COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF INITIAL REPORT OF TAJIKISTAN

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the initial report of Tajikistan on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Introducing the report, Khalifuboba Khamidov, the Minister of Justice of Tajikistan, noted that to ensure its independence, the judiciary was being reformed, as was the code of criminal procedure, in particular with regard to the issuance of arrest warrants, and procedures during detention, arrest and interrogation, to protect the rights of victims. A substantial innovation had been the Presidential reform decree of July 2002 on the serving of sentences, which transferred the oversight of the system from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice in order to improve respect for citizens’ rights in the imposition of criminal sanctions.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan was Committee Expert Felice Gaer, who recalled that the report should cover the period from the State party’s ratification in 1995. She was thus puzzled that it covered only the period 2002 to 2004, skipping over the period of internal armed conflict in Tajikistan. In that connection, she wondered whether the amnesty granted following the civil war including the offences of torture and cruel treatment and how many such cases of pardon there were.

Alexander Kovalev, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, voiced his concern that a UN Special Rapporteur had not been allowed to visit Tajikistan and that representatives of the International Red Cross had been denied access to prisons there. He also requested information on how many criminal cases had been brought on allegations of torture, and how many cases altogether had been brought before the courts.

Other issues of concern raised by Experts included the lack of training for medical personnel in prisons, given that medical investigations were of crucial importance in cases of torture allegations; whether there was a register for detainees; procedures for the appointment of judges; whether there was a monitoring mechanism to ensure the rights of the mentally ill, as specified in the Psychiatric Care Act; and whether the delegation could provide concrete examples of compensation, including through medical services and psychiatric counselling, awarded to victims of torture.

Also representing the delegation of Tajikistan was Izbillo Khodjaev, Chairman of the Supreme Court, and Bakhtiyor Khodjaev, Head of the Department of Constitutional Guaranties of Citizens’ Rights within the Executive Branch, as well as representatives of the General Public Prosecutor and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 November, to provide its response to the questions raised this morning.

Tajikistan is among the 142 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.

When the Committee reconvenes in public, at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 November, it will begin its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Mexico (CAT/C55/Add.12) on efforts undertaken by the country to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.

Report of Tajikistan

The inviolability of the person is guaranteed by the State, according to the initial report of Tajikistan (CAT/C/TJK/1), and no one shall be subjected to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment. The application of the death penalty in Tajikistan has been suspended pursuant to the Death Penalty (Suspension) Act and the Criminal Code (Amendments) Act, adopted in 2004. Moreover, the definition of “torture” in the Criminal Code is broader than that in the Convention against Torture, as the perpetrators may include other persons whose actions are not connected with the performance of public duties, but who act in combination with persons exercising public authority or investigating crimes. As part of efforts to improve the operation of the penal correction system and the laws regulating it, account is being taken of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners developed by the United Nations. However, the Tajik penal correction system has no specific training programmes for medical personnel who treat detainees and suspects.

In order to enforce the provisions of the Constitution, a phased process of judicial and legal reform is under way. The starting point for this reform was the Constitutional Act on the Status of Judges in Tajikistan, adopted on 3 November 1995, which contains guarantees of judicial independence applicable to judges at every level that cannot be repealed or amended by other laws or regulations. Under the Tajik Criminal Code, the penalty for torture is deprivation of liberty for between 2 and 10 years, and up to 30 years in the case of multiple offences. Thus, a departmental chief at the Ministry of Internal Affairs who was found to have used a weapon to murder a certain E. Rajabov on 22 June 1999 and also to have unlawfully detained three individuals and exceeded his authority by using a rubber truncheon to extract confessions from them at his place of work was sentenced to 25 years’ deprivation of liberty.

Presentation of Report

KHALIFUBOBA KHAMIDOV, Minister of Justice of Tajikistan, introducing the report, said that from the first days of its establishment as a sovereign State, Tajikistan had held firm to the principles of human rights in international law. Tajikistan had known a devastating civil war, which had destroyed much of the civil infrastructure and economy. Even under those conditions, the act of signing of a number of international instruments, such as the Convention against Torture, had been a signal of the Government’s intentions to uphold human rights standards. The Constitution of Tajikistan proclaimed that man, his rights and liberty, were of the highest value, and no one should be deprived of his or her life except by the judgement of a court for a particularly serious crime. The inviolability of the person was guaranteed by the State.

Pointing to Tajikistan’s commitment to international standards, Mr. Khamidov recalled that, in September 2006, Tajikistan had acceded to the UN Convention against Corruption. Moreover, the country was actively going through judicial and legal reforms. To ensure its independence, the judiciary was being reformed, as was the code of criminal procedure, in particular with regard to the issuance of arrest warrants, and procedures during detention, arrest and interrogation, to protect the rights of victims. A substantial innovation had been the Presidential reform decree of July 2002 on the serving of sentences, which transferred the oversight of the system from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice. The main aim of that reform was to improve respect for citizens’ rights in the imposition of criminal sanctions. In December 2003, by Government decree, the reforming of the criminal procedure system was undertaken to humanize the system for execution of sentences, improving conditions in detention or in correctional institutions, and training staff in such institutions, all with the aim of harmonizing the procedures with standards in the Convention against Torture. In addition, a new women’s prison had been established, consolidating the women’s facilities that existed in other prisons, and that had also helped with the issue of prison overcrowding.

In conclusion, Mr. Khamidov noted that the report had been prepared by the Government and a number of leading non-governmental organizations and aimed to paint the real situation in the ground and not to give a false picture of the actual conditions in the country during the period 2002 to 2004.

Questions by Experts

FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, recalled that the report should cover the period from the State party’s ratification in 1995. She was thus puzzled that it covered only the period 2002 to 2004, effectively skipping over the period of internal armed conflict in Tajikistan. In that connection, she wondered whether the amnesty granted following the civil war including the offences of torture and cruel treatment and how many such cases of pardon there were.

Ms. Gaer noted that eight or nine agencies or departments were cited as responsible for implementing aspects of the Convention, and she wished to know what body was responsible for implementing the Convention and in ensuring that the rights of individuals were upheld. Moreover, she wanted to know who appointed the Council of Justice and what ensured its independence.

With regard to the status of the Convention in domestic law, Ms. Gaer wondered if there had been any cases in which the Convention had been invoked, and in which it had been held to supersede domestic laws?

Noting the statement that was repeated throughout the report that individuals had a right to counsel from the moment that they were detained, Ms. Gaer asked for clarification. It appeared to her that there were several cases in which detainees were held without access to lawyers or medical personnel. In that connection, she asked for greater clarification on all of the regulations related to detention. There appeared to be two different types of pre-trial detention, for example.

Ms. Gaer was also concerned that in many cases confessions appeared to be the sole basis for convictions. How did the State ensure that those confessions had not been extracted under duress? Had State officials been sanctioned for relying too heavily on confessions and had there been any studies done on the subject?

According to a United States Government report, there had been cases in which foreigners or refugees who had been expelled from Tajikistan had been subjected to torture upon return to their own countries. In that regard, Ms. Gaer wished to know what relationship Tajikistan had with the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and what mechanisms were in place to ensure that individuals expelled from the country were not likely to be submitted to torture.

ALEXANDER KOVALEV, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, noted that human rights were protected in Tajikistan, inter alia, by the Constitutional Court, and he requested details about the case law emanating from that court and information about how it functioned.

Mr. Kovalev expressed his concern that a UN Special Rapporteur had not been allowed to visit Tajikistan and that representatives of the International Red Cross had been denied access to prisons there.

Finally, how many criminal cases had been brought on allegations of torture, and how many cases altogether had been brought before the courts, Mr. Kovalev asked.

Other Committee Experts also raised a series of questions. An Expert welcomed the recent reforms to the judicial system and the code of criminal procedure, but he wished to have clarification that those reforms applied to public officials. He also asked for details on measures to combat trafficking in persons, in particular any special prosecutorial unit to monitor such cases. Other issues of concern raised by Experts included whether translation services were available to detainees; lack of training for medical personnel in prisons, given that medical investigations were of crucial importance in cases of torture allegations; whether there was a register for detainees; were there cases of incommunicado detention; procedures for the appointment of judges; whether there was a monitoring mechanism to ensure the rights of the mentally ill, as specified in the Psychiatric Care Act; cases of corporal punishment and psychological humiliation of children in institutions, as well as corporal punishment of individuals in other care facilities; and whether the delegation could provide concrete examples of compensation, including through medical services and psychiatric counselling, for victims of torture.

Andreas Mavrommatis, Committee Chairperson, highlighted the importance of the independence of the judiciary. The report had cited that judges were appointed for 10-year periods. He wished to recall that security of tenure was one of the best guarantees of judicial independence.

Mr. Mavrommatis also wished to stress that the report should have covered the period from 1995. Exceptionally, if the delegation provided answers to the Committee now with regard to events dating back to the 1995, it could be possible that they would be deemed to have fulfilled their reporting obligations in that regard.