COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS EXAMINATION OF REPORT OF FRANCE

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the combined fourth to sixth periodic report of France 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, Jean-Baptiste Mattei, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva, noted that France intervened regularly in the United Nations framework to support global efforts to combat torture. It had shown unstinting support for the efforts of the Special Rapporteur against torture and had led an active campaign for the entry into force of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, an important link in the chain to prevent torture. France had moreover ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture in December 2008, and had established its national preventive mechanism, the Inspector General of places of deprivation of liberty, by a law of October 2007.

At the national level, Mr. Mattei highlighted a strengthening of protections for foreigners over the course of recent years. Since the law of 20 November 2007, persons requesting asylum at the border benefited from full legal protection and could not be expelled until an administrative judge had handed down a ruling. During that procedure, the foreigner had the right to be heard, to have an interpreter and to be assisted by counsel, who would be appointed if they did not have one. Measures had also been taken in order to better respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of detainees. The prison law of 2009, among others, increased the number of persons who could benefit from alternative sentencing; ensured that solitary confinement was reduced and better monitored; and provided strict monitoring for full body searches. In addition, the Inspector General, established in 2008 and responsible for preventing torture in all places of detention, had received 532 complaints in his first year and, to date, had made 215 visits.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of France, Committee Expert Claudio Grossman said he was not satisfied with France's position that torture was not an imprescriptible crime. To say that it was not necessary to prosecute a case of torture simply because it happened 10 years ago was not acceptable. Another concern was that terrorism suspects were exempt from new laws providing for audio-visual recordings of interrogations, which created serious issues of equality before the law. Also with regard to those recordings, in two cases in which suspects had killed themselves the cameras in their detention cells were reportedly not working, and he asked if any investigations had been undertaken into those cases. Other concerns included whether medical examinations of injured suspects were really mandatory and that for certain crimes, such as terrorism and drug trafficking, suspects did not have a right to a lawyer until after the first 72 hours.

Essadia Belmir, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of France, was concerned about the issue of human dignity in France. She perceived a will to improve the legal system, but she was not sure there was a will to reform the judicial machinery. She also raised the issue of Tasers and the situation of minors in detention, who sometimes were threatened to sign records of court cases, and did not always have a chance to appear before a judge.

Other Committee Experts also asked questions and raised concerns on a number of issues, including measures to decrease prison overcrowding, in particular in France's overseas territories, where overcrowding sometimes reached as high as 230 per cent; the continuing high rate of suicides in French prisons; use of "excessive" restraining techniques in prisons and any cases that may have been brought for such abuse; and allegations that body searches in prisons were often arbitrary and carried out in a humiliating fashion.

Also representing the delegation of France were representatives of the Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs; the Ministry of Immigration, National Identity and Solidarity; the Ministry of the Interior; the Ministry of Justice; and the Permanent Mission of France in Geneva.

The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 April, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.

France is among the 146 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.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hold a meeting with States parties to discuss issues connected with its methods of work and treaty body reform.

Report of France

The fourth to sixth periodic report of France, presented in one document (CAT/C/FRA/4-6), contains replies to the Committee’s concluding observations and recommendations to France’s third report (see CAT/C/FRA/CO/3), and provides details on issues including non-refoulement guarantees for asylum-seekers; limits for pre-trial detentions; prison inspections; and sentencing for police convicted of torture or ill-treatment of detainees, among others.

Regarding access by a lawyer to a person held in custody, for cases of organized crime and delinquency (terrorism, drug trafficking, aggravated procuring, etc.) or when the offences committed have caused serious injury to persons or even damaged national interests, provision is made for access by a lawyer within 48 hours (abduction, procuring, aggravated theft, extortion, criminal association), and even 72 hours (in the case of drug trafficking and terrorism). Custody cannot exceed four days (48 hours followed, exceptionally, by an extension of 24 hours, then a second period of 24 hours). Since the Act of 23 January 2006 on counter-terrorism, custody in cases involving terrorism can be of six days’ duration (24-hour extension renewable once in addition to the existing 96 hours), but in two exceptional cases only: if there is a serious risk of imminent terrorist action in France or abroad; or if the requirements of international cooperation make it essential. In these cases, interviews with legal counsel take place at the seventy-second, ninety-sixth and one hundred and second hours. Up to 7 May 2008 the six-day custody provision had been used only once, in response to the requirements of international cooperation, which shows that judges use the provision sparingly. The system upholds procedural guarantees: those concerned have the right to be assisted by counsel and benefit from permanent judicial supervision of the investigation and of the coercive measures applied by the specialized bodies; they may also appeal against any decisions by the judicial authority, irrespective of the seriousness of the charges against them. As a further protection, in criminal matters, audio-visual recording of adults is now compulsory in the case of the interrogation of persons under custody in police or gendarmerie premises, as well as for the interrogation of persons under examination in the office of the investigating judge.

The number of committal orders issued during preliminary proceedings is decreasing regularly. It fell from 28,240 in 1993 to 19,003 in 2007, i.e. by 32.7 per cent in 15 years. This reduction is explained in part by a drop in the number of cases submitted for investigation. However, the average duration of pre-trial detention following preliminary investigation has increased steadily. It stood at 5.3 months in 1990, at 6.5 months in 2000 and at 8.7 months in 2005. For the first time since 2001, this figure fell in 2006 (7.3 months) only to rise again in 2007 (8.1 months). The increasing length of preliminary investigations and the complexity of the case to be dealt with are such as to increase the average length of pre-trial detention. For example, a preliminary examination lasted on average 25.1 months in 2007 in the case of a trial before an assize court for adults, compared with 20.9 months in 2001. Recourse to alternatives to pre-trial detention, in particular to judicial supervision, has become more common. The rate of placement under judicial supervision (persons placed under judicial supervision/persons placed under investigation) rose from 25.6 per cent in 1993 to 61.4 per cent in 2007.

Presentation of Report

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that a concrete sign of France's commitment to combating torture could be found in its work within the United Nations framework. France intervened regularly in that framework to support global efforts in this area, in particular through national human rights mechanisms. France was unstinting in its support of the efforts of the Special Rapporteur against torture and led an active campaign for the entry into force of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, an important link in the chain in preventing torture. The two ratifications that were still lacking for that Convention's entry into force were expected this year.

Mr. Mattei also noted that the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by which States committed to abolish the death penalty under any circumstances, had entered into force in France on 2 January 2008, following the necessary reform of the Constitution. In addition, France called upon States that had not done so to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. France had done so in December 2008, and had established its national preventive mechanism, the Inspector General of places of deprivation of liberty, by a law of October 2007.

Outside of the United Nations, in August 2007, France had ratified the Council of Europe's Protocol on human trafficking. Also within the Council of Europe, France had been very involved in the elaboration of a convention on the protection of children from exploitation and sexual abuse, which France had signed on 25 October 2007 in Lanzarote. Within the framework of the European Union, France had continued to draw up local strategies for the implementation of directives on torture and had cooperated with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

Given the diverse frameworks for the prevention of torture, France sought to encourage better synergies, including between the work of the Committee and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe. France also encouraged strengthening cooperation with the Agency for Fundamental Rights, created in 2007 by the Council of Europe, and welcomed the conclusion of a cooperation agreement between the Agency and the European Court of Human Rights.

Turning to main developments at the national level, Mr. Mattei said he would concentrate on progress with regard to three vulnerable groups: foreigners – who benefited from improved asylum laws; detainees – for whom efforts were being made to humanize the prison environment; and more generally with respect to all people deprived of their freedom – with regard to whom efforts had been made to prevent attacks on their dignity.

Concerning foreigners, French law guaranteed the right to asylum, in accordance with the definition set out in the Geneva Convention but also, since the law of 10 December 2003, for all persons exposed to the threat of death, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or more generalized violence resulting from a conflict. Those protections had been further strengthened over the course of recent years. Since the law of 20 November 2007, persons requesting asylum at the border benefited from full legal protection and could not be expelled until an administrative judge had handed down a ruling. During such a procedure, the foreigner had the right to be heard, to have an interpreter and to be assisted by counsel, who would be appointed if he did not have one. The judge then undertook a thorough review of the decision to refuse the asylum request with regard to the non-refoulement obligations contained in article three of the Convention against Torture and had the full power to annul the decision if he deemed the return would expose the foreigner to risk. That achievement responded to concerns expressed by various treaty bodies and was a consequence of the decision in the Gebremedhin decision handed down by the Court of Strasbourg in April 2007.

Mr. Mattei highlighted that – with nearly 48,000 requests for asylum presented in France in 2009, France was, as in 2008, the leader in Europe and the third among industrialized countries, after the United States and Canada, in terms of the number of asylum requests it received. In 2009, more than 10,000 persons had obtained international protection in France, either under the Geneva Refugee Convention, or under a subsidiary protection law. Nearly 30 per cent of asylum-seekers saw their requests granted.

France's willingness to accept persons exposed to risks or in a vulnerable situation was also translated into specific activities since 2008. On 4 February 2008, France signed an agreement with the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) with a view to accepting refugees in precarious situations, as a first country of accommodation. During 2008, 347 persons were accepted under that agreement and 98 had been hosted under the 2009 programme, which was still ongoing. In particular, given the situation of members of minority religions in Iraq, France had agreed to accept more than 1,200 Iraqis since 2008.

Turning to activities to humanize the prison environment, Mr. Mattei said that France was fully aware of the difficulties facing its prison facilities. Measures had been taken in order to better respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of detainees. By modernizing its legal framework, and given it new perspectives, the prison law of 2009 gave new impetus to the prison administration and its activities. It was the source of a clarified prison law that incorporated, as far as possible, the requirements imposed on it by European penitentiary rules.

The rehabilitative nature of the penitentiary system and the fight against recidivism were also important, and prison should not be seen as the only form of punishment. With those objectives in mind, as well as to fight overcrowding, therefore, alternatives to prosecution and incarceration were being sought out, as well as different responses to offences, Mr. Mattei said. The penitentiary law of 2009 had the goal of increasing the number of persons who could benefit from alternative sentencing. Even before it had been officially published, the law had seen positive results: between 2008 and 2009, more than 22 per cent of convicted persons had benefited from alternative sentencing, which in more than 30 per cent of cases meant being placed under electronic surveillance.

Other targets of the new law were to ensure that solitary confinement was reduced and better monitored. Full body searches were also more strictly monitored, and now could only take place following strict indicators.

With regard to preventing suicides in the problems and psychiatric care, there was already work ongoing in this area, including better identification of persons at risk, the protection of vulnerable detainees, development of activities in detention, and better access to telephone services; these were all actions that had already been taken. And the total reorganization of the system of psychiatric care in places of detention was currently under way, Mr. Mattei added.

Prevention of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment in the prisons would also be stepped up by the activities of human rights mechanisms whose scope extended beyond the prison environment. Since July 2008, the Constitution provided for a Human Rights Defender mandated to monitor respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in an attempt to bring order to a multiplication of such mechanisms and the resulting confusion that created for the public. The definitive contours of the Human Rights Defender were now determined by the Parliament, but it was already stipulated that they should surpass those of the bodies it was to replace. Additional powers being contemplated for this office were the capacity to make observations on cases and to propose solutions to the parties; and the scope of its investigatory powers. In addition to receiving complaints, the Human Rights Defender would be able to take action on its own initiative if it believed human rights were being infringed.

In addition, as mentioned earlier, the Inspector General, appointed in June 2008, was responsible for preventing the commission of acts that this Committee was engaged to fight in all places of detention in France, Mr. Mattei said. The Inspector General had a team of 20 persons, of whom 14 were monitors. The budget of the Inspector General had increased from 2.5 million euros in 2008, to 3.1 million in 2009. Exceeding expectations, the Inspector had received 532 complaints in his first year and in that same period had carried out 158 visits. To date, 215 visits had been made since the creation of the institution. Those visits were divided equally between visits to police remand cells, prisons, and other places of detention. Clearly, the activities of the Inspector General provided effective measures to prevent torture.

Questions Raised by Committee Experts

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the report of France, was concerned that France's legislation did not clearly mirror the definition as set out in article one of the Convention. France's law spoke of acts of "exceptional gravity", which was not language found in the Convention.

Mr. Grossman was further not satisfied with France's position that torture was not an imprescriptible crime. To say that it was not necessary to prosecute a case of torture simply because it happened 10 years ago was not acceptable.

Turning to the law on recording interrogations, Mr. Grossman was concerned that terrorism suspects were exempt from such recordings. The idea that suspects of certain crimes were not recorded created serious issues of equality before the law. Moreover, such laws did not protect the police: they had all seen what happened when these terrorism suspects were released and they made accusations in public. Other issues were that not all facilities were required to have such video surveillance or recording.

In two cases where suspects subsequently killed themselves the cameras in their detention cells were reportedly not working, for example. In that connection, Mr. Grossman asked if any investigations had been undertaken into those cases. He noted that, in one case, it was alleged that the detainee himself had pulled out the cables. Furthermore, according to a 2004 report by Amnesty International, there had been no report that the camera was not functioning and it was "impossible" given the location of the camera for the suspect to pull out the cables.

Concerning the obligatory nature of medical examinations of injured suspects, Mr. Grossman was concerned about information in the report that when a person in custody was injured the police were "encouraged" to seek medical advice and obtain a medical certificate. What did "encouraged" mean? Furthermore, what was the specific nature of the medical certificate that would be issued?

Mr. Grossman asked if he had understood correctly that terrorist suspects were not allowed to receive medical treatment for the first 48 hours of their detention in France?

In the report, it said that the serious nature of certain crimes such as terrorism and drug trafficking justified the waiving of the right to have a lawyer from the start of detention. Such suspects were only granted the right to a lawyer after the first 72 hours. Mr. Grossman did not understand how that could be compatible with the Convention against Torture.

Among other concerns raised by Mr. Grossman were the use of Tasers (or "stun guns") by the police; and limitations to extraterritorial jurisdiction for crimes of torture under French law.

ESSADIA BELMIR, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of France, was concerned about the issue of human dignity in France, which meant that individuals benefited from legal guarantees. She perceived a will to improve the legal system, but she was not sure there was a will to reform the judicial machinery.

Ms. Belmir also raised the issue of Tasers, although noting that they were not used in places of detention; the situation of minors in detention, who sometimes were threatened to sign records of court cases, and did not always have a chance to appear before a judge.

Other Committee Experts raised questions on a number of issues, including on the definition of torture, and what distinguished acts of torture from other serious acts of bodily harm; what recourses were available to a subordinate in the army who was ordered to commit an act of torture by his superior; concrete results of the investigations undertaken by the new Inspector General, including whether the Inspector General's recommendations had been complied with; a concern that measures to decrease prison overcrowding were not enough and not rapid enough; and a particular concern about penitentiary centres in France's overseas territories, where overcrowding sometimes reached as high as 230 per cent.

Other concerns raised included the continuing high rate of suicides in French prisons; use of "excessive" restraining techniques in prisons and any cases that may have been brought for such abuse; training for police and prison officials in use of restraining techniques; allegations that body searches in prisons were often arbitrary and carried out in a humiliating fashion; limitations on the rights of terrorist suspects to have access to a lawyer, a doctor and members of their families; a high and growing number of involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations and a lack of legal safeguards for such incarcerations; and what measures had been taken to secure rights of foreigners resident in France who did not want to return to their home countries because of fear that they would be subject to female genital mutilation.

An Expert was particularly concerned that an Argentine citizen responsible for torture had been granted a military award in France. Another particular concern was that the law establishing the Inspector General did not allow him to inspect places of detention outside of French territory, but only those that were under French jurisdiction.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT10/003E