COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONTINUES REVIEW OF REPORT OF MAURITIUS

AFTERNOON
HR/CAT/99/7
29 April 1999




A Government delegation from Mauritius this afternoon returned to the Committee against Torture to provide answers to the questions that Committee experts had asked it yesterday.

D.K. Dabee, the Solicitor-General of Mauritius, detailed and clarified several inquiries that Committee members had raised following the country's presentation of its second periodic report on Wednesday. He explained that the Constitution of Mauritius required law enforcement officials to immediately alert those arrested of their right to counsel and their right to not make a statement without a lawyer present.

Mr. Dabee also agreed with Committee members who had expressed concern that the Government had yet to adopt important provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment into its domestic laws, including a specific crime of torture. However, he noted that did not mean a perpetrator could not be prosecuted for a torture offense. The Criminal Code did criminalize a breach of the Constitution, and part of the Constitution was the right to protection from torture.

He also told the Committee that victims of torture were allowed to sue both their tormentors and the State, and that there was a movement afoot in the country to separate the forensics department from the jurisdiction of the police to give it more independence.

Mr. Dabee also said the delegation had been unable to locate up-to-date statistics about private prosecutions and had been unable to ascertain whether United Nations Centre for Human Rights textbooks and materials were used for the training of police and prison officers.

Andreas Mavrommatis, who served as the Committee rapporteur to the report, and Sayed Kassem El Masry, the Committee co-rapporteur, thanked the delegation for their thorough answers.

The delegation will return Monday at 3:30 P.M. when the Committee offers its final conclusions on the report of Mauritius. The Committee meets on Friday, 30 April, at 10 a.m. to take up the second periodic report of Bulgaria.

Discussion

D.K. DABEE, the Solicitor-General of Mauritius, in response to a question raised yesterday on the makeup of the National Human Rights Commission, said it consisted of a chairman, who was a judge, and three other members. One of the other members must be a former judge or barrister with over 10 years experience, and the other two members needed only to have knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights. If recommendations were made by that Commission and they fell in the hands of the National Assembly, they would have to be open to public debate. However, it was expected that there would be enough pressure for the recommendations to be acted upon.

Responding to a query on the absence of the provisions of the Convention in the country's domestic laws, Mr. Dabee said it was recognized that there was a duty to incorporate such provisions. That was not to say, however, that no protection against torture existed for the time being under Mauritius law. The Criminal Code did criminalize a breach of the Constitution, and part of the Constitution was the right to protection from torture. Of course, the State would spare no effort to achieve a more explicit implementation of the Convention.

Answering a question about pre-trial detention, Mr. Dabee said the Constitution made it clear that a detainee had a constitutional right not only to have access to a lawyer, but also the right to be informed that there was such a right. Any statement taken from a suspected person who had not been made aware of this right would not be admissible in court. In practice, the person should be informed of the right at the time of arrest. At anytime thereafter, counsel should be able to visit the client, who had a right to refuse to give a statement if there was no counsel present.

In response to a question about jailing without the order of a magistrate, Mr. Dabee said that was only the case when a magistrate was not available or reachable. Normally, an arrested person would face a magistrate the same day as the arrest or the next day. But if there was an arrest on a weekend, when no magistrate was available, the person would appear before a magistrate the following Monday.

Addressing a point raised about the neutrality of the body that investigated allegations of torture by the police, he said the National Human Rights Commission would oversee a new investigative division of the police force. Although the police would still be involved in the inquiry, the impact which the supervisory role of the Commission would have on any attempt to frustrate investigations should not be underestimated.

Mr. Dabee said that in the report, there were statistics that showed no convictions and no disciplinary measures had been taken during a period when there were 34 allegations of police torture. Cases involving police officers were always conducted in court by law officers. Due process of the law had been followed in all of those cases. Of course, if there had been a weaknesses in the manner in which investigations were carried out, there would have been no remedy to the situation at that point. But to address that, legislative steps were being taken to ensure impartial conduct in such inquiries in the future.

Responding to a question about the independence of police forensic science services, the Solicitor-General said similar concerns had been raised by some Mauritius parliamentarians. The Presidential Commission on Judicial Reforms had addressed this point and made the recommendation that an independent Government-sponsored corporate entity be set up for that purpose, and that it should charge police or another client -- accused persons might also want to use its services -- to meet its costs.

And addressing criticism that the report was too brief when referring to compensation to torture victims, Mr. Dabee said the financial and legislative implication could only be gauged in the context of the Government's many other commitments in the social and economic fields. Nonetheless, a first step had already been taken by way of the Human Rights Commission's recommendations on the grant of relief to victims. If the victim wanted to sue, a suit could already be filed against the wrongdoer and the State. In practice, most suits were directed against the State. In deserving cases, the State did not wait for the court judgment, but rather made out-of-court settlements of such claims.

Mr. Dabee also said the delegation had been unable to locate up-to-date statistics about private prosecutions and had been unable to ascertain whether United Nations Centre for Human Rights textbooks and materials were used for the training of police and prison officers.