لجنة مناهضة التعذيب تنظر في تقرير فنزويلا

Committee against Torture

7 November 2014

The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the combined third and fourth periodic report of Venezuela on its implementation of the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
 
Jose Vincente Rangel Avalos, Vice-Minister for Internal Affairs and Judicial Security, Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, introducing the report said that Venezuela had set up the new police force which had an obligation to act in strict compliance with the constitution and human rights treaties.  The law on preventing and sanctioning torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment had been passed in 2013 and had established the National Commission for the Prevention of Torture.  The National Human Rights Council had been set up this year and was the main body for coordination, support and promotion of the public human rights policy.  The Ministry of People’s Power for Prison Services, created in 2011, ensured the Government’s full compliance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners.
 
Committee Experts commended Venezuela for adopting the law which incorporated the definition of torture from the Convention against Torture but were concerned that the law did not apply to acts of torture committed outside of police custody.  Reports of the arrest of more than 3,000 persons in connection with the events of February 2014 indicated that the basic safeguards included in the criminal procedure law were not always respected.  Experts encouraged Venezuela to extend an invitation to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other Special Procedures and asked about the reasons for which Venezuela had withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.  Another issue raised was prison overcrowding, which at 213 per cent significantly contributed to harsh living conditions in prisons. 
 
In concluding remarks, Mr. Rangel Avalos said that Venezuela was a democracy, and as in every democracy, there were opponents and supporters; the non-governmental organizations which came before the Committee had presented their version of facts, which was biased.
 
Essadia Belmir, Committee Vice-Chairperson, in concluding remarks thanked the delegation of Venezuela for the assurance that non-governmental organizations which presented alternative versions of facts would not suffer reprisals.
 
The delegation of Venezuela included representatives of the Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs, Magistrate of the Supreme Court of Justice, National Human Rights Council, Public Prosecution Office, Ministry of People’s Power for Prison Services, and the Permanent Mission of Venezuela to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
 
The Committee will reconvene in public on Monday, 10 November, at 10 a.m. to consider the combined fourth and fifth periodic report of Australia (CAT/C/AUS/4-5).
 
Report
 
The combined third and fourth periodic report of Venezuela can be read via the following link: CAT/C/VEN/3-4.
 
Presentation of the Report

JOSE VINCENTE RANGEL AVALOS, Vice-Minister for Internal Affairs and Judicial Security, Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, introducing the report, said that Venezuela had many effective policies to prevent torture and ill-treatment; torture was prohibited by the constitution and those who suffered torture by State agents had the right to reparation.  This year, anti-democratic elements had resorted to terrorism and tried to overturn the Government.  In response, the law enforcement officers and the judiciary had acted in strict accordance with the rule of law, while those apprehended had had the right to legal counsel and a fair trial.  The police had been undergoing reform since 2006 and the new police force had been established which had an obligation to act in strict compliance with the Constitution and human rights treaties ratified by Venezuela.  The National Experimental University, created in 2009, had for the first time ensured university-level education for the police force which put an accent on social sensibilization to protect a person and her or his rights.  In addition to the Criminal Investigation Unit for the violation of fundamental rights, more recently a Coroner’s (Forensic) Division had been created to assist in obtaining results faster.
 
In 2013, Venezuela had passed the law on preventing and sanctioning torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, which incorporated the provisions of the Convention against Torture and the recommendations addressed to Venezuela by this Committee.  The National Commission for the Prevention of Torture had been established to promote, coordinate, oversee and monitor the State’s policies and plans with regard to combatting torture and inhumane and degrading treatment.  It could carry out unannounced visits to detention centres and could meet with any detainee in private.  Venezuela had also adopted a law on crimes, disappearances, torture and other violations of human rights for political reasons and had set up the Truth Commission to investigate cases of torture and enforced disappearances committed during the period 1958 to 1998.  The National Human Rights Council had been set up this year and was the main body for coordination, support and promotion of the public human rights policy.  The Ministry of People’s Power for Prison Services had been created in 2011 and the Government fully complied with the Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners.
 
Questions by Country Rapporteurs
 
JENS MODVIG, Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur, commended Venezuela for adopting the law which incorporated the definition of torture from the Convention, but was concerned that the law did not apply to acts of torture committed outside of custody.  Reports of the arrest of more than 3,000 persons in connection to the events of February 2014 indicated that the basic safeguards included in the criminal procedure law were not always respected as the detainees were stripped naked, threatened with torture and denied access to lawyers and medical care.  How many complaints of torture or ill-treatment in connection with the events of February 2014 had been filed and how many investigations were being conducted? 
 
How many criminal investigations had been initiated in 2013 and in how many of those had public lawyers been provided to the accused?  Concerning the right to medical care, the Country Rapporteur asked whether all detainees enjoyed this right from the onset of the arrest, whether it applied to detainees in police stations, and asked the delegation to provide more information on the system of medical care in place, including on which doctors performed examinations, who they reported to and whether they were trained in the implementation of the Istanbul Protocol.
 
Venezuela had not yet extended an invitation to the Special Rapporteur on torture whose visit could provide useful inputs to the new national plan on combating torture.  Venezuela had withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission and the Country Rapporteur wondered about the reasons for this regressive step.
 
With regard to trafficking in human beings, the delegation was asked about the status of the draft law on human trafficking, the measures implemented to inform the police about the prohibition of trafficking and elaboration of protocols for treatment of trafficking cases, and about the situation concerning protective measures and shelters for victims of trafficking.  Mr. Modvig welcomed the elaboration of the Manual for the prevention of domestic violence and asked when it would be completed and put in practice.
 
How many allegations of torture and ill-treatment had been filed with the Ombudsman and what were outcomes of those cases?  How many unannounced visits had been conducted by the Ombudsman and what were their outcomes and findings; which recommendations did they give rise to?
 
All members of the National Human Rights Commission should be independent from the Government, which was particularly important given that this Commission would serve as the national preventive mechanism in the light of the upcoming ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture by Venezuela.  What was the estimated timetable for this ratification process?  How was Venezuela intending to deal with the recommendations by the International Commission of Jurists aimed at guaranteeing judicial independence?
 
KENING ZHANG, Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur, took up the issue of training and asked about the number and percentage of persons trained and whether the provisions of the Convention were included in the training subjects.  What was the percentage of law enforcement forces that was trained in the proportional use of force?  Were immigration officers trained in the provisions of the Convention against Torture and the Istanbul Protocol? 
 
At the end of June 2014, there were over 13,000 persons in custody, almost double the 7,000 persons held in custody at the end of 2013; some had been held for prolonged periods of time including in facilities that were not designed for prolonged detention.  What was the situation with regard to access to food, water and medical care in prison facilities?
 
Questions by the Committee Experts
 
Taking up the issue of the prison system of Venezuela, a Committee Expert asked about the findings of the socio-economic appraisal of the prison population conducted in 2010 and the policies adopted as a result, which were important considering the harsh living conditions in prisons.  Overcrowding stood at 231 per cent, particularly in the prison of Tokoron, which had been built for 700 inmates, and was now hosting 7,000 inmates; more than 60 per cent of the prison population was made up of those awaiting trial that were not separated from those already sentenced.  Violence in prisons and deaths of prisoners were on the increase.
 
Another Expert asked about Venezuela’s position on the ratification of the Optional Protocol, the intention to extend an invitation to other United Nations Special Procedures, if the recommendations of the National Commission for the Police Reform were part of the positive law, and the impact of the 2009 law on the police on the conduct of the police officers, particularly in the light of the ongoing instances of torture.
 
Concerning the lack of security of tenure for the judiciary, a Committee Expert said that Venezuela had failed to respect this provision of the rule of law, adding that the detention of judges for their verdicts was inconceivable.  Was there a state of emergency provision which authorised the use of the army to maintain the rule of law?
 
Other Experts commended the criminalization of domestic violence and the extension of the scope to include also mental torture and asked about the measures taken to implement this law in practice and to address gender-based violence.  Extensive involvement of military officers in crowd control and in contact with demonstrators was reported and the Committee wondered how many cases of torture, ill-treatment and disproportional use of force had been committed by the military while dealing with demonstrators.  Venezuela was a member of the Human Rights Council and the Committee wondered how it was possible that not a single Special Procedure mandate holder had been invited to visit the country.  The delegation was also asked to comment on the case of Judge Afiuni.
 
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Committee Chairperson, asked about the implementation of the law against torture in the light of complaints that some armed groups were being tolerated by the State, the outcome of investigations of cases of harassment of journalists, convictions for acts of torture, and the law on the eradication of domestic violence, including its enforcement and resources allocated to its implementation.  Mr. Grossman noted that 7,700 persons were held in police custody and wondered whether the presumption of innocence was implemented in practice and asked about discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. 
 
JENS MODVIG, Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur, raised a number of other issues with the delegation, including the absence of the section on compensation of victims of torture in the new law on torture; instances in which the use of force was legitimate; and the system in place to investigate deaths in custody.
 
Replies by the Delegation
 
Responding to Experts’ questions and comments, the head of the delegation stressed that Venezuela was not on trial before this Committee and that the 3,000 cases of torture cited by the media were issues of the past.  The new constitution was clear in that the crimes against humanity and war crimes were not subject to a statute of limitation and would be tried by regular courts; those crimes and human rights violations could not be subject of impunity or amnesty.  The Constitution also absolutely prohibited torture, cruel or degrading treatment by State agents and gave the victims of such acts the right to compensation.  Venezuela was committed to not allowing its dark past to haunt the country and would not tolerate acts of torture.  Sadly, Venezuela had been the first country in which people had disappeared and the practice had spread to other countries in the region; Venezuela would not tolerate enforced disappearances and had created a Truth and Justice Commission which searched for the disappeared and for the perpetrators of those crimes. 
 
With regard to the demonstrations in February 2014, the delegation said that the Office of the Public Prosecution had been providing information on a weekly basis to all the communities as to the complaints about acts of torture received by the Office, the ongoing investigations and the decisions taken.  A total of 242 complaints had been received, of which 125 cases had been settled or had a legal decision taken; 15 State security officials had been sentenced.  There were 121 cases in which officials from the Bolivarian National Guard had been accused and five had been formally indicted.  During the demonstrations, a total of 3,351 individuals had been detained, and today only 58 individuals were still deprived of their liberty because of the gravity of the committed acts.  The delegation provided information about individual cases mentioned by Committee Experts and warned that they were constantly been taken advantage of by some providing information to the Committee. 
 
Venezuela guaranteed the human rights of those arrested in connection with the violent demonstrations of February 2014; records of their interrogations were carefully kept by the law enforcement officers and they had access to necessary medical care.  If a detainee waited for more than 48 hours to appear before a judge, he or she would be freed.  Sufficient information had been provided concerning the case of Judge Afiuni, said the delegation and stressed that no complaint had been received in connection to the alleged rape mentioned in a book.
 
The newly created Ministry of People’s Power for Prison Services had carried out the diagnosis of the situation in each penitentiary facility with the aim of putting in place a new penitentiary regime in the country, which resulted in a number of new initiatives.  All of the 7,000 prison staff were graduates of the National Experimental University for Security, and were also trained in the Convention against Torture.  There were currently 82 custodial facilities in the country, 50 of which were for adults and 32 for adolescents in conflict with the law; 71 prisons enjoyed the new regime while others were expected to join within two years.  The Government continued the fight against the prison mafia and to address the problem of prison violence.  Concerns about the alleged overcrowding in prisons had been addressed in the report and the delegation stressed that with the new penitentiary regime implemented in 87 per cent of the prison facilities, there was no overcrowding.  There was no prison violence in 87 per cent of the prisons and the number of victims of prison violence was on the decrease.  Venezuela categorically denied the practice of torture by prison officials in Yare III or in any other custodial facility in the country.
 
All members of the Bolivarian National Police were trained, and information on the Convention against Torture was always included in courses.  The recently established National Experimental Security University played a key role in the training of police and other security officials.  The National Service of Medical and Forensic Science had been established as well, which was independent from the police and provided legal medical services.  The situation in centres of preventive detention was a challenge, said the delegation, adding that all efforts were being undertaken to address it.  All the recommendations by the National Commission for the Police Reform had been included in the Law on Bolivarian National Police and were now part of positive law. 
 
Venezuela was in the process of evaluating requests for visits by Special Procedures, said the delegation, adding that the reasons for the denunciation of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights had been well explained previously, mainly because Venezuela did not accept the politicization and selective use of human rights.  As far as Venezuela was concerned, the Inter-American system had become a centre for systematic political action against the people and sovereignty of Venezuela.  Venezuela had signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture in July 2011, while ratification would continue as scheduled.
 
Further Questions by the Committee Experts
 
JENS MODVIG, Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur, took positive note of the progress made in Venezuela, including the legal definition and prohibition of torture, the establishment of the national preventive mechanism, and the existence of an institute for forensic science.  It was the duty of the Committee to focus on the areas of improvement and to provide recommendations that would strengthen accountability and transparency in the system for the prevention of torture.  In this, the Committee relied also on reports by non-governmental organizations, whose staff, in some cases, had suffered acts of reprisals, and Mr. Modvig reiterated the request to Venezuela to ensure that the non-governmental organizations collaborating with the Committee would suffer no acts of reprisals.  The delegation was asked about the independence of the judiciary, more detailed information about received allegations of torture and ill-treatment, and the official procedures for investigations of death in custody.
 
KENING ZHANG, Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur, asked the delegation about the total number of people currently detained in Venezuela.
 
Another Expert pointed at significant discrepancies between the information provided by the delegation and the information from other sources, including by the Venezuela Observatory for Prisons: on overcrowding, which the delegation claimed did not exist, the Observatory claimed the rate of 231 per cent; it spoke of allegations of torture in prison facilities, particularly in prison Yare III; and said prison violence, which, according to the delegation, did not exist, could be found in 87 per cent of prisons.  The Government reported, at the same time, that 402 inmates had been killed in prisons in 2013, which was a worrying figure if all those deaths occurred in only 13 per cent of prisons.
 
Prisons in Venezuela were considered among the most violent with high incidence of death, said another Expert, and asked about outcomes of investigations into deaths of prisoners that occurred in January 2013.  What mechanisms were in place to ensure compliance with the law on the prohibition of torture, and what were the budgetary resources provided for the National Plan for the Prevention of Torture and the National Institute for Victims of Torture?  After more than five years of efforts to reform the police, what were the reasons for its increasing militarization and putting the training of police officers in the hands of the military?
 
Several Experts reiterated the question to the delegation concerning visits by the Special Procedures and also asked about the status of the case by the Judge Afiuni, whether she was free or subject to movement restrictions, and about prison overcrowding and deaths in detention.
 
ESSADIA BELMIR, Committee Vice-Chairperson, stressed the importance of the Judge Afiuni case which raised the issue of guarantees that States should grant to the judiciary.  The Committee needed clarification about the deaths at the hands of police and about the military which reportedly opened fire at students in February 2014, wounding 19 and killing one person.  Was the country in a state of emergency or not?
 
Further Responses by the Delegation
 
In response to the issues raised by the Experts, the delegation said that the National Commission for the Prevention of Torture was fully independent; it was headed by an Ombudsman and enjoyed constitutional protection, as well as financial and management autonomy.  The head of the Commission enjoyed immunity in the execution of his or her functions, and the Commission was the coordinator of the national policy on torture prevention.  It also served as the national preventive mechanism and had the authority to visit any place of detention. 
 
In 2014, a total of 2,042 visits to places of detention had been conducted by the National Commission for Human Rights, which gave rise to a number of recommendations.  The delegation assured the Committee against Torture that no acts of reprisals would be undertaken against non-governmental organizations cooperating with the Committee. 
 
In response to the concerns of the Committee regarding the security of tenure and judicial independence, the delegation said that in the 1980s and the 1990s, judges had been appointed by the so-called “judicial mafia”, putting the whole judicial sector in a state of crisis.  Today, judges were appointed by the Judiciary Commission and by 2013 about 1,700 judges had been appointed, of whom 185 had security of tenure and the others were temporary.  Competitive judicial examination was being prepared and Venezuela hoped that the number of judges with security of tenure would be soon increased.  Judge Afiuni’s human rights had been entirely guaranteed during the investigation, said the delegation.  As for the acts of reprisals against non-governmental organizations, the delegation stressed that no such acts had been committed and expressed surprise that claims of this kind would be made in the presence of the non-governmental organizations themselves.
 
The new penitentiary regime had created sufficient space for detainees and prisons had been rehabilitated and repaired; the current prison population stood at 50,721 inmates.
 
Concluding Remarks
 
JOSE VINCENTE RANGEL AVALOS, Vice-Minister for Internal Affairs and Judicial Security, Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, expressed his gratitude to the Committee Experts for having the opportunity to provide information about the situation in the country.  Venezuela was a democracy, and as in every democracy, there were opponents and supporters.  Non-governmental organizations which came before the Committee had presented a biased version of facts to the Experts.  The Government had never harassed a non-governmental organization for providing facts to the Committee and would never do so.
 
ESSADIA BELMIR, Committee Vice-Chairperson, said that the dialogue with the delegation of Venezuela was serene, open and clear on the content of the report.  Perfection did not exist in this world and it was important to rectify imperfection because it was peoples’ lives that were at stake.  Ms. Belmir thanked the delegation of Venezuela for the assurance that non-governmental organizations which presented an alternative version of facts would not suffer reprisals.
 ____________

           
For use of the information media; not an official record