COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE ISSUES CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON REPORT OF LUXEMBOURG, HEARS REPLIES FROM MOROCCO’S DELEGATION

AFTERNOON
HR/CAT/99/19
7 May 1999



The Committee against Torture this afternoon praised Luxembourg for formally abolishing the death penalty and for various proposals aimed at making torture a specific crime and preventing torture in cases of extradition.

As it issued its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Luxembourg, the Committee also listed a number of areas of concern. Among them were the amount of time prisoners could be placed in strict solitary confinement and the situation of young offenders held in the prison system and in socio-economic centres.

The Committee recommended that Luxembourg make torture a crime, establish an appeal for the most severe disciplinary measures, and prohibit putting juveniles among the adult prison population.

Also this afternoon, the Committee heard responses to its questions from the delegation of Morocco which presented its report on Thursday.

Led by Nacer Benjelloun-Touimi, the Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the delegation said that the protection and promotion of human rights was important to the Government of Morocco and mechanisms were in place to ensure this aim. The delegation described to the Committee its system of investigating allegations of torture, and provided examples of instances where such inquiries led to convictions.

Morocco will hear the Committee's conclusions and recommendations on its report at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 May. The Committee will meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, 10 May to start its consideration of the second periodic report of Liechtenstein.

Conclusions and Recommendations on Report of Luxembourg

ANTONIO SILVA HENRIQUES GASPAR, who served as the Committee’s rapporteur to the report, listed Luxembourg's abolishment of the death penalty as one of the positive aspects of the report. He also noted with favour the legislation concerning the entry and residence of foreigners which prohibited the expulsion or return of a foreigner if he was in danger of being subjected to acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in another country. Also considered as positive aspects were the proposed amendments of criminal legislation relating to characterization of torture as a specific offense; bringing the law on extradition into line with article 3 of the Convention; establishing universal competence concerning acts of torture; and improving the guarantees for persons held in custody.

He also said, however, that there were subjects of concern within the report. One was the length and frequent use of strict solitary confinement imposed on detainees and the fact that this disciplinary measure could not be appealed. Mr. Gaspar also cited the situation of young offenders held in Luxembourg prisons, the disciplinary regime imposed on minors held in socio-educational centres and the fact that the report did not cover all articles of the Convention, particularly articles 11 and 14.

The Committee recommended that the State should adopt legislation defining torture in accordance with article 1 of the Convention, and should consider all acts of torture as specific offenses. It also recommended that Luxembourg should introduce into law the possibility of an effective appeal against the most severe disciplinary measures imposed on detainees, reduce the severity of these measures, and prohibit the placing of juveniles in the adult prison system. Finally, the Committee proposed that the Government ensure the obligations arising from article 11, 12, 14, and 15 were duly respected, and that the third and fourth periodic reports, respectively due on 28 October 1996 and 28 October 2000, be submitted by 28 October 2000 at the latest.

Responses from Morocco

The delegation of Morocco said that with regards to investigations of torture and the right to lodge a complaint, the legal procedures were provided in great detail in the report. There were positive examples of investigations being carried out. At a prison in Casablanca, a fire had broken out in one block in 1997. The Minister of Justice had called for an investigation to determine whether or not a crime had been committed and to find the reason for the fire - was it arson or not? The presiding judge in the Casablanca court then proceeded with the investigation, and following the investigation, the Minister requested a second investigation. The appeal's court approved the judge's finding and then the Minister of Justice assigned another judge to the case in order to determine the cause of the fire.

The second case, the delegation said, was brought up in the Committee quoting Amnesty International regarding sexual abuse of a minor in the same prison. The aggressor and the victim were in the same cell. One was 17 and the other was 19. The Minister had opened an investigation, and the judge ruled that four prison guards were accomplices. The case was heard in the criminal court, and some of these guards were now in detention.

The delegation said there were four cases of deaths in custody. In the first case, a man died in police custody and the three police officers in charge were sentenced to 10 to 12 years. There was another case of a man who died in hospital following custody. The judge decided to end the investigation, but this decision was annulled, and later three police officers were brought before the Casablanca criminal court. There was another case in the appeal's court, in which the criminal court of the appeal's court sentenced a policeman to 10 years for torture and mistreatment of a detainee. The lesson to be drawn from this was that there was a developing activity that needed to be addressed in legislation.

With regard to police custody, the delegation said it was undergoing changes. Currently, when police put someone in custody, the police officer had to inform his or her family, and there had to be a medical examination at the request of the magistrate or the accused. All international standards were followed. The Constitution said that no one could be arrested or punished outside the accordance of the law.

The most progress had been achieved with regard to prisons, the delegation said. There were problems, particularly from the material point of view, like overcrowding. It was not a lack of will but a lack of resources. Now, telephone lines had been established in prisons and there was an experiment where prisoners and their families could meet. New prisons were being built and others were being improved and enlarged.

The delegation said there was a bill in which solitary detention was being dealt with. It said that any decision on solitary detention must be brought to the attention of the director-general of a prison who had to approve it. Solitary detention did not deprive the person from having the right to have a visit from a doctor twice a week. It could not last longer than three months, with exceptions needing further approval from the director-general of the prison.

Concerning compensation, the delegation said 28 persons now received $500 a month as compensation. This was equivalent to the highest salary of the highest Government officials in Morocco.

The delegation said there was a moral obligation to adhere to the clauses of the conventions to which the Government was a party. It was recognized that the rate of harmonizing legislation with the Convention was not up to the expectations of the Committee or the Government.

Discussion

Committee expert ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ POBLETE asked for clarification of who was responsible when an inferior performed torture at the order of a supervisor. There was also a question about trials of military personnel - were the held in regular courts or military courts?

The delegation said in response to the first question that both would be held responsible. As far as the second question was concerned, all infractions committed by military personnel were tried in military courts.