by encouraging States in its concluding observations to periodic reports to ratify the Optional Protocol, as well as to contribute to the Voluntary Fund for the implementation of the Optional Protocol, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said.

Committee Experts then made comments and asked questions. An Expert wondered how the Subcommittee assessed its own effectiveness. In that regard, how did the contact group assess what had been done with civil society and what was planned in the future? Was there increased awareness in States parties that had been visited because of recommendations issued by the Subcommittee? An Expert noted that the Subcommittee had recommended to the General Assembly in its presentation that four visits by the Committee per year were too few, and had felt that eight visits should be made per year. How would those visits be divided up between the members of the Committee? Also, how did the Subcommittee balance the needs of States for visits with time constraints; financial constraints; and considerations regarding overlapping oversight mechanisms and the efficacy of such visits for torture prevention?

A Committee Expert asked the Subcommittee for advice on how the Committee could best support it, in particular with regard to recommendations to States on the design of national preventive mechanisms. An Expert asked how much the work of the Committee influenced the Subcommittee in drawing up its programme for country visits? Other areas identified for collaboration between the two bodies was work to prevent torture in the context of anti-terrorism legislation that provided for long periods of detention, among others; and with regard to a need for more resources for the two bodies to fulfil their mandates.

Making comments in turn, a member of the Subcommittee observed that of the 50 countries which had ratified the Optional Protocol, 30 had appointed national preventive mechanisms, 20 of them in Europe. Regarding cooperation between the two bodies, there were some problems they shared: budgetary problems; weak follow-up on implementation; and a lack of coordination among the United Nations bodies. They could certainly work on the third point together, in particular by defining a common agenda and developing an institutional architecture to support it. A Subcommittee Expert stressed the importance of visits to places of detention in preventing torture. In three fifths of European countries there was ill-treatment, and last week in Strasbourg it had been noted that torture committees had not been effective in stopping torture. The visit system was the only effective way in the medium term to monitor what was happening in States and to prevent torture.

A Subcommittee member, responding on the issue of recommendations regarding national preventive mechanisms, noted that countries received recommendations on such machinery from a number of different bodies. It would always be valuable to reiterate that States had to ensure that such bodies were elaborated in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Optional Protocol. But a key difficulty was the need to avoid giving conflicting signals. Unless there was a very high degree of coordination and collaboration with the Subcommittee, other bodies should perhaps best use restraint in making qualitative assessments of such mechanisms.

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee Against Torture, said that he and the Chairperson of the Subcommittee had gone to New York to ask for more resources and they had come back empty handed. The matter of resources was a matter of political will and one that they had to keep pursuing together. They should perhaps discuss priorities together to that end. While he was among those who felt that the Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review was a valuable tool, he was concerned about the impact of the Universal Periodic Review in terms of allocation to financial resources to the treaty bodies. They should further discuss their relationship with that mechanism to see how they could best make it work.

VICTOR MANUEL RODRIGUEZ RESCIA, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, said that they were trying to improve internal working methods during the transition period, before the accession of the new members. One suggestion was that the Committee against Torture/Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture Working Group be made up of members of the Bureau and not all the members of those bodies.

With regard to assessment of the national preventive mechanisms, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia raised a difficulty in regard to cooperation with other bodies such as the Committee or the European Committee on Torture, without undermining the principle of confidentiality. So how could they work together? For example, the Inter-American Commission had certain guidelines about persons deprived of their liberty, and they could apply those when making visits; similarly, guidelines developed by the African Union could be used in visits to African countries.

Country visits required a minimum of two members. If the Subcommittee carried out eight visits a year, it had to be very careful in its planning, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said. As for working with regional processes, that was done through donations.

Continuing the discussion, Members of the Committee and the Subcommittee reverted to the issue of confidentiality. It was pointed out that, if for the purposes of preventing torture, if the Committee were considered a trusted partner, information could be shared. A Committee member also considered it necessary that any information on cases of torture should be shared, as that was crucial to the Committee in its work.

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee Against Torture, noted that confidentiality was not absolute. Certain information could be shared. The reason for the confidentiality of the Subcommittee's reports was to preserve the dialogue with States. But, in at least one case that he knew of, a State decided to publish the Subcommittee's report. Then it became public domain and the Committee would use it.

Meeting on Torture and Ill-Treatment in the Context of Persons with Disabilities

SILVIA LAVAGNOLI, Human Rights and Disability Adviser with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, presenting an overview of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in relation to torture, noted that there were now 74 States parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with the addition of Bolivia yesterday. Adherence to the Convention was spreading rapidly, as was its rights-based model of considering persons with disabilities. With regard to torture and ill-treatment, there was a new understanding not only of torture as a cause for disability, but also the effect on persons with disabilities of putting them in prison or in detention. The Convention also helped to clarify what might constitute acts of torture or ill-treatment with regard to persons with disabilities.

Ms. Lavagnoli said it was important to ask what were treatments that would not constitute torture if applied to the general population, which would be considered as such for persons with disabilities. The line was very clearly defined in the Convention: it was any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the grounds of disability that impaired enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Convention also prohibited torture and non-consensual medical experimentation, with clear links and references to the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Articles of the Convention that should be taken into consideration in determining what constituted torture for persons with disabilities were article 3 (general principles), and article 12 (equal recognition before the law and legal recognition of persons with disabilities), and in particular the need for the free and informed consent of a disabled person, which could not be done by a surrogate, before receiving medical care, Ms. Lavagnoli underscored.

Finally, regarding the right to liberty and security, Ms. Lavagnoli observed that previous standards allowed for the detention of persons with disabilities on the grounds of their disability alone. As was known, putting persons in closed detention facilities exposed them to the danger of torture. Persons with disabilities were additionally burdened with being submitted to indefinite detentions.

BIRGIT KAINZ-LABBE, Assistant to the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, presenting an overview of the interim report of the Special Rapporteur to the General Assembly on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, looked at who was accountable for acts of torture and ill-treatment for persons with disabilities, broadening the scope of possible actors from State actors to medical personnel, as well as including privately inflicted harm. He spoke of the use of constraints and solitary confinement, and noted that they should be maximally restricted as they could amount to torture or ill-treatment under certain circumstances. Medical experiments were prohibited if they were not accompanied by free and informed consent. The report also discussed the issues of abortion, sterilization and electroshock therapy for persons with disabilities.

The Special Rapporteur had also made three recommendations to States with regard to persons with disabilities; the need to work on the principle of free and informed consent; the need to recognize the legal capacity of disabled persons; and the need for monitoring by anti-torture mechanisms to places where persons with disabilities might be held, Ms. Kainz-Labbe said.

Experts then asked questions, including on the issue of mental torture for persons with disabilities, and a Committee Expert underscored the importance of the initiative of the Special Rapporteur in reporting on the issue of torture and ill-treatment with regard to persons with disabilities and the legal framework for considering that question.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT09037E