COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE ISSUES CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON REPORT OF CROATIA

AFTERNOON
HR/CAT/98/41
18 November 1998




Tunisia Provides Responses to Questions Raised by Committee Experts


The Committee against Torture this afternoon issued its conclusions and recommendations on the report presented by the Government of Croatia, expressing serious concern about certain allegations of ill-treatment and torture, sometimes leading to death, which were attributed to agents of security forces and particularly to the police.

The report of Croatia on the measures undertaken by the Government to implement the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was considered by the Committee last Friday.

In its recommendations, the Committee urged Croatia to deploy all the necessary efforts so that the competent authorities immediately proceeded to an impartial, appropriate and effective investigation each time they were confronted with allegations of grave violations submitted by credible non-governmental organizations.

Also this afternoon, the Committee heard the response of Tunisia to numerous queries raised during the morning session. The 7-member Tunisian delegation told the Committee that the Commission of Investigation, also called Commission DRISS, had reported abuses by officials and that out of the 105 cases sent to courts, 55 security agents had been sentenced to varying terms depending on the gravity of their abuses.

As State parties to the Convention against Torture, Croatia and Tunisia are obligated to submit periodic reports to the Committee on the implementation of the provisions of treaty.

The conclusions and recommendations on the report of Tunisia will be issued at 10 a.m. on Friday, 20 November.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 19 November, it will meet with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, before offering its conclusions and recommendations on the report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at 11 a.m. and that of Hungary at noon.

Conclusions and Recommendations on Croatian Report

The Committee found Croatia's incorporation in its domestic legislation of the crime of torture and other acts of ill-treatment, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as a positive aspect. It praised certain changes which were introduced in the rules of criminal procedures, particularly the obligation to present detainees before a judge within 24 hours.

The Committee was concerned that a law of amnesty adopted in 1996 was applicable to many cases which qualified as acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the spirit of the Convention. The Committee was seriously concerned about certain allegations of ill-treatment and torture, sometimes leading to death, which were attributed to agents of security forces and particularly to the police. The Committee was also concerned about the incapacity revealed in the investigations carried out in cases of grave violations of the Convention, including deaths which had not yet been elucidated. In addition, the Committee was concerned about the absence of a sufficiently detailed report that should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations following the Committee's examination of the initial report.

The Committee recommended, as it did during its consideration of the initial report, that the State party deploy all necessary efforts so that the competent authorities immediately proceeded to an impartial, appropriate and effective investigation each time they were confronted with allegations of grave violations submitted by credible non-governmental organizations. It also recommended that the State party, through the competent authorities, take into consideration the elements of information which were transmitted to it by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and certain non-governmental organizations concerning human rights violations, particularly cases of torture as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Committee further recommended that complaints relating to constitutional matters be directly received by the Constitutional Court in all cases of allegations of torture and other punishment or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Response of Tunisia

In response to numerous questions raised by Committee experts this morning, the members of the Tunisian delegation said that the delay in the presentation of the report was not because of negligence. It could be attributed to technical shortcomings encountered in preparing the report. Many reports expected to be submitted on time had also been delayed because of technical and other reasons relating to the collection of information.

Concerning pre-trial detention, the delegation said that in 1987, Tunisian legislation had introduced several reforms according to which detention by police should not exceed four days, after which police should inform the competent judicial authorities. The detention period could be extended to 8 days. Several members of the Committee had expressed concern about the length of the detention period. However, before 1987, there was no legal organization concerning pre-trial or preventive detention. On 22 November 1993, another amendment was made to further reduce pre-trial detention. The maximum duration of detention was 10 months for ordinary offenses and 14 months for serious offenses. The detention could be extended no more than three months for ordinary offences and twice in the case of serious offences.

On the definition of torture, the delegation said that it was true that there was no direct definition of torture in Tunisian legislation. However, it did not mean that a provision for punishing the act of torture was absent. Although the penal code did not contain the definition of torture, it was evident that since Tunisia ratified and incorporated the Convention, the instrument could be invoked in courts. In addition, the principle of self-defence did not in any manner justify torture by any public official.

The delegation said that the Commission of Investigation, also called Commission DRISS, had reported abuses by officials and that out of the 105 cases sent to courts, 55 security agents had been sentenced to varying terms depending on the gravity of their abuses.

Concerning the question of extradition, the delegation said that the decision to extradite a person was within the competence of the Tunis Court of Appeal, located in the capital. If the court issued an unfavourable opinion, its ruling was definitive and extradition could not be granted. Tunisian law guaranteed the rights of the person liable to extradition.

A question was asked if the Government notified foreign officials about the detention of a national of that country. The delegation said that there was a department in the Ministry of Interior which assessed the condition of foreign detainees. Tunisia had sound international cooperation with many countries within the judicial sphere.

The delegation said that any detainee had the right to be medically examined during or at the beginning of his or her detention. Medical examinations were carried out at the expense of the State. However, the detainee should bear the expense if he or she preferred a medical doctor of his or her own choice.

The Prosecutor of the Republic had to be immediately informed about crimes which were committed and the subsequent detention of individuals, the delegation said. It was the Prosecutor who decided on extending the detention of the individual. The judge of instruction had no right to extend the detention period of a detainee.

The delegation affirmed that under Tunisian law, a confession obtained from a person against his will or through the use of violence or torture might not be used as evidence against him. Any such evidence was considered null and void.

Regarding some allegations of torture alluded to by some members of the Committee who quoted non-governmental organizations, the delegation said that although the Government had some shortcomings to be overcome through continued reform, some quarters did not stop spreading allegations which did not necessary reflect the truth.

Answering a question on the number of political prisoners in Tunisia, the delegation denied that there were prisoners in such a category. There were only common law criminals who were involved in activities not in conformity with the country's law. Some prisoners put themselves over the law, said the delegation, without further explanation.

On the question of harassment by police of relatives of political opponents in exile, the delegation said that appropriate investigations had been made in the past concerning an allegation brought to the attention of the Government. The investigation showed that the allegation was without foundation.