Committee against Torture Adopts Reports on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations and Reprisals

The Committee against Torture today heard presentations of reports on follow-up to concluding observations and reprisals, submitted under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, before adopting both reports.

Naoko Maeda, Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations under article 19 of the Convention, presenting her report, said that during the period under review, the Committee had received follow-up reports from Jordan, Spain and Turkmenistan. She welcomed the willingness of these States parties to provide information regarding measures they had taken to implement their obligations under the Convention.

Ms. Maeda said several States had not yet supplied follow-up information that had fallen due: Bangladesh, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Guinea, Holy See, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Romania, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda and United Arab Emirates.  The Committee continued to send reminders to these States.

During the period under review, the Committee received alternative follow-up reports from non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders in relation to the follow-up replies submitted by Thailand and Türkiye.

The Rapporteur also communicated with concerned States parties regarding pending issues once their reports on implementation of the concluding observations were received and assessed.  Since May 2025, such communications were sent to the Republic of Korea, Türkiye, Azerbaijan and Kuwait.  In addition, the follow-up replies submitted by Jordan, Spain and Turkmenistan were currently under consideration.

Ms. Maeda said that while no A grades (“recommendations largely implemented”) were awarded during the period under review, in five instances it was considered that the recommendation identified for follow-up had been partially implemented through initial steps, although further action was needed (grade B2).  In eight other instances, the State party had taken no action to implement the Committee’s recommendation, or the action taken had not addressed the situation (grade C).

Ms. Maeda encouraged States parties to provide to the Committee, along with the report on the implementation of the recommendations identified for follow-up, a voluntary plan for the implementation of all or some of the remaining recommendations included in the concluding observations.  During the period under review, none of the follow-up replies submitted by States parties addressed the Committee’s remaining recommendations.

Ms. Maeda concluded by encouraging all stakeholders to make use of the dedicated web page for the follow-up procedure, which presented recommendations identified for follow-up by the Committee; the information submitted by States parties; the public reports submitted by national human rights institutes, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders; and a compendium of the follow-up procedure as exercised since 2003.

Liu Huawen, Committee Expert and Rapporteur on follow-up to individual communications, said that there were no detailed developments to present concerning follow-up to individual communications.  He said that he was making efforts to urge all relevant States parties to speed up their actions in this regard.

The Rapporteur on follow-up to reprisals, Committee Expert Peter Vedel Kessing, said that, during the intersessional period, the Committee’s secretariat had recorded several incidents and situations presenting potential risks of reprisals.

These included, he said, allegations of reprisals against four Burundian lawyers for cooperating with the Committee during the review at its fifty-eighth session of the special report of Burundi requested under article 19 (1) of the Convention.  Shortly after the lawyers’ participation at the fifty-eighth session, the public prosecutor of Burundi sought their disbarment and seizure of property, which was eventually confirmed by the court.

Mr. Kessing said the Committee found that, in failing to fulfil its obligation to refrain from reprisals against individuals who cooperated with the Committee, the State party had violated article 13 of the Convention, and that the State party’s refusal to engage in the individual complaint procedure amounted to a violation of article 22 (3).  The Committee urged Burundi to restore the complainants’ law licences and to provide appropriate redress.  It issued a press release on the decision on 23 December 2025.

In relation to individual communications under article 22, Mr. Kessing said the Committee received allegations of reprisals in two communications related to Morocco.  In one case, the complainant’s wife repeatedly reported ongoing reprisals against the complainant’s family in Morocco.  In the other case, the author made allegations of reprisals on 31 August 2025, which were addressed in the final decision adopted in November 2025.

He also presented a pending case regarding Russia, in which the Committee had received allegations that the complainant was being targeted due to his complaint to the Committee.  The rapporteur on reprisals and the Committee’s secretariat sent a letter of reprisals in January 2025 to the State party, and the State party denied the allegations.  The complainant then submitted new allegations of reprisals, and the Committee decided to send a further letter to the State party clearly indicating the new allegations and reminding the State party of the obligations of non-reprisals and unhindered cooperation with the Committee. The Committee also decided to send a letter to the complainant’s lawyer asking for updated information about the state of health of the complainant and his current situation, Mr. Kessing concluded.

Documents relating to the Committee’s work are available on the session’s webpage.  Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.

The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 1 May at 10 a.m. to conclude its eighty-fourth session and consider its future programme of work.

___________

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

CAT26.007E