COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS CONSIDERATION OF SECOND PERIODIC REPORT OF AZERBAIJAN

CAT
30th session
30 April 2003
Morning



Government Delegation Queried on
Implementation of Legal Reforms



The Committee against Torture began its review this morning of a second periodic report of Azerbaijan, praising extensive legal reforms designed to criminalize such ill-treatment and questioning an eight-member Government delegation, among other things, on an apparently restricted legal definition of torture – as compared to that given in article 1 of the Convention against Torture – and on whether standards established for the protection of detainees and prisoners were in fact implemented on a day-to-day basis.
Committee Experts also asked about the age at which young offenders could be imprisoned; about standards for incarceration of women; if some detainee holding cells were pitch dark, as had been reported; and about the medical treatment given to prisoners, as a high death rate from tuberculosis had been reported.
Introducing the report, Khalaf Khalafov, Azerbaijan’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, said among other things that a new Criminal Procedure Code and a new Criminal Code had entered into force in 2000 which clearly prohibited the use of torture; established a list of acts by officials that were considered unacceptable; and specified criminal responsibility for acts of torture. Another law specified that refusal to extradite someone to a foreign country could be based, among other things, on likelihood that the person extradited would be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, Mr. Khalafov said.
Other members of the Azerbaijani delegation were Murad N. Najafov, Charge d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Azerbaijan to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Aydin Gasimov, Deputy Minister of Justice; Orudj Zalov, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs; Ramiz Rzayev, First Deputy Prosecutor-General; Zaver Gafarov, Head of Division of the Ministry of Justice; Tofig Musayev, Deputy Head of Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Samir Sharifov, Attache of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Government representatives will respond to the Committee’s questions at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 1 May. The Committee’s formal conclusions and recommendations on the Azerbaijani report will be issued on the afternoon of 12 May.
Azerbaijan, as one of 133 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must submit periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to put the Convention into effect.
The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. to review the conclusions of the Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the Convention. It will then go into closed session to examine communications.

Second Periodic Report of Azerbaijan
The report (CAT/C/59/Add.1), referring to the Convention on an article-by-article basis, reviews new steps taken to implement the provisions of the treaty. Among them were the entry into force of a new Code of Criminal Procedure and a new Criminal Code on 1 September 2000. Article 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly prohibits the use of torture in the conduct of criminal proceedings and lists actions by officials that fall under the category of inadmissible treatment. Criminal liability is also incurred by the inflicting of physical or mental suffering through systematic beating or other violent acts, and the Code categorizes as criminal offenses actions performed by or at the bidding of officials taking advantage of their official positions to extort information from persons or to force them to make confessions or with the aim of punishing them for actions which they have committed or are suspected of having committed.
A chapter of the report reviews compliance by the Azerbaijani Government with the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations on Azerbaijan’s initial report. It notes among other things that in March 2000 the President of the country promulgated a special order relating to the recommendations of the Committee and those made by Amnesty International; pursuant to the order, a commission was established and entrusted with verifying the facts adduced and adopting appropriate measures and with preparing responses for the two organizations. Following those recommendations, the courts had been entrusted with special responsibility for upholding the standards of the Convention and with suppressing the use of torture. A ruling on these matters also was passed by the Plenum of the Supreme Court, which was binding on all Azerbaijani courts. The Plenum determined, among other things, that no exceptional circumstances, including a state of war, internal political instability or an emergency, could serve as grounds for the use of torture or other unlawful measures.

Introduction of Report
KHALAF KHALAFOV, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, said a working group with members drawn from a wide range of Government ministries had compiled the second periodic report. Extensive steps had been taken as well to implement the recommendations of the Committee on the country’s initial report under the Convention against Torture. Responses had been called for under an order signed by the President of the country. The Government of Azerbaijan had long been open to dialogue with international human rights representatives. For example, the Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur on torture, Sir Nigel Rodley, had been invited to visit the country and had subsequently issued a report.
New legislation had been passed containing a definition of torture and imposing penalties specific to the crime of torture, Mr. Khalafov said. A new Criminal Procedure Code and Criminal Code had entered into force in 2000, and the Codes clearly prohibited the use of torture and established a list of acts by officials that were considered unacceptable. Provisions in these Codes further established criminal responsibility for acts of torture. Another law specified that refusal to extradite someone to a foreign country could be based, among other things, on likelihood that the person extradited would be subjected to torture or ill-treatment.
As a result of verifications on complaints of torture, five cases had been brought in 2000, three cases in 2001, and two cases in 2002, Mr. Khalafov said, and decisions had been taken on those cases. Over one hundred officials of the Ministry of the Interior had been prosecuted, including 14 policemen. A committee had been formed to study the issue of amnesty and pardons and a resulting commission had taken a decision not to apply amnesties or pardons to persons convicted of torture or harsh treatment. A new code of ethics for Azerbaijan judges had been adopted and submitted to the Supreme Court. And training and re-training of relevant officials had been carried out in human rights matters and torture prevention.
As a result of such reforms, there had been a reduction in offenses related to ill-treatment, Mr. Khalafov said, and a reduction in the number of persons detained. Meanwhile the country’s recently established Ombudsman would be empowered to visit prisons and detention centres and to question prisoners and detainees without interference.
The major impediment to implementation of the Convention was the continuing occupation of 20 per cent of the national territory by forces of Armenia, Mr. Khalafov said. In these occupied territories there were reported systematic violations of human rights, including of prisoners of war and of Azerbaijani hostages, and reports indicated that such persons were subjected to acts of torture. The Government hoped the Committee would not remains silent about these abuses, Mr. Khalafov said.

Discussion
Serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Azerbaijan was Committee Expert Alexander M. Yakovlev, who said among other things that the report was unusual in that very serious changes had occurred in Azerbaijani legislation that had opened the legal system to international standards and also were designed to allow the open functioning of non-governmental organizations that could serve as watchdogs over the operations of the legal system. It amounted to a legal revolution – a positive one. However, the second and more important aspect of reform was implementation; these reforms needed to become a part of everyday life, which meant changing habits and long-standing social and cultural norms.
Among Mr. Yakovlev’s questions were why the definition of torture contained in article 1 of the Convention was not fully reflected in Azerbaijani law, which raised the possibility that some acts of torture might not be prohibited and subject to criminal sanction; if access to legal counsel by detainees, access to family members, and other procedural guarantees were thoroughly put into practice; if incommunicado detention was in fact thoroughly prohibited; if it was possible to appeal extradition decisions to the courts; if administrative instructions related to treatment of detainees and prisoners reflected the country’s legal standards aimed at prohibiting torture; if police officers and others were protected from punishment for refusing to obey superiors’ orders that would amount to acts of torture; and if evidence obtained by torture was clearly prohibited from use in court.
Serving as Rapporteur on the report of Azerbaijan, but speaking following the Co-Rapporteur, was Committee Expert Felice Gaer. She said among other things that it was rare to see such extensive legislative reforms and such pronounced and serious responses made to the Committee’s recommendations.
Among her questions were if medical personnel were trained to recognize and act on signs of torture; if the established protective norms against ill-treatment applied to those held in preventive detention; if non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were allowed to visit prisons; at what age young offenders could be imprisoned, and with whom; if female prisoners were kept in separate facilities from men, and if they were guarded by women or men; about what disciplinary sanctions were generally employed against male prisoners; why the Ministry of Defense, along with the Ministry of Justice, had authority over holding of detainees and authority over prisons; if some holding cells were still pitch dark, as reported by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture; if persons facing the death penalty were not informed of those sentences, as had been reported; if details could be provided on the medical treatment given to prisoners, as there were relatively high rates of death from tuberculosis among prisoners; if interrogations of detainees were videotaped, or would be; if complaints of ill-treatment were promptly and independently investigated; and what punishments were given to the 138 officials of the Ministry of Interior referred to in the report for acts amounting to ill-treatment, and if the officials had resumed their posts following the punishments.
Ms. Gaer also asked if there were problems of ill-treatment of conscripts in the military, and if prosecutions resulted; if information could be given on four cases of individuals who had died in custody while serving with military units; why the remand centre of the Ministry of National Security had not been transferred to the control of the Ministry of Justice, as had the country’s other remand centre; about reports of maltreatment of those committed to health and psychiatric institutions; about threats and alleged maltreatment of family members of two prominent human rights defenders, and what steps had been taken to protect these people and their families; if sexual violence against prisoners was monitored, and if any prosecutions had resulted from such offenses; and what was done to prevent trafficking in women, as Azerbaijan was reported to be a country of origin and transit for such trafficking, and if victims of trafficking were treated as victims or as criminals.
Other Committee Experts also put questions. They asked, among other things, about whether the country’s new Ombudsman could appeal directly to institutions in the judicial system concerning acts committed by public officials; what disciplinary measures could be applied to juvenile offenders; if juvenile prisoners were kept with adult prisoners; about prison standards for those serving life sentences; if violence between prisoners was a problem; if lawyers, prosecutors and judges were thoroughly independent of other branches of Government, and how such independence was ensured; if the medical profession was independent from the Government in terms of providing evidence in cases where charges of torture had been alleged; if NGOs which had attended the presentation of Azerbaijan’s first report to the Committee had been identified on Azerbaijani television and referred to as “enemies of Azerbaijan”, as had been reported; and if a group of persons who had gone to a prosecutor’s office to complain of ill-treatment following a demonstration had been arrested.



* *** *