COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE TO HOLD TWENTY-SECOND SESSION AT PALAIS DES NATIONS FROM 26 APRIL TO 14 MAY 1999

HR/CAT/99/1
22 April 1999


BACKGROUND RELEASE


Panel Scheduled to Consider Reports from
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mauritius,
Venezuela, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg,
Libya, Morocco,Egypt, and Liechtenstein


The Committee against Torture will meet at the Palais des Nations in Geneva from 26 April to 14 May 1999 to review the measures adopted by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mauritius, Venezuela, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg, Libya, Morocco, Egypt and Liechtenstein to prevent and punish acts of torture. Representatives of the ten countries are expected to come before the Committee to defend their records in implementing the rights enshrined in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

During the three-week meeting, the panel’s 10 independent experts will also study, in closed session, information appearing to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in a State party. In addition, they will examine communications from individuals claiming to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the treaty. The large number of overdue reports from State parties on how they are applying the Convention will be another subject of discussion.

There are 114 State parties to the Convention, which requires signatories to outlaw torture and explicitly prohibits the use of “higher orders” or “exceptional circumstances” as excuses for acts of torture. The Committee was established in 1987 to monitor compliance with the Convention and to assist State parties in implementing its provisions. The latest State parties to ratify the Convention since the last session are Zambia, Indonesia, South Africa, Burkina Fasso, Mali and Bolivia.

Committee’s concluding observations on the last reports submitted by Mauritius, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg, Libya, Morocco, Egypt and Liechtenstein

In its observations and recommendations issued in April 1995 on the initial report of Mauritius, the Committee recommended that the State party should adopt provisions of the Convention into domestic law to ensure that enforcement measures were applied. The Committee applauded the existence of an ombudsman, and the State’s consideration of using the habeas corpus procedure. But the Committee also expressed concern that some non-governmental organizations reported acts of torture and ill-treatment on police premises, and that certain inadequacies to combat such violence existed. It recommended that the State adopt a policy of monitoring police premises, and enact statutes to ensure that perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment within the law enforcement ranks were brought to justice.

In its conclusions on the initial report of Bulgaria, considered in November 1991, the Committee took note of the radical reforms and far-reaching changes taking place in the country. In that connection, the Committee recommended that the process of legislative reforms be accelerated and that relevant information should be included in the first supplementary report to be submitted. The Committee also expressed the hope that the first supplementary report would reflect the fact that the comments and suggestions made by it during the dialogue with the State party had been taken into account.

Concerning the second periodic report of Italy, considered in April 1995, the Committee was heartened to see that the death penalty in the State was fully abolished. Yet, the Committee expressed worry over continued reports of torture and ill-treatment in the prison system, especially among foreign and minority detainees. The penalties for these acts of violence, which at times resulted in death, were not commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. Further, the Committee was troubled by the large number of unconvicted prisoners and the problem of prison overcrowding, as well as the occasional suspension of the humanitarian rules regarding the treatment of prisoners. The Committee recommended that the State continue to examine the possibility of including in its criminal law the concept of torture as set out in the Convention.

In its concluding observations on the initial report of Luxembourg, considered in April 1992, the Committee noted that according to the representative of Luxembourg and the information contained in the report, torture did not exist in the country. The Committee observed, however, that the report was not fully comprehensive and that Luxembourg legislation was not in conformity with all of the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requested that more detailed answers to certain questions be provided in the first supplementary report. Special reference was made to the need for a legal definition of torture; the need for further clarification as to the applicability of article 3 of the Convention under domestic legislation; and measures taken to prevent torture, investigate alleged complaints of torture or ill-treatment and ensure redress to victims of such violations.

Following its examination of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s second periodic report, reviewed in November 1994, the Committee congratulated the State on adopting most of the Convention’s ideals into law, and for specifying a separate crime of torture. However, the Committee noted that an atmosphere of torture may still exist because of the State’s incommunicado detention system, in which a prisoner cannot make contact with family, lawyers, or activist groups. It also noted with dismay the information provided by reliable non-governmental organizations charging acts of torture in the State party. The Committee recommended that Libyan authorities guarantee to prisoners at all stages of detention free access to lawyers, doctors, and relatives. It also suggested providing law enforcement groups with educational programmes to avoid torture and detailing the penalties for such offenses.

When it considered Morocco’s initial report in November 1994, the Committee lauded the State for its efforts to revise its Constitution and statutes to bring them into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. This, the Committee noted, illustrated a real determination to create an atmosphere that would promote and protect human rights. At the same time, however, it noted with concern reports from various non-governmental organizations about torture and ill-treatment, particularly within the police ranks. The Committee suggested establishing a system to monitor all police premises, paying particular attention to the practice of interrogation. It also recommended a clarification of the State’s penal legislation to streamline the process for bringing offending officers to justice.

The Committee said the second periodic report of Egypt, which was considered in November 1993, did not follow Convention guidelines and contained far too many generalities instead of specifics and this was deplorable. Nevertheless, it applauded the State because in general, the legal situation was satisfactory since people there had confidence in the ordinary law courts and human rights activists were able to express themselves and seek information freely. However, the Committee was concerned that reliable non-governmental organizations, as well as a Special Rapporteur from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, insisted that torture was still a wide-spread problem there. The Committee recommended that the State party amend its penal legislation to conform with the Convention’s language, and to provide a much more detailed periodic report during its next presentation.

During its consideration of Liechtenstein’s initial report in November 1994, the Committee praised the delegation for its comprehensiveness, for its cooperation, and for its receptiveness to promote human rights in its domestic laws. It noted that the policy of prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was successful, so much so that no governmental or non-governmental body had charged the existence of

torture in the country. In fact, the Committee proffered no criticisms of the report. It recommended that the country continue its efforts.

Provisional Timetable for Consideration of Reports

In ratifying or acceding to the Convention, States are obliged to submit reports on the measures they have taken to implement its provisions. States are invited to send representatives to attend the meetings during which their reports are considered. For this session, the Committee has drawn up the following provisional timetable for the consideration of reports:

Tuesday, 27 April

Morning the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, initial report, CAT/C/28/Add.4

Wednesday, 28 April

Morning Mauritius, second periodic report, CAT/C/43/Add.1

Afternoon the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(continued)

Thursday, 29 April

Morning Venezuela, initial report, CAT/C/16/Add.8

Afternoon Mauritius (continued)

Friday, 30 April

Morning Bulgaria, second periodic report, CAT/C/17/Add.19

Afternoon the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia:
conclusions and recommendations

Venezuela (continued)

Monday, 3 May

Morning Italy, third periodic report, CAT/C/44/Add.2

Afternoon Mauritius: conclusions and recommendations

Bulgaria (continued)

Tuesday, 4 May

Morning Luxembourg, second periodic report, CAT/C/17/Add.20

Afternoon Venezuela: conclusions and recommendations

Italy (continued)

Wednesday, 5 May

Morning Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, third periodic report,
CAT/C/44/Add.3

Afternoon Bulgaria: conclusions and recommendations

Luxembourg (continued)

Thursday, 6 May

Morning Morocco: second periodic report, CAT/C/43/Add.2

Afternoon Italy: conclusions and recommendations

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (continued)

Friday, 7 May

Morning Egypt, third periodic report, CAT/C/34/Add.11

Afternoon Luxembourg: conclusions and recommendations

Morocco (continued)

Monday, 10 May

Morning Liechtenstein, second periodic report,
CAT/C/29/Add.5

Afternoon Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: conclusions and
recommendations

Egypt (continued)

Tuesday, 11 May

Afternoon Morocco: conclusions and recommendations

Liechtenstein (continued)

Wednesday, 12 May

Afternoon Egypt: conclusions and recommendations

Liechtenstein: conclusions and recommendations

As each country report is taken up by the Committee, a summary of the relevant document will be in the press release covering that session.

Background On Convention And Committee

The Convention, adopted unanimously by the General Assembly in 1984, entered into force on 26 June 1987. States parties to the Convention are required to outlaw torture and are explicitly prohibited from using "higher orders" or "exceptional circumstances" as excuses for acts of torture. The Convention introduced two significant new elements to the United Nations fight against torture. First, it specifies that alleged torturers may be tried in any State party or they may be extradited to face trial in the State party where their crimes were committed. Second, it provides for international investigation of reliable reports of torture, including visits to the State party concerned, with its agreement.

Under article 20 of the Convention, if the Committee receives reliable information which appears to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State party, the Committee shall invite that State party to cooperate in the examination of this information.

Under article 21, a State party to the Convention may at any time declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

Under article 22, a State party to the Convention may at any time declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from, or on behalf of, individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention.

The Convention has been ratified or acceded to by the following 114 States: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Fasso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo,

Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zambia.

The following 39 States have recognized the competence of the Committee under articles 21 and 22: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. In addition, the United Kingdom and the United States have recognized the competence of the Committee under article 21 only.

The Commission on Human Rights, at its fifty-fourth session, invited States parties to the Convention to make the declarations under articles 21 and 22. It also invited parties to envisage withdrawing their reservations to article 20.

Other United Nations Activities Against Torture

In addition to preventive measures, the United Nations has taken action to come to the aid of torture victims. In 1981 the General Assembly set up the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims of Torture. At its last session, the Commission on Human Rights appealed to all governments, organizations and individuals in a position to do so to contribute to the Fund in order to allow it to respond to the constantly increasing number of requests for assistance. On the same day, 17 April 1998, the Commission extended the mandate of its Special Rapporteur on Torture, encouraging all governments to envisage inviting him to visit their countries.

The Commission also requested the working group charged with elaborating a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture to continue its work with a view to achieving a definitive and concrete text. The draft optional protocol would establish a system of inspection visits to places of detention. The Chairman of the Committee and the Special Rapporteur were requested to participate in the proceedings of the working group.

Membership and Officers

The Committee’s members are elected by the States parties to the Convention and serve in their personal capacity. The current members of the Committee are: Peter Thomas Burns (Canada); Guibril Camara (Senegal); Sayed Kassem el Masry (Egypt); Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar (Portugal); Alejandro Gonzalez Poblete (Chile); Bent Sorensen (Denmark); Alexander M. Yakovlev (Russian Federation); Yu Mengja (China); Ada Polajnar-Pavcnik (Slovenia); and Andreas V. Mavrommatis (Cyprus).

Mr. Burns is Chairman. Vice-Chairpersons are Mr. Camara and Mr. Poblete. Mr. Sorensen is Rapporteur.