Committee against Torture hears response of Jordan

Committee against Torture
30 April 2010

The Committee against Torture this morning heard the response of Jordan to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on Thursday, 29 April, the delegation, which was led by Shebab A. Madi, Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, highlighted that the Special Rapporteur on Torture had undertaken a visit to Jordan in June 2006, when he had freely inspected all correctional facilities and prisons, including the detention facilities at the General Intelligence Department. The National Centre for Human Rights, established in 2003, also paid unannounced visits to all correctional facilities and detention centres in the Kingdom. With regard to conditions in places of detention, a comprehensive strategic plan for the development of correctional facilities and rehabilitation centres had been put into action in 2007 by the Public Security Directorate to promote the services provided for inmates at various rehabilitation centres. The strategy was in conformity with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, and included reorganizing the administrative structure of rehabilitation centres, as well as capacity-building and training of staff members. That had been achieved in 2007 through the establishment of the Centre for Training and Development for rehabilitation and correctional centres. A standing committee for reform and rehabilitation had also been established to follow up on the implementation of the plan. Between 2007 and 2010, several new rehabilitation centres had been established, and work was also under way to establish five new centres in the course of 2010, at a total cost of $100 million.

The Human Rights Office of the Public Security Directorate received complaints of ill-treatment and allegations of torture submitted by inmates, and prompt and impartial investigations were conducted and strict measures were taken against offenders who were referred to the judiciary for criminal prosecution, the delegation said. In 2008, 22 police officers had been referred to the police court for trial on charges of abusive treatment, and disciplinary measures were taken against 25 other officers during the same year. In Jordan there were no secret detention facilities. All reform and rehabilitation centres were declared and regulated by law. Moreover, the detention facilities at the General Intelligence Department, like all other detention centres in the Kingdom, were visited regularly by non-governmental organizations and the National Centre for Human Rights. Staff of the General Intelligence Department detention centres were fully trained on human rights and on other matters related to prevention of torture, including with cooperation by civil society. Notably, Human Rights Watch visited these detention centres in 2007, and had held talks with individual inmates.

The Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Jordan, Felice Gaer, in some additional comments, noted the delegation’s statement regarding the visit of the Special Rapporteur on Torture in 2006. However, in his report, the Special Rapporteur had said that he had been denied private interviews with General Intelligence Department prisoners and had met with obstruction from the authorities in carrying out his investigations. He had thus concluded that the practice of torture was widespread in Jordan and that torture was routinely used in the General Intelligence Department and the Criminal Investigation Department.

Luis Gallegos Chiriboga, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report, further stressed, on the issue of prison monitoring, that the ability to make such visits unannounced was crucial. There needed to be more transparency in this area, with proper monitoring of military and police forces as well.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Jordan towards the end of the session on Friday, 14 May.

As one of the 146 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Jordan is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.

When the Committee reconvenes this afternoon at 3 p.m. it is scheduled to begin consideration of the sixth periodic report of Switzerland (CAT/C/CHE/6).

Response of Jordan

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts yesterday morning, the delegation of Jordan said that, with regard to late submission of the report, while Jordan had signed the Convention in the 1990s, it had only been published in the official gazette in 2006. In addition, the Government had been overwhelmed with the proliferation of the new international human rights obligations it had undertaken. Now, Jordan had established a human rights committee among whose tasks it would be to prepare reports to the human rights treaties bodies, so the regularity of reporting should be assured in future.

Concerning the declaration of a state of emergency, the delegation was pleased to announce that the last state of emergency in the country, which had been necessitated by the occupation of the West Bank of Israel in 1967, had ended in 1992. At present, it was not envisaged that a new state of emergency would need to be declared, but if it should be the crime of torture would be considered as a non-derogable right. The fact that Jordan had ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights meant that article 4 of that Covenant was applicable to it, and that article set out that serious human rights violations were non-derogable.

Regarding Jordan's policy towards the prevention of and in response to allegations of torture, the delegation noted that the policies and practices brought forward by the Government were indicative of its unwavering commitment to safeguard the rights of its citizens and residents. The Jordanian Criminal Code criminalized the practice of torture or ill or degrading treatment. According to the Code of Criminal Procedures, any evidence or statement obtained under any form of physical or mental coercion was deemed null and void. Defendants were entitled to challenge a statement taken by a police officer or a public prosecutor before a court of law, by claiming that the statement was taken under duress, or physical or mental coercion.

Several non-governmental organizations and human rights organizations in Jordan also received citizens' complaints of torture or ill-treatment and followed up on them with Government institutions, the delegation noted. Moreover, the National Centre for Human Rights had been established in 2003 as a national human rights institution. The Centre had a monitoring mechanism to follow up on citizens' complaints with Government institutions and paid unannounced visits to all correctional facilities and detention centres in the Kingdom. Jordan had also recently become a full member of the Asia Pacific Forum, whose mandate was to promote and protect human rights in 17 Asian and Pacific countries.

The delegation highlighted that the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment had undertaken a visit to Jordan in June 2006. During his visit, the Special Rapporteur had freely inspected all correctional facilities and prisons, including the detention facilities at the General Intelligence Department.

Among other institutions that could hear and treat complaints, the Ombudsman's Bureau had been established in February 2009, the delegation noted. Apart from dealing with complaints, the Ombudsman was entitled to take up any issue or complaint against the Government that it deemed important. The Ombudsman also had the duty to check administrative procedures. In addition, the Office of Grievances and Human Rights had been established by the Department of General Security in 2005 to deal with citizens' complaints against police personnel, and a human rights directorate had recently been established at the Ministry of the Interior to follow up on general human rights issues and complaints.

Turning to conditions in places of detention, the delegation noted that a comprehensive strategic plan for the development of correctional facilities and rehabilitation centres had been put into action in 2007 by the Public Security Directorate to promote the services provided for inmates at various rehabilitation centres. The strategy was in conformity with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. The Directorate's plan included reorganizing the administrative structure of rehabilitation centres, as well as capacity-building and training of staff members. That had been achieved in 2007 through the establishment of the Centre for Training and Development for rehabilitation and correctional centres. A standing committee for reform and rehabilitation had also been established to follow up on the implementation of the plan.

Between 2007 and 2010, new rehabilitation centres had been established, such as the Um El Lulu Correctional Facility, which could accommodate up to 800 inmates, the Al Mouagher (2) Centre, which accommodated 240, and the Salhoub Centre, with capacity for 100 inmates. Work was also under way to establish five new centres in the course of 2010, at a total cost of $100 million.

The Public Security Directorate had also developed new mechanisms and programmes to improve conditions for inmates that included health care and education, in addition to professional and vocational training. Moreover, a memorandum of understanding had been signed in 2009 between the Directorate and the National Centre for Human Rights for the purpose of facilitating the Centre's role in conducting unannounced visits to all rehabilitation centres in Jordan, the delegation added.

For prisoners' complaints, prosecutors had been appointed in all correctional and rehabilitation centres to receive and investigate complaints submitted by inmates, the delegation said. Amendments to the law pertaining to correctional facilities and rehabilitation centres had been proposed, and included provisions for a conditional release system, as well as provisions to further facilitate conducting visits and periodic inspections of the centres.

The Human Rights Office of the Public Security Directorate also received complaints of ill-treatment and allegations of torture submitted by inmates. Prompt and impartial investigations were conducted and strict measures were taken against offenders who were referred to the judiciary for criminal prosecution. In 2008, 22 police officers had been referred to the police court for trial on charges of abusive treatment, and disciplinary measures were taken against 25 other officers during the same year.

The detention facilities at the General Intelligence Department, like all other detention centres in the Kingdom, were visited regularly by non-governmental organizations and the National Centre for Human Rights. Staff of the General Intelligence Department detention centres were also fully trained on human rights and on other matters related to prevention of torture, including cooperation with civil society. Notably, Human Rights Watch visited these detention centres in 2007, and had held talks with individual inmates.

Citing some statistics on prison monitoring, the delegation reported that 869 visits had been undertaken in 2009 to detention facilities in Jordan, which averaged out to three visits a day.

Regarding the specific cases of Fakhri Al Anani and Sadem Al Saoud, the six police officers accused in the case of Mr. Al Saoud and the one police officer in the case of Mr. Anani had been referred to the police court for prosecution on charges of the beating to death and excessive use of force leading to death of the two Jordanian citizens, as well as breaching official orders. Those cases were still being prosecuted. If convicted, the police officers concerned would serve not less than 10 years' imprisonment, the delegation underscored.

As for Jordan's decision not to accede to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, the delegation stressed that that should not be viewed as a lack of commitment to strengthening and enhancing the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or to prevention of those acts. Jordan was, rather, determined to enhance the existing mechanisms mandated to undertake periodic visits to places of detention. Moreover, the non-accession of Jordan to the Optional Protocol at this stage did not necessarily preclude the possibility of reconsidering its position in the future. With respect to article 21 of the Convention (allowing the Committee to consider individual communications), Jordan would look into that matter with a view to considering the application of that article.

With regard to refugees, the delegation wanted to underscore that Jordan was a country of immigrants and had proportionally accepted enormous numbers of refugees – the equivalent to having 50 million refugees arrive on the shores of the United States at once. Aside from Jordan, the delegation asked if anyone could cite another single country that gave full rights to Palestinians.

As for criminal provisions regarding acts of torture, the delegation noted that torture could be punished by 3 to 15 years' imprisonment if it led to a serious disease or injury. It was also noted that higher orders could not be invoked to justify an act of torture.

Concerning rape, the Criminal Code provided harsh labour for no less than 10 years if the victim was over 15 years of age. For acts against those under 15 years, the punishment could not be less than 15 years imprisonment if the perpetrator was over 18 years. With regard to suspension of the sentence if the perpetrator married the victim, that had to be undertaken in accordance to contractual obligations, and entailed establishing the full consent of the victim. However, the delegation noted that there were currently discussions afoot to revoke the provision. As for sentences handed down in rape cases, in 2009 and 2010, there had been sentences delivered with alleviating circumstances for seven and a half years imprisonment, as well as sentences of 15 years, where no alleviating circumstances were found.

With regard to abolishing the death penalty, while Jordan had abstained in the voting on the General Assembly resolution on that subject, no sentence had been implemented since March 2006, the delegation observed.

In Jordan there were no secret detention facilities. All reform and rehabilitation centres were declared and regulated by law.

The former law on prisons did provide for some forms of physical punishment. However, that law had since been revoked and superseded, and the new law specifically prohibited and sanctioned any form of corporal punishment in the detention facilities, the delegation said.

There was no impunity in Jordan for acts of torture or ill-treatment. Complaint procedures and penal prosecutions took place in accordance with the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, the delegation said.

While Jordanian domestic law did not specifically define the crime of terrorism in its Criminal Code, a regional convention among Arab countries did define terrorism, and Jordan's law relied on that definition, the delegation said. Prosecution for terrorist acts was directly under the Public Prosecutor's Office, who alone had the competence to issue warrants for arrest or for monitoring of suspects. Provisional arrests of terrorist suspects could be for no longer than one month. The whole procedure could be reviewed, and could be brought before the Court of Cassation, the supreme court in Jordan.

Turning to the issue of non-refoulement, the delegation noted that there were very few cases of expulsion in Jordan, and the person to be expelled could chose the country they wanted to go to. Under the law, a person could not be deported to a country where they were at risk of being tortured or ill-treated.

Further Questions and Comments by Committee Experts

FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Jordan, noted the statement by the delegation that the Special Rapporteur on Torture had been able to visit all places of detention during his visit in 2006. However, that was not what he said in his report. He had said that he had been denied private interviews with General Intelligence Department prisoners and had met with obstruction from the authorities in carrying out his investigations. He had thus concluded that the practice of torture was widespread in Jordan and that torture was routinely used in the General Intelligence Department and the Criminal Investigation Department.

Ms. Gaer had also heard today that the National Centre for Human Rights was able to visit General Intelligence Department detention facilities. However, she would appreciate clarification if such visits were made unannounced, as according to the information the Committee had they were not.

Regarding information that superior orders were not a defence for acts of torture or ill-treatment, Ms. Gaer noted that, in a 2008 Human Rights Watch report based on their visit to the country, they had identified a case in which the Prison Director had been fined for ordering the beating of prisoners and 12 guards had been found not guilty on the specific grounds that they were "following orders". Could the delegation explain that contradiction?

LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Jordan, said there were still a number of outstanding issues to answer, including monitoring of conditions for domestic workers, and retaliation against persons who had filed complaints or spoken to those making prison visits.

On the issue of prison monitoring, the ability to make such visits unannounced was crucial. There needed to be more transparency in this area, with proper monitoring of military and police forces as well, Mr. Gallegos said.

___________

For use of the information media; not an official record