COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE DISCUSSES FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS AND TO REPRISALS

The Committee against Torture this morning discussed follow-up to concluding observations and to reprisals.

Presenting the report on follow-up to Article 19 on concluding observations, Committee Expert and Rapporteur Abdelwahab Hani said that only about 10 per cent were completely satisfactory. The effective and total implementation of recommendations was quite weak overall; what was often found was partial implementation of the recommendations (in 60 per cent of cases), while in some 30 per cent of cases there was no implementation whatsoever of the Committee’s recommendations. In the ensuing discussion, the issue of the duration of the follow-up period was discussed, as well as enhancing cooperation with civil society and academia, and strengthening national mechanisms to implement recommendations.

Alessio Bruni, Committee Member and Rapporteur on follow-up to reprisals, stated that the Committee had been informed about the letter sent by Burundi’s General Prosecutor to the Bar Association, requesting the removal of the four lawyers who had taken part in the drafting of the alternative report submitted to the Committee. It was said that some of the lawyers had participated in alleged acts in violation of the code of ethics. This appeared to be a clear example of reprisal. The Committee then discussed how to proceed if no reply was received from the Government of Burundi, and what measures could be taken in general to better protect human rights defenders and those cooperating with the Committee.

The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 12 August at 10 a.m. for the closing of its fifty-eighth session.

Follow-up to Concluding Observations

ABDELWAHAB HANI, Committee Member and Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations, stated that the Committee was not satisfied with only having States parties’ reports, but also invested significant efforts into evaluating them and going into substance. Between 2003 and 2016, out of 167 reports that were due, the Committee had received 119 reports, or 71 per cent. The Committee had a one-year deadline for receiving reports. After May 2015, eight reports had been outstanding, five of which had now been received. After August 2015, two out of the three outstanding reports had been received. The Committee had transparent procedures, with all official and alternative reports posted on its webpage. There were guidelines in place for States and other stakeholders.

An assessment grid had been developed by the previous Rapporteur to help oversee the level of implementation. Only about 10 per cent were completely satisfactory. The effective and total implementation was quite weak overall; what was often found was partial implementation of the recommendations (in 60 per cent of cases), while in some 30 per cent of cases there was no implementation whatsoever of the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee could meet with the Inter-Parliamentary Union to discuss how the Parliaments could be best involved.

In the ensuing discussion, the issue of the duration of the follow-up period was discussed. If urgent measures were needed for follow-up, six months could be given to States parties, and for others, the 12-month framework could be maintained. A reasonable time frame ought to be left for States parties to take measures. How could the implementation of follow-up recommendations be strengthened, and could civil society help in that regard? National structures for preparing reports could be in charge of the implementation of recommendations; databases with recommendations were a good idea. Academia and civil society organizations could be encouraged to follow and become involved in what the Committee was doing, but the challenge sometimes was on how to identify the right partners. Holding seminars with stakeholders under the Chatham House rules would be a good idea to consider, so that information provided would not leak out and participants could speak completely freely. Such discussions could be very useful to address the issue of implementation. Experts could try identifying relevant academic and civil society actors.

Regarding translation, it was noted that the Committee accepted reports in six official languages, but most were submitted in English. There were many countries which did not use English as a working language, which prevented certain civil society groups from submitting contributions. An Expert noted that often times the implementation mechanisms did not have a decision-making power. Contact needed to be promoted between the Committee and States parties when it came to monitoring.

Follow-up to Reprisals

ALESSIO BRUNI, Committee Member and Rapporteur on follow-up to reprisals, said that Burundi had submitted a special report and a date for a dialogue had been set. The dialogue had begun, and the Experts had asked numerous relevant questions; however, the delegation had not returned for its second part, when it was supposed to provide answers. The delegation of Burundi had thus set a precedent – it was the first time that a State party had interrupted the dialogue in the middle. The Committee had also been informed about the letter sent by Burundi’s General Prosecutor to the Bar Association, requesting the removal of the four lawyers who had taken part in the drafting of the alternative report. It was said that some of the lawyers had participated in alleged acts in violation of the code of ethics. The Committee had discussed the case, which seemed like an example of reprisal. Subsequently, the Committee had sent a letter to the Government of Burundi, drawing to its attention three points: out of the four lawyers, three had been present in the room during the first half of the dialogue and those lawyers were now accused of the breach of their ethical duties; the President of the Bar Association was asked to directly remove the four lawyers, without prior analysis of the situation; in 2014, the Government had provided the Committee with general assurances that there would be no more reprisals against those who cooperated with the Committee.

The Experts discussed what the Committee could do to protect those who worked with it from reprisals. Prevention was somewhat of a challenge for treaty bodies, but if there was information on who was doing what in civil society, and the Committee was communicating with them, it was already a first step of prevention. Individual communications were more difficult, as publicity could not be used; in such cases, having a quick contact with the authorities was the best approach. A question was also asked on whether there was an overall declining climate of protection of human rights defenders. There was no assessment on whether having actual anti-reprisal mechanisms in place prevented them. In today’s age, information needed to be privileged over secrecy, which was easier to do with the modern information technologies. An Expert commented that the four lawyers ordered to be removed were no longer exercising their legal professions anyway. The Committee was now awaiting the reply of the Government. The details of the lawyers’ whereabouts also needed to be established. If the lawyers were in exile, it was a matter of double reprisal as they had already left the country and now they were ejected from the Bar Association. If the Committee did not receive a reply by 12 August, the Committee would announce so in a press conference. All relevant and involved institutions should also be informed of the lack of a reply.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT16/019E