COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT FROM COLOMBIA

11 November 2003



The Committee against Torture began its consideration this morning of the third periodic report of Colombia on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture.

The report was introduced by Clemencia Forero Ucros, the Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, who said that the period under review had seen a high point in violence and violations of international humanitarian law. As the Government was advancing the peace process, armed groups had intensified their terrorist activities. They had kidnapped, tortured, and abducted and recruited minors. Infrastructure had been destroyed and anti-personnel mines had been used against the civilian population. Ambassador Forero listed several steps taken by the Government, namely the adoption of new measures dealing with prevention, assistance and protection of victims of human rights abuses and the increased focus of the National Court to change trends of corruption and violence.

Committee Expert Fernando Mariño Menendez, who served as Rapporteur for the Colombian report, recognized the difficulties faced by Colombia because of the armed conflict occurring in the country but insisted that even in such a situation, torture was still an international crime and banning it was a universal obligation. Among Mr. Mariño's concerns were the issues of leniency and amnesty. Indeed, the Committee had received alarming information according to which no actions had been taken against members of the military who were the presumed authors of crimes.

Serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Colombia was Committee Expert Ole Vedel Rasmussen who regretted that practical and precise examples were difficult to find in the report and that no mention had been made to the training of medical personnel. In Mr. Rasmussen’s opinion, it was particularly important for doctors to be trained to recognize cases of torture.

The Colombian delegation also included Ana Maria Prieto Abad, Plenipotentiary Minister; Julie Esther Plata Gómez, Counsellor to the Minister of Interior and Justice; and Rafael Quintero Cubides, Angela Maria Salazar Blanco, and Antonio Varõn Mejía, from the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

Colombia, as one of the 134 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must provide the Committee with periodic reports on efforts to put the Convention's provisions into effect.

The delegation will return to answer the Committee's questions at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 November. The Committee's formal conclusions and recommendations on the Colombian report will be issued at 3 p.m. on 19 November.

The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, 12 November, to begin its examination of the third periodic report of Morocco.

Third Periodic Report of Colombia

The report (CAT/C/39/Add.4) underlines the fact that the problem of torture in Colombia must be considered in the context of the internal armed conflict, which is becoming more widespread, degraded and dehumanised, and which is increasingly affecting the civilian population. This conflict is the principal cause of violations of fundamental rights and international humanitarian law. Murder is the most frequent offence, and it is increasing dramatically; attacks on life and personal integrity, acts of terrorism and hostage taking are common occurrences. Guerrilla and self-defence groups resort to massacres of civilians as war practices, during which victims are often tortured before being killed. Many of the acts committed by the self-defence groups, such as torture and selective executions, are intended to intimidate and spread terror among the civilian population and to cause displacements. The report states that in 2000, as compared to 1999, the self-defence groups increased the practice of torture by 213,7 per cent. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – FARC – is the group that commits the greatest number of violations of international humanitarian law.

On 19 August 1999, the Government presented its policy for the promotion of, the respect for and safeguarding of human rights and the application of international humanitarian law to the national and international community. As a result of the implementation of this policy, various agreements have been concluded with FARC, such as La Machaca Accord (May 2000), Los Pozos Accord (February 2001), Humanitarian Agreement (June 2001), and the San Francisco de la Sombra Accord (May 2001).

Presentation of Report

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS, the Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, mentioned that the report under review covered the period from 1999 to 2001 and took into account the situation in Colombia largely in the context of the ongoing armed struggle. She highlighted the fact that the Government had prepared a peace process to combat the armed groups carrying out the violence, which were largely self-defense groups.

The representative pointed out that the current peace process initiated by the previous Government had failed to halt the rise of terrorist activities at the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002. Since then, however, the current Government had undertaken strong measures to eliminate irregularities in the armed forces. Among them was the decree of 1999 establishing a new military penal code, which dealt with the issues of torture, genocide and forced disappearances.

The period under review saw a high rise in violence and violations of international humanitarian law. As the Government was advancing the peace process, armed groups had intensified their terrorist activities. They had kidnapped, tortured, and abducted and recruited minors. Infrastructure had been destroyed and anti-personal mines had been used against the civilian population. According to the non-governmental organization CINEP, armed guerrillas, and more specifically self-defence groups, had carried out the majority of the cases of torture conducted in 2000.

Ambassador Forero listed several steps taken by the Government, namely the adoption of new measures dealing with prevention, assistance and protection of victims of human rights abuses and the increased focus of the National Court to change trends of corruption and violence. In particular, the Ambassador drew attention to actions taken in the areas of human rights and in the context of international humanitarian law.

Discussion

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Colombia was Committee Expert FERNANDO MARIÑO MENENDEZ who recognized the difficulties faced by Colombia because of the armed conflict occurring in the country. However, even in a situation of armed conflict, torture was still an international crime and its banning was a universal obligation. Thus, Mr. Mariño recalled that the Convention against Torture was always in force in the country and no one could go against it.

Mr. Mariño stressed the fact that the report was five years late and did not really cover the year 2002. He referred to events that occurred after 2002, especially after the election of the new Colombian president, and asked the delegation for more precise details in this regard.

Mr. Mariño said that Colombia had acknowledged that the rule of law was the key to the prevention of torture. Important legal provisions had been adopted by Constitutional law such as the law on the prevention of torture and the law referring to the state of emergency.

Regarding Article 1 of the Convention, Mr. Mariño underlined the legislative efforts that had clearly been made by the country. No contradictions existed with the Convention against Torture; the Colombian law took word for word the definition of torture contained in the Convention.

However, the Rapporteur said that contradictions existed between this report and the previous one as well as with information provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and various NGOs. As an example, Mr. Mariño quoted the figures mentioned in the report about the complaints received by the Office of the Attorney-General concerning human rights violations by members of the armed forces. According to the report, the complaints fell from 3,000 in 1995 to 289 in June of this year. Mr. Mariño mentioned various cases of persons who had been subjected to cruel treatments by members of the police, which demonstrated that a large number of such cases still existed.

Referring to the recent report by the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Theo van Boven, Mr. Mariño noted that an attack had been carried out on 250 women who had been displaced by mixed forces of police and armed groups. Heavy weapons had been used against them and children as well as women had been wounded or had disappeared in the attack. Mr. Mariño wished to obtain more details about this case.

With respect to Article 2 of the Convention, the Rapporteur referred to a draft law dated 2003 according to which a legal power could be granted to the military forces. Mr. Marino asked whether this law had been adopted and if the powers granted to the military included the possibility of detaining someone without the agreement of a judge and in secret. In Mr. Mariño’s opinion, military justice should not consider cases to do with humanitarian law and crimes against humanity. He asked the delegation what were the criteria used to decide if a case was to be examined by a military or a criminal court.

Among Mr. Mariño's concerns were the issue of leniency and amnesty. In the context of impunity, the Committee had received alarming information according to which no actions had been taken against members of the military who were the presumed authors of crimes against humanitarian law. The Rapporteur referred to a particular case and asked if a judgement had been pronounced against that person. In addition, he asked if those who had been judged and condemned for such crimes had benefited from an amnesty.

Mr. Mariño concluded by noting that guaranties could be reinforced in Colombia if the country accepted Article 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture and ratified the additional Protocol.

The delegation recalled that the Committee had no authority to look in individual cases as Colombia had not made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Burns indicated to the delegation that even if the country had not made that declaration it did not prevent Committee members from asking questions about individual cases.

Serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Colombia was Committee Expert OLE VEDEL RASMUSSEN who said among other things that the document provided by Colombia to the Committee was now five years late. He regretted that practical and precise examples were difficult to find in the report and that no mention was made to the training of medical personnel. In Mr. Rasmussen’s opinion, it was particularly important that doctors were trained to recognize cases of torture. This training was an obligation according to article 10 of the Convention.

The report referred to many courses on human rights but no specific reference to torture was made. Mr. Rasmussen wished to know how many of these courses focused on torture. Mr. Rasmussen also wished to have further information concerning the centre for the rehabilitation of the victims of torture.

On the issue of custody and treatment of persons subjected to arrest, detention or imprisonment, Mr. Rasmussen wished to obtain more details. Statistics on the prison population were needed as well as more details about the mechanisms of complaints.

Mr. Rasmussen noted that Colombia had never made a contribution to the voluntary fund for victims of torture although the fund had contributed to actions undertaken by Colombian NGOs. Was Colombia envisaging making a contribution soon? Mr. Rasmussen regretted that no reference was made in the report to article 16 about acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Other Committee Experts also put questions. Among their queries were the conditions of detentions; and how the Government implemented the recommendations issued by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women. The question of amnesty was also raised as well as the issue of human rights training courses and the protection of human rights defenders.