Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HOLDS MEETING WITH STATES PARTIES
15 May 2007
Share
Committee against Torture
15 May 2007
Discusses Working Methods, Treaty Body Reform, Relationship of Committee with
Sub-Committee for Prevention of Torture, and Other Key Issues of Concern
The Committee against Torture this morning held a meeting with States parties to discuss its working methods, in particular reporting requirements, with a view to finding synergies and optimizing the work of the Committee to better promote and protect human rights.
A number of key issues of concern for the Committee, including the principle of non-refoulement, and the need for independent national bodies competent to hear complaints regarding the Convention, were also highlighted, as was the need to either increase the number of Committee members, or to hold more sessions per year, in order for the Committee to cope with its workload and to clear its backlog.
States parties, for their part, welcomed the Committee's proposed reforms for reporting requirements – to consider the written responses of States parties to the Committee's list of issues in lieu of a report – which would not only provide for a more focused discussion, but would have the added benefit of reducing reporting burdens on States. One State party, however, was concerned that there was no legal obligation under the Convention for States to respond to a list of issues, and that the substitution of such a requirement for the submission of a periodic report degraded the obligations imposed by the Convention. Regarding the Optional Protocol, a number of States were concerned to know what the relationship and organizational links were between the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture and the Committee. On measures to address the backlog of the Committee, including the expansion of Committee membership or an increase in the number of its annual sessions, several States wished to have concrete proposals to consider, as they were concerned, in particular, about increased costs and prospective burdens on States.
Present at the meeting were representatives from the following 43 States parties: Albania, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Holy See, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, United Kingdom and Venezuela.
When the Committee reconvenes this afternoon, at 3 p.m., it will consider the issues of follow-up to individual communications and follow-up to reporting requirements.
Statements
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Committee Chairperson, said that meetings such as this one were important as they could lead to arrangements that might promote the whole purpose of human rights treaties: the promotion and protection of human rights. He hoped that through this meeting they might optimize the approach of the Committee to reporting obligations, as well as the consideration of reports, or individual communications. In terms of reforms to its methods of work, on the basis of exchanges of views, the Committee was already trying to introduce, initially on a voluntary basis, a new method of considering reports. After the second periodic report of a State party had been considered, the Committee would prepare a targeted list of issues and the replies to those issues would be considered as the report of the State party to the Committee. There were a number of advantages to that system: it not only saved time, but it allowed for a more focused review of the really important issues.
As everyone knew, the Optional Protocol to the Convention had entered into force, Mr. Mavrommatis observed. The Committee was interested in exchanges of communication that would ensure that that mechanism for the prevention of torture was successful.
Finally, Mr. Mavrommatis wished to underscore one inescapable truth: the size of the Committee and the number of the States parties meant that the Committee could not cope with its workload. The two meetings that were allotted to the Committee per annum were insufficient. They already had a backlog of two years for consideration of reports. If every State were to submit its reports on time, that backlog would increase to 10 years. There were only two possible solutions: either hold a third regular session, or increase the Committee membership.
In the ensuing discussion, an Expert stressed that the principle of non-refoulement had to be implemented by States parties; the Committee had noted a rise in cases where persons had been returned in violation of that principle. An Expert highlighted the important role of the Committee of addressing such questions as extraordinary renditions in the context of anti-terrorism laws, in addition to the numerous individual cases it handed.
Regarding the procedure for follow-up on concluding observations introduced in 2003, whereby the Committee identified a limited number of its recommendations for follow-up within 12 months, an Expert noted that there had been a high level of compliance with that procedure: 23 out of 31 States parties had done so, some of them before the deadline. She then highlighted key concerns for such follow-up, including the need for greater precision of the means by which police and other personnel instructed detainees about their rights and provided them access to medical personnel and a lawyer; the need for individual bodies to review complaints of violations of the Convention; the preventive value of prompt and impartial investigations; and lacunae in statistics with regards to complaints, prosecutions and convictions.
An Expert wished, in particular, to draw States parties' attention to the issue of the right to reparation for victims of torture. In addition, in Article 14 of the Convention, it was specified that rehabilitation was also necessary. An Expert raised the issue of a number of countries that had introduced legal and administrative reforms that brought it in line with the Committee's provisions, but where there was no actual improvement of the situation of individuals on the ground. What was important was not to only have the appearance of fairness, but to actually promote and protect the rights of individuals.
States parties then joined the dialogue. Denmark said it recognized that there was a need either to increase Committee membership or the frequency of its sessions for the Committee to clear its backlog. Denmark asked that any concrete proposals in that regard should be submitted as soon as possible so that all the stakeholders could consider them. On the use of issues in lieu of a report, Denmark was of the view that it was a good and valid approach and encouraged that the Committee continue down that path. Finally, Denmark was interested to know if there was a deadline for the submission of shadow reports by non-governmental organizations?
The Chairperson said that non-governmental organizations were requested to submit information before the meeting took place, but there had been cases where non-governmental organizations had tried to submit reports on the day of the review of the State party's report. The Committee would try and implement strict deadlines.
Regarding the Optional Protocol, Switzerland asked how the Committee envisaged relations with the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture, given that the Committee was based in Geneva and the Sub-Committee was tasked with being highly mobile, and undertaking country visits. Also what was the Committee's view of the usefulness of having a unified secretariat for all the human rights treaty bodies? In Switzerland's view, that would have numerous advantages, including with regard to unifying jurisprudence on human rights.
On the Sub-Committee, the Chairperson said that there was a mandatory meeting once a year between the Committee and the Sub-Committee. They had also agreed informally that, in the context of the Inter-Committee Meeting, to be held in June, the two Committees would seek further contact. Mr. Mavrommatis agreed that it was important to institutionalize contact between the two bodies. An Expert clarified that to see the Committee as a supervisory body for the Sub-Committee was misleading. A key issue was the need for regular contact and coordination between the two bodies to ensure there was no conflict or duplication of efforts.
The Chairperson said that, in his view, there was already a unified secretariat for the treaty bodies, for example the communications section, although there was perhaps a need for even more coordination.
Australia asked for the Committee's views on treaty body reform, in particular with regard to its approach to its November session.
Germany recalled that the European Union had a programme for the prevention of torture that included the monitoring of reports to the Committee against Torture by European Union members. It was hoped that, in the future, the European Union mechanism would be able to hold an exchange of views with the Committee. The Chairperson welcomed that proposal.
Spain stressed the need for coordination, not only with other Committees, but with regard to criteria, such as those to be used by the Sub-Committee.
The United Kingdom very much welcomed the Committee's proposed reforms for reporting requirements, which would not only provide for a more focused discussion, but would have the added benefit of reducing reporting burdens on States. On the issue of the backlog, the United Kingdom wondered if an increase in the frequency of the Committee's sessions, without an expansion of the membership, was feasible. Also of concern were the financial implications of any proposed changes. Finally, would States parties have the opportunity to comment on a draft of the General Comment the Committee was preparing?
Norway also welcomed the planned consideration of the response to the list of issues in lieu of a periodic report, in particular as the time gap between the submission of periodic reports and the dialogue with the Committee was so big. Norway was curious to know what cooperation existed between the Committee and the Special Procedures system, and what scope there was for improvement.
The Chairperson outlined ways in which the Committee cooperated and exchanged views with the Special Procedures, but underscored that, given their current workload, there was not enough time for that endeavour.
The Russian Federation echoed the position already expressed that, if the Committee wished to take action to address its backlog, States parties needed to have concrete plans to consider, including the financial impact of such plans. As a present solution, the Committee could temporarily increase the frequency of its meetings to three times a year. On the issue of using the response to the list of issues in lieu of a periodic report, as a legal matter, under the Convention, States parties had no obligation to answer such a list of issues. The Convention laid down the obligation to submit periodic reports, not to respond to a list of issues. Russia felt that it degraded the obligations under the Convention to make such a change.
On coordination between the Committee and the Sub-Committee, the Russian Federation stressed that the Optional Protocol had violated the usual rules for implementing such an instrument, and emphasized that in further implementation of that Protocol the limited resources of the Committee should not be compromised in any way.
The Chairperson, responding, noted that an increase to three meetings per year could be a starting point. He was concerned, however, that if there was no concomitant increase in Committee membership, the increase in time could be eaten up by other duties than consideration of State party reports. Secondly, it needed to be stressed that the substitution of States parties written responses for the periodic report was being implemented on a voluntary, trial basis.
Japan welcomed the proposed reform to the reporting process, and joined the call for concrete measures to improve the Committee's capacity to be submitted.
Regarding prior notification of States parties when the Committee was to take up an individual communication, the Chairperson said that he would put that suggestion to Committee members for a decision.
An Expert noted that all the interventions made during the meeting had been by representatives of developed States, and none had been made by developing States. He wished to encourage more developing State parties to participate and to voice their views, in particular in view of the fact that it was on the developing States parties that reporting requirements were the most burdensome.
15 May 2007
Discusses Working Methods, Treaty Body Reform, Relationship of Committee with
Sub-Committee for Prevention of Torture, and Other Key Issues of Concern
The Committee against Torture this morning held a meeting with States parties to discuss its working methods, in particular reporting requirements, with a view to finding synergies and optimizing the work of the Committee to better promote and protect human rights.
A number of key issues of concern for the Committee, including the principle of non-refoulement, and the need for independent national bodies competent to hear complaints regarding the Convention, were also highlighted, as was the need to either increase the number of Committee members, or to hold more sessions per year, in order for the Committee to cope with its workload and to clear its backlog.
States parties, for their part, welcomed the Committee's proposed reforms for reporting requirements – to consider the written responses of States parties to the Committee's list of issues in lieu of a report – which would not only provide for a more focused discussion, but would have the added benefit of reducing reporting burdens on States. One State party, however, was concerned that there was no legal obligation under the Convention for States to respond to a list of issues, and that the substitution of such a requirement for the submission of a periodic report degraded the obligations imposed by the Convention. Regarding the Optional Protocol, a number of States were concerned to know what the relationship and organizational links were between the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture and the Committee. On measures to address the backlog of the Committee, including the expansion of Committee membership or an increase in the number of its annual sessions, several States wished to have concrete proposals to consider, as they were concerned, in particular, about increased costs and prospective burdens on States.
Present at the meeting were representatives from the following 43 States parties: Albania, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Holy See, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, United Kingdom and Venezuela.
When the Committee reconvenes this afternoon, at 3 p.m., it will consider the issues of follow-up to individual communications and follow-up to reporting requirements.
Statements
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Committee Chairperson, said that meetings such as this one were important as they could lead to arrangements that might promote the whole purpose of human rights treaties: the promotion and protection of human rights. He hoped that through this meeting they might optimize the approach of the Committee to reporting obligations, as well as the consideration of reports, or individual communications. In terms of reforms to its methods of work, on the basis of exchanges of views, the Committee was already trying to introduce, initially on a voluntary basis, a new method of considering reports. After the second periodic report of a State party had been considered, the Committee would prepare a targeted list of issues and the replies to those issues would be considered as the report of the State party to the Committee. There were a number of advantages to that system: it not only saved time, but it allowed for a more focused review of the really important issues.
As everyone knew, the Optional Protocol to the Convention had entered into force, Mr. Mavrommatis observed. The Committee was interested in exchanges of communication that would ensure that that mechanism for the prevention of torture was successful.
Finally, Mr. Mavrommatis wished to underscore one inescapable truth: the size of the Committee and the number of the States parties meant that the Committee could not cope with its workload. The two meetings that were allotted to the Committee per annum were insufficient. They already had a backlog of two years for consideration of reports. If every State were to submit its reports on time, that backlog would increase to 10 years. There were only two possible solutions: either hold a third regular session, or increase the Committee membership.
In the ensuing discussion, an Expert stressed that the principle of non-refoulement had to be implemented by States parties; the Committee had noted a rise in cases where persons had been returned in violation of that principle. An Expert highlighted the important role of the Committee of addressing such questions as extraordinary renditions in the context of anti-terrorism laws, in addition to the numerous individual cases it handed.
Regarding the procedure for follow-up on concluding observations introduced in 2003, whereby the Committee identified a limited number of its recommendations for follow-up within 12 months, an Expert noted that there had been a high level of compliance with that procedure: 23 out of 31 States parties had done so, some of them before the deadline. She then highlighted key concerns for such follow-up, including the need for greater precision of the means by which police and other personnel instructed detainees about their rights and provided them access to medical personnel and a lawyer; the need for individual bodies to review complaints of violations of the Convention; the preventive value of prompt and impartial investigations; and lacunae in statistics with regards to complaints, prosecutions and convictions.
An Expert wished, in particular, to draw States parties' attention to the issue of the right to reparation for victims of torture. In addition, in Article 14 of the Convention, it was specified that rehabilitation was also necessary. An Expert raised the issue of a number of countries that had introduced legal and administrative reforms that brought it in line with the Committee's provisions, but where there was no actual improvement of the situation of individuals on the ground. What was important was not to only have the appearance of fairness, but to actually promote and protect the rights of individuals.
States parties then joined the dialogue. Denmark said it recognized that there was a need either to increase Committee membership or the frequency of its sessions for the Committee to clear its backlog. Denmark asked that any concrete proposals in that regard should be submitted as soon as possible so that all the stakeholders could consider them. On the use of issues in lieu of a report, Denmark was of the view that it was a good and valid approach and encouraged that the Committee continue down that path. Finally, Denmark was interested to know if there was a deadline for the submission of shadow reports by non-governmental organizations?
The Chairperson said that non-governmental organizations were requested to submit information before the meeting took place, but there had been cases where non-governmental organizations had tried to submit reports on the day of the review of the State party's report. The Committee would try and implement strict deadlines.
Regarding the Optional Protocol, Switzerland asked how the Committee envisaged relations with the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture, given that the Committee was based in Geneva and the Sub-Committee was tasked with being highly mobile, and undertaking country visits. Also what was the Committee's view of the usefulness of having a unified secretariat for all the human rights treaty bodies? In Switzerland's view, that would have numerous advantages, including with regard to unifying jurisprudence on human rights.
On the Sub-Committee, the Chairperson said that there was a mandatory meeting once a year between the Committee and the Sub-Committee. They had also agreed informally that, in the context of the Inter-Committee Meeting, to be held in June, the two Committees would seek further contact. Mr. Mavrommatis agreed that it was important to institutionalize contact between the two bodies. An Expert clarified that to see the Committee as a supervisory body for the Sub-Committee was misleading. A key issue was the need for regular contact and coordination between the two bodies to ensure there was no conflict or duplication of efforts.
The Chairperson said that, in his view, there was already a unified secretariat for the treaty bodies, for example the communications section, although there was perhaps a need for even more coordination.
Australia asked for the Committee's views on treaty body reform, in particular with regard to its approach to its November session.
Germany recalled that the European Union had a programme for the prevention of torture that included the monitoring of reports to the Committee against Torture by European Union members. It was hoped that, in the future, the European Union mechanism would be able to hold an exchange of views with the Committee. The Chairperson welcomed that proposal.
Spain stressed the need for coordination, not only with other Committees, but with regard to criteria, such as those to be used by the Sub-Committee.
The United Kingdom very much welcomed the Committee's proposed reforms for reporting requirements, which would not only provide for a more focused discussion, but would have the added benefit of reducing reporting burdens on States. On the issue of the backlog, the United Kingdom wondered if an increase in the frequency of the Committee's sessions, without an expansion of the membership, was feasible. Also of concern were the financial implications of any proposed changes. Finally, would States parties have the opportunity to comment on a draft of the General Comment the Committee was preparing?
Norway also welcomed the planned consideration of the response to the list of issues in lieu of a periodic report, in particular as the time gap between the submission of periodic reports and the dialogue with the Committee was so big. Norway was curious to know what cooperation existed between the Committee and the Special Procedures system, and what scope there was for improvement.
The Chairperson outlined ways in which the Committee cooperated and exchanged views with the Special Procedures, but underscored that, given their current workload, there was not enough time for that endeavour.
The Russian Federation echoed the position already expressed that, if the Committee wished to take action to address its backlog, States parties needed to have concrete plans to consider, including the financial impact of such plans. As a present solution, the Committee could temporarily increase the frequency of its meetings to three times a year. On the issue of using the response to the list of issues in lieu of a periodic report, as a legal matter, under the Convention, States parties had no obligation to answer such a list of issues. The Convention laid down the obligation to submit periodic reports, not to respond to a list of issues. Russia felt that it degraded the obligations under the Convention to make such a change.
On coordination between the Committee and the Sub-Committee, the Russian Federation stressed that the Optional Protocol had violated the usual rules for implementing such an instrument, and emphasized that in further implementation of that Protocol the limited resources of the Committee should not be compromised in any way.
The Chairperson, responding, noted that an increase to three meetings per year could be a starting point. He was concerned, however, that if there was no concomitant increase in Committee membership, the increase in time could be eaten up by other duties than consideration of State party reports. Secondly, it needed to be stressed that the substitution of States parties written responses for the periodic report was being implemented on a voluntary, trial basis.
Japan welcomed the proposed reform to the reporting process, and joined the call for concrete measures to improve the Committee's capacity to be submitted.
Regarding prior notification of States parties when the Committee was to take up an individual communication, the Chairperson said that he would put that suggestion to Committee members for a decision.
An Expert noted that all the interventions made during the meeting had been by representatives of developed States, and none had been made by developing States. He wished to encourage more developing State parties to participate and to voice their views, in particular in view of the fact that it was on the developing States parties that reporting requirements were the most burdensome.