Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF CHAD
01 May 2009
Share
Committee against Torture
AFTERNOON
30 April 2009
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Chad to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on 29 April, the delegation, which was led by Abderaman Djasnabaille, Minister for Human Rights and the Promotion of Freedoms of Chad, stressed that there were no secret places of detention since the end of the dictatorial regime of Hissène Habré. But, in practice, there had been some rare cases of this uncovered, and each time they came to light the authorities had intervened to liberate the victims. Despite a lack of specific provisions establishing this expressly, in practice lawyers had access to police and gendarmerie stations to communicate with those being held in detention and lawyers were authorized to attend the interrogations before the prosecutor and the examining magistrate.
There was a lack of statistics on how many cases had been brought against police officers or other officials who had committed acts of torture against individuals in detention, the delegation said. However, specific cases could be cited. For example, a plaintiff had brought a torture complaint against the Public Prosecutor's Office and the gendarme responsible had been sentenced to 12 months' hard time as well as a fine of 1.5 million CFA Francs. That same day, in a different case, the judge rejected an application by two police officers accused of having perpetrated an illegal arrest, arguing that they were acting under superior orders. Victims of torture could also demand reparations from the courts, as had been done by victims tortured under the Habré regime. Unfortunately, given the lack of means to investigate, the examining magistrate had still not rendered a decision on that issue. To make up for that, national representatives had proposed a law to indemnify all the victims, direct and indirect, under President Habré's regime. That law had still not been adopted for procedural reasons, the delegation said.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Chad towards the end of the session on Friday, 15 May.
As one of the 146 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Chad is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 1 May, it will begin its consideration of the fifth periodic report of New Zealand (CAT/C/NZL/5).
Response of Chad
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Wednesday, 29 April, the delegation of Chad noted that in Chad torture was not set out as a distinct violation in its criminal law but, rather, was considered an aggravating circumstance. Nevertheless, that juridical void would be filled by the reworking of criminal texts as part of the ongoing reform of justice.
The revised draft Criminal Code defined torture as any act by which acute pain or mental suffering was inflicted on a person with the intention of obtaining from that person information or a confession, to punish them for an act that they or a third party had committed, in order to intimidate them or to pressurize them or for any other motive. Article 19 established penalties of five to six years' imprisonment and a fine of 600,000 to 2 million CFA francs. Articles 20 and 21 fixed a penalty of 10 to 20 years' hard labour if those acts are committed on a minor or if they were committed by a civil servant.
According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, police officers could not hold detainees for preliminary detentions for more than 48 hours, the delegation said. After 48 hours the detainee had to be released or brought before the Prosecutor's Office. A judge could authorize the extension of the preliminary detention for a further 48 hours if it was essential for the investigation. In doing so, the judge had to be sure that the individual had not been subject to any physical abuse. Once the detainee was transferred to the Prosecutor's Office, the 48-hour limit could be increased as necessary, but it had to be shown that they used maximum diligence possible within the exigencies of their service.
Visits to police detention centres were regularly carried out by the judicial authorities to ensure that the time limits were respected, the delegation noted. Moreover, the Minister of Defence had summoned all the Brigade Commanders and Judicial Police Officer to N’Djamena to provide for a rotation of staff and ensure a respect for the rights of individuals and respect for their human rights.
In spite of these efforts, the delegation recognized that abuses continued. That was due to a lack of staff and infrastructure.
There were no secret places of detention since the end of the dictatorial regime of Hissène Habré, the delegation stressed. But, in practice, there had been some rare cases of this uncovered, and each time they came to light the authorities had intervened to liberate the victims.
Regarding the participation of lawyers during the preliminary investigation, despite a lack of specific provisions establishing this right expressly, in practice lawyers had access to police and gendarmerie stations to communicate with those being held in detention and lawyers were authorized to attend the interrogations before the prosecutor and the examining magistrate.
The delegation noted that certain military authorities held that, given the exigencies of military discipline, subordinates who were ordered to carry out illegal acts were bound to do so. However, the Criminal Code penalized acts that harmed an individual's rights. An example was the case of Mahamat Wakai against a women's collective, in which a senior police officer had ordered officers under him to crack down on a peaceful women's demonstration before the French Embassy in N’Djamena following the presidential elections of 2001. To contest an illegal order subordinates could have recourse to a superior officer or lodge a complaint with the judicial authorities.
Regarding expulsion and refoulement, the delegation said that administrative and judicial officers might, according to the circumstances, decide to extradite, expel or refoul a person in accordance with the applicable laws. In every case the person concerned could appeal before the courts to contest those decisions, and those cases were given priority. Judges were empowered to decide that a person could not be sent back to their country of origin because there was a risk they would be tortured or for other reasons. A case in point was that of Tchanguiz Vatankhah, an Iranian refugee who obtained a judicial reversal of an administrative decision to expel him, which held that the original decision had incorrectly applied the provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Chad was a party.
There was a lack of statistics on how many cases had been brought against police officers or other officials who had committed acts of torture against individuals in detention. However, the delegation could describe specific cases, for example, a plaintiff that had brought a torture complaint against the Public Prosecutor's Office and the gendarme responsible had been sentenced to 12 months hard time as well as a fine of 1.5 million CFA Francs. That same day, in a different case, the judge rejected an application by two police officers accused of having perpetrated an illegal arrest, arguing that they were acting under superior orders.
Human rights were part of the curriculum in all schools – including military and professional schools, the delegation said. With respect to the army, a certain number of trainers and manuals were already available and the Government was in the process of expanding that capacity.
Allegations of torture and all other infractions could be brought directly to the attention of the Public Prosecutor's Office by anyone who was aware of those crimes. Victims of such crimes who were threatened with reprisal were often protected by the judicial authorities when they were made aware of the situation. However, the delegation recognized that there were no regulations in the area of victims and witness protection. That lack often exposed victims to reprisal from their torturers, and led them not to bring complaints before the authorities.
Victims of torture could demand reparations from the courts, as had been done by victims tortured under the Habré regime. Unfortunately, given the lack of means to investigate, the examining magistrate had still not rendered a decision on that issue. To make up for that, national representatives have proposed a law that would indemnify all the victims, direct and indirect, under President Habré's regime. However, that law had still not been adopted for procedural reasons, the delegation said.
The Code of Criminal Procedure provided that judges had to base their decisions on proof produced in the course of the adversarial proceedings. Confessions obtained under torture were not acceptable. In practice, there had been cases of torture where the perpetrators had been sanctioned, notably in the case of Mariam Daoud in which the Minister of Justice, the Director General of the Gendarmerie and the Personal Secretary to the Head of State had all been dismissed from their posts.
Regarding the situation of officers of the Documentation and Security Directorate (political police of President Habré's regime) continuing to occupy high-level posts, the delegation said that most of the former officials of the Security Directorate had been removed from their posts. However, it should be recalled that they were dealing with the principle of presumption of innocence, which was applicable to those officials as well. Those officials could be brought before an examining magistrate on demand.
On the issue of judicial independence, the delegation noted that magistrates had always enjoyed financial advantages over other civil servants. A judge starting his career received a monthly salary of more than 300,000 CFA francs, whereas a doctor earned just half of that. In addition, a draft law on the regulation of judges envisaged increasing their salaries. To deal with corruption, there was a judicial inspection service and the Supreme Council of the Magistracy had dealt with a number of cases, resulting in sanctions and dismissals of a number of judges.
Finally, to prevent the militarization of refugee camps, the delegation reported that the Government, working together with the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad, had put in place an integrated security detachment composed of police officers and gendarmes specifically trained in refugee protection.
Questions by Committee Experts
ESSADIA BELMIR, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Chad, observed that the replies indicated that there had been some abuse in the area of custody and pre-trial detention. They had also spoken of organized visits, but it appeared that these were not all that regular, or the number of abuses would have been reduced. Also in question was whether the registers of detainees were being kept, in particular given information about the illiteracy of many police officers.
In that connection, Ms. Belmir asked what penalties were applied against authorities that did not live up to their obligations, in particular with regard to application of regulations regarding detention and time limits?
On secret places of detention, the replies had said there were only a few cases that had come to light since the regime of Hissène Habré. What were the punishments meted out to the perpetrators in those cases, Ms. Belmir asked?
Ms. Belmir noted that there were two police brigades that had been singled out by non-governmental organizations as particularly brutal in carrying out their activities. Were there any plans to investigate those claims or any investigations under way?
Concerning refugees, they were witnessing an alarming situation, Ms. Belmir stressed. The Government was making an effort, but the economic and social situation in the country did not really permit the country to deal with the large flows of refugees coming from the Central African Republic and from Darfur.
Concerning the events under the regime of Hissène Habré, a Commission of Inquiry had been set up to look into the human rights violations carried out at that time, but it had very few resources. What about impunity? Did that mean that whenever there were events and heinous actions were carried out solutions were sought but in no way were the perpetrators punished? Was that a reconciliation strategy?
In conclusion, Ms. Belmir wished to note that they were seeing a reform process in the country and an attempt to make things better.
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Chairperson serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report, also focusing on the violations committed under President Habré's regime, asked, in addition to releasing the victims from secret prisons, had any procedures been taken to ensure that the perpetrators were punished?
Regarding the state of emergency, Mr. Grossman would appreciate information on how that status was being kept under review to prevent abuses that could occur in such situations.
On training, he welcomed the information that steps would be taken to increase the number of personnel and the documentation involved. Mr. Grossman asked what the timetable was for those activities.
Other Experts echoed a number of concerns already expressed, in particular with regard to secret detentions; concerns that superior orders were an excuse for illegal acts in Chad; and loopholes in refugee and asylum law to provide key protections for those groups.
Response by Delegation
Responding to some of the additional questions raised, the delegation said that the current Government had a real will to promote human rights. They recognized that there were weaknesses. Where they could do better, they would, but they needed international help.
There were representatives of the Ministry of Human Rights in the field who were working to ensure that human rights violations did not go unpunished.
Regarding the Hissène Habré case, there were two aspects: the national and the international. At the national level, there was the case being carried out in N’Djamena. However, many people who worked with Hissène Habré were still in the administration and still supported the former regime, so they were able to block action being taken in this case. That was the problem. Another problem was that victims did not want to become actively involved. Despite action of the Ministry of Human Rights in the field to try and promote action by victims, given the situation in the country, victims were not forthcoming.
On the international level, the case of Hissène Habré v. Senegal was moving forward, the delegation said. The Government was not letting the case lay dormant, and if the case in Senegal failed, it was hoped that they would be able to bring it before the African Union or in Belgium.
Concerning child soldiers, that was a real problem, the delegation agreed. They had undertaken visits to refugee camps in conjunction with the Secretary-General's Special Representative for children and armed conflict and it had been discovered that there was indeed recruitment of child soldiers going on. There had also been children in the armed forces of previous regimes. The Government had worked to demobilize child soldiers, in conjunction with the United Nations Children's Fund. At the Government level there was no recruitment of minors any more. Recruitment was at age 18 and was voluntary.
Regarding forced marriages, the delegation had been made aware that that still occurred in remote villages but the practice was dying out. On a legislative level, they would work to ensure that that practice was criminally sanctioned.
_________
For use of the information media; not an official record
AFTERNOON
30 April 2009
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Chad to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on 29 April, the delegation, which was led by Abderaman Djasnabaille, Minister for Human Rights and the Promotion of Freedoms of Chad, stressed that there were no secret places of detention since the end of the dictatorial regime of Hissène Habré. But, in practice, there had been some rare cases of this uncovered, and each time they came to light the authorities had intervened to liberate the victims. Despite a lack of specific provisions establishing this expressly, in practice lawyers had access to police and gendarmerie stations to communicate with those being held in detention and lawyers were authorized to attend the interrogations before the prosecutor and the examining magistrate.
There was a lack of statistics on how many cases had been brought against police officers or other officials who had committed acts of torture against individuals in detention, the delegation said. However, specific cases could be cited. For example, a plaintiff had brought a torture complaint against the Public Prosecutor's Office and the gendarme responsible had been sentenced to 12 months' hard time as well as a fine of 1.5 million CFA Francs. That same day, in a different case, the judge rejected an application by two police officers accused of having perpetrated an illegal arrest, arguing that they were acting under superior orders. Victims of torture could also demand reparations from the courts, as had been done by victims tortured under the Habré regime. Unfortunately, given the lack of means to investigate, the examining magistrate had still not rendered a decision on that issue. To make up for that, national representatives had proposed a law to indemnify all the victims, direct and indirect, under President Habré's regime. That law had still not been adopted for procedural reasons, the delegation said.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Chad towards the end of the session on Friday, 15 May.
As one of the 146 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Chad is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 1 May, it will begin its consideration of the fifth periodic report of New Zealand (CAT/C/NZL/5).
Response of Chad
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Wednesday, 29 April, the delegation of Chad noted that in Chad torture was not set out as a distinct violation in its criminal law but, rather, was considered an aggravating circumstance. Nevertheless, that juridical void would be filled by the reworking of criminal texts as part of the ongoing reform of justice.
The revised draft Criminal Code defined torture as any act by which acute pain or mental suffering was inflicted on a person with the intention of obtaining from that person information or a confession, to punish them for an act that they or a third party had committed, in order to intimidate them or to pressurize them or for any other motive. Article 19 established penalties of five to six years' imprisonment and a fine of 600,000 to 2 million CFA francs. Articles 20 and 21 fixed a penalty of 10 to 20 years' hard labour if those acts are committed on a minor or if they were committed by a civil servant.
According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, police officers could not hold detainees for preliminary detentions for more than 48 hours, the delegation said. After 48 hours the detainee had to be released or brought before the Prosecutor's Office. A judge could authorize the extension of the preliminary detention for a further 48 hours if it was essential for the investigation. In doing so, the judge had to be sure that the individual had not been subject to any physical abuse. Once the detainee was transferred to the Prosecutor's Office, the 48-hour limit could be increased as necessary, but it had to be shown that they used maximum diligence possible within the exigencies of their service.
Visits to police detention centres were regularly carried out by the judicial authorities to ensure that the time limits were respected, the delegation noted. Moreover, the Minister of Defence had summoned all the Brigade Commanders and Judicial Police Officer to N’Djamena to provide for a rotation of staff and ensure a respect for the rights of individuals and respect for their human rights.
In spite of these efforts, the delegation recognized that abuses continued. That was due to a lack of staff and infrastructure.
There were no secret places of detention since the end of the dictatorial regime of Hissène Habré, the delegation stressed. But, in practice, there had been some rare cases of this uncovered, and each time they came to light the authorities had intervened to liberate the victims.
Regarding the participation of lawyers during the preliminary investigation, despite a lack of specific provisions establishing this right expressly, in practice lawyers had access to police and gendarmerie stations to communicate with those being held in detention and lawyers were authorized to attend the interrogations before the prosecutor and the examining magistrate.
The delegation noted that certain military authorities held that, given the exigencies of military discipline, subordinates who were ordered to carry out illegal acts were bound to do so. However, the Criminal Code penalized acts that harmed an individual's rights. An example was the case of Mahamat Wakai against a women's collective, in which a senior police officer had ordered officers under him to crack down on a peaceful women's demonstration before the French Embassy in N’Djamena following the presidential elections of 2001. To contest an illegal order subordinates could have recourse to a superior officer or lodge a complaint with the judicial authorities.
Regarding expulsion and refoulement, the delegation said that administrative and judicial officers might, according to the circumstances, decide to extradite, expel or refoul a person in accordance with the applicable laws. In every case the person concerned could appeal before the courts to contest those decisions, and those cases were given priority. Judges were empowered to decide that a person could not be sent back to their country of origin because there was a risk they would be tortured or for other reasons. A case in point was that of Tchanguiz Vatankhah, an Iranian refugee who obtained a judicial reversal of an administrative decision to expel him, which held that the original decision had incorrectly applied the provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Chad was a party.
There was a lack of statistics on how many cases had been brought against police officers or other officials who had committed acts of torture against individuals in detention. However, the delegation could describe specific cases, for example, a plaintiff that had brought a torture complaint against the Public Prosecutor's Office and the gendarme responsible had been sentenced to 12 months hard time as well as a fine of 1.5 million CFA Francs. That same day, in a different case, the judge rejected an application by two police officers accused of having perpetrated an illegal arrest, arguing that they were acting under superior orders.
Human rights were part of the curriculum in all schools – including military and professional schools, the delegation said. With respect to the army, a certain number of trainers and manuals were already available and the Government was in the process of expanding that capacity.
Allegations of torture and all other infractions could be brought directly to the attention of the Public Prosecutor's Office by anyone who was aware of those crimes. Victims of such crimes who were threatened with reprisal were often protected by the judicial authorities when they were made aware of the situation. However, the delegation recognized that there were no regulations in the area of victims and witness protection. That lack often exposed victims to reprisal from their torturers, and led them not to bring complaints before the authorities.
Victims of torture could demand reparations from the courts, as had been done by victims tortured under the Habré regime. Unfortunately, given the lack of means to investigate, the examining magistrate had still not rendered a decision on that issue. To make up for that, national representatives have proposed a law that would indemnify all the victims, direct and indirect, under President Habré's regime. However, that law had still not been adopted for procedural reasons, the delegation said.
The Code of Criminal Procedure provided that judges had to base their decisions on proof produced in the course of the adversarial proceedings. Confessions obtained under torture were not acceptable. In practice, there had been cases of torture where the perpetrators had been sanctioned, notably in the case of Mariam Daoud in which the Minister of Justice, the Director General of the Gendarmerie and the Personal Secretary to the Head of State had all been dismissed from their posts.
Regarding the situation of officers of the Documentation and Security Directorate (political police of President Habré's regime) continuing to occupy high-level posts, the delegation said that most of the former officials of the Security Directorate had been removed from their posts. However, it should be recalled that they were dealing with the principle of presumption of innocence, which was applicable to those officials as well. Those officials could be brought before an examining magistrate on demand.
On the issue of judicial independence, the delegation noted that magistrates had always enjoyed financial advantages over other civil servants. A judge starting his career received a monthly salary of more than 300,000 CFA francs, whereas a doctor earned just half of that. In addition, a draft law on the regulation of judges envisaged increasing their salaries. To deal with corruption, there was a judicial inspection service and the Supreme Council of the Magistracy had dealt with a number of cases, resulting in sanctions and dismissals of a number of judges.
Finally, to prevent the militarization of refugee camps, the delegation reported that the Government, working together with the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad, had put in place an integrated security detachment composed of police officers and gendarmes specifically trained in refugee protection.
Questions by Committee Experts
ESSADIA BELMIR, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Chad, observed that the replies indicated that there had been some abuse in the area of custody and pre-trial detention. They had also spoken of organized visits, but it appeared that these were not all that regular, or the number of abuses would have been reduced. Also in question was whether the registers of detainees were being kept, in particular given information about the illiteracy of many police officers.
In that connection, Ms. Belmir asked what penalties were applied against authorities that did not live up to their obligations, in particular with regard to application of regulations regarding detention and time limits?
On secret places of detention, the replies had said there were only a few cases that had come to light since the regime of Hissène Habré. What were the punishments meted out to the perpetrators in those cases, Ms. Belmir asked?
Ms. Belmir noted that there were two police brigades that had been singled out by non-governmental organizations as particularly brutal in carrying out their activities. Were there any plans to investigate those claims or any investigations under way?
Concerning refugees, they were witnessing an alarming situation, Ms. Belmir stressed. The Government was making an effort, but the economic and social situation in the country did not really permit the country to deal with the large flows of refugees coming from the Central African Republic and from Darfur.
Concerning the events under the regime of Hissène Habré, a Commission of Inquiry had been set up to look into the human rights violations carried out at that time, but it had very few resources. What about impunity? Did that mean that whenever there were events and heinous actions were carried out solutions were sought but in no way were the perpetrators punished? Was that a reconciliation strategy?
In conclusion, Ms. Belmir wished to note that they were seeing a reform process in the country and an attempt to make things better.
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Chairperson serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report, also focusing on the violations committed under President Habré's regime, asked, in addition to releasing the victims from secret prisons, had any procedures been taken to ensure that the perpetrators were punished?
Regarding the state of emergency, Mr. Grossman would appreciate information on how that status was being kept under review to prevent abuses that could occur in such situations.
On training, he welcomed the information that steps would be taken to increase the number of personnel and the documentation involved. Mr. Grossman asked what the timetable was for those activities.
Other Experts echoed a number of concerns already expressed, in particular with regard to secret detentions; concerns that superior orders were an excuse for illegal acts in Chad; and loopholes in refugee and asylum law to provide key protections for those groups.
Response by Delegation
Responding to some of the additional questions raised, the delegation said that the current Government had a real will to promote human rights. They recognized that there were weaknesses. Where they could do better, they would, but they needed international help.
There were representatives of the Ministry of Human Rights in the field who were working to ensure that human rights violations did not go unpunished.
Regarding the Hissène Habré case, there were two aspects: the national and the international. At the national level, there was the case being carried out in N’Djamena. However, many people who worked with Hissène Habré were still in the administration and still supported the former regime, so they were able to block action being taken in this case. That was the problem. Another problem was that victims did not want to become actively involved. Despite action of the Ministry of Human Rights in the field to try and promote action by victims, given the situation in the country, victims were not forthcoming.
On the international level, the case of Hissène Habré v. Senegal was moving forward, the delegation said. The Government was not letting the case lay dormant, and if the case in Senegal failed, it was hoped that they would be able to bring it before the African Union or in Belgium.
Concerning child soldiers, that was a real problem, the delegation agreed. They had undertaken visits to refugee camps in conjunction with the Secretary-General's Special Representative for children and armed conflict and it had been discovered that there was indeed recruitment of child soldiers going on. There had also been children in the armed forces of previous regimes. The Government had worked to demobilize child soldiers, in conjunction with the United Nations Children's Fund. At the Government level there was no recruitment of minors any more. Recruitment was at age 18 and was voluntary.
Regarding forced marriages, the delegation had been made aware that that still occurred in remote villages but the practice was dying out. On a legislative level, they would work to ensure that that practice was criminally sanctioned.
_________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: