Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE MEETS WITH SUBCOMMITTEE ON PREVENTION OF TORTURE
12 May 2009
Share
Committee against Torture
12 May 2009
The Committee against Torture this afternoon held its fourth meeting with the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and discussed areas of collaboration between the two bodies.
Victor Manuel Rodriguez Rescia, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, presenting the Subcommittee's second annual report, noted that, with the recent ratification by Cyprus, the number of ratifications of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture had now increased to 47. They were only missing three ratifications to trigger the increase in membership of the Subcommittee from 10 to 25. There had been numerous difficulties encountered with regard to States parties' creation of a national preventive mechanism against torture, and most States had not established national preventive mechanisms that met the Committee's guidelines. There had also been difficulties with the concept of prevention in regard to the Optional Protocol. It was important not to confuse the mandate: the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was not a committee that reported on torture, but one that worked on the identification of risk of torture. Also highlighted were budgetary constraints that the Subcommittee faced, with their current budget only allowing it to visit three or four countries a year. This year the Subcommittee had planned visits to Paraguay, Honduras and Cambodia.
In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts asked a number of questions, including what follow-up action was taken to Subcommittee visits; whether it had already developed criteria for establishing a risk of torture; how many countries had asked for assistance and advice in setting up a national preventive mechanism; whether there had been any best practices identified in preventing torture; and whether there had been any findings about the use of the Istanbul Protocol by States parties. In brief answers, the Subcommittee Chair responded to all of these questions.
The Subcommittee is a newly created body that was established according to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It consists of 10 independent experts who work with national preventive mechanisms and carry out regular unannounced visits to places of detention in all States parties to the Optional Protocol, with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of persons deprived of liberty against torture and other forms of ill treatment. Advising and assisting in the development of effective and independent national preventive mechanisms is also another key element in the Subcommittee's work and forms an important part of each visit. Every State party is obliged under the Optional Protocol to grant the Subcommittee unrestricted access to any place of detention and to provide all the relevant information the Subcommittee may request. The Subcommittee may have private interviews with persons deprived of liberty and any other persons believed by the Subcommittee to be able to provide relevant information.
The Optional Protocol has been ratified or acceded to by the following 47 States: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.
The 10 members of the Subcommittee are: Silvia Casale (United Kingdom), Mario Luis Coriolano (Argentina), Marija Definis Gojanovic (Croatia), Zdenìk Hájek (Czech Republic), Zbigniew Lasocik (Poland), Hans Draminsky Petersen (Denmark), Victor Manuel Rodríguez Rescia (Costa Rica), Miguel Sarre Iguíniz (Mexico), Wilder Tayler Souto (Uruguay) and Leopoldo Torres Boursault (Spain).
When the Committee against Torture next meets in public on Friday, 15 May at 3 p.m., it will make public its concluding observations on State party reports considered over the past three weeks and adopt its annual report before formally closing its forty-second session.
Opening Statement
VICTOR MANUEL RODRIGUEZ RESCIA, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, presenting the Subcommittee's second annual report, noted that this was an opportunity to get together and to define guidelines, resolve pending issues and discuss coordination. Drawing attention to the question of ratifications, while the Subcommittee had had a strong start, there had then been a drop in the number of ratifications. However, there had been an increase since last time, with the recent ratification on the part of Cyprus, bringing the total to 47. They were only missing three ratifications now to trigger the increase in membership of the Subcommittee from 10 to 25.
Mr. Rodriguez Rescia stressed that there had been numerous difficulties encountered with regard to States parties' creation of a national preventive mechanism against torture. Most States had not established national preventive mechanisms that met the Committee's guidelines. He wished to stress that that did not mean creating an Ombudsman's office. While the national preventive mechanism had to comply with the Paris Principles, that did not mean that it was to be mixed up with the Ombudsman's office, as it had a very different and defined mandate.
There had also been difficulties with the concept of prevention in regard to the Optional Protocol, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia observed. It was important not to confuse the mandate: the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was not a committee that reported on torture, but one that worked on the identification of risk of torture.
Indeed, another debate surrounded how to measure prevention of torture. They could create indicators for prevention of torture, risk of torture or escalation of torture, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia affirmed.
Within the Subcommittee's budget they could only visit three or four countries a year, which was another problem. The best way to use the budget of the Subcommittee was to provide guidelines and to work with non-governmental organizations on the ground. They were working on finding a way in which Subcommittee visits were not the cornerstone for prevention of torture.
With regard to the visit programme, as could be seen from the report, they had three planned for this year, in Paraguay, Honduras and Cambodia, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said.
Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said, given the budget constraints both Committees were facing, there might be a way for the two to work together to tackle that problem. He noted that the Committee against Torture had a backlog of 22 reports and was also hoping to either broaden its membership, or extend its annual sessions.
Concerning relations with regional mechanisms, in particular the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the African Commission, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia noted that the Subcommittee had a meeting with a member of the African Commission to discuss torture. The Robben Island Guidelines for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture that the African Commission had was an important soft law instrument, which they felt was a good tool, very similar to the one that the Inter-American Commission had designed.
The Subcommittee was also looking to strengthening its ties with the International Committee of the Red Cross, from whom it had learned many lessons at the beginning of its mandate, in particular with regard to guidelines for visits, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia concluded.
Questions and Comments by Committee Experts
Committee Experts then made comments and asked questions. An Expert wondered if the Subcommittee evaluated national preventive mechanisms for the prevention of torture in the context of its country visits. On ratifications, it was noted that there was a clustering of countries that had signed but not ratified the Convention, including 13 from the Western European group and seven in Africa. It might be useful to analyse the cause of that clustering as a means to increasing ratifications.
Other questions involved what follow-up action would be taken to Subcommittee visits; whether the Subcommittee had already developed criteria for establishing a risk of torture; how many countries had asked for assistance and advice in setting up a national preventive mechanism; whether there had been any best practices identified in preventing torture; whether there were any findings about the use of the Istanbul Protocol by States parties; and concern that the Istanbul Protocol was labelled as a "soft law" in the Subcommittee's report.
Answers by Subcommittee Experts
In answers to the questions and remarks raised by Committee Experts, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said that, in terms of follow-up, they made some preliminary comments on the visit, which included remarks on the national preventive mechanism. However, they had not wanted to put off States parties by making judgements, but wanted to draw them into a dialogue. Now perhaps it remained to take a look at the process and establish guidelines and best practices.
On the issue of civil society participation in the process, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia agreed that this was key. What was astonishing was the wide range of interpretations by States of what the "independent" meant with regard to the requirement to set up an independent national preventive mechanism.
The first visits had been a huge learning curve for the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture. They were trying to establish some criteria by which the role of the Subcommittee should be defined, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia stressed.
Regarding provision of advice, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia noted that many countries were unaware that the Subcommittee was actually obliged to give advice in the setting up of the national preventive mechanism as part of its mandate. Most countries did not do so. However, it was problematical because the Subcommittee did not actually have the budget to cover this item if all countries asked for advice. That had led to some strange hybrid country missions in the company of non-governmental organizations.
On risk indicators, they were still in the process of discussing this and the Subcommittee would certainly like to hear from the Committee against Torture on how they could measure prevention, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said.
With regard to the Istanbul Protocol, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said mea culpa and agreed that it was not a soft law instrument. It was an important tool to combat impunity, in conjunction with national preventive mechanisms. What they had noted was a lack of knowledge about the Istanbul Protocol among countries and very few were using it.
Concluding Remarks
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee Against Torture, in concluding remarks, said that personally, as a lawyer he was very satisfied by what had been said on the Istanbul Protocol. The contribution the Subcommittee was making was significant. He also noted that it was historic that the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and the Committee against Torture were going to present a joint report to the General Assembly.
_________
For use of the information media; not an official record
12 May 2009
The Committee against Torture this afternoon held its fourth meeting with the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and discussed areas of collaboration between the two bodies.
Victor Manuel Rodriguez Rescia, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, presenting the Subcommittee's second annual report, noted that, with the recent ratification by Cyprus, the number of ratifications of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture had now increased to 47. They were only missing three ratifications to trigger the increase in membership of the Subcommittee from 10 to 25. There had been numerous difficulties encountered with regard to States parties' creation of a national preventive mechanism against torture, and most States had not established national preventive mechanisms that met the Committee's guidelines. There had also been difficulties with the concept of prevention in regard to the Optional Protocol. It was important not to confuse the mandate: the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was not a committee that reported on torture, but one that worked on the identification of risk of torture. Also highlighted were budgetary constraints that the Subcommittee faced, with their current budget only allowing it to visit three or four countries a year. This year the Subcommittee had planned visits to Paraguay, Honduras and Cambodia.
In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts asked a number of questions, including what follow-up action was taken to Subcommittee visits; whether it had already developed criteria for establishing a risk of torture; how many countries had asked for assistance and advice in setting up a national preventive mechanism; whether there had been any best practices identified in preventing torture; and whether there had been any findings about the use of the Istanbul Protocol by States parties. In brief answers, the Subcommittee Chair responded to all of these questions.
The Subcommittee is a newly created body that was established according to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It consists of 10 independent experts who work with national preventive mechanisms and carry out regular unannounced visits to places of detention in all States parties to the Optional Protocol, with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of persons deprived of liberty against torture and other forms of ill treatment. Advising and assisting in the development of effective and independent national preventive mechanisms is also another key element in the Subcommittee's work and forms an important part of each visit. Every State party is obliged under the Optional Protocol to grant the Subcommittee unrestricted access to any place of detention and to provide all the relevant information the Subcommittee may request. The Subcommittee may have private interviews with persons deprived of liberty and any other persons believed by the Subcommittee to be able to provide relevant information.
The Optional Protocol has been ratified or acceded to by the following 47 States: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.
The 10 members of the Subcommittee are: Silvia Casale (United Kingdom), Mario Luis Coriolano (Argentina), Marija Definis Gojanovic (Croatia), Zdenìk Hájek (Czech Republic), Zbigniew Lasocik (Poland), Hans Draminsky Petersen (Denmark), Victor Manuel Rodríguez Rescia (Costa Rica), Miguel Sarre Iguíniz (Mexico), Wilder Tayler Souto (Uruguay) and Leopoldo Torres Boursault (Spain).
When the Committee against Torture next meets in public on Friday, 15 May at 3 p.m., it will make public its concluding observations on State party reports considered over the past three weeks and adopt its annual report before formally closing its forty-second session.
Opening Statement
VICTOR MANUEL RODRIGUEZ RESCIA, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, presenting the Subcommittee's second annual report, noted that this was an opportunity to get together and to define guidelines, resolve pending issues and discuss coordination. Drawing attention to the question of ratifications, while the Subcommittee had had a strong start, there had then been a drop in the number of ratifications. However, there had been an increase since last time, with the recent ratification on the part of Cyprus, bringing the total to 47. They were only missing three ratifications now to trigger the increase in membership of the Subcommittee from 10 to 25.
Mr. Rodriguez Rescia stressed that there had been numerous difficulties encountered with regard to States parties' creation of a national preventive mechanism against torture. Most States had not established national preventive mechanisms that met the Committee's guidelines. He wished to stress that that did not mean creating an Ombudsman's office. While the national preventive mechanism had to comply with the Paris Principles, that did not mean that it was to be mixed up with the Ombudsman's office, as it had a very different and defined mandate.
There had also been difficulties with the concept of prevention in regard to the Optional Protocol, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia observed. It was important not to confuse the mandate: the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture was not a committee that reported on torture, but one that worked on the identification of risk of torture.
Indeed, another debate surrounded how to measure prevention of torture. They could create indicators for prevention of torture, risk of torture or escalation of torture, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia affirmed.
Within the Subcommittee's budget they could only visit three or four countries a year, which was another problem. The best way to use the budget of the Subcommittee was to provide guidelines and to work with non-governmental organizations on the ground. They were working on finding a way in which Subcommittee visits were not the cornerstone for prevention of torture.
With regard to the visit programme, as could be seen from the report, they had three planned for this year, in Paraguay, Honduras and Cambodia, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said.
Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said, given the budget constraints both Committees were facing, there might be a way for the two to work together to tackle that problem. He noted that the Committee against Torture had a backlog of 22 reports and was also hoping to either broaden its membership, or extend its annual sessions.
Concerning relations with regional mechanisms, in particular the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the African Commission, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia noted that the Subcommittee had a meeting with a member of the African Commission to discuss torture. The Robben Island Guidelines for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture that the African Commission had was an important soft law instrument, which they felt was a good tool, very similar to the one that the Inter-American Commission had designed.
The Subcommittee was also looking to strengthening its ties with the International Committee of the Red Cross, from whom it had learned many lessons at the beginning of its mandate, in particular with regard to guidelines for visits, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia concluded.
Questions and Comments by Committee Experts
Committee Experts then made comments and asked questions. An Expert wondered if the Subcommittee evaluated national preventive mechanisms for the prevention of torture in the context of its country visits. On ratifications, it was noted that there was a clustering of countries that had signed but not ratified the Convention, including 13 from the Western European group and seven in Africa. It might be useful to analyse the cause of that clustering as a means to increasing ratifications.
Other questions involved what follow-up action would be taken to Subcommittee visits; whether the Subcommittee had already developed criteria for establishing a risk of torture; how many countries had asked for assistance and advice in setting up a national preventive mechanism; whether there had been any best practices identified in preventing torture; whether there were any findings about the use of the Istanbul Protocol by States parties; and concern that the Istanbul Protocol was labelled as a "soft law" in the Subcommittee's report.
Answers by Subcommittee Experts
In answers to the questions and remarks raised by Committee Experts, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said that, in terms of follow-up, they made some preliminary comments on the visit, which included remarks on the national preventive mechanism. However, they had not wanted to put off States parties by making judgements, but wanted to draw them into a dialogue. Now perhaps it remained to take a look at the process and establish guidelines and best practices.
On the issue of civil society participation in the process, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia agreed that this was key. What was astonishing was the wide range of interpretations by States of what the "independent" meant with regard to the requirement to set up an independent national preventive mechanism.
The first visits had been a huge learning curve for the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture. They were trying to establish some criteria by which the role of the Subcommittee should be defined, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia stressed.
Regarding provision of advice, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia noted that many countries were unaware that the Subcommittee was actually obliged to give advice in the setting up of the national preventive mechanism as part of its mandate. Most countries did not do so. However, it was problematical because the Subcommittee did not actually have the budget to cover this item if all countries asked for advice. That had led to some strange hybrid country missions in the company of non-governmental organizations.
On risk indicators, they were still in the process of discussing this and the Subcommittee would certainly like to hear from the Committee against Torture on how they could measure prevention, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said.
With regard to the Istanbul Protocol, Mr. Rodriguez Rescia said mea culpa and agreed that it was not a soft law instrument. It was an important tool to combat impunity, in conjunction with national preventive mechanisms. What they had noted was a lack of knowledge about the Istanbul Protocol among countries and very few were using it.
Concluding Remarks
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee Against Torture, in concluding remarks, said that personally, as a lawyer he was very satisfied by what had been said on the Istanbul Protocol. The contribution the Subcommittee was making was significant. He also noted that it was historic that the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and the Committee against Torture were going to present a joint report to the General Assembly.
_________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: