Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE DISCUSSES FOLLOW-UP TO COMMUNICATIONS AND CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
15 May 2007
Share
Committee against Torture
15 May 2007
The Committee against Torture this afternoon discussed the issue of follow-up to individual communications and to concluding observations, hearing an oral presentation by a representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on follow-up to communications, as well as presentations from Committee Members on each topic.
Markus Schmidt of the petitions team unit within OHCHR, in introductory remarks on the follow-up progress report on individual communications, said that the report covered materials received from November up to the present session in respect of six cases. It was worth noting that the rate of follow-up replies from States parties had gone up. There had been no reply in 8 cases, for over 50 cases in which a violation had been found. For those States parties that did not provide follow-up replies or had made unsatisfactory replies, the OHCHR had a budget available if the Committee wished to send a mission to the State party.
Presenting the report on follow-up to individual communications, Committee Expert Fernando Mariño Menendez said there were still eight cases outstanding, involving Austria, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain (two cases), and three cases involving Serbia and Montenegro. The report detailed six cases for which there was updated information involving complaints against Canada, Senegal, Sweden, Switzerland (two cases), and Tunisia. Of the six cases, in three – those involving complaints against Sweden and Switzerland (who had two cases pending) – the States parties had complied with the Committee's requests, and there was no further action to be taken. Of more concern was follow-up with regard to the Canadian case (involving a request for non-refoulement), a Senegalese case (involving a request for extradition of former President Hissene Habré), and a Tunisian case (involving a request for an investigation into allegations of torture and ill-treatment).
Following a discussion, it was decided, with regard to the Canadian case, to request an update from the State party; for the case involving Senegal, the Committee would await the State party's reply to information forwarded to it, as the deadline had not yet expired; with respect to three Tunisian complaints (involving a single individual), the complainants' submissions would be sent to the State party for further comments. No further action was to be taken on the cases involving Sweden and Switzerland.
On follow-up to conclusions and reservations, Committee Member Felice Gaer recalled that, since the procedure for follow-up to conclusions and reservations had been instituted, the Committee had reviewed 43 countries, including the present session. Some 37 countries had been requested to submit follow-up information, of which 22 had responded. Every State party where a report was now overdue, as well as those which had not responded, would receive a reminder.
Ms. Gaer wished to emphasize that the kind of information that was often missing, and that the Committee requested be addressed in follow-up, was precise information about the right to obtain access to a lawyer or a medical examination following detention by law enforcement authorities, which was the most common follow-up item. She recalled that follow-up items that were targeted were ones that were protective and that could be easily complied with within one year. Other frequently recurring issues for follow-up were the need for States parties to have an independent body charged with hearing complaints regarding violations of the Convention; the need for statistics on law enforcement, including the number of complaints, investigations and prosecutions; and guarantees for prompt and impartial investigations of complaints.
In concluding remarks, Committee Chairperson Andreas Mavrommatis observed that the two new follow-up mechanisms were already beginning to bear fruit: steps to improve human rights were being taken or had been accelerated by States parties. Next time, it might be worthwhile if the follow-up rapporteurs would take up the issue of how the Committee could use national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations in the follow-up process.
When the Committee next reconvenes in public, on Wednesday, 16 May at 11.30 a.m., it will take up the issue of a General Comment on Article 2 of the Convention, which requires States parties to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
15 May 2007
The Committee against Torture this afternoon discussed the issue of follow-up to individual communications and to concluding observations, hearing an oral presentation by a representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on follow-up to communications, as well as presentations from Committee Members on each topic.
Markus Schmidt of the petitions team unit within OHCHR, in introductory remarks on the follow-up progress report on individual communications, said that the report covered materials received from November up to the present session in respect of six cases. It was worth noting that the rate of follow-up replies from States parties had gone up. There had been no reply in 8 cases, for over 50 cases in which a violation had been found. For those States parties that did not provide follow-up replies or had made unsatisfactory replies, the OHCHR had a budget available if the Committee wished to send a mission to the State party.
Presenting the report on follow-up to individual communications, Committee Expert Fernando Mariño Menendez said there were still eight cases outstanding, involving Austria, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain (two cases), and three cases involving Serbia and Montenegro. The report detailed six cases for which there was updated information involving complaints against Canada, Senegal, Sweden, Switzerland (two cases), and Tunisia. Of the six cases, in three – those involving complaints against Sweden and Switzerland (who had two cases pending) – the States parties had complied with the Committee's requests, and there was no further action to be taken. Of more concern was follow-up with regard to the Canadian case (involving a request for non-refoulement), a Senegalese case (involving a request for extradition of former President Hissene Habré), and a Tunisian case (involving a request for an investigation into allegations of torture and ill-treatment).
Following a discussion, it was decided, with regard to the Canadian case, to request an update from the State party; for the case involving Senegal, the Committee would await the State party's reply to information forwarded to it, as the deadline had not yet expired; with respect to three Tunisian complaints (involving a single individual), the complainants' submissions would be sent to the State party for further comments. No further action was to be taken on the cases involving Sweden and Switzerland.
On follow-up to conclusions and reservations, Committee Member Felice Gaer recalled that, since the procedure for follow-up to conclusions and reservations had been instituted, the Committee had reviewed 43 countries, including the present session. Some 37 countries had been requested to submit follow-up information, of which 22 had responded. Every State party where a report was now overdue, as well as those which had not responded, would receive a reminder.
Ms. Gaer wished to emphasize that the kind of information that was often missing, and that the Committee requested be addressed in follow-up, was precise information about the right to obtain access to a lawyer or a medical examination following detention by law enforcement authorities, which was the most common follow-up item. She recalled that follow-up items that were targeted were ones that were protective and that could be easily complied with within one year. Other frequently recurring issues for follow-up were the need for States parties to have an independent body charged with hearing complaints regarding violations of the Convention; the need for statistics on law enforcement, including the number of complaints, investigations and prosecutions; and guarantees for prompt and impartial investigations of complaints.
In concluding remarks, Committee Chairperson Andreas Mavrommatis observed that the two new follow-up mechanisms were already beginning to bear fruit: steps to improve human rights were being taken or had been accelerated by States parties. Next time, it might be worthwhile if the follow-up rapporteurs would take up the issue of how the Committee could use national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations in the follow-up process.
When the Committee next reconvenes in public, on Wednesday, 16 May at 11.30 a.m., it will take up the issue of a General Comment on Article 2 of the Convention, which requires States parties to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: