COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS FOLLOW-UP TO COMMUNICATIONS AND CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The Committee against Torture this afternoon considered the issue of follow-up to individual communications and to concluding observations, hearing oral presentations by Committee Members on each topic.

Committee Member Felice Gaer, rapporteur for follow-up to concluding observations, recalled that the whole purpose of the follow-up procedure was to make measures to combat torture more effective. Detailing the procedure, she said in the Committee's concluding observations issued following its review of a State party report, three to six recommendations were identified and States parties were asked to respond on those within one year. The criteria for selecting issues for follow up were that it was serious, protective, and realizable in a year. It was heartening to say that States were complying with that request. Since the procedure had been established in May 2003, the Committee had reviewed 80 States for which it had identified follow-up recommendations. Out of 66 States due to present their follow-up responses by next Friday, 41 had already completed that requirement, or a response rate of two thirds. This was outstanding for a new procedure and one that was not strictly required under the Convention.

Among findings, Ms. Gaer said the largest number of the follow-up recommendations had been a request for greater precision in the way police and officials ensured the rights of detainees, in particular to family visits and medical examinations. It had become evident that there was a need for an exclusive independent national body dedicated to follow-up to violations of rights in the Convention. States across the board also encountered problems in compiling statistics on problems of abuse and accountability. What had emerged most clearly was how prompt and impartial investigations into allegations were and how national human rights institutions and National Ombudsmen could make a huge difference. It was also seen that, while States often provided a lot of information provided on training programmes, very few appeared to specifically provide information on training to prevent torture, including training on the Convention and on the Istanbul Protocol.

Looking to the future, Ms. Gaer felt that there should be a new way of selecting items for follow-up, as the issues that fit the procedure were not always the most relevant for the country involved. There should be greater rigour in the selection of follow-up issues.

Committee Chairperson Claudio Grossman commented that the follow-up procedure might have made this Committee more effective than others in addressing issues. It certainly had given tremendous solidity to the Committee. He emphasized the need to establish guiding principles for follow-up to ensure consistency in the Committee's practice, for example identifying which situations would give rise to a request for investigation, or guidelines on when they used the term "reparations" and when they used the term "compensation".

Committee Members had a lively debate about the issue of consistency in the Committee's work. Members also discussed the issue of non-governmental organization (NGO) involvement in follow-up and whether the Committee should solicit NGO input in that process. The possibility of on site, in-country follow-up was also mooted by Ms. Gaer, including establishing a scale of different follow-up procedures and reserving on site follow-up for the most severe cases.

There was a long discussion about the basis upon which the Committee could consider the death penalty, which was not directly prohibited by the Convention, in particular in view of evolving international law in this area. Ms. Gaer highlighted that, while this was an important issue, and it was important to be consistent in the Committee's practice with regard to the death penalty, the death penalty had never been the subject of a follow-up recommendation.

Presenting the report on follow-up to individual communications, Committee Expert Fernando Mariño Menendez said there had been progress in follow-up on individual communications. There were seven cases that were treated in the report, two on Spain, one on Sweden, two on Tunisia, one on Canada and one on Montenegro. The first Spanish case involved a violation of promptness in examining torture complaints and in carrying out an impartial investigation, and there was currently a back and forth with Spain as to whether they had or had not responded to the Committee's follow-up inquiry. The other Spanish case referred to officers of the Spanish security forces condemned for the crime of torture who had later been partially pardoned by the Government. It was Spain's contention that the judgement was non-appealable, noting that civil liability had been determined and the complainant had been awarded compensation. The two Tunisian cases involved the non-performance of the State's obligation to investigate torture claims, in both cases the Committee told the State party that it had to investigate, and in one case had to exhume the body to perform an autopsy. Tunisia had argued in one case that domestic remedies, including compensation, had been provided, and in the other, that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. In the Swedish case, involving a violation of article 3 (non-refoulement) obligations, the situation had been resolved.

The Canadian case involved the expulsion of an individual to India in a manner in which the Committee had found a violation of article 3. The Committee had asked that Canada make reparations for the breach, as well as to consult with India to determine the complainant's current whereabouts and the state of his well-being. Lastly, there was a case involving Montenegro which related to the destruction of a Gypsy settlement that led to conditions of inhuman treatment. The Committee had asked that the State party pay reparations, investigate the complaint and prosecute the culprits. Montenegro had responded, saying that reparations had already been paid in the case in question, Mr. Mariño Menendez said.

In the following discussion, an Expert raised the concern that Canada's behaviour showed its disregard for the Views of the Committee.

It was decided that, owing to time constraints, the Committee would adjourn its meeting and come back to the issue of individual communications at 10 a.m. on Friday, 8 May.

For use of the information media; not an official record


CAT09018E