Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HOLDS MEETING WITH STATES PARTIES
28 April 2009
Share
Committee against Torture
AFTERNOON
28 April 2009
Discusses Appointment of Country Rapporteurs; Independence of Committee; Handling of Information from Non-Governmental Organizations and Other Key Issues of Concern
The Committee against Torture this afternoon held a meeting with States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to discuss various key issues, including the way the Committee appointed country rapporteurs, the independence of the Committee, the way the Committee handled information from non-governmental organizations and the backlog in the Committee’s work.
In the interactive discussion with the Committee, States parties wondered how the choice of a specific rapporteur for the review of specific countries was made by the Committee. Specifically, Egypt wanted to know who had been chosen as rapporteur for the review of the report of Israel during the current session and on what basis this choice had been made. China said that the Committee was a conventional body and it had to carry out its work with impartiality. Regrettably, during the process of examining country reports, several members had gone far beyond their mandate and had also politicized the discussions. This conduct had harmed the image of the Committee; China viewed this with great concern.
Algeria said that sources of information and information coming from non-governmental organizations were very valuable, but information coming from political opponents had to be taken with care. Algeria mentioned the case of an individual who had brought information to the Committee; this person was currently under an international arrest warrant because he belonged to a terrorist group which had been behind an attack against United Nations staff. What was the validity of information offered by such an individual? Denmark said that they attached a lot of importance to the independence of the Committee and encouraged it to strongly fight to keep that role. The United States said that, with respect to the Experts, it was important that they were independent and could exercise their work free from any political pressure.
In their responses to the States parties, Committee members said that, on transparency, the current rules allowed for Committee Experts to voice dissenting views and this possibility had already been used. The whole discussions of the Committee however were protected for reasons of confidentiality. However the end results in the form of the concluding observations were the consensual outcome of the Committee’s discussions. On the choice of rapporteurs, this was the result of a decision by the Committee as a whole. To be a rapporteur was not an individual decision, it was the result of the choice by the Committee and this was a transparent process. As they were independent experts they could all be rapporteurs. Also, the decision was well-known in advance, and it was public. The concluding observations were not the product of the rapporteur, they were the result of collective discussions.
On the issue of information sent to the Committee, the Committee noted that the Convention gave the right to everyone to send information. Even if a terrorist had been tortured and he was sending information to the Committee, the Committee had to review this information. On the backlog of the Committee’s work, Mr. Grossman noted that 38 countries had not yet sent their initial reports and 42 countries were late in sending their second periodic reports, sometime up to 10 years late. Thus the Committee needed additional sessions. They were already dealing with seven reports per session and they could not do more than that per session.
Present at the meeting were representatives from the following States parties: Albania, Algeria, Austria, Chad, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United States of America. A representative from the observer State Holy See was also present.
When the Committee meets at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 April, it will start its consideration of the initial report of Chad.
Opening Statement
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Committee Chairperson, welcomed all representatives of the Member States present and said that the Committee was ready to engage in an exchange with them. The valuable goal of the Convention was to prevent torture and inhumane treatment and to ensure that if such practice took place it was fully investigated by the State party.
As it was made up of independent experts, the Committee did not take orders, but it was ready to be enriched by constructive comments, said Mr. Grossman. Among the issues the Committee wanted to discuss with States parties were the development of the methods of work of the Committee and the effective implementation of the follow-up of general comments and concluding observations. They were interested in the views of States parties on how they could do better in this area. A new procedure of the Committee was the optional process which made it possible for the Committee to send a written list of issues to a country before the country’s presentation of the report. This was a very valuable process as it allowed for more time for the consideration of a report. Also the issue of meeting time and extension of sessions was a question they wished to discuss today, as they had a tremendous amount of work that was behind.
Questions by States Parties
In the ensuing discussion between the Committee and States parties, Egypt wondered how the choice of a specific rapporteur for the review of specific countries was made by the Committee. Some information would be useful on what basis this choice was made. Egypt also wanted to know who had been chosen as rapporteur for the review of the report of Israel during the current session and on what basis this choice had been made.
China said that the Committee’s members were elected by States parties, and the current discussion was very important in order to discuss the Committee’s working methods. The Chinese representative commented on the fact that the terms of reference of the Committee were very clear. The Committee was a conventional body and it had to carry out its work with impartiality. Regrettably, during the process of country reports, several members had gone far beyond their mandate and had also politicized the discussions. This seriously violated professional ethics. This conduct had harmed the image of the Committee; China viewed this with great concern. Also the concluding observations had to reflect the views of all Committee members. On the participation of non-governmental organizations, China valued their contribution but said that it was also important that the Committee checked the information it was given by them to avoid misinformation from organizations with a very specific agenda.
Algeria said that sources of information and information coming from non-governmental organizations were very valuable, but information coming from political opponents had to be taken with care. Algeria mentioned the case of an individual who had brought information to the Committee; he was currently under an international arrest warrant because he belonged to a terrorist group which had been behind an attack against United Nations staff. What was the validity of information offered by such an individual? The Committee should break down its sources of information and check them.
Response by Committee
Answering the first round of questions, Mr. Grossman said that they all shared the same common goal. Men and women around the world had the expectation to be treated in a certain way. Turning to the issue of independence, he said that there was a reason why States had decided to create a body of independent experts. Governments could have decided to create a body composed by Governmental representatives. This had been made for a certain reason. All members of the Committee were all in favour of objectivity and neutrality.
On transparency, the current rules allowed for Committee Experts to voice dissenting views and this possibility had already been used. The whole discussions of the Committee however were protected for reasons of confidentiality. However the end results in the form of the concluding observations were the consensual outcome of the Committee’s discussions, underscored Mr. Grossman.
The Convention said that the Committee should establish its own rules of procedure, noted Mr. Grossman. This had been made in order to ensure the independence of the Committee. Likewise, the choice of rapporteurs was the result of a decision by the Committee as a whole. Also he did not remember having had a vote on rapporteurs, because the rapporteurs had been the result of consensus and an agreement between all members of the Committee. This showed that States parties had elected people with integrity and values.
On the role of non-governmental organizations, Mr. Grossman said that this was always a matter of debate. But in his view, every person could send information to the Committee and this information was processed by the body of independent experts. Committee Exerts did not trust any information lightly. Further, the Convention gave the right to everyone to send information. Even if a terrorist had been tortured and he sent information to the Committee, the Committee had to review this information.
Questions by States Parties
In a second round of questions, States parties made a number of remarks and questions. Among them, Egypt said that nobody in this room was questioning the integrity of the Committee and States had chosen to make it independent for a reason. Turning back to his question, on the choice of rapporteurs, the Egyptian representative said that it was clear to them that it was a decision taken by the Committee. What they wanted to know was which criteria they had followed. The vision of a specific rapporteur was extremely important on the impact of the final report.
Denmark said that they attached a lot of importance to the independence of the Committee and encouraged it to strongly fight to keeping that role. Concerning the working methods, Denmark was in favour for their improvement and they were happy to be kept informed about this process. Was the Committee also collaborating with the other Committees in this matter?
The United States said that they were aware of the limited resources of the Committee. With respect to the Experts it was important that they were independent and could exercise their work free from any political pressure. China said, on the rules of procedures, that they belonged to the Committee. However this did not mean that they should go beyond the mandate of the Committee. The integrity of the Committee was not in doubt, but it should do its very best in its work to ensure that its work was independent. Only through open and fair appointments of country rapporteurs could the States parties be ensured that the Committee was independent.
Response by Committee
Mr. Grossman said that they had to deal with contentious issues. States had created this system which allowed them to be criticized, although they could have chosen another system. This said a lot about the commitment of Member States. To be a rapporteur was not an individual decision, it was the result of the choice by the Committee and this was a transparent process. As they were independent experts they could all be rapporteurs. Also, the decision was well-known in advance, and it was public. The concluding observations were not the product of the rapporteurs, they were the result of collective discussions.
On the backlog of the Committee’s work, Mr. Grossman noted that 38 countries had not yet sent their initial reports and 42 countries were late in sending their second periodic reports, sometimes up to 10 years late. The Committee needed additional sessions. They were already dealing with seven reports per session and they could not do more than that per session.
Other Committee Experts emphasized that it was the plenary that choose the rapporteurs for a specific country. Also there were two rapporteurs for each country. One had to be a senior member of the Committee. Another point that was taken into account in the choice of rapporteurs was the language of the country that was being reviewed. Another point was whether the rapporteur had already had some experience with the country. Lastly, they had to avoid overburdening Committee members; each served as rapporteur for two countries. Another criteria for selection of a rapporteur was whether there was a conflict of interest between a State and a rapporteur, this could sometimes happen due to the nationality of the rapporteur.
Questions by States Parties
Syria said that they had received information that the Committee also wanted to discuss the expansion of the membership of the Committee. However, the number was already fixed by the Convention. How did the Committee intend to do this? Egypt said that they had still not received an answer to their question. If a member of the Committee had been lobbying for a specific country for 25 years, shouldn’t this member recluse himself? Cuba said that the more transparency there was in the work of the Committee, the more its independence would be reflected. On the issue of non-governmental organizations, the website of the Committee said that the Committee often received information from so-called “reference” non-governmental organizations. Which ones of the non-governmental organizations were reference organizations? What criteria were being used to define them as a reference?
Response by Committee
Mr. Grossman underscored that as an independent body, the Committee could not listen to a non-governmental organization and then take everything it said as the truth. Also all sources of the Committee were published. He noted however that this Committee did not get information from Governments in exile.
In conclusion, Mr. Grossman said that the Committee shared an ideal with Member States. In the very recent past, criticism about torture was seen as a violation of a country’s sovereignty. Now States parties had created a system where this was no more possible. It seemed to him that there was a consensus on the issue of torture.
_________
For use of the information media; not an official record
AFTERNOON
28 April 2009
Discusses Appointment of Country Rapporteurs; Independence of Committee; Handling of Information from Non-Governmental Organizations and Other Key Issues of Concern
The Committee against Torture this afternoon held a meeting with States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to discuss various key issues, including the way the Committee appointed country rapporteurs, the independence of the Committee, the way the Committee handled information from non-governmental organizations and the backlog in the Committee’s work.
In the interactive discussion with the Committee, States parties wondered how the choice of a specific rapporteur for the review of specific countries was made by the Committee. Specifically, Egypt wanted to know who had been chosen as rapporteur for the review of the report of Israel during the current session and on what basis this choice had been made. China said that the Committee was a conventional body and it had to carry out its work with impartiality. Regrettably, during the process of examining country reports, several members had gone far beyond their mandate and had also politicized the discussions. This conduct had harmed the image of the Committee; China viewed this with great concern.
Algeria said that sources of information and information coming from non-governmental organizations were very valuable, but information coming from political opponents had to be taken with care. Algeria mentioned the case of an individual who had brought information to the Committee; this person was currently under an international arrest warrant because he belonged to a terrorist group which had been behind an attack against United Nations staff. What was the validity of information offered by such an individual? Denmark said that they attached a lot of importance to the independence of the Committee and encouraged it to strongly fight to keep that role. The United States said that, with respect to the Experts, it was important that they were independent and could exercise their work free from any political pressure.
In their responses to the States parties, Committee members said that, on transparency, the current rules allowed for Committee Experts to voice dissenting views and this possibility had already been used. The whole discussions of the Committee however were protected for reasons of confidentiality. However the end results in the form of the concluding observations were the consensual outcome of the Committee’s discussions. On the choice of rapporteurs, this was the result of a decision by the Committee as a whole. To be a rapporteur was not an individual decision, it was the result of the choice by the Committee and this was a transparent process. As they were independent experts they could all be rapporteurs. Also, the decision was well-known in advance, and it was public. The concluding observations were not the product of the rapporteur, they were the result of collective discussions.
On the issue of information sent to the Committee, the Committee noted that the Convention gave the right to everyone to send information. Even if a terrorist had been tortured and he was sending information to the Committee, the Committee had to review this information. On the backlog of the Committee’s work, Mr. Grossman noted that 38 countries had not yet sent their initial reports and 42 countries were late in sending their second periodic reports, sometime up to 10 years late. Thus the Committee needed additional sessions. They were already dealing with seven reports per session and they could not do more than that per session.
Present at the meeting were representatives from the following States parties: Albania, Algeria, Austria, Chad, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United States of America. A representative from the observer State Holy See was also present.
When the Committee meets at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 April, it will start its consideration of the initial report of Chad.
Opening Statement
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Committee Chairperson, welcomed all representatives of the Member States present and said that the Committee was ready to engage in an exchange with them. The valuable goal of the Convention was to prevent torture and inhumane treatment and to ensure that if such practice took place it was fully investigated by the State party.
As it was made up of independent experts, the Committee did not take orders, but it was ready to be enriched by constructive comments, said Mr. Grossman. Among the issues the Committee wanted to discuss with States parties were the development of the methods of work of the Committee and the effective implementation of the follow-up of general comments and concluding observations. They were interested in the views of States parties on how they could do better in this area. A new procedure of the Committee was the optional process which made it possible for the Committee to send a written list of issues to a country before the country’s presentation of the report. This was a very valuable process as it allowed for more time for the consideration of a report. Also the issue of meeting time and extension of sessions was a question they wished to discuss today, as they had a tremendous amount of work that was behind.
Questions by States Parties
In the ensuing discussion between the Committee and States parties, Egypt wondered how the choice of a specific rapporteur for the review of specific countries was made by the Committee. Some information would be useful on what basis this choice was made. Egypt also wanted to know who had been chosen as rapporteur for the review of the report of Israel during the current session and on what basis this choice had been made.
China said that the Committee’s members were elected by States parties, and the current discussion was very important in order to discuss the Committee’s working methods. The Chinese representative commented on the fact that the terms of reference of the Committee were very clear. The Committee was a conventional body and it had to carry out its work with impartiality. Regrettably, during the process of country reports, several members had gone far beyond their mandate and had also politicized the discussions. This seriously violated professional ethics. This conduct had harmed the image of the Committee; China viewed this with great concern. Also the concluding observations had to reflect the views of all Committee members. On the participation of non-governmental organizations, China valued their contribution but said that it was also important that the Committee checked the information it was given by them to avoid misinformation from organizations with a very specific agenda.
Algeria said that sources of information and information coming from non-governmental organizations were very valuable, but information coming from political opponents had to be taken with care. Algeria mentioned the case of an individual who had brought information to the Committee; he was currently under an international arrest warrant because he belonged to a terrorist group which had been behind an attack against United Nations staff. What was the validity of information offered by such an individual? The Committee should break down its sources of information and check them.
Response by Committee
Answering the first round of questions, Mr. Grossman said that they all shared the same common goal. Men and women around the world had the expectation to be treated in a certain way. Turning to the issue of independence, he said that there was a reason why States had decided to create a body of independent experts. Governments could have decided to create a body composed by Governmental representatives. This had been made for a certain reason. All members of the Committee were all in favour of objectivity and neutrality.
On transparency, the current rules allowed for Committee Experts to voice dissenting views and this possibility had already been used. The whole discussions of the Committee however were protected for reasons of confidentiality. However the end results in the form of the concluding observations were the consensual outcome of the Committee’s discussions, underscored Mr. Grossman.
The Convention said that the Committee should establish its own rules of procedure, noted Mr. Grossman. This had been made in order to ensure the independence of the Committee. Likewise, the choice of rapporteurs was the result of a decision by the Committee as a whole. Also he did not remember having had a vote on rapporteurs, because the rapporteurs had been the result of consensus and an agreement between all members of the Committee. This showed that States parties had elected people with integrity and values.
On the role of non-governmental organizations, Mr. Grossman said that this was always a matter of debate. But in his view, every person could send information to the Committee and this information was processed by the body of independent experts. Committee Exerts did not trust any information lightly. Further, the Convention gave the right to everyone to send information. Even if a terrorist had been tortured and he sent information to the Committee, the Committee had to review this information.
Questions by States Parties
In a second round of questions, States parties made a number of remarks and questions. Among them, Egypt said that nobody in this room was questioning the integrity of the Committee and States had chosen to make it independent for a reason. Turning back to his question, on the choice of rapporteurs, the Egyptian representative said that it was clear to them that it was a decision taken by the Committee. What they wanted to know was which criteria they had followed. The vision of a specific rapporteur was extremely important on the impact of the final report.
Denmark said that they attached a lot of importance to the independence of the Committee and encouraged it to strongly fight to keeping that role. Concerning the working methods, Denmark was in favour for their improvement and they were happy to be kept informed about this process. Was the Committee also collaborating with the other Committees in this matter?
The United States said that they were aware of the limited resources of the Committee. With respect to the Experts it was important that they were independent and could exercise their work free from any political pressure. China said, on the rules of procedures, that they belonged to the Committee. However this did not mean that they should go beyond the mandate of the Committee. The integrity of the Committee was not in doubt, but it should do its very best in its work to ensure that its work was independent. Only through open and fair appointments of country rapporteurs could the States parties be ensured that the Committee was independent.
Response by Committee
Mr. Grossman said that they had to deal with contentious issues. States had created this system which allowed them to be criticized, although they could have chosen another system. This said a lot about the commitment of Member States. To be a rapporteur was not an individual decision, it was the result of the choice by the Committee and this was a transparent process. As they were independent experts they could all be rapporteurs. Also, the decision was well-known in advance, and it was public. The concluding observations were not the product of the rapporteurs, they were the result of collective discussions.
On the backlog of the Committee’s work, Mr. Grossman noted that 38 countries had not yet sent their initial reports and 42 countries were late in sending their second periodic reports, sometimes up to 10 years late. The Committee needed additional sessions. They were already dealing with seven reports per session and they could not do more than that per session.
Other Committee Experts emphasized that it was the plenary that choose the rapporteurs for a specific country. Also there were two rapporteurs for each country. One had to be a senior member of the Committee. Another point that was taken into account in the choice of rapporteurs was the language of the country that was being reviewed. Another point was whether the rapporteur had already had some experience with the country. Lastly, they had to avoid overburdening Committee members; each served as rapporteur for two countries. Another criteria for selection of a rapporteur was whether there was a conflict of interest between a State and a rapporteur, this could sometimes happen due to the nationality of the rapporteur.
Questions by States Parties
Syria said that they had received information that the Committee also wanted to discuss the expansion of the membership of the Committee. However, the number was already fixed by the Convention. How did the Committee intend to do this? Egypt said that they had still not received an answer to their question. If a member of the Committee had been lobbying for a specific country for 25 years, shouldn’t this member recluse himself? Cuba said that the more transparency there was in the work of the Committee, the more its independence would be reflected. On the issue of non-governmental organizations, the website of the Committee said that the Committee often received information from so-called “reference” non-governmental organizations. Which ones of the non-governmental organizations were reference organizations? What criteria were being used to define them as a reference?
Response by Committee
Mr. Grossman underscored that as an independent body, the Committee could not listen to a non-governmental organization and then take everything it said as the truth. Also all sources of the Committee were published. He noted however that this Committee did not get information from Governments in exile.
In conclusion, Mr. Grossman said that the Committee shared an ideal with Member States. In the very recent past, criticism about torture was seen as a violation of a country’s sovereignty. Now States parties had created a system where this was no more possible. It seemed to him that there was a consensus on the issue of torture.
_________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: