COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF BURUNDI

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Burundi to questions raised by Committee Experts on the initial report of that country on how it was implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on Thursday, 9 November, the delegation, which was led by Francoise Ngendahayo, Minister for National Solidarity, Human Rights and Gender of Burundi, said with regard to the definition of torture, courts could punish any person for committing acts of torture or cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment in accordance with national laws. Even though the Convention was not directly applicable in the laws of Burundi, its provisions were taken into consideration and norms of treaties ratified by Burundi had rank in national law.

Concerning the measures taken by the State to eliminate torture being conducted by members of the intelligence service, the delegation noted that there had been such cases and those found guilty were duly prosecuted. With regards to stateless persons, the delegation said that there were many refugees in Burundi from Rwanda. Although the national asylum law was not yet in force, the current law allowed for these persons, as well as stateless persons, to be covered by Burundian national law.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Burundi towards the end of the session on Friday, 24 November 2006.

As one of the 142 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Burundi is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.

Also during the course of this afternoon’s meeting, Committee Experts posed additional questions to the delegation of the Russian Federation completing the round of questions which started this morning. The Russian delegation will return on Monday, 13 November at 3 p.m. to respond to the questions.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Monday, 13 November, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the initial report of Guyana (CAT/C/GUY/1).

Response of Burundi

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Thursday, 9 November, the delegation of Burundi said that, with regard to the definition of torture, courts could punish any person for committing acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in accordance with national laws. Even though the Convention was not directly applicable in the laws of Burundi, its provisions were taken into consideration and norms of treaties ratified by Burundi had rank in national law. The State was obliged to immediately carry out investigations in all such cases. The State provided all victims of torture with redress. The issue of reparations for torture was also taken into consideration.

Responding to a question about due process, the delegation of Burundi noted that all detainees had the right to a lawyer from the time of their arrest. Prior to a recent law, the lawyer was only involved at the trial stage but that had since changed.

As to the duration of custody, the delegation said that a criminal suspect could be held in custody initially for a period of seven days and that could be renewed once to a maximum duration of 14 days. All detainees had the right to a lawyer of their choice, to a defence and to appeal a case.

Disciplinary and penal sanctions against magistrates did occur in Burundi, the delegation noted in response to a question. There had been magistrates who were found to be involved in corruption cases.

Concerning the measures taken by the State to eliminate torture being conducted by members of the intelligence service, the delegation noted that there had been such cases and those found guilty were duly prosecuted.

Magistrates were responsible for inspecting places of detention, the delegation stated.
The prison population was growing in Burundi. Moreover, there were some 600 political prisoners at present. The problem was serious with regard to the resources available to detain these prisoners. Within the Ministry of Justice, efforts had been taken to reform detention centres. The International Committee of the Red Cross played an important role to ensure cooperation to improve the condition of detention centres.

With regard to the Gatumba massacre, the delegation said the State had issued a report which concluded that members of the Palipehutu FNL had been found guilty of these crimes. Now that there had been a ceasefire signed with this group, these cases were pending and would be looked at when a tribunal for war crimes was established.

Concerning stateless persons, the delegation noted that there were many refugees in Burundi from Rwanda. Although the national asylum law was not yet in force, the current law allowed for these persons, as well as stateless persons, to be covered by Burundian national law.

Responding to concerns expressed yesterday about practices by which debts contracted by a sick person due to health care costs could result in indefinite detention of that person, the delegation explained that the State was faced with a dilemma in that it either had to reject the person, and refuse to administer care, or accept the person once a benefactor had been identified to pay the bills.

Questions by Committee Experts

FERNANDO MARINO MENENDEZ, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Burundi, while saying it was clear that the criminal system in Burundi was evolving, asked for additional information on the matrimonial law and for clarification on the definition of torture in the country, in general.

The Rapporteur asked whether there was any particular government body which could apply the Convention and for specific information about cases when the courts applied the Convention.

As to the return of foreigners, he asked for clarification on the country’s standing with the principle of non refoulment.

The Rapporteur also asked for additional information about the planned independent human rights commission and whether the outlines for this plan had been established, and for general information on the State’s efforts to combat impunity.

GUIBRIL CAMARA, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Burundi, with regard to national intelligence officers, asked for clarification on the powers of these officers, who were said to be equivalent to police officers, and whether they were under the auspices of the Prosecutor’s office.

Another Committee member asked for specific information from the delegation on the training of medical personnel, and whether the additional proposed money being invested towards the health budget would be earmarked for that purpose. She also asked for general information on human rights training and, specifically, for training with respect to gender issues.

Response by Delegation

Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Burundi said the President of Burundi had decided to transfer additional funds into the health budget to address the problem of health care. There was currently only one doctor for every 100,000 people in Burundi.

The Prosecutor’s office could impose sanctions on intelligence officers and at present there were some cases of these officers being investigated for alleged crimes of torture.

The delegation said there were seminars and workshops for gender promotion and work and a number of campaigns and reports were underway in the State.

Question by Committee Experts for the Delegation of the Russian Federation

Completing a round of questions which began this morning during the review of the fourth periodic report of the Russian Federation, Committee Experts posed a number of additional questions pertaining to “internal passports” and the freedom of movement in the Russian Federation; procedures by which family members were notified when their relatives were arrested; measures in place to guarantee legal protection for terrorist suspects; and information on the number of persons who had been prosecuted for “hazing” charges, and how many of these cases amounted to torture.

The Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Russian Federation, Essadia Belmir, asked about the role of military procurators in the Chechen Republic and whether military law applied in the region or rather normal laws applied in the Russian Federation.

While recalling that some 19,000 petitions had been forwarded to the European Court of Human Rights from the Russian Federation, the Co-Rapporteur asked for additional information on the jurisprudence of the Court in the State.

Ms. Belmir also asked for information concerning the cases of persons previously detained in Guantanamo who on their return to the Russian Federation had been arrested, prosecuted and convicted with harsh sentences.

An Expert sought information on alleged unofficial detention centres in Chechnya and Ingushetia and whether there had been any investigation into the presence of these secret facilities.
Another Expert asked for clarification on the legal measures in place for those being held in detention centres in the region.

Other Committee Experts asked questions on subjects concerning the plight of Roma people and their access to housing, specifically in Kaliningrad; compensation for unjust treatment or a sentence, and how the State defined what was unjust treatment; the expulsion of foreigners; the sexual exploitation of women and children; human trafficking; and the problem of overcrowded hospitals including psychiatric hospitals.

An Expert recalled that there had been serious minority problems, as per reports from non-governmental organizations, and asked if there were any moves to invite the United Nations Special Rapporteur on minorities to visit the country.

Turing to the issue of human rights defenders, and particularly on the case of Anna Politkovskaya, the Experts asked whether the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders would be welcome to conduct a mission in the Russian Federation to investigate these cases.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT06029E