COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS EXAMINATION OF REPORT OF MOROCCO

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the fourth periodic report submitted by Morocco on how it implements the provisions of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Introducing the report, Mahjoub El Haiba, Interministerial Delegate for Human Rights, said that Morocco had voluntarily committed itself to endorsing the principles, values and standards of international human rights law for over two decades. The ratification of the Convention in 1993 was part of the process of deep structural reform of the past two decades, marked in particular by legal reform. Since the submission of the report there had been constitutional, legislative and institutional reforms, and succession to international instruments for the protection and promotion of human rights. In September 2011 Morocco had ratified the Optional Protocol of the Convention Against Torture and it had also withdrawn its reservation to Article 20. The serious violations of human rights, including the practice of torture, committed in the past had been studied and the Commission for Truth, Equity and Reconciliation had been set up to compensate victims of those violations and to ensure they did not happen again. The Commission for Truth, Equity and Reconciliation had also drafted a national strategy to combat impunity, in particular incriminating torture, enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention. That strategy laid foundations for formulating public policy and for the coordination of different public bodies.

Furthermore two national human rights institutions, in conformity with the Paris Principles, had been established, which aimed to give Morocco a series of human rights mechanisms which were consistent, modern and efficient. One of the institutions, the National Council for Human Rights, oversaw penitentiary facilities, as well as children’s homes, hospitals, mental hospitals and places where irregular foreigners were being detained. For the past ten years Morocco had been in the process of adopting a new Constitution, alongside a new national charter of rights and liberties. That included the affirmation of equality between men and women, who would enjoy the same rights on an equal footing in every field of society. The new constitution would bring Morocco into line with international instruments. Morocco wished for an ongoing, interactive dialogue with the Committee in the process of implementing their undoubtedly helpful recommendations.

Abdoulaye Gaye, Committee Expert who Served as Rapporteur for the report of Morocco, welcomed the reforms introduced by Morocco, in particular the presumption of innocence, which had now been enshrined, improvements of custody treatment, medical examination and control exercised over police structure and places of detention by the Prosecutor’s Office. He asked the delegation to clarify the Moroccan definition on torture. Cases sited in the report had only one recorded instance of torture, as the other cases were all of violence or assault. Was that correct? As to statistics concerning the implementation of fundamental laws, such as a medical examination for detainees, and their access to a lawyer within the first hour of police custody, what were Morocco’s mechanisms for appointment of a lawyer if the person to be assisted had no money?

Other Committee Experts raised questions about access for persons with disabilities in detention, whether the Istanbul Protocol was included in training documentation for police officers, was there a fund that would apply in the case of torture or ill treatment by a public official and what were the penalties for female genital mutilation. A number of Committee Experts clarified an issue about violence against women by asserting that it was indeed a part of the Convention as there was a clear obligation of the State Party to prevent this violence under Article 2.

The delegation from Morocco included representatives from the Permanent Mission of Morocco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Commission on Human Rights, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Interior.

The Committee will next meet in public at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 2 November when it will start its consideration of the initial report of Djibouti (CAT/C/DJI/1). The Committee will hear the response of Morocco to the questions raised this morning on Wednesday 2 November, starting at 3 p.m.

Report of Morocco

The fourth periodic report of Morocco (CAT/C/MAR/4) notes that Morocco ratified the Convention against Torture on 14 June 1993, and embarked on a review of the situation of human rights to identify and rectify shortcomings. For this purpose, the Kingdom has drawn up a chronology of serious human rights violations and a Commission for Equity and Reconciliation was set up to receive complaints by victims. The Commission looked into these complaints and held public hearings giving the victims the opportunity to recount the violations they were subjected to. The body also reviewed cases of serious human rights violations, identified the victims and determined appropriate compensation. It prepared a full report on these cases and included in the report a number of recommendations and proposals with a view to the introduction of a legislative mechanism and other practical measures to prevent the perpetration of such violations in future.

The work of this body constituted an extension of the work started by the Independent Arbitration Committee, set up to compensate victims of disappearances and abductions from 1956 to 1999. That committee adopted a special approach in contacting victims and claimants, listened to their cases, determined the fate of others and awarded generous compensation to them or to their next of kin.

The new draft Criminal Code expanded the definition of torture to include all acts of torture committed by all persons, not only officials. In addition to the provisions relating to torture as a crime in its own right, the criminal law contains other provisions extending the protection given to individuals against acts of torture. Such provisions provide for the punishment of public officials, in charge of enforcing the laws, for abuse of their powers, resorting to violence, ordering the use of violence without legal grounds or detaining persons arbitrarily. The Criminal Code prohibits officials from over-stepping their authority or ordering the use of force without legal grounds. Such acts are severely punished under the Criminal Code and through disciplinary measures, all of which are intended to ensure the physical safety of individuals.

Introduction of the Report

MAHJOUB EL HAIBA, Interministerial Delegate for Human Rights, said that Morocco had voluntarily committed itself to endorsing the principles, values and standards of international human rights law for over two decades. Since the submission of the report there had been constitutional, legislative and institutional reforms, and succession to international instruments for the protection and promotion of human rights. In September 2011 Morocco had ratified the Optional Protocol of the Convention against Torture and it had also withdrawn its reservation to Article 20. The ratification of the Convention in 1993 was part of the process of deep structural reform of the past two decades, marked in particular by legal reform. The serious violations of the past had been studied, there was a concerted approach to compensate victims of those violations, or their families, and changes had been made to ensure they did not happen again. A Commission for Truth, Equity and Reconciliation had been set up. The body considered cases of serious violations of human rights, including practices of torture and carried out investigations and public hearings. The Commission considered the serious violations of human rights committed in the past, defined who the victims were and designed programmes to rehabilitate victims and return their dignity to them. In that context, and in order to follow up the recommendation of the Commission for Truth, Equity and Reconciliation, a national strategy to combat impunity had been drafted, in particular incriminating torture and enforced disappearance. That strategy laid foundations for formulating public policies and for the coordination of different public bodies.

A steering committee had been set up to ensure that the recommendations of the Commission for Truth, Equity and Reconciliation were provided for. Furthermore two national human rights institutions, in conformity with the Paris Principles, had been established. This aimed to give Morocco a serious of human rights mechanisms which were consistent, modern and efficient. The two institutions: the National Council for Human Rights and the Ombudsman, had had their powers to defend rights and liberties strengthened to ensure human rights could be defended and promoted locally. The National Council for Human Rights had power at a national level as well as at a local level. Its mandate granted it power to take action in any case of violation of human rights, and to convene any person that might be a witness to such violations. The Council also oversaw penitentiary facilities, as well as children’s homes, hospitals, mental hospitals and places where irregular foreigners were being detained.

Today’s dialogue coincided with an important time of reform in Morocco. For the past ten years Morocco had been in the process of adopting a new Constitution, alongside a new national charter of rights and liberties. That included the affirmation of equality between men and women, who would enjoy the same rights on an equal footing in every field of society. The criminazation of serious violations, such as torture, forced disappearances and arbitrary detention were all forms of grave discrimination which undermined human dignity. All of those crimes were set forth in the new constitution and were punishable by law. The new constitution would bring Morocco into line with international instruments. The Head of the Delegation said that he wished for an ongoing, interactive dialogue with the Committee in the process of implementing their undoubtedly helpful recommendations, and by the ratification of new Optional Protocols which Morocco had endorsed, in order to bring their actions into line with all instructions concerned with combating the practice of torture.

Questions by the Rapporteur

ABDOULAYE GAYE, the Committee Expert who Served as Rapporteur for the Report of Morocco, said that Morocco had made considerable efforts to consolidate a state of law in general, and in particular with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture, in particular, the presumption of innocence, which had now been enshrined, improvements of custody treatment, medical examination and control exercised over police structure and places of detention by the Prosecutor’s Office. The Expert noted the State party’s lifting of their reservation to Article 20 which meant that it was now possible for the Committee to receive individual communications relating to Morocco, and congratulated Morocco on its progress. However, in the light of all the information received by the Committee, there were many outstanding problems and the Committee must focus on the implementation of texts.

For instance, Article 1 concerned the scope of application of the notion of torture, which was broad. Thus certain distortions at a domestic level had been noted – the domestic provisions were far more limited than the Convention. The draft criminal code to bring national law more into line with the Convention’s definition of torture was noted with approval. Could the delegation clarify the Moroccan definition on torture?

In the example on cases sited in the report, there was only one recorded instance of torture, and the other cases were all of violence or assault. Was that correct?

As to statistics concerning the implementation of fundamental laws, such as a medical examination for detainees, and their access to a lawyer within the first hour of police custody, the Expert said he found it intriguing that to communicate with a client the lawyer was obliged to ask for permission from the public prosecutor. It was only possible for a defendant to appoint a lawyer in cases where the sentence would be over five years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, what were Morocco’s mechanisms for appointment of a lawyer if the person to be assisted had no money?

Custody for suspected acts of terrorism could be up to 12 days, but the Committee had not received the answers to the questions they had posed. Furthermore, the definition of the crime of terrorism was very broad and very vague, as a Government could always find something to prosecute anyone under it.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provided the Committee with a list of persons brought into custody for acts of terrorism, and who were allegedly tortured. The delegation had given some information on those 10 – 12 persons, but the information was incomplete. Had there been any enquiries about whether acts of torture were actually committed on those persons?

Allegedly persons supporting the independence of the Western Sahara region were frequently discriminated against or even tortured. The Committee had received not information on that.

Regarding conjugal rape, the delegation only gave information on cases where the rapist had married the victim, which was not necessarily the issue. Conjugal rape was a broader concept that affected a couple. Perhaps the delegation could supplement their answers on the issue?

Concerning Morocco’s action to contain migration towards Europe, and especially the European Union, the State party talked about the struggle they were waging against irregular migration and human trafficking. That was fine, but there was a confusion of questions here, and it was actually asylum seekers that might need international protection but who were put into the secret migration track. The State party’s action was unclear. There were many allegations of harsh treatment of migrants, especially those from Sub-Saharan Africa, but not much information had been given.

On the excessive use of force against migrants in 2005 there had not been any written replies. In Moroccan law could a person appeal against his or her expulsion, and what was the fate of a decision by an appeals court? If the reply to the question was affirmative could the delegation please give specific cases where courts had cancelled or overturned an expulsion order? Did an individual have to prove he would be at a high risk of being tortured if he was returned to his country of origin? Was the burden of proof on the individual concerned?

Names had been given of people arrested by the Moroccan authority, held secretly and then transferred to other States. Those people, apparently, were transferred either from Guantanamo Bay, or shipped onto Syria, outside all of the legal channels of extradition. The State party said all legal enquiries had been held and there was no proof that those people had been illegally transferred and shipped to a third country. However the State party did not say whether their enquiries had been by an independent and impartial body.

The Expert raised two cases of particular concern which had been mentioned in the State party’s written replies. One was that of a Russian man, Alexei Kalinichenko, who was extradited to Russia in 2011, where he may have been tortured. The State party said they shipped him to Russia because diplomatic assurances had been given that he had diplomatic protection, and that the Committee on Torture was slow to react to his case. If the State party looked at the correspondence they would see that the Committee was not slow at all, and the Committee had asked the State party not to extradite Mr. Kalinichenko until they had considered all the facts.

Questions by the Committee Experts

A Committee Expert noted the fact that Morocco had lifted their reservation to Article 20 of the Convention Against Torture, that in September 2011 it had ratified the Optional Protocol of the Convention, and the strengthening of institutional framework to protect human rights, which was an important development valued by the Committee. The Committee noted the inspiring principles of the new Constitution, particularly the equality between men and women and criminalization of violations of human rights, and any form of discrimination.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were now allowed to visit places of detention: however some NGOs reported they had been denied access to places of detention. What was the criteria to deny access, which NGOs had been denied, and why?

There had been complaints of rapes in prisons. Were those allegations being investigated?

There had been no comment on the death of 13 inmates, from a hunger strike, at the Salé prison in 2007. What did the State party think about that event?

An Expert said he came from a region (Latin America) that had a long history of forced disappearances. Collective experience of working on that matter showed that investigation and punishment were very important. What steps was the State party taking with regard to forced disappearances?

What was the status of 90 torture victims, brought to the Committee’s attention, who were not investigated despite the clear signs of torture on their persons? A very detailed answer was required on this issue.

An Expert said he was surprised to hear that the National Council on Human Rights had not yet received one complaint of torture. That was always a concern, the absence of complaints was always an issue. Thousands of persons had been in prisons and issues would happen, so there should have been complaints.

The State party said that in law signed confessions were not accepted as evidence of a crime, but were accepted as background material.

It was true that the delegation had an interest in not exposing Morocco to allegations that resulted from disclosure. However hundreds of persons were convicted after the Casablanca bomb by so-called confessions obtained from torture. Of course the Committee did not condone any act of terrorism, but could the delegation provide more information on whether confessions had been obtained through torture?

Concerning the moratorium on the death penalty in Morocco – had the State party considered extending that moratorium? Furthermore was it true that the 100 individuals on death row were not allowed visits from either their lawyers or their families? There were allegations that their conditions of detention were inhuman – was that true?

In Morocco a rapist could escape conviction if he married his victim. Often, if family members asked for the marriage to take place, in order to defend their honour, that would happen and the prosecution against the perpetrator would be dropped. To be married to your rapist, in a situation that had been forced by your family to get your rapist let off, would be a form of mental, if not physical, anguish for the woman. What was the Government’s position on that issue, and would the penal code be amended to abolish the practice? What was the timeframe for the draft bill on violence against women, and had conjugal rape been typified in it?

Moroccan women were very reluctant to report rape, as the State party had little understanding of it. Furthermore, victims of rape should be examined by medical personnel who were trained to detect signs of torture or ill treatment. Otherwise women had to provide a high standard of proof to show she had been raped, tortured or ill treated, provide a medical certificate and the names of witnesses of the rape, torture or ill-treatment. That negated any hope for the woman to prove that she had been ill-treated.

An Expert noted difficulties Morocco faced in implementing the Convention, especially in light of the case of Alexei Kalinichenko. There was absolute prohibition of using confessions of torture in any case, except for the prosecution of a torturer.

It was alleged that those alleged perpetrators of torture who worked at Salé prison had not yet been judged, as they were under the military jurisdiction. What court would be competent to try them and what prevented due process from being applied?

Concerning incommunicado detention of prison inmates, was that a punishment meted out to detainees? What guarantees existed to its length, and was there judicial control over it? Did the forensic experts belong to independent medical boards? Were there any pending disciplinary actions?

What was the punishment for committing acts of torture? The report named five persons who had been convicted of torture: where were those persons now? Were they retired? Were they returned to active service?

There were four identified cases of suicide in custody in 2010, and seven in 2011. How did the State party ensure independent investigations of those suicides? Did any of the relatives make claims regarding those cases?

The report says that the Commission of Human Rights had examined 17,000 files on torture allegations, and 10,000 persons had received compensation. The Commission on Human Rights said it had paid ‘reparations’ to 15,000 victims of disappearances or other abuses committed between 1956 and 1999, or to their family members. The Commission had now shifted its focus to providing free medical insurance to victims or their families as a form of ‘reparation’. Some NGOs claimed that the payments were unequal, non-transparent and there was a lack of objective criteria for the payments. Could the delegation comment on those criticisms, as it was a new and tremendous effort?

Pre-trial detention in Moroccan prisons was extensive, and while the option for bail existed it was rarely utilized. Over 56,000 inmates were in pre-trial detention. Were there considerations to utilize or extend bail provisions?

Could the delegation give information on persons held against their will in psychiatric hospitals, and whether they could receive visits from their family? What laws regulated psychiatric and mental health care in Morocco? The 1959 legislation was outdated. Who visited psychiatric hospitals to monitor them and ensure torture or inhuman treatment was not taking place?

An amendment to the criminal law allowed doctors and medical staff to confidentially report any acts of violence inflicted on women and children both inside and outside of the home. Was there a distinction between reporting on an adult and on a minor? Was there an obligation to report? Corporal punishment of children was still legal. What measures were being taken to prohibit the corporal punishment of children, in all settings, including the home?

There had been 89 cases of persons in custody dying while they were in custody. Were those deaths in connection with torture or ill-treatment? If so were the perpetrators duly punished and were the victims’ families duly redressed and compensated?

For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT11/028E