HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS FOURTH PERIODIC REPORT OF LIBYA

The Human Rights Committee has considered the fourth periodic report of Libya on how that State Party is fulfilling its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Presenting the report, Mahmoud Abuseif, Head of the Libyan Delegation and Head of the Economic and Social Council Section, International Organizations Department, General People’s Committee for Foreign Liaisons and International Cooperation, said depriving people of their rights had an impact on the social and political stability of a society and was also an attack on individual liberties. Citizenship was a sacred right for Libyans. Libyans were free to form associations, groups and unions, and to express their ideas. Everyone had the right to appear before a court. Protection and the right to life were also sacred. Prison was only for those who could be a threat or danger to society. Corporal or psychological torture and harsh or degrading treatment were prohibited under law. Capital punishment was permitted only under the qisas and diyah codes of Islamic law.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Rafael Rivas Posada, Committee Chairperson, said corporal punishment, discrimination against women, and other human rights infringements in Libya remained of concern to the Committee. He hoped the State party would be able to overcome any future obstacles in order to make good use of the dialogue mechanism in future.

Committee experts raised questions on the compatibility of Sharia laws on inheritance and punishment with the Covenant; mechanisms to enable asylum seekers and refugees to challenge their detention and deportation; what actions had been taken to prevent torture by law enforcement personnel and prosecute those guilty; and reports of discrimination against the Amazigh minority, and repression of Amazigh culture.

The Committee reviewed the report over two meetings and will issue its concluding observations and recommendations towards the end of the session which concludes on 2 November.

Libya is one of the 160 States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is obligated to submit periodic reports on implementation of the provisions of the Covenant. It is also one of the 109 signatories of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, which provides for confidential consideration of communications from individuals who claim to be victims of violations of any rights proclaimed by the Covenant.

The Libyan delegation, which presented the report, included representatives from the Social Affairs Department of the General People’s Congress, the Permanent Mission of Libya in Geneva, and from the General People’s Committees for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation; the Labour Force, Training and Employment; Justice; Higher Education; Health and Environment.

The Committee will next reconvene in public at 10 a.m. on Friday, 19 October when it is scheduled to begin its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Austria (CCPR/C/AUT/4).



Report of Libya

The fourth periodic report of Libya (CCPR/C/LBY/4) notes that modifications have been made to some human rights frames of reference, notably incorporation of provisions in the Great Green Document on Human Rights. The right to life is protected by the law, and the death penalty imposed only for the most serious crimes, following Sharia law principles of qisas and diyah (retribution-compensation), and overseen by a competent court. Capital and corporal punishment and imprisonment are used only to protect human values and society’s interests. The Great Green Document on Human Rights guarantees the right to legal redress, independence of the judiciary and the right to fair trial.

The Libyan Criminal Code guarantees respect for the human person, including women. It prohibits torture, rape, and unlawful wounding. Family law protects inheritance rights for women, and civil service and labour laws uphold equality of opportunity. No husband, father or brother is entitled to deprive a woman of her freedom of movement. The Libyan Arab Committee for Human Rights seeks to disseminate concepts and principles of human rights in Libya, fostering awareness, education, providing legal support, and cooperating with Arab and international organizations on human rights issues. Non-governmental organizations work to promote and implement the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights covenants.

Presentation of the Report

MAHMOUD ABUSEIF, Head of Delegation and Head of the Economic and Social Council Section, International Organizations Department, General People’s Committee for Foreign Liaisons and International Cooperation, presenting the report, said the main format for implementing the principles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was to ensure freedom for all citizens to enjoy civil and political rights without fear of intimidation. Depriving people of their rights had an impact on the social and political stability of a society and was also an attack on individual liberties.

The framework reference document for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Libya was the Great Green Document on Human Rights, Mr. Abuseif said Citizenship was a sacred right for Libyans. Libyans were free to form associations, groups and unions, and to express their ideas.

Everyone had the right to appear before a court. Protection and the right to life were also sacred. Prison was only for those who could be a threat or danger to society. Corporal or psychological torture and harsh or degrading treatment were prohibited under law. Capital punishment was permitted only under the qisas and diyah codes of Islamic law.

Privacy and property were respected, and the rights of women and children were fully upheld, Mr. Abuseif said. Women were full participants in development, reconstruction, politics, law and administration. Children enjoyed full and free education and healthcare was a universal right for all.

Inheritance rights were based on the Koran and Islamic philosophy, and depended on relationships between the inheritor and deceased, on degrees of descendence (younger generations taking priority over older, so that a daughter inherited more than a widow, a son more than a father and so on). There was no discrimination against women in inheritance matters.

Replies of the Government of Libya to Questions by Committee Experts Sent in Advance

Constitutional and Legal Framework within which the Covenant was Implemented

On the issue of whether the provisions of the Covenant prevailed over domestic legislation, including the Great Green Document, the delegation said that the rights enshrined in the Covenant had been established under Islamic law for over 1,000 years. The provisions of the Covenant were compatible with domestic law as long as they were compatible with Islamic law.

The delegation said the issue of the freedom of movement of Loubna El-Ghar had been dealt with and the complainant had been granted a passport.

Equal Rights of Men and Women, Privacy and Prevention of Discrimination

Islamic law and domestic statutes criminalized rape, and prohibited prostitution and domestic violence. The delegation said that law 70 of 1973 (adultery) stemmed from Koranic principles. Girls and women did not undergo virginity examinations except in the case of rape. Social rehabilitation centers were not prisons. They were created to protect victims of violence.

The issue of inheritance law, as mentioned earlier, was established on the basis of the Koran. Law 10 of 1984 (Marriage and divorce) established equal rights for women to request divorce in cases of domestic violence.

Counter-terrorism and Respect for Covenant Guarantees

Current laws on counter terrorism were established by the Penal Code, the delegation said. Law 7 of 1981 related to possession of ammunition and explosives. All these laws criminalized private or collective violence as well as terrorism. There was no definition of terrorism. The international community had requested clearer positions on the definition.

Right to Life and Prohibition of Torture and Protection against Arbitrary Expulsion

Concerning the use of the death penalty, Libya resorted to this for deliberate and premeditated murder. The firing squad was the method used. The Draft Penal Code was still being studied regarding the precise list of offences covered. Libya did not intend to fully abolish the death penalty at this moment.

On detention without charge, arbitrary execution and forced disappearance, Libya was governed by Article 21 of the Penal Code stating that no crime or offence could be punished without judicial or court order. There had been no executions without judicial order.

The delegation said that prisons and prison management as well as redress for prisoners were under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor. Cases of torture were referred for investigation. Torture was punishable by imprisonment. Detainees had the right to lodge complaints against mistreatment.

Flogging and amputation were for specific offences like theft, adultery and others, and were strictly applied, based on Sharia law.

Entry and residency of foreigners were supervised under law and there were no detention centers for entrants. Special asylum provisions applied to illegal migrants.

On the issue of qisas and diyah, the delegation said these were basic principles of Sharia law.

Oral Questions by Committee Experts

Experts said the report and written responses were very brief. The Committee had not received enough clarification or information to study in depth the Libyan position. There was a wealth of information available from other sources and the Committee would have preferred to see much greater detail in the submission. Was this a failure of process? Were records kept? Was there inter-agency cooperation? How had Libya gone about preparing its submission? Specific data, where asked for, was not provided. The oral presentation added little to the already thin written replies. Such reticence hindered the Committee in its mandate. Present appearances did not give cause for optimism. Experts stressed the need for dialogue and urged Libya to take the Committee into its confidence, and to realize that the Committee’s aim was not to judge States but to listen, debate and orientate progress in meeting obligations under the Covenant.

On constitutional and legal frameworks in relation to the Covenant, an Expert said Libya was one of the pioneers in ratifying the Covenant, but did national legislation comply with the provisions of the Covenant? The question remained very open in terms of the degree of harmony between the two. How compatible were national laws, especially the provisions on inheritance, with the Covenant? Without delving too deeply into Sharia, did Libya believe that the premise stating that males were entitled to twice the share of a female was compatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Did Libya believe qisas and diyah were compatible were the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and if so how? What was the legal status of the Covenant in Libya? Where did it fit into the hierarchy of legal instruments? Did a complainant have the right to invoke the Covenant before a Court and if so did it take precedence over national laws?

The background to the Loubna El-Ghar case, involving delays and limitations in issuing a passport for a Libyan complainant wishing to study abroad, suggested serious problems on the Libyan side. It had been an unedifying spectacle. Further individual communications concerning disappearances, notably the El Mahrezi case, had met with a blank response from the Libyan Government. Committee views dated 23 March 1994 identified Libya’s “lack of cooperation” as an impediment to the Committee in carrying out its task in this regard.

Concerning corporal punishment, the Committee had earlier called for the formal abolition of flogging and amputation. But sources suggested that both had been used in recent years. There had been reports of amputations for car theft. Revisions to the Criminal Code had been under way for some years. When would this review be completed and would these penalties be abolished? If there were reservations about areas of incompatibility of Sharia law and the Covenant, then there was room for debate. But the fact of the matter was that flogging and amputation were serious violations of the Covenant.

An Expert wished to acknowledge the positive developments in promoting equality of the sexes in Libya, but remained concerned about the handling of domestic violence in the legal and political systems. The report asserted that there was no need to criminalize rape – a most serious claim. On detention of women victims in special facilities, sources suggested these women were not able to contest their confinement in court. They were deprived of their freedoms of movement, dignity and privacy. How was this practice compatible with the Covenant? Another Expert asked whether women could really be detained “for their own protection” and subjected to “sterilisation tests” in the case of rape. These practices were incompatible with the Covenant. Another asked about measures to tackle honour killings, for which the incarceration centers were ostensibly provided.

If the aim of Jamahiri society was abolition of the death penalty, why was the penalty still in force? The claim that work on the issue was incomplete was not satisfactory. Libya said it did not intend to abolish the death penalty at the moment; was it considering ratifying the Optional Protocol on abolition? Was it true that the death penalty could be imposed for slander or political activity by the opposition?

The issue of asylum seekers was a serious one. Deportation was routine, often at risk to individuals’ lives. Many of those detained had reported abuse in detention. What mechanisms were there to enable them to challenge their detention and deportation? Registration of refugees was weak, and therefore their protection and welfare uncertain. Had there been action to punish those guilty of the torture and beating of Eritrean migrants?

An Expert said the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) had asked Libya whether discriminatory practices against women in marriage and divorce cases had been dealt with. What was the position?

The UN Security Council Counter-terrorism Committee had heard reports from Libya several times, saying all measures used would be compatible with international law. An Expert asked how internal law dealt with these matters. Given the lack of definition of terrorism, elements of the Draft Penal Code in relation to counter-terrorism were of concern, notably in their references to propaganda, association, communication and other legal measures. He also requested specific responses on non-refoulement and other possible human rights infringements, notably allegations of “rendition”. What sort of acts fell under the category of terrorism? Were there cases to illustrate the use of the law in tackling them, and what laws were applied?

An Expert asked whether the State party could respond to the ten-year long request to abide by articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant (on deprivation of liberty and on the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment). Had Libya taken action to prevent torture by law enforcement personnel and prosecute those guilty of such acts? The Bulgarian nurses released from captivity in 2006 said they had signed a document stating that they would not seek appeal against their abusers. Was this true?

Responses of the Delegation to Oral Questions

Referring to specific cases of amputations for so-called car theft, delegation members said there had been armed, criminal gangs operating in the desert. Their acts constituted a form of terrorism, spreading fear as they murdered and engaged in robbery.

Some Experts had mentioned specific disappearances. The delegation said Libya had insisted on finding out the truth behind these disappearances. On renditions, there had been no detention of Libyan citizens in the context of extraordinary renditions.

Other Experts had used the term refugees to designate illegal immigrants, entering Libya without official documents or approval. Such people are repatriated. Delays in resolving the Loubna El-Ghar passport claim were the fault of the complainant herself.

On compatibility of laws, Libya was an Islamic country and followed Sharia law principles. The delegation objected to the argument that Libya had not been serious in pursuing its obligations or been remiss in its compilation of the report.

The delegation also objected to the use of the term penal or incarceration center for social centers providing social support and healthcare for those in need, unable to take care of themselves or accused of penal offences and kept in these centers for their protection. Women went to these centers of their own free will, to escape family retribution or because they had lost their breadwinner or guardian. These centers were to protect women from abuse and were supported by educational and employment, reintegration or reconciliation programmes. There was preventive detention of those charged or indicted by juvenile courts, vagrant minors, and other vulnerable categories.

In the case of the Bulgarian nurses, it was pointed out that they had not mentioned torture during their trial, but only afterwards.

On family law, women had the right to ask for divorce, and custody of children might be given to either partner. Women victims of violence were protected in the same way as men. Abuse of women was pursued and punished by law without any problem.

The delegation said qisas and diyah were tenets of Islamic Sharia and Sharia law was compatible with the Covenant. Use of the death penalty was linked to the idea of qisas, providing for retaliation by families of a murder victim, and diyah, under which members of a victim’s family could request civil compensation (blood money) rather than execution of the perpetrator. The Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctor were freed on the basis of diyah.

On the status of the Covenant, Libya’s accession to the Covenant was exercised under internal law and the Covenant enjoyed the same status in Libyan law as domestic provisions.

On unlawful detentions, there had been prosecutions of officials implicated in such acts, but this kind of crime was not endemic in Libya.

On terrorism, delegates argued that there was no clear concept and definition of terrorism. This posed problems in law. However, there were laws on the possession of arms and explosives, on theft, armed robbery, and many other laws that could be used in the fight against terrorism and this was the basis of Libya’s approach.

There were no laws or obstructions on freedom of movement for women, who were free to travel for work, conferences and so on.

Oral Questions by the Committee

Experts noted that an open and somewhat informal exchange was the basis of the Committee’s procedure and this was a necessary method of developing guidance in helping States Parties to meet their obligations. States parties were generally pleased at the opportunity to debate the report orally. Experts’ questions were not asked in an unpleasant spirit, although they had not all been met with open answers.

An Expert pointed out that amputation was prohibited under the Covenant, and the nature of the crime committed was immaterial in this regard. Another Expert asked for further clarification on how Libya felt there was compatibility between Sharia and the Covenant. For example, how did the delegation view discrimination against women, flogging, qisas, diyah and amputation as compatible with articles of the Covenant?

It was a matter of concern that the word terrorism could be applied to highway robbery, and laws to counteract such crimes could be invoked under the pretext of anti-terrorist actions. The absence of an international definition on terrorism did not preclude the State party from developing definitions compatible with the Covenant and introducing them into national law. An Expert looked forward to seeing the Draft Penal Code developed along these lines. He asked for a response to a report that the Head of State had said that convicted terrorists were not entitled to have their basic rights respected.

On the same issue, an Expert asked for a more detailed picture on how a suspected terrorist was detained, charged and treated before and during any trial, and under what rules he was held or prosecuted, and whether he was brought before a court.

Additional Responses by the Delegation to Oral Questions

The delegation of Libya said there was no question of being upset by questions from the Experts. The delegation welcomed the spirit of dialogue under which the Committee operated, but was troubled by accusations of “failure” voiced by some Experts. The issue of amputation of robbers in the desert had been misconstrued. Armed gangs in the desert were a serious problem, their actions constituted a special class of crime and this kind of armed robbery – heraba - was classed as a crime of terrorism under national law because it involved a group of people using weapons, threats and terror to seize property and murder persons in the desert in isolated areas.

Additional Questions and Comments by Experts

Experts noted that incarceration could be used to tackle serious crimes and modern and wealthy States should not need to resort to amputation. Article 7 of the Covenant did not look at punishments in relation to the nature of the offence, but in terms of what punishments were or were not cruel per se.

Another Expert noted that specific statistics on torture, execution and other matters had not been provided. He hoped the delegation would be able to give satisfactory responses in the near future or explain any difficulties in obtaining these statistics.

Responses of the Delegation

The delegation said that statistics on violence against women were available and these would be handed over next week.

Security of the Person and Arbitrary Detention

Continuing with replies to the questions raised in advance, the delegation said the Libyan criminal procedure provided guarantees to prevent arbitrary detention. Prison was only used when there was a threat to others, as established in the Great Green Document. Legal statutes also provided frameworks on related issues like solitary confinement.

On claims that detainees were held incommunicado, the delegation said Libyan law gave suspects the right to use either popular (provided by the Government) or private lawyers.

Right to a Fair Trial

On the adoption of new criminal procedure codes, the delegation said there was no draft Criminal Procedure Law. On inspections, the Judicial Inspectorate was mandated to inspect all judicial apparatuses, investigate performance and complaints and make spot checks. There were measures to ensure complete independence and impartial selection of justice officials.

On whether prisoners were still held under rulings of the People’s Court, numerous Special Councils and Courts had been established but the judgments of the People’s Courts were within the law.

Freedom of Thought and Expression

The delegation said restrictions had been removed on rights to freedom of expression and citizens were entitled to express their opinion, including in the media, provided they did not break the law or violate the rights of others.

Freedom of Association

Libya was developing new guarantees to ensure the freedom of association, with appeals procedures, the delegation said.

Protection of Children

There was no difference in treatment between children born in and out of wedlock, and laws on social welfare and minors guaranteed children’s rights in full.

Further Oral Questions by Committee Experts

An Expert asked whether there were independent judicial officers in the Public Prosecution Office to oversee issues such as length of temporary detention, and whether bail was allowed. There seemed to be inconsistencies on time limits for detention, and different time limits again for those arrested under Libyan anti-drug laws. There were reports by non-governmental organizations suggesting hundreds were held incommunicado. What were the delegation’s comments on this? In one case, an individual was held reportedly virtually incommunicado for six years. In another, a critic of the Government had been held since 2004. Without wishing to query whether these people were guilty or innocent, the Expert said the Committee was concerned about fair trial and open proceedings.

On freedom of association, the delegation was asked to explain further the approach to banned organizations and under what conditions organizations were outlawed.

An Expert was concerned that the law on collective punishments (“Charter of Honour”) had not been repealed. Would Libya suspend the law pending review?

The delegation had not answered the Committee’s request for information on collective punishments imposed since 1997.

On children’s rights, an Expert asked the delegation to clarify whether, regardless of law, there was in practice discrimination against children born out of wedlock, and whether there were programmes to tackle this. There were reports that children of mixed Libyan and expatriate parentage had been excluded from school.

There were reports of discrimination against the Amazigh. Did Amazigh children enjoy the same rights as other children in Libya? The Covenant required respect for free association among minorities. There had been reports of children with Amazigh names being excluded from public schools. There was no cultural association to promote Amazigh art, music and culture. Musicians had even been arrested for singing in the Amazigh language. It was understood that religious practices of Ibadism were banned. The Amazigh language was not allowed in the media.

An Expert asked for the reasons for the delay in adopting the Criminal Procedure Code. The Code was of great importance to the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When would the Code be published?

According to a report by a non-governmental organization, in spite of the abolition of People’s Courts, there were ongoing issues that raised concern about the competence of special courts dealing with national State security matters. Was there proper legal recourse?

One Expert queried why, if the People’s Courts judgments were compatible with human rights law, were these Courts abolished? Could the delegation set out clearly what other courts (special or ad-hoc courts) operated beyond ordinary courts, how such special courts were constituted, and what legislation had been enacted to establish them?

It was understood that Colonel Ghaddafi had claimed that there were no political detainees. What were the figures and under what criteria had they been released?

An Expert pointed out that Libya had acceded to the treaties against discrimination against women, rights of the child and other key instruments. Was there a body tasked with disseminating information about these treaties and the obligations of the State and the people to them? The report referred to the Ghaddafi International Foundation and other charitable organizations. What did these bodies do to disseminate information about this Committee’s observations and recommendations? Were there seminars or awareness programmes for public officials?

Responses of the Libyan Delegation to Experts’ Questions

The delegation sought to clarify the difference between Special Courts and specialized courts. The former implied extraordinary courts for dealing with special emergency situations. The latter were designed to deal with certain classes of law (drugs, agricultural disputes, etc) and lessen the burden on the court system. The report was concerned with specialized, not Special, courts. There were no Special Courts in Libya.

There was no discrimination against children either in law or in practice, the delegation said. There was no discrimination against Amazigh children in any aspect of schooling or social welfare.

Regarding freedom of association, laws of 1998 and Labour Code provisions had regulated the status of trade unions in keeping with international labour standards. There had been numerous reviews and redraftings to ensure no constraints on freedom of association. Other laws concerning free association cited by the Experts were also being reviewed, notably concerning educational, social and charitable societies and the like.

Freedom of expression was provided under law, guaranteeing all citizens the right to express their views through People’s Committees. Every citizen was allowed publicly to express his opinions here and in the press. Journalists had the right to express their views in accordance with constitutional law. Positive criticism was allowed and there was access to foreign press and information, satellite TV and the Internet.

The Criminal Code determined time frames for temporary detention of accused and procedures for transferring the case to the general prosecution. Twenty-four hours were allowed to decide on pursuing or not pursuing the case. There were six-day limits on appearing before a judge and only the judge could extend the preventive detention period beyond 30 days. It was prohibited to exceed a certain limit.

Allegations concerning the 285 people held incommunicado were inaccurate.

The delegation said there was a moratorium on the Honour Charter.

Concluding Remarks

RAFAEL RIVAS POSADA, Chairperson of the Committee, in preliminary concluding remarks, said it was important to stress the need for a clear understanding about the Committee’s powers. There was no question of hasty judgment or prejudice. Rather, the Committee’s authority to insist on certain information being presented in certain ways should be unambiguous.

Corporal punishment, discrimination against women, and other human rights infringements remained of concern. He hoped the State party would be able to overcome any future obstacles in order to make good use of the dialogue mechanism.

MAHMOUD ABUSEIF, Head of the Delegation of Libya, concluding, said by the end there had been good interaction and understanding and there was good reason to see progress in dialogue aimed at meeting the State party’s obligations.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT07016E