Committee against Torture considers follow-up to communications and concluding observations

AFTERNOON

7 May 2010

The Committee against Torture this afternoon considered follow-up to its concluding observations on country reports and to communications by individuals alleging their rights under the Convention against Torture had been violated, hearing presentations by Committee members on each topic.

Presenting the report on follow-up to individual communications (article 22 of the Convention), Committee Expert Fernando Mariño Menendez, the Rapporteur on this topic, noted that Canada, Serbia and Montenegro (separately asked now that they were independent) and Tunisia had not responded at all to requests for follow-up information from the Committee.

The report also set out a number of details regarding the case of the removal of an Egyptian national from Sweden to Egypt in which the Committee had found an article three violation (non-refoulement obligations). Since then, a number of follow-up measures had been taken. That individual was still in jail in Egypt. Most recently, an application for a residence permit in Sweden had been denied, for security concerns. However, the complainant had received compensation for his claims and frequent visits had been undertaken by the Swedish Embassy to monitor the complainant's situation in prison. During those visits, the complainant had repeatedly stated that he was feeling unwell, and had complained that he had been threatened with being shot by a prison guard. Sweden had said there were numerous discrepancies in the individual's complaints and the security service had informally denied that the complainant had either been ill-treated or that he had been threatened. The State party said it would do nothing further in the case and had submitted its answers and position to the Committee, which had transmitted it to the complainant. Mr. Mariño Menendez recommended that the Committee await a response from the individual's lawyer and that the case be kept open.

Mr. Mariño Menendez said there were four other cases that would be included in the follow-up report – regarding Spain, Tunisia and Canada – which would be submitted to the General Assembly, for a total of eight cases that the Committee was actively keeping open.

Committee Member Felice Gaer, Rapporteur for follow-up to concluding observations, said it was right to ask if the concluding observations issued by the Committee were effective in changing the situation on the ground in States parties. To be more effective, therefore, the Committee had established a follow-up procedure at its thirtieth session, in 2003. Under that procedure, States parties were asked to provide information within one year on selected recommendations among the Committee's concluding observations and recommendations that were selected on the basis that they were serious, protective, and could be accomplished within a one year period.

Providing a progress report on that follow-up procedure, Ms. Gaer said that, of the 82 States that had been submitted to the procedure, 74 per cent of countries had responded on time to the follow-up issues, and the States that had not done so were the same ones that were late in their reporting obligations. To encourage those States to respond, the letters requesting information from the Rapporteur were made public, and posted on the Committee's website, along with replies received, if any.

In terms of trends, out of 87 reports examined by the Committee between its thirtieth and forty-third sessions, five countries were reviewed twice. Breaking down examinations by country, Ms. Gaer reported that, for Western Europe and other countries 20 reports had been examined; for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, 22 countries were reviewed; for Africa, 12; for Asia and the Pacific, 19; and for Latin America and the Caribbean, 14. The most frequently addressed follow-up issues, in order of frequency, regarded requests for prompt, impartial and effective investigations (76 per cent); prosecution and sanctions (61 per cent); legal safeguards (57 per cent); right to complain and have cases examined (43 per cent); training and awareness-raising (43 per cent); interrogation techniques in line with the Convention (39 per cent); redress and rehabilitation (38 per cent); gender-based violence, protection of women (34 per cent): monitoring of facilities by an independent body (32 per cent); data collection on torture (30 per cent); and improvement of conditions of detention, such as overcrowding (28 per cent).

Ms. Gaer also noted that there were regional differences regarding what issues were targeted for follow-up. For example, 86 per cent of countries from Latin America were asked to conduct prompt, impartial and effective investigations, in particular with regard to disappearances, and the same percentage held true for Eastern Europe; but for Africa only 75 per cent of countries and for Western Europe only 55 per cent had received such recommendations. It was also observed that gender violence issues had only been identified for follow-up for countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Ms. Gaer highlighted that a number of situations had been clarified following this procedure. For example, in Chile, a number of cases dating back to the Pinochet dictatorship had been opened, and new measures to deal with gender-based violence had been put in place. In Indonesia, a person on an Interpol red notice list was removed from command, at the Committee's recommendation. And, recently, in the case of Kenya, the Committee had recommended that the Government domesticate the Convention, a requirement for its implementation, and that process was now under way.

In the ensuing discussion a Committee Expert was concerned that, for 35 countries, six or more issues were flagged for follow-up, which was more than originally agreed. She was worried that by asking for more issues it might discourage countries from replying.

Ms. Gaer, in some responses, said that, just as an impression, she did not think that the number of issues had been an impediment or had been the reason for countries that did not respond. The real correlation there appeared to be that those countries did not report. She also noted that no country had replied fully and satisfactorily to all questions.

A number of non-governmental organizations then asked questions, including on a specific case under the communications procedure against Tunisia and whether, in the context of the concluding observations follow-up procedure the Committee was planning any country visits.

Mr. Mariño Menendez noted that the communications procedure was confidential, and all that could be said was that the Committee was in contact with the authorities on that issue. As for country visits, Ms. Gaer replied that none had been undertaken in the context of the follow-up procedure. Indeed, it was a failing of the international human rights treaties body process that, despite access to many different sources of information, such as non-governmental organization reports, and the dialogue with the delegation, it was a paper-based process. The follow-up procedure would certainly be strengthened by the ability to undertake such visits.

___________

For use of the information media; not an official record