COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE ISSUES CONCLUSIONS ON REPORT OF MAURITIUS

AFTERNOON
HR/CAT/1999/11
3 May 1999


Committee Continues Consideration of Report of Bulgaria


The Committee against Torture this afternoon praised the Government of Mauritius for steps taken to further the protection of human rights and hoped it would continue progress in that area.

Sayed Kassem El Masry, who served as the Committee's co-rapporteur to the Mauritius report, noted that the country had made great strides in complying with the tenets of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He singled out its abolishment of the death penalty, as well as passage of the Human Rights Law, which established the National Human Rights Committee that would examine torture complaints.

Mr. El Masry noted, however, that the State had never adopted a specific definition of torture, nor a specific crime of torture, in its general laws. The Committee recommended that Mauritius enact such legislation and that it clarify that superior orders could never be invoked as a justification of an act of torture. It also recommended that all instances of torture, especially those resulting in death, were promptly and effectively investigated by an independent body and that the perpetrators were brought to justice immediately.

Also this afternoon, the Committee heard responses to the questions it posed to the Bulgarian delegation when that country presented its report last week. Petko Draganov, the Permanent Representative of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said it was hoped that specific language defining and outlawing torture in domestic laws would be acted upon in the near future. He also detailed recently enacted legislation to improve the situation of Bulgaria's Roma minority.

The Committee will issue its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Bulgaria at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 May. The Committee will reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. to take up the second periodic report of Luxembourg.

Conclusions and Recommendations on Report of Mauritius

SAYED KASSEM EL MASRY, the Committee’s co-rapporteur to the report, noted the following positive aspects taken by Mauritius: the abolition of the death penalty; the recent coming into force of the Protection of Human Rights Law which established the National Human Rights Committee, the competence of which included examination of torture complaints; the amendment of article 6 of the Constitution in order to prohibit discrimination based on gender; and training programmes for the Police and other law enforcement officials with human rights components.

The co-rapporteur raised the following subjects of concern: that six years after its initial accession to the Convention and four years after the consideration of its initial report, the State party had failed to incorporate into its internal legislation important provisions of the Convention, namely a definition that encompassed all cases covered by article 1 of the Convention; article 3 of the Convention covering not only extradition but also, expulsion and return; and the provisions of article 5 paragraph 1 (b) and 2 in conjunction with those of articles 8 and 9.

Mr. El Masry said the Committee recommended that Mauritius enact legislation defining torture in accordance with article 1 and consider it as a specific crime; clarify through appropriate legislation that superior orders could never be invoked as a justification of an act of torture; introduce legislation that would give effect to all the provisions of article 3 of the Convention by preventing extradition, return and expulsion of persons in danger of being subjected to torture; take legislative measures to establish universal jurisdiction as required by article 5 of the Convention; appraise the Committee of the results of the investigation and judicial inquiries into the death, whilst in custody, of Mr. Kaya; and ensure that all instances of torture and especially those resulting in death, were promptly and effectively investigated by an independent body and that the perpetrators be brought immediately to justice.

Responses from Bulgaria

PETKO DRAGANOV, the Permanent Representative of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that concerning the absence of a specific crime of torture, it was hoped that it would be acted upon in the near future. In response to an inquiry about improving the places of preliminary detention, he said that in the last two years, the places for preliminary detention during investigation had been transferred from the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Justice. That had to a large extent solved the problem of improving the conditions for long-term detention. A substantial renovation of the places of detention had been carried out. In particular, the Specialized Investigation Service built a new facility in Sofia that contained premises corresponding to the highest international standards.

Concerning the appellate process for a child referred to a corrective boarding school, Mr. Draganov said when the court or the prosecutor placed a minor in a corrective boarding school, that constituted a favourable alternative to penal responsibility. In this case, appeal was not envisaged since this was a corrective measure. In both cases, the presence of a lawyers was obligatory and the parents or foster parents were duly informed. If the court considered it absolutely essential, it could decide that the parents could be present and could ensure their presence with the help of police.

On extradition, he said such requests were considered by three judges and a prosecutor. The foreign citizen by definition was accompanied by a lawyer and an interpreter, if needed. The decision of the court could be appealed in a Court of Appeals by the interested party. The decision of the Court of Appeals was definitive. The general procedure was applied unless otherwise specified in a bilateral treaty.

Mr. Draganov said the places of detention were inspected by the respective officials from the Ministry of Interior or the Ministry of Justice. Inspection could be allowed by international or national human rights non-governmental organizations. The results would be publicized by the press services of the two ministries, and by the media. Detainees had a right to counsel at the moment of detention, and were also allowed contacts with the outside world. The non-convicted detainee was entitled to one visit a month, but upon permission by the director of the prison, these could be more frequent. In lower security facilities, the detainees had the right to telephone contacts uninterruptedly.

Addressing questions about the Roma minority, Mr. Draganov said Bulgaria did not have a specific piece of legislation on the prevention of discrimination against minorities and ethnic groups. Bulgaria recently ratified the Framework Convention of the Council of Europe on the Protection of National Minorities and this would certainly influence future standard-setting activities in the field. The Government did not turn a blind eye on this important issue. Two years ago, for the first time in recent history, a National Council on Demographic and Ethnic Issues was established with the Council of Ministers, headed by a deputy prime minister. The Council had worked out a Framework Programme on Integrating Roma in the Society with the participation of representatives of over 100 Roma non-governmental organizations. On 7 April, the Programme was officially signed and it was consequently adopted by the Government on 23 April. Bulgaria envisaged the adoption of a special law on discrimination. The law would establish a governmental body in charge of preventing, identifying and assisting the resolving of Roma problems, as well as promoting their rights.

Mr. Draganov said the use of firearms by police and the military was specified as a last resort. In some cases, a warning by the firearm user was required, followed by alert blank shots. The conditions for using firearms by the military and police officers were as follows: armed attack or threat by firearm; release of hostages; inevitable self-defence; arrest of a perpetrator; and prevention of a detainee from fleeing. Officers were obliged to avoid, if possible, endangering the life of a perpetrator, as well as to avoid collateral injuries, especially the life of third persons. Upon each single use of a firearm, a written report was filed with the superior. In October 1998, the Minister of the Interior issued an order by which the use of firearms was prohibited in the following two cases: when the life of third persons were endangered, and at the arrest of fleeing perpetrators, with the exception of inevitable self-defence and the life of third persons were being directly endangered.