COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF MEXICO

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Mexico 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, María del Refugio González Domínguez, Undersecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Mexico, wished to highlight the agreement of 18 August 2003, for the implementation of the new Medical/ Psychological Certificate of Possible Torture or Ill-Treatment, which was the best tool for determining cases of torture. It was also important to mention that the Optional Protocol to the Convention had entered into force on 22 June 2006.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Mexico was Committee Expert Claudio Grossman, who was concerned about the information that, according to Mexican law, if the victims’ wounds healed in 15 days their treatment could not be considered torture. In the presentation today, he was interested to note that rape was considered to be torture. If the two concepts were put together, however, how was that reconciled? And how was the 15-day limit to be reconciled with psychological torture? He felt that the present definition could be used to exclude substantive cases of torture, and for them to be reclassified under another heading, such as “abuse of authority”.

Fernando Mariño Menendez, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Mexico, said that the issue of investigating the status of migrants was important, as most cases of torture occurred in detention settings. He realized that the difficulties of establishing the status of migrants could lead to prolonged detention and wished to know what the time limits were on holding migrants to do so. In addition, he understood that foreigners could be expelled from the country by Executive Order, without recourse to any other forum.

Other Committee Experts also raised a series of questions. An Expert was concerned that, despite Mexico’s efforts, the practice of torture continued to persist. In that connection, she wanted to know what were the boundaries between the various law enforcement officials. Perhaps there was a lack of clarity among those roles that was contributing to the problems of preventing and eliminating torture.

Also representing the Mexican delegation were representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Relations, the National Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry for Public Security, and the National Institute for Access to Public Information.

The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 9 November, to provide its response to the questions raised this morning.

Mexico 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. It is also among the 28 States parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention, under which it had agreed to accept unannounced visits to places of detention by international and national independent expert bodies. The Committee will issue its final observations and recommendations on the report of Mexico when it concludes its session on 24 November.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the answers of Tajikistan to the questions posed by Experts on Tuesday, 7 November.

Report of Mexico

The fourth periodic report of Mexico (CAT/C/55/Add.12) states that in December 2000, President Vicente Fox and Mrs. Mary Robinson, then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, signed a technical cooperation programme, one of the three main goals of which was to establish a standard procedure to be followed by federal and State authorities in medical examinations of torture. On 17 September 2003 the Committee to Monitor and Evaluate the Medical/ Psychological Certificate of Possible Torture or Ill-Treatment was established, and the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic was thereby required to implement the basic principles of the Istanbul Protocol in full. With regard to human rights and the military, the Office of the Military Prosecutor-General has taken various steps to deal with the problems related to complaints submitted to the National Human Rights Commission against military personnel for alleged human rights violations, including initiating all due procedures arising from the complaint, following up promptly and seeing the complaint through to resolution. When acts that violate human rights are classed as serious, the military courts have acted efficiently and promptly to punish the offender and, where necessary, ensure that the victim or the victim’s relatives are compensated.

In March 2004, the Supreme Court called for a national consultation to define the main policies, strategies and contributions that would improve the delivery of justice in Mexico. The process was completed in September 2004. If the reform submitted by the federal executive is adopted, it will have a significant impact on the system of justice, by affording greater protection of the rights to a fair trial and due process. In addition, the constitutional reforms in the field of human rights, which the federal executive submitted to Congress for consideration in April 2004, contain an amendment to article 33 of the Constitution so that it guarantees a hearing to any foreigner who is in the process of being expelled.

Presentation of Report

MARÍA DEL REFUGIO GONZÁLEZ DOMÍNGUEZ, Undersecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Mexico, presenting the report, said it had been drafted in a new way, in that it had used information from governmental sources, as well as information gathered from the United Nations system, academia and civil society organizations. The Government was continuing to undertake major efforts to establish an ever wider implementation of the Convention against Torture, by developing programmes and policies to combat torture and ensuring their implementation, as well as through reforms in the legal and national framework.

In 2004 the executive branch had submitted an ambitious programme for judicial reform, which was before the legislature for approval. At the state level, many reforms had already entered into force. In January 2007, the state of Chihuahua had adopted a reform package responding to recommendations from national and international organizations for legal reform.

Ms. González Domínguez also wished to highlight the agreement reached with the Office of the Attorney General, and published on 18 August 2003, for the implementation of the new Medical/ Psychological Certificate of Possible Torture or Ill-Treatment. That instrument was the best tool for determining cases of torture, she noted.

It was important to mention that, on 11 April 2005, the Government of Mexico had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and that instrument had entered into force on 22 June 2006. The Government was now obligated to create a national prevention mechanism by 22 June 2007, and was currently holding consultations with governmental authorities and civil society organizations to do that.

Quite a few years ago the process for uprooting the practice of torture had been begun. But it was clear that much remained to be done, Ms. González Domínguez said. It was hoped that, with the support of the Committee, as well as the cooperation of various international human rights bodies, Mexico would continue on the path of guaranteeing full respect and enjoyment of the human rights of all persons.

Response by Delegation to Questions Sent by the Committee in Advance

Responding to a series of written questions prepared by the Committee in advance and sent to the State party beforehand, the delegation said that the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office dealt with cases of torture that were either referred to it by the National Human Rights Commission, or which were brought directly before it. From 2001-2006, the Human Rights Commission had referred 4,041 cases to the Office, of which only 92 were torture cases. During the same period the Commission directed 12 recommendations to the Office, only two of which concerned torture.

On 17 September 2003, collegiate bodies were set up and a consultative body to follow up the decision to implement the Medical/Psychological Certificate of Possible Torture or Ill-Treatment. The committee thus analysed the results of the new certificate on three separate occasions. Some 75 decisions were taken, of which, 25 cases involved members of the Federal Prosecutors Office, 48 involved public servants, and two involved staff from social rehabilitation centres. In 48 cases (60 per cent) there were no injuries in pre-trial detention or during the trial itself. In 10 cases it was impossible to substantiate the complaints. In 12 cases, evidence of ill-treatment was found. In nine cases, torture found, but in none of those cases had the National Public Prosecutor’s Office been involved, the delegation noted.

It was necessary that the legal practice at both the federal and state level be harmonized with international standards, the delegation said. Several States had already undertaken to implement the Istanbul protocol and two more were due to adopt that Protocol soon. Since 2001, the Public Security Ministry had been implementing a training programme for its staff as well as for the decentralized administrative bodies of the federal police. The training involved was mandatory and was in addition to that provided by the police academy to new recruits. The training on torture and ill-treatment informed participants about the provisions of the Convention against Torture, its Optional Protocol and the Istanbul Protocol. A total of 878 courses had been held in all, and 32,721 officials and police had been trained. The training had seen a drop in overall complaints of human rights violations overall: in 2001, the Ministry of Public Security had received 1,377 complaints; in 2005 it had received 709; and in 2006 it had only received 257 complaints to date.

On the issue of women’s rights in the context of the Convention, the delegation noted that the establishment of the special investigative office to prevent violence against women was of particular importance. It had all of the capacities of the federal prosecutor’s office and it had established cooperation between local and state agencies in managing and monitoring investigations with a gender perspective and living up to international standards to prevent violence against women. In the short eight months since the establishment of the special investigative office, it had already made important strides in establishing innovative machinery to deal with violence against women.

Questions by Experts

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Mexico, noted with appreciation the visit of the Special Rapporteur on Torture to Mexico, as well as Mexico’s ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention. It was also valuable to note the recognition by Mexico of the contributions brought by civil society organizations to the fight against torture.

Regarding the definition of torture, he was concerned about the information that, according to Mexican law, if the victims’ wounds healed in 15 days, that treatment could not be considered torture. In the presentation today, he was interested to note that rape was considered to be torture. If the two concepts were put together, however, how was that reconciled? And how was the 15-day limit to be reconciled with psychological torture. He felt that that definition could be used to exclude substantive cases of torture, and for them to be reclassified under another heading, such as “abuse of authority”.

With respect to military justice, Mr. Grossman understood that the military code did not define any actions inflicted on military staff as torture. It was not clear what regulations existed in the military code to prevent torture or to punish its perpetrators.

Mr. Grossman asked if the delegation could provide the Committee with a copy of the new Medical/Psychological Certificate for torture allegation. He understood that 75 certificates had been issued in the past two years, yet he was not clear on what that signified. That appeared to be a low number.

Mr. Grossman was concerned by reports that attacks against homosexuals, supported by the police, had taken place. Had there been any programmes or training developed to target such acts?

With regard to compensation, Mr. Grossman wished to have details on how many cases had been adjudicated in which compensation had been awarded for torture and how much had been awarded.

FERNANDO MARIÑO MENENDEZ, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Mexico, said concerning article 11 protections of the Convention, he wanted to know whether incommunicado detention was allowed and if it was practised. Were there cases of officials who had been sanctioned for holding detainees incommunicado? In that connection, he wished for greater details on the investigation committees tasked with reviewing detention conditions.

Mr. Mariño Menendez also wanted to know whether criminal liability applied for officials who were aware of possible cases of torture, but failed to report them.

The issue of investigating the status of migrants was important, Mr. Mariño Menendez recalled, as most cases of torture occurred in detention settings. He realized that the difficulties of establishing the status of migrants could lead to prolonged detention and wished to know what the time limits were on holding migrants to do so. In addition, he understood that foreigners could be expelled from the country by executive order, without recourse to any other forum.

Information on harassment of human rights defenders had been received by the Committee, and Mr. Mariño Menendez wondered if there were any actions planned to protect human rights defenders and non-governmental organizations.

With regard to the large number of women murdered in Ciudad Juarez over the years, he expressed his dismay that none of the culprits had apparently been found. Was it really true that it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to set up an investigatory unit to address that situation, Mr. Mariño Menendez asked?

Mr. Mariño Menendez was worried about reports that there were programmes to forcibly sterilize the indigenous population of the country.

Finally, Mr. Mariño Menendez congratulated Mexico on the abolition of the death penalty, the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and the incorporation of the Istanbul Protocol in its criminal procedure.

Other Committee Experts also raised a series of questions. An Expert was concerned that, despite Mexico’s efforts, the practice of torture continued to persist. Perhaps they needed to do more to investigate the reasons behind that practice if they were to effectively combat it. In that connection, she wanted to know what were the boundaries between the various law enforcement officials. Perhaps there was a lack of clarity among those roles that was contributing to the problems of preventing and eliminating torture. An Expert was concerned about the issue of psychological humiliation of detainees, in particular with regard to women. She was also concerned about the variety of definitions of torture at the federal and state level, and the difficulty that presented in implementing the obligations of the Convention.