Experts of the Committee against Torture Welcome Namibia’s Commitment to the Mandela and Bangkok Rules, Ask about Harmful Traditional Practices and Lengthy Pretrial Detention Periods

The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the third periodic report of Namibia, with Committee Experts welcoming the State’s commitment to the Nelson Mandela and Bangkok Rules, international norms on the treatment of prisoners, and raising questions about harmful traditional practices and lengthy pretrial detention periods.

Erdogan Iscan, Country Rapporteur and Committee Expert, welcomed the commitment of the State party to complying with the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules.

Mr. Iscan raised the issue of traditional practices that were harmful to women and girls, including the ritual of Olufuko, which involved child marriage and sexual initiation rites. Had the State party made progress in terms of awareness-raising as well as eliminating such practices? What further steps had been taken to prevent and criminalise the practice of forced sterilisation?

Jorge Contesse, Country Rapporteur and Committee Expert, said pretrial detention seemed to routinely exceed legal limits, with above 50 per cent of the prison population awaiting trial. The low usage of alternatives to detention and an unaffordable bail system seemed to be contributing to the large backlog of cases of pretrial detainees. What measures had been adopted to address these challenges?

Introducing the report, Yvonne Dausab, Minister of Justice of Namibia and head of the delegation, said the Namibian correctional service included human rights instruments, including the Nelson Mandela Rules, in the curriculum at its Training College. The service had undertaken measures to renovate all the country’s correctional facilities with the aim of improving the living conditions of offenders.

Ms. Dausab said the Government continued to conduct awareness campaigns targeting traditional and religious leaders on positive gender roles and the elimination of harmful cultural practices. The Childcare and Protection Act 2015 had measures to protect children from harmful cultural and religious practices, strictly prohibiting child marriage in all setups.

The delegation said Olufuko had taken on a more cultural image and profile, as opposed to a platform for sexual initiation and child marriage. That may have been the case in the past, but this had changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Namibia had taken steps to ensure that acts of enforced sterilisation of individuals were not carried out.

Pretrial detention could run for any time between six to 12 months, the delegation said, and courts could decide to withdraw charges before the six-month period based on available evidence. The State party was working to strengthen community courts and establish small claims courts to address overcrowding in prisons and holding cells. Since the report was sent, there had also been parole releases and the President had pardoned some persons.

In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chair, said that the Committee understood that the political context in Namibia was difficult. The Committee would make efforts to provide the State party with relevant and achievable recommendations within its concluding observations. The Committee was interested in maintaining an open dialogue with the State party through its follow-up mechanism.

In her concluding remarks, Ms. Dausab said Namibia was committed to addressing all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. More needed to be done to prevent torture, including the enactment of specific legislation criminalising it. The Committee’s recommendations would help to enhance mechanisms to prevent torture.

The delegation of Namibia consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety and Security; Namibia Correctional Service; and the Permanent Mission of Namibia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Namibia at the end of its eighty-first session on 22 November. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.

The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 5 November at 10 a.m. to begin its examination of the second periodic report of Thailand (CAT/C/THA/2).

Report

The Committee has before it the third periodic report of Namibia (CAT/C/NAM/3).

Presentation of Report

YVONNE DAUSAB, Minister of Justice of Namibia and head of the delegation, said

Namibia had suffered a great loss at the beginning of the year when the third President, Dr. Hage Gottfried Geingob, a strong champion of human rights, passed away on 4 February 2024. He was greatly missed. Additionally, Namibia was currently going through a devastating drought which had impacted food security and economic development; the Government was navigating this climate-related crisis with the assistance of developmental partners. Namibia offered a sincere apology for the non-submission of the written responses to the list of issues.

The torture bill remained under consideration following deliberations in the National Assembly. The Convention was directly applicable and enforceable in Namibia without the ‘domestic’ legislation. Article 144 had been used by Namibian courts which had cited United Nations Conventions in their judgments, making their provisions applicable directly in Namibia. The Namibian Constitution prohibited torture as well cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 criminalised murder as well as assault, including assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Members of the police force, correctional service and defence force accused of using excessive force were investigated under internal complaints units and those found to have acted outside the scope of what was reasonable in the circumstances were subjected to prosecution. The Government had also been ordered to pay damages to complainants and their families in civil matters brought due to allegations of assault or use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

The Namibian Constitution prohibited arbitrary arrest or detention and required that an arrested person be brought before a court within 48 hours after the arrest. All police officials were trained and required to inform an accused person upon arrest of their rights, reasons for their arrest, and charges against them. The Directorate of Legal Aid within the Ministry of Justice had appointed 69 in-house lawyers across the country to represent members of society who could not afford legal representation.

The Government had enhanced the independence of the Ombudsman by reforming the current Ombudsman Act 1990 to make provision for the Ombudsman’s Office to be established as a separate agency in the public service, with its own budget and accounting officer. The Office of the Ombudsman had launched a training manual against torture for law enforcement agencies, and visited and inspected places of detention, police holding cells, and correctional facilities to monitor human rights compliance.

Namibia continued to be marred by incidents of gender-based and sexual violence, including online child sexual exploitation. The Government had developed a national plan of action on gender-based violence 2019-2023 to address the root causes and provide a well-coordinated approach to the prevention, response, monitoring and evaluation of gender-based violence initiatives. Additionally, Namibia had established special courts for gender-based violence offences country-wide to provide a victim-friendly environment.

The Government continued to conduct awareness campaigns targeting traditional and religious leaders on positive gender roles and the elimination of harmful cultural practices. Namibia had developed and implemented a national plan of action to address violence against children. The Childcare and Protection Act 2015 had measures to protect children from harmful cultural and religious practices, strictly prohibiting child marriage in all setups.

The Ombudsman had been instrumental in ensuring that the Namibian police force was adequately trained on the ‘prevention of torture training manual for police officers.’ The Namibian police force also conducted ongoing workshops to train police officers on human rights. The Namibian correctional service included human rights instruments in its curriculum, including the Nelson Mandela Rules, at the Namibian Correctional Service Training College. The service had undertaken measures to renovate all of the country’s correctional facilities with the aim of improving the living conditions of offenders. The implementation of the Namibian correctional service's health policy had brought about significant changes in managing communicable diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV and hepatitis, as well as mental health support.

All asylum seekers went through a refugee status determination process and those who met the criteria were granted refugee status. If an application for refugee status was unsuccessful, the applicant was advised they could appeal the decision to the Namibian Refugee Appeal Board. Namibia was implementing the national action plan on statelessness, and a national committee had been established. The review of the legislative framework, which was a key milestone, had begun.

The Police Act allowed police officials to be investigated for misconduct and human right violations, inclusive of torture. Officials found guilty of acting outside the scope of their duties were subject to laid down procedures, including arraignment before a competent court. In Namibia, the State was represented by the Prosecutor General in criminal cases; therefore, the prosecution of all allegations of torture lay with the State. Ms. Dausab concluded by stating that the Namibian Government remained committed to protecting and promoting human rights in the country.

Questions by Committee Experts

ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, said the Committee expressed its condolences for the death of Namibia’s third President earlier this year. The State party did not reply to the list of issues adopted by the Committee and chose to submit a report in May 2021 under the traditional reporting procedure.

The dialogue with the State party would be conducted against this background.

Mr. Iscan called on Namibia to continue to support the treaty body system.

Had measures been taken to improve prison conditions in conformity with the Nelson Mandela Rules? Research indicated that the total prison population was close to 9,000 inmates, of which 54 per cent were pretrial detainees in police custody. Occupancy level in the prison system was 75 per cent. Could the Committee be updated on the current situation? Could details be provided about the health policy and practice developed by the Namibian correctional service?

How many individuals were currently in pretrial detention? What was the average length of pretrial detention and steps taken to reduce its use? Could statistical data be provided on deaths in custody; investigations carried out into these deaths; and the number of police or prison staff who had been subjected to criminal or disciplinary punishment in cases involving death in custody? Had there been cases of inter-prisoner violence, and what had been measures implemented in such incidents?

The Committee noted that corporal punishment was prohibited in schools by the Basic Education Act of 2020, but it still lacked an explicit prohibition in the home. What was the current status of the Correctional Service Act 2012 with respect to explicitly prohibiting corporal punishment following the Supreme Court’s judgment of 5 April 1991? What steps were being taken to totally prohibit corporal punishment in all settings and develop campaigns for awareness raising?

Could data on all complaints received by the Ombudsman and the number of complaints received by the Internal Investigation Directorate be provided? How many of these complaints were investigated and how many resulted in disciplinary sanctions? Had the perpetrators been punished with appropriate penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime? How many complaints had been received concerning sexual abuse and the exploitation of refugees by public officials or non-governmental workers at the Osire refugee camp? Had these complaints been investigated and prosecuted and had victims obtained redress?

The Caprivi high treason trial ended in September 2015 and the Committee noted that about 30 persons were found guilty and sentenced to various imprisonment terms; 79 persons were found not guilty and released from custody. Could

information on investigations into or prosecutions of members of the Namibian police force regarding alleged acts of torture of suspected participants in the secession attempt in the Caprivi region in 1999 be provided? What steps had been taken by the authorities to investigate reports of enforced disappearances in the context of the liberation struggle, including the disappearance of former members of the Southwest Africa People’s Organization? Had alleged victims and their families obtained redress?

Was the legislation on excessive use of force compatible with the Convention, as well as the basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials? Were the reports of excessive use of force by law enforcement officers investigated promptly, effectively and impartially? Were the perpetrators prosecuted and, if convicted, punished with commensurate penalties? Were victims of violations remedied adequately? The Committee had received allegations that members of the police force detained and sexually abused sex workers. What was the State party’s response to these reports?

The Committee took note of the Joint Communication by a group of Special Procedure mandate holders, who examined the document which evaluated the “Joint Declaration by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Namibia: United in remembrance of our colonial past, united in our will to reconcile, united in our vision of the future”, dated June 2021, and developed observations in connection with international human rights law. It was understood that follow-up negotiations were ongoing between Namibia and Germany.

With respect to traditional practices that were harmful to women and girls, including the ritual of Olufuko, which involved child marriage and sexual initiation rites, had the State party made progress in terms of awareness-raising as well as eliminating such practices? What further steps had been taken to prevent and criminalise the practice of forced sterilisation? What measures were in place to ensure that all acts of violence that targeted persons on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity were properly and promptly investigated and prosecuted?

It was reported that the Supreme Court issued a ruling last year recognising the right of spouses of Namibian citizens to regularise their immigration status based on same-sex marriages. Later, parliament passed legislation banning same-sex marriages. If enacted, it could nullify the Supreme Court ruling. What was the current status of this legislation? The Committee had received information that the High Court issued a decision on 21 June 2024, which declared the common law offences of sodomy and unnatural sexual offences unconstitutional. It seemed that the State party continued to criminalise same-sex relationships and the Government had lodged an appeal against this decision which was currently pending before the Supreme Court. What was the current situation?

Could the State party clarify its policy, legislation and practice with respect to prisons, hospitals, schools and institutions that engaged in the care of children, older persons or persons with disabilities? What was the legal permissibility and use of the measures such as seclusion, physical and chemical restraints, and other restrictive practices? Were net beds and cage beds used in psychiatric and social welfare institutions? Did the Office of the Ombudsman have unrestricted access to monitor these institutions? Had any progress been achieved in regard to protecting the human rights of older persons?

The Committee noted the commitment of the State party to complying with the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules. Could the State party clarify its policy, legislation and practice with respect to solitary confinement? What was the incommunicado detention regime in Namibia? If the State party maintained this practice, under what circumstances was incommunicado detention authorised and what was the competent organ to authorise incommunicado detention? Would the State party consider abolishing incommunicado detention?

Could Namibia comment on the status of the recommendation to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and other international instruments to which it was not a party? Was there any update in this regard?

JORGE CONTESSE, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, said torture was currently not a specific criminal offence in Namibia and Namibian law did not expressly criminalise any other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Could information be received on the status of the draft prevention of torture bill? What amendments to the bill sought to bring it further into line with the State party’s obligations under the Convention, as previously recommended by the Committee, including provisions that criminalised the acquiescence and complicity of State officials, or officials acting in an official capacity, to acts of torture? Were acts amounting to torture subject to a statute of limitations? Were there any cases where Namibia had invoked the Convention directly before domestic courts?

What initiatives had been taken by the State party to enshrine in its legislation fundamental legal safeguards, in particular the right to have access to a lawyer, including the right to access free and effective legal aid; the right to receive a medical examination by an independent physician; the right for individuals, at the time of arrest, to be informed of their rights; the right to be brought promptly before a judge; the right to notify a person of one’s choice of one’s deprivation of liberty; and the obligation of the authorities to maintain detention registers at places of detention? Were there any cases in which the authorities had failed to comply with these safeguards? How many such complaints had been registered and what was their outcomes?

Were there any cases in which disciplinary measures were taken against officials found responsible for violations? What complaints mechanisms were available to report violations, and how did they function in practice? Could the State party specify the circumstances in which a right to counsel could be waived?

The 2022 annual report of the Ombudsman described visitation and inspection of places of detention in Namibia, noting that some of the most appalling facilities had been closed. When this happened, where were the detainees who had been held there sent? What was the timetable for the cleaning and renovation of these facilities? Pretrial detention seemed to routinely exceed legal limits, with above 50 per cent of the prison population awaiting trial. In addition, the reported shortcomings in the criminal justice system, such as the significant delays between arrest and trial, the low usage of alternatives to detention, and an inaccessible and unaffordable bail system, seemed to be the contributing factors to the large backlog of cases of pretrial detainees. What measures had been adopted to address these shortcomings and challenges?

It was understood that the child justice bill, which had not yet been adopted, endorsed 14 years of age to be considered criminally responsible and abolished the common law presumption. What was the status and content of the bill? What measures were adopted to ensure that children were not detained in detention centres for adults? The Committee understood that no legal provision authorised the Ombudsman to make unannounced visits to places of detention; would the new legislation provide the Ombudsman with such power?

Violence against women, including rape, domestic violence, sexual exploitation and abuse of children, and violence against women from indigenous communities, continued to be extremely high, and the root causes of such violence had not been adequately addressed. According to the national gender-based violence baseline study, “most drivers of gender-based violence were relationship factors that were deeply entrenched within socio–cultural norms and escalated to societal level factors.” What concrete measures had the State party adopted to address these issues, including policies and plans to address ongoing challenges; the number of complaints of gender-based, domestic, or sexual violence received by the authorities; the number of investigations and prosecutions undertaken regarding gender-based, domestic or sexual violence; and the protection and support services available to victims?

The recommendation to remove the crime of sodomy as a ground for entry refusal into Namibia remained unaddressed. What measures would the State party adopt to address this and other pending concerns? Could data be provided on the number of asylum applications received during the period under review, the number of successful applications, and the number of asylum seekers whose applications were accepted because they had been tortured or might be tortured if returned to their country of origin?

What were the existing appeals mechanisms and other mechanisms in place to identify individuals in need of international protection? What was the procedure followed when a person invoked this right? Were individuals facing expulsion informed of their right to seek asylum and appeal a deportation decision? How many stateless persons were living in the country? What measures were being taken by the State party to mitigate the risk of torture or ill treatment faced by stateless persons.

How many law enforcement officials, prison staff, military officers, investigators, judicial personnel and border guards had attended educational programmes which included instruction on the provisions of the Convention against Torture? How were officers were trained on investigating and handling forms of prohibited ill treatment, like cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment? To what extent was the Ombudsman responsible for training other law enforcement agencies on investigating torture claims? What specific initiatives were in place to train officials to prevent the traumatisation of victims of torture or ill treatment. What steps had been taken to improve methods of investigation, including training programmes on non-coercive interrogation techniques? Had any training programmes been developed for judges, prosecutors, forensic doctors and medical personnel dealing with detained persons on detecting and documenting the physical and psychological signs of torture?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said any international instrument that Namibia ratified became part of their system. Namibia took the work of the treaty bodies very seriously. Namibia’s prison capacity across the country was around 5,400. The bed capacity was around 4,700. Since the report was sent, there had been parole releases, persons had completed their sentences, and the President had pardoned some persons. Pretrial detention could run for any time between six to 12 months. There was no deliberate attempt on the part of the State to keep people in pretrial detention; the authorities were trying to clear them as quickly as possible to decongest prison facilities.

Namibia did not have inter-prison violence in the form that was premeditated, organised, or gang related. There were isolated incidents of inter-prison fights which were dealt with quickly. In the rare instances when these incidents occurred, the prisoners would be separated from each other. Namibia had made a proposal to improve community service orders.

It was agreed that the Ombudsman needed to be extricated from the Ministry of Justice. However, there was no evidence that there had been any interference in the work of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman bill was ready to go before the National Assembly for Legislative Consultation, which would help with establishing the Office of the Ombudsman. Currently in Namibia, the Ombudsman was at the level of a judge. Whether there should be a fixed-term or the security of tenure of the Ombudsman was currently under debate. Since his appointment, the Ombudsman had been quite vocal about his findings and his displeasure at the conditions of prisons. The Ombudsman had unfettered access to those facilities; however, unannounced visits could be impractical. Namibia was doing enough to ensure those institutions which had the mandate to investigate violations of human rights were able to be supported in their work.

There had been no prosecutions for prostitution or sex work in Namibia. There was some fairly outdated legislation, but these laws had not been activated because the State did not feel they were consistent with the spirit of the Namibian Constitution. Namibia was constantly working on reforming legislation which offended the values of the Constitution.

The Joint Declaration was the result of an open and frank conversation in Namibia’s National Assembly, reflecting the gravity of the first genocide which took place in Namibia during the twentieth century.

Olufuko had taken on a more cultural image and profile, as opposed to a platform for sexual initiation and child marriage. That may have been the case in the past, but this had changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Namibia had taken steps to ensure that acts of enforced sterilisation of individuals were not carried out. The discussion around the reform of abortion and sterilisation was ongoing. Namibia was concerned about the number of cases of persons who identified as persons of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community, who had lost their lives. However, the State could not say that these crimes happened specifically due to their sexual orientation. All of those incidents of people who had been killed over the past few months were being investigated and prosecutions would take place.

Homosexuality in Namibia was not a crime.

Namibia had an excellent proposal for child justice. The State had engaged in extensive consultation with and received feedback from the United Nations Children’s Fund. Early next year, the child justice bill would be considered in the Assembly. Children were kept in facilities separate from adults, and were provided with significant social support. Gender-based violence was a concern for Namibia. Every year, the State commemorated the 16 days of violence against women. There was increasing collaboration between the State and civil society organizations to increase visibility. The text and the language of legislation combatting rape had been strengthened in 2022, as had the domestic violence legislation.

Questions by Committee Experts

ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, said the Committee appreciated the fact that they had a high-level delegation here, headed by the Minister in the lead-up to the country’s elections, and wished Namibia all the best in their democratic elections. The Committee needed information on the reflection of policy and legislation in practice, which was why statistical information was important.

Could the State party inform the Committee on the policies, legislation and practices on counter-terrorism measures? It was a fundamental obligation of States to fight terrorism, while still respecting human rights and the rule of law.

Could information be provided on the legislative and executive measures under the state of emergency? Did they comply with the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture?

JORGE CONTESSE, Committee Expert and Rapporteur, said it was necessary to have a specific crime which defined the contours of torture. What were the requirements that members of parliament had, which resulted in seven years of there being no torture bill? It seemed that the child justice bill moved down the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12 years; how was this consistent with human rights law?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said Namibia’s President could declare a state of emergency in situations where there were natural disasters or threats to the State. At no time had the declaration of a state of emergency suspended the prohibition of torture or the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Persons who engaged in terrorist activities against Namibia inside or outside of the State could face life imprisonment. Law enforcement agencies recently attended training on counterterrorism, which reinforced the obligation to protect human rights and the rule of law.

The anti-torture bill included definitions of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that were in line with the Convention. The bill included punishments of imprisonment of varying lengths for acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The child justice bill had been developed after broad consultation with international partners. It set the age of criminal responsibility at 12 years, considering the domestic context.

International human rights instruments ratified by the State were applicable directly before the courts, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had been applied in one case.

The Refugee Recognition and Control Act called for compliance with due process regarding detention and expulsions of asylum seekers. Asylum seekers could be represented by legal practitioners in appeals to detention and expulsion procedures. Namibia respected the principle of non-refoulement.

The Government was working to regularise the status of stateless persons. Under the birth outreach programme, teams had been deployed to rural areas to facilitate birth registration. Bills promoting civil registration, regularisation and statelessness determination were being considered in Parliament. Namibia was exerting efforts to eradicate statelessness.

The Namibian police had conducted investigations into alleged cases of enforced disappearance conducted by two individuals with Angolan citizenship. These cases had been finalised. A bill had been developed on the training of police and military officers. Training was aligned with the Istanbul Protocol and developed skills in investigating allegations of torture and helping victims to access redress. Police officers could not question suspects before informing them of their rights.

The Constitution prohibited corporal punishment and State legislation prohibited such punishment in school settings. Schools were mandated to create mechanisms that allowed learners to report incidents of corporal punishment. In August 2024, a teacher was relieved of his duties following reports of him engaging in corporal punishment of learners. Parents and guardians needed to respect children’s right to dignity.

The State party had established an appeal committee and set up regulations to prevent the abuse of legal aid resources. There had been an increase in applications for legal aid this year, with the number of applications for legal aid having increased to more than 10,000. Measures were in place to respond to this increase in applications.

The Mental Health Act of 1973 was outdated and used language that was not consistent with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A new bill dealing with mental health had been proposed, which set regulations regarding the limited use of seclusion, coercive methods, and restraint of persons with disabilities, and promoted de-escalation techniques. The bill called for coercive methods to be removed within two hours at most. There was a clear prohibition of forced sterilisation of women with mental disabilities in the bill. It was expected to be finalised next year.

Questions by Committee Experts

ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said that the State’s Constitution and legislation determined that statements made as a result of torture were inadmissible in a court of law. Were there examples of court cases in which courts had found that evidence was inadmissible because it was obtained through torture? Had there been investigations into allegations that evidence used in the Caprivi trials was obtained through torture?

The Committee welcomed that the State party had accepted the simplified reporting procedure, which provided for improved cooperation between the State party and the Committee. However, the State party had submitted its last report under the traditional procedure. Mr. Iscan called on the State party to submit its next report under the simplified procedure.

The State party had failed to respond to the Committee’s previous concluding observations and the report on follow-up to concluding observations. The Committee hoped that the State party would respond to the next concluding observations within the given timeframe.

JORGE CONTESSE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said that the torture bill had been pending for a number of years. The definition of torture within the proposed legislation was very good; it was identical to that of the Convention. Were there any persons who had been specifically convicted of the crime of torture using the Convention? It was critical that the anti-torture bill addressed the issues of the statute of limitations and universal jurisdiction. Article eight of the bill addressed extraterritorial jurisdiction, not universal jurisdiction.

There was a discrepancy between international human rights law and the child justice bill. What was the domestic context that prevented Namibia from setting the age of criminal responsibility at 14?

There was another discrepancy between Namibia’s law on refugee control and international human rights law, which defined the prohibition of non-refoulement as absolute. Why was refoulement allowed in certain circumstances?

There was a lack of information provided by the State party on allegations of sexual assault by police officers against asylum seekers. Asylum seekers reportedly lived in settlements with poor conditions. Could the delegation comment on these issues?

Trafficking in persons reportedly remained prevalent in Namibia. The rate of reported cases seemed very low, and there was limited progress in investigations and convictions for these cases, with only two convictions between 2014 and 2019. What progress had been made in tackling trafficking in persons?

How would the State party address challenges that prevented the Ombudsperson from making unannounced visits to places of detention?

Another Committee Expert said unannounced inspections of places of detention were an international standard. The State party needed to reconsider its position on this issue. Were there time limits for pretrial detention? It was very impressive that it had been deemed unconstitutional to implement solitary confinement.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the State party noted the Committee’s comments regarding the simplified reporting procedure. There were court cases in which evidence obtained through torture was deemed inadmissible. In such cases, additional investigations were undertaken into the identified acts of torture.

The State party also noted the Committee’s concerns and suggestions regarding the anti-torture bill. Namibia wished to comply with international best practices regarding non-refoulement. Legislation on deportations intended to protect Namibia from external threats while respecting the principle of non-refoulement.

All allegations of trafficking in persons were taken very seriously. The judicial system was independent and competent, but had limited resources, which was influencing the rate at which trafficking cases were processed. The State party was exerting efforts to prevent trafficking in persons.

Any allegations of sexual assault and crimes against the refugee community were investigated. The State party was not aware of allegations of poor conditions in asylum shelters; it would investigate any such allegations if it received them.

Pretrial detention could be implemented for six to 12 months, and courts could decide to withdraw charges before the six-month period based on available evidence. The State party was working to strengthen community courts and establish small claims courts to address overcrowding in prisons and holding cells.

The delegation had taken note of the Committee’s comments regarding unannounced visits to places of detention. There were no cases in which attempted unannounced visits had been blocked. The State party would continue conversations on the age of criminal responsibility.

The Constitutional Court had decided that the implementation of solitary confinement at one prison had been unconstitutional, however, the judgement had not made the implementation of solitary confinement unconstitutional in all contexts. The imposition of solitary confinement needed to respect legal safeguards and the fundamental freedoms of those subjected to it.

Questions by a Committee Expert

JORGE CONTESSE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked if there were examples in which refugees or asylum seekers had threatened national sovereignty. What was the Refugee Control Act trying to address in this regard? What were the reasons behind setting the age of criminal responsibility at 12? The possibility of unannounced visits was an effective way to prevent torture and ill treatment in places of detention. Mr. Contesse called for such visits to be conducted.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said Namibia’s law on refugee control anticipated potential crimes committed by refugees and asylum seekers. There had been no incidents thus far in which a refugee had threatened national security, but there needed to be a law in place to address such an act. The domestic court system was sufficiently able to analyse the constitutionality of the Refugee Control Act.

Concerns had been raised that increasing the age of criminal responsibility would make young children more likely to engage in criminal acts. The State party noted the Committee’s discomfort regarding this legislation.

The Ombudsperson was independent and had the opportunity to propose unannounced visits to places of detention. It and all State actors, as well as civil society, had access to prisons in Namibia. Representatives of the African Union had written extensive reports on prison conditions, which helped the State party to improve these conditions. Civilians had also taken the State to court concerning prison conditions.

There were no examples of court cases in which findings of torture had been made, but there were cases in which crimes against humanity had been recognised. The State party took on board the Committee’s concerns regarding the torture bill.

Concluding Remarks

CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair, said that the Committee understood that the political context in Namibia was difficult. It would make efforts to provide the State party with relevant and achievable recommendations within its concluding observations. The Committee was interested in maintaining an open dialogue with the State party through its follow-up mechanism. The dialogue had been rich and was conducted in a constructive spirit.

YVONNE DAUSAB, Minister of Justice of Namibia and head of the delegation, said the State party had provided information on the efforts it had made to implement the Convention. The Committee’s recommendations would help to enhance mechanisms to prevent torture. Namibia was committed to addressing all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. More needed to be done to prevent torture, including the enactment of specific legislation criminalising it. The State party was committed to protecting the rights of its people, in consideration of the domestic context. Ms. Dausab closed by thanking the Committee and all who had contributed to the dialogue.

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media; not an official record.
English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.