COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE OPENS TWENTY-SIXTH SESSION

CAT
26th session
30 April 2001
Morning




Hears Statement by Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights



The Committee against Torture started its twenty-sixth session this morning by hearing a statement by the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights and by adopting its agenda for the current session.

In his opening remarks, Bertrand Ramcharan, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the problem of torture had been with the international community for a long time. In the last century, a determined struggle was made to help develop international norms against torture. The interdiction of torture in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a notable landmark. The Declaration against Torture and then the Convention that the Committee watched over had given the vital legal framework necessary to help stamp out that evil phenomenon.

Mr. Ramcharan said that it was important for each treaty body to have a clear view of its objectives, its evolving roles, its practices, its efficiency and effectiveness, and its place within the international movement for the protection of human rights.

During its three-week session, the Committee will examine the reports of Georgia, Greece, Bolivia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Brazil, Kazakhstan and Costa Rica. These countries are among the 123 States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

During the morning meeting, a representative of the Secretariat told the Committee that as of March 2001, 84 initial reports had been submitted while 37 were still overdue. Concerning the second periodic reports, 52 reports were received while 41 were late; and with regard to the third periodic reports, 28 had been presented while 37 were still overdue. Among the 27 fourth periodic reports expected from States parties, only 6 had been received so far.

In the afternoon, the Committee will consider in closed meeting information received which appeared to contain well-founded indications that torture was being systematically practised in the territory of a State party. It will also examine communications under article 21 of the Convention. The article says that a State party to the Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognized the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday 1 May, it will take up the second periodic report of Georgia (document CAT/C/48/Add.1).

Statement of Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights

BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, underlined that the problem of torture had been with the international community for a long time. In the last century, a determined struggle was made to help develop international norms against torture. The interdiction of torture in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a notable landmark. The Declaration against Torture and then the Convention that the Committee watched over had given the vital legal framework necessary to help stamp out that evil phenomenon.

Mr. Ramcharan recalled that in 1984, Amnesty International published its report -- "Torture in the Eighties". It told a story of political suspects and other prisoners facing torture in police stations, secret detention centres, camps and military barracks in countries throughout the world. Condemning torture under all political systems, the report spelled out a global programme for its abolition.

On the issue of international responses, Amnesty International had urged that Governments should use all available channels to intercede with governments accused of torture, Mr. Ramcharan went on to say. Inter-governmental mechanisms should be established and used to investigate reports of torture urgently and to take effective action against the practise. Governments should ensure that military, security or police transfers or training did not facilitate the practice of torture.

How could one act to seed up ratification by the more than 60 States that had not yet done so, Mr. Ramcharan asked. What was the future role of the Committee in relation to the Special Rapporteur against Torture, the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture, the Optional Protocol under discussion, and international tribunals currently developing a jurisprudence on the question of torture? Shouldn't one see the Committee in relation to the international architecture to combat torture and wasn't there a leadership role for the Committee within that architecture? After all, it was the global body striving for the prevention of torture. Faced with mounting evidence of the persistence and widespread practice of torture, what room was there for more dynamism in combatting torture within the framework of the Convention? What could the Committee recommend to the forthcoming World Conference against Racism from its vantage point.

Mr. Ramcharan said he posed those questions for three reasons: the evidence that torture persisted on a widespread scale; the need to look at the evolving role of the Committee after twenty five earlier sessions; and the environment in which many voices were calling for reforms in the implementation of human rights treaties.

In conclusion, Mr. Ramcharan said that it was important for each treaty body to have a clear view of its objectives, its evolving roles, its practices, its efficiency and effectiveness, and its place within the international movement for the protection of human rights.



* *** *