COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF TAJIKISTAN

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Tajikistan to questions raised by Committee Experts on the third periodic report of that country on how it is 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 Tuesday, 7 November, the delegation, which was led by Khalifuboba Khamidov, Minister of Justice of Tajikistan, said that, with regard to amnesty for those who had committed acts of torture in the context of the civil armed conflict, the National Reconciliation Commission had indeed recommended a number of acts of amnesty. Four acts were adopted between 1997 and 1999 that provided for the release and amnesty for all persons who had been involved in the military and political conflict. People who carried out acts of torture were amnestied, sacrificed to the greater goal in the aim of establishing national unity and creating peace. The results of those acts of amnesty had to be borne in mind, however. They had achieved peace and stability. Significantly, the most recent law on amnesty, of 2006, did not provide for amnesty for acts of torture.

Prisoners in Tajikistan were not yet in paradise, but improvements in the attitude to prisoners, humanization of the legislation, improvement of conditions of detention, the protection of their rights and freedoms, and the upgrading of buildings had already begun. However, they were just at the start of the process. Regarding access to prisoners, in accordance with legislation, access was allowed to certain individuals without permission, but others had to apply for it, such as representatives of non-governmental organizations. The Government was well aware of the problems that remained, such as tuberculosis and overcrowding. Financial constraints hampered improvements, but the political will to make the changes was there, as evidenced by the highly critical Government report on the situation of prisons in the country.

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

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

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 9 November, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the initial report of Burundi (CAT/C/BDI/1).

Response of Tajikistan

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Tuesday, 7 November, the delegation of Tajikistan said that, with regard to amnesty for those who had committed acts of torture in the context of the civil armed conflict, the national reconciliation commission had indeed recommended a number of acts of amnesty. Four acts were adopted that provided for the release and amnesty for all persons who had been involved in the military and political conflict. So, yes, people who carried out acts of torture were amnestied, sacrificed to the greater goal in the aim of establishing national unity and creating peace. The last act of amnesty, in 1999, saw 5,000 prisoners released. The results of those acts of amnesty had to be borne in mind, however. They had achieved peace and stability, as witnessed by the election of the President on 6 November. Significantly, the most recent law on amnesty, of 2006, did not provide for amnesty for acts of torture.

With regard to harmonizing international and national legal standards, the delegation confirmed that international legal instruments that had been ratified by the State were applicable in domestic courts, and did indeed supersede domestic laws in cases of conflict. The problem, the delegation emphasized, came in the area of training of judges and law enforcement officials on those instruments, so that they could be used.

Tajikistan recognized a number of international instruments that defined torture, and they formed the basis for the recent reforms to harmonize domestic legislation with international standards. By a law of May 2004, amending the Criminal Code, torture was defined as outlined in the report. That law was applicable to all State agents, but also could be applied to other individuals. Administration of justice officials who acted in contravention of the Convention against Torture were liable for those acts. The Criminal Code had another article covering the use of violence equivalent to torture by military officials and soldiers. The infliction of moral and psychological trauma were also recognized as crimes under the Criminal Code.

In the Criminal Code the issue of the degree of participation of individuals in acts of torture was taken account of, in particular, outlining punishments for accomplices to torture.

The delegation said that, from 2004 to 2006, the general criminal courts considered criminal cases involving torture for 28 persons, and for the same period the military courts considered 101 such criminal cases, related to 132 individuals. There were numerous cases in which State officials had been found criminally liable and convicted for torture. In one case, the head of the criminal investigation department, in collusion with his colleagues, was convicted for illegally detaining individuals and forcing them to confess to crimes they had not committed. Those officials were all sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

On compensatory measures, the delegation observed that a number of individuals had been found to have been unfairly convicted under the Criminal Code. Those individuals received an apology and had their liberty restituted. There were several legal foundations in the Criminal Code for compensatory measures to be applied as a result of moral, psychological or physical harm done to an individual owing to illegal arrest.

The body coordinating activities in the field in the area of torture was the body attached to the Government on the implementation of international human rights obligations. The supervisory body for the implementation of the Convention was the Procurator’s Office, the delegation said. Practice showed that the Procurator’s Office was indeed fulfilling that role, as evidenced by complaints brought to that office that had resulted in convictions.

On the issue of time limits for detention of those suspected of criminal acts, the delegation noted that, under the Criminal Code, such detention could not accede 72 hours. The Procurator thereafter had to authorize the arrest or release them. The time of detention pending investigation was two months, but extensions could be awarded for particularly complicated cases. The Deputy Procurator of the Republic and the Procurator General were authorized to extend detentions up to nine months. In cases involving the gravest crimes, the Procurator General had the authority to extend detention duration investigation to one year and three months.

Prisoners in Tajikistan were not yet in paradise, but improvements in the attitude to prisoners, humanization of the legislation, improvement of conditions of detention, the protection of their rights and freedoms, and the upgrading of buildings had already begun. However, the delegation observed, they were just at the start of the process. Regarding access to prisoners, in accordance with legislation, access was allowed to certain individuals without permission, but others had to apply for it, such as representatives of non-governmental organizations. The Government was well aware of the problems that remained, such as tuberculosis and overcrowding. Financial constraints hampered improvements, but the political will to make the changes was there, as evidenced by the highly critical Government report on the situation of prisons in the country.

Questions by Committee Experts

FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, said that, with regard to access to prisons and places of custody, she wondered about the implementation of the Optional Protocol, which had to define or establish a national institution to inspect places of detention. She was also curious to know who undertook that function today. She would also appreciate specific details about access by doctors and lawyers to detainees.

On compensation, as she understood it, the delegation had implied that in many cases there had been no claims for compensation. However, Ms. Gaer had information about a specific case in which compensation had repeatedly been sought, with no response from the court system.

Very specifically, Ms. Gaer wondered if a person who had been amnestied following the armed conflict could still be convicted for acts of torture that they had committed during that period.

Response by Delegation

Responding briefly, the delegation of Tajikistan said that, with regard to amnesty, the National Reconciliation Commission had worked from July 1997 to March 2000. The 1997,1998 and 1999 amnesty acts acquitted individuals of all acts undertaken in the context of the civil uprising, regardless of whether they were acts of torture, or of their role. It did not matter what types of crimes they had committed. The 2006 amnesty act, however, specifically excluded crimes related to torture from acts for which amnesty could be granted.

Regarding visits by non-governmental organizations to prisons, the Minister of Justice and the Chairperson of the Supreme Court both had the power to grant permission for such organizations to visit prisons. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had recently visited all of Tajikistan’s penal institutions. However, a problem arose when the ICRC requested visits to be allowed to all institutions at all times. That raised security problems, not least for the representatives themselves, the delegation opined. However, the Government was open to talks with the ICRC to resolve their differences.

There were 1,070 prisoners suffering from tuberculosis and currently there were 28 prisoners with HIV/AIDS, up from 13 in 2001. This year 68 prisoners had died from those diseases. Following the release of prisoners owing to the amnesty acts, there were 14,843 prisoners in Tajikistan, and there were currently 11,248.

With regard to the compensation claim, the delegation said that, in the particular case cited, it was found that no compensation was due under the law. Pressed further, the delegation said they would have to look into the matter and reply in writing.

Questions by Experts

ALEXANDER KOVALEV, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, wondered why the Committee had received no individual complaints from citizens of Tajikistan, which it was competent to do.

An Expert wished to know if amnesty for international crimes was possible under the laws of Tajikistan.

Response by Delegation

Responding briefly, the delegation said that they needed to undertake further measures to disseminate the Convention and to raise public awareness. In future, such complaints could be expected.

The delegation stressed that many of the issues raised by the Committee would shortly be addressed in the proposed reform of criminal procedure currently before the legislature.

There was no amnesty possible for international crimes, such as acts of genocide or terrorism, the delegation confirmed.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT06025E