Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE MEETS WITH SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE
02 May 2006
Share
2 May 2006
The Committee against Torture this afternoon met with the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, who said that he had carried out four fact-finding missions to Georgia, Mongolia, Nepal and China since his appointment in December 2004. In addition, together with four other special procedures, he had carried out an examination of detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay -- without visiting those facilities. He had also made other visits related to the issue of torture within the context of counter-terrorism measures.
Concerning his visit in February 2005 to Georgia, Mr. Nowak said the Georgians wanted to improve their human rights situation and he had found that there was a very lively non-governmental organization community in the country. He had encountered a very open spirit there, he said, and many of his recommendations had already been implemented, including the ratification of the Optional Protocol against Torture. His concerns were that prison conditions, in particular in pre-trial detention centers, were appalling and overcrowded. Since then, two new detention facilities had been opened.
The Special Rapporteur said that he had visited Nepal in September 2005. It was the only country where he had concluded so far that torture was conducted on a systematic basis. Torture was being conducted both by the Government and by the Maoists, who were using shocking forms of torture, including on their own members. One of the reasons he concluded that the practice of torture was systematic was that he had had fairly frank admissions at a high level. One official had said that "a little bit of torture helps".
In the ensuing debate Experts raised questions concerning issues such as coordination between the human rights mechanisms mandated to address torture and how to avoid duplication with other mechanisms or bodies; the definition of torture, and the distinction between torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; the practice of corporal punishment by State parties; whether life imprisonment was a violation of article 16 of the Covenant; and diplomatic assurances in the case of extraordinary renditions and whether they created zones of impunity.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 3 May, it is scheduled to take up the third periodic report of Georgia (CAT/C/73/Add.1).
Discussion
MANFRED NOWAK, Special Rapporteur on Torture, said that he had carried out four fact-finding missions to countries: to Georgia in February 2005, as well as to Mongolia, Nepal and China. In addition, together with four other special procedures, he had carried out an examination of detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay -- without visiting those facilities. He had also made other visits related to the issue of torture within the context of counter-terrorism measures.
Mr. Nowak said that he also considered his mandate as promoting the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, and providing advice to Governments on how to establish a truly independent national mechanism. Georgia, soon after his visit, did ratify the Optional Protocol. Certain Governments, like Mexico, had asked him how to set up such a preventive mechanism.
In response to a request by the Chairperson of the Committee, Andreas Mavrommatis, for some information on his visit to Georgia in February 2005, in view of the fact that the Committee was considering that country’s report on Wednesday, 3 May, Mr. Nowak said he only made visits if there were serious allegations of torture, or in the case of recent changes that would allow him to recommend the best way to make changes. It was the latter reason in Georgia. They wanted to improve their human rights situation and he found that there was a very lively non-governmental organization community in the country. He had encountered a very open spirit there, he said, and many of his recommendations had already been implemented, including the ratification of the Optional Protocol against Torture. His concerns were that prison conditions, in particular in pre-trial detention centers, were appalling and overcrowded. Since then, two new detention facilities had been opened. However, there had been three major incidents in that prison recently where prisoners had been killed and injured. Those incidents were presently under investigation.
The Special Rapporteur said that he had visited Nepal in September 2005. It was the country which had received the highest number of allegations in 2004, 2005 and 2006. He noted that, notwithstanding the civil war going on with the Maoist insurgents, there was a very lively NGO community in the country. It was the only country where he had concluded so far that torture was conducted on a systematic basis. Torture was being conducted both by the Government and by the Maoists, who were using shocking forms of torture including on their own members. One of the reasons he had concluded that the practice of torture was systematic was that he had had fairly frank admissions at a high level. One official had said that "a little bit of torture helps"; that was a direct quote.
The Rapporteur said that in Georgia, the prosecutors were the main actors where there was not a truly independent judiciary. There was also a lot of pressure on the police to use strong methods. In Georgia, after the Rose Revolution, a lot of measures were taken, many of the old police were discharged, and the same with the judiciary. Lots of investigations were being undertaken. The Ombudsman was acting in a fairly independent manner and was cooperating with NGOs. The actions taken by the Government had led to a clear improvement in the situation. In recent months, however, there had been some concern that to a certain extent the situation was getting worse again.
The Special Rapporteur said that investigations mostly concerned prisoner-against-prisoner violence, but definitely many deaths had been caused not by inter-prisoner violence but by the special forces sent into the prison. Those were allegations, and he had sent a letter recently to the Government regarding the allegations that they used excessive force. He had not heard of any other prison facilities where that had occurred.
The Special Rapporteur said that he only visited countries if he received assurances that he could visit all the detention facilities without prior warning and interview detainees in private. That was the reason why he and other special procedures had had to cancel their inspection visit to Guantanamo Bay. The United States Government would not comply with the request to have private interviews with the detainees there. He always requested Governments to provide him with a letter of authorization from the highest authorities so that when he knocked in the middle of the night on the door of the prison he would get access. That usually worked in the countries he had been to, except there had been some difficulty with China. But it did work: he had visited the prisons in Tibet and other areas that had not been visited before. There had been no problem with speaking with the detainees in private. The only problem was that quite a number of detainees would not speak with him there -- were afraid to speak -- and he had to respect that.
All countries had to provide information on their compliance with obligations, the Special Rapporteur noted. He saw his visits as fact-finding, but also as the start of long-term cooperation. So far, he thought, no country had been visited twice, except possibly Colombia. But he expected, if a situation was deteriorating, but also in other circumstances, to be invited back by countries to see if he could make recommendations.
Mr. Nowak said that he would not undertake an investigation in a country in which the Committee was carrying out an investigation (under article 20 of the Convention) and that such an overlap was to be avoided.
The Special Rapporteur also highlighted the principle of proportionality with regard to recourse to the use of force. In addition, he said that while it was possible to unintentionally inflict degrading treatment through negligence, torture could only be inflicted intentionally.
In the ensuing debate, Experts raised questions concerning issues such as coordination between the human rights mechanisms mandated to address torture and how to avoid duplication with other mechanisms or bodies; the definition of torture, and the distinction between torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; the practice of corporal punishment by State parties; whether life imprisonment was a violation of article 16 of the Covenant; where the burden of proof should lie in cases where it was alleged information was extracted by torture, in particular in extradition cases; diplomatic assurances in the case of extraordinary renditions and whether they created zones of impunity; and whether the Special Rapporteur would visit Chechnya and investigate the alleged situation of private prisons there.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
The Committee against Torture this afternoon met with the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, who said that he had carried out four fact-finding missions to Georgia, Mongolia, Nepal and China since his appointment in December 2004. In addition, together with four other special procedures, he had carried out an examination of detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay -- without visiting those facilities. He had also made other visits related to the issue of torture within the context of counter-terrorism measures.
Concerning his visit in February 2005 to Georgia, Mr. Nowak said the Georgians wanted to improve their human rights situation and he had found that there was a very lively non-governmental organization community in the country. He had encountered a very open spirit there, he said, and many of his recommendations had already been implemented, including the ratification of the Optional Protocol against Torture. His concerns were that prison conditions, in particular in pre-trial detention centers, were appalling and overcrowded. Since then, two new detention facilities had been opened.
The Special Rapporteur said that he had visited Nepal in September 2005. It was the only country where he had concluded so far that torture was conducted on a systematic basis. Torture was being conducted both by the Government and by the Maoists, who were using shocking forms of torture, including on their own members. One of the reasons he concluded that the practice of torture was systematic was that he had had fairly frank admissions at a high level. One official had said that "a little bit of torture helps".
In the ensuing debate Experts raised questions concerning issues such as coordination between the human rights mechanisms mandated to address torture and how to avoid duplication with other mechanisms or bodies; the definition of torture, and the distinction between torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; the practice of corporal punishment by State parties; whether life imprisonment was a violation of article 16 of the Covenant; and diplomatic assurances in the case of extraordinary renditions and whether they created zones of impunity.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 3 May, it is scheduled to take up the third periodic report of Georgia (CAT/C/73/Add.1).
Discussion
MANFRED NOWAK, Special Rapporteur on Torture, said that he had carried out four fact-finding missions to countries: to Georgia in February 2005, as well as to Mongolia, Nepal and China. In addition, together with four other special procedures, he had carried out an examination of detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay -- without visiting those facilities. He had also made other visits related to the issue of torture within the context of counter-terrorism measures.
Mr. Nowak said that he also considered his mandate as promoting the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, and providing advice to Governments on how to establish a truly independent national mechanism. Georgia, soon after his visit, did ratify the Optional Protocol. Certain Governments, like Mexico, had asked him how to set up such a preventive mechanism.
In response to a request by the Chairperson of the Committee, Andreas Mavrommatis, for some information on his visit to Georgia in February 2005, in view of the fact that the Committee was considering that country’s report on Wednesday, 3 May, Mr. Nowak said he only made visits if there were serious allegations of torture, or in the case of recent changes that would allow him to recommend the best way to make changes. It was the latter reason in Georgia. They wanted to improve their human rights situation and he found that there was a very lively non-governmental organization community in the country. He had encountered a very open spirit there, he said, and many of his recommendations had already been implemented, including the ratification of the Optional Protocol against Torture. His concerns were that prison conditions, in particular in pre-trial detention centers, were appalling and overcrowded. Since then, two new detention facilities had been opened. However, there had been three major incidents in that prison recently where prisoners had been killed and injured. Those incidents were presently under investigation.
The Special Rapporteur said that he had visited Nepal in September 2005. It was the country which had received the highest number of allegations in 2004, 2005 and 2006. He noted that, notwithstanding the civil war going on with the Maoist insurgents, there was a very lively NGO community in the country. It was the only country where he had concluded so far that torture was conducted on a systematic basis. Torture was being conducted both by the Government and by the Maoists, who were using shocking forms of torture including on their own members. One of the reasons he had concluded that the practice of torture was systematic was that he had had fairly frank admissions at a high level. One official had said that "a little bit of torture helps"; that was a direct quote.
The Rapporteur said that in Georgia, the prosecutors were the main actors where there was not a truly independent judiciary. There was also a lot of pressure on the police to use strong methods. In Georgia, after the Rose Revolution, a lot of measures were taken, many of the old police were discharged, and the same with the judiciary. Lots of investigations were being undertaken. The Ombudsman was acting in a fairly independent manner and was cooperating with NGOs. The actions taken by the Government had led to a clear improvement in the situation. In recent months, however, there had been some concern that to a certain extent the situation was getting worse again.
The Special Rapporteur said that investigations mostly concerned prisoner-against-prisoner violence, but definitely many deaths had been caused not by inter-prisoner violence but by the special forces sent into the prison. Those were allegations, and he had sent a letter recently to the Government regarding the allegations that they used excessive force. He had not heard of any other prison facilities where that had occurred.
The Special Rapporteur said that he only visited countries if he received assurances that he could visit all the detention facilities without prior warning and interview detainees in private. That was the reason why he and other special procedures had had to cancel their inspection visit to Guantanamo Bay. The United States Government would not comply with the request to have private interviews with the detainees there. He always requested Governments to provide him with a letter of authorization from the highest authorities so that when he knocked in the middle of the night on the door of the prison he would get access. That usually worked in the countries he had been to, except there had been some difficulty with China. But it did work: he had visited the prisons in Tibet and other areas that had not been visited before. There had been no problem with speaking with the detainees in private. The only problem was that quite a number of detainees would not speak with him there -- were afraid to speak -- and he had to respect that.
All countries had to provide information on their compliance with obligations, the Special Rapporteur noted. He saw his visits as fact-finding, but also as the start of long-term cooperation. So far, he thought, no country had been visited twice, except possibly Colombia. But he expected, if a situation was deteriorating, but also in other circumstances, to be invited back by countries to see if he could make recommendations.
Mr. Nowak said that he would not undertake an investigation in a country in which the Committee was carrying out an investigation (under article 20 of the Convention) and that such an overlap was to be avoided.
The Special Rapporteur also highlighted the principle of proportionality with regard to recourse to the use of force. In addition, he said that while it was possible to unintentionally inflict degrading treatment through negligence, torture could only be inflicted intentionally.
In the ensuing debate, Experts raised questions concerning issues such as coordination between the human rights mechanisms mandated to address torture and how to avoid duplication with other mechanisms or bodies; the definition of torture, and the distinction between torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; the practice of corporal punishment by State parties; whether life imprisonment was a violation of article 16 of the Covenant; where the burden of proof should lie in cases where it was alleged information was extracted by torture, in particular in extradition cases; diplomatic assurances in the case of extraordinary renditions and whether they created zones of impunity; and whether the Special Rapporteur would visit Chechnya and investigate the alleged situation of private prisons there.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record