COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE TAKES UP REPORT OF BENIN

CAT
27th session
15 November 2001
Morning






Asks Government Delegation About Amnesty Provisions for Previous
Unrest, Effectiveness of Recent Reforms to End Ill-Treatment


The Committee against Torture began consideration this morning of an initial report of Benin, querying a four-member Government delegation on efforts to thoroughly eradicate what the Government admitted had been widespread abuses in the past.

Joseph H. Gnonlonfoun, Minister of Justice of Benin, introducing the report, said the country was ready to confess that there had been torture during the so-called "revolutionary period" running from 1972 through 1990, but that such acts were no longer systematic. He said he knew what such cruel treatment was like, because he and his family had suffered it personally. It was possible that here and there such abuses continued, but the current democratic Government was fighting against them and impunity was no longer tolerated, he said.

Mr. Gnonlonfoun added that the country was fighting a widespread lack of faith in the police and justice system and struggling with an even more difficult problem of poverty, and the resources and energy for implementing human-rights reforms had been hard to muster.

Committee members asked, among other things, about whether a 1990 amnesty applied to those who had committed acts of torture during the "revolutionary period"; about a reported lack of enforcement of existing provisions to combat ill-treatment; and about whether detainees were given access to legal counsel, medical examinations, and family members.

The Government delegation will respond to questions put by the ten-member panel at a meeting beginning at 3 p.m. on Friday, 16 November.

In addition to Mr. Gnonlonfoun, the delegation of Benin included Samuel Amehou, Permanent Representative of Benin to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Raymound Hountondji, Director of Human Rights; and Abassi Ibrahima Alle, Divisional Commissaire and Adjoint Director General of the National Police.

Benin, as one of the 126 States parties to the Convention against Torture, is required to present periodic summations to the Committee of national efforts to put the Convention's provisions into effect. Government delegations generally appear before the Committee during the consideration of such reports to answer questions and provide additional information.

Towards the end of the morning session the Committee discussed decisions and recommendations coming out of the thirteenth meeting of Chairpersons of human rights treaty bodies.

The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue its examination of a fourth periodic report of Ukraine.


Initial report of Benin

The report (CAT/C/21/Add.3) reviews implementation of the Convention against Torture on an article-by-article basis. It notes in general remarks that for decades Benin was notorious for human rights violations, especially during the "revolutionary period" from 1972 through 1990, but that such offenses are now "but a distant memory"; that the practice of declaring states of emergency has been ended; and that "some backsliding occasionally occurs in the form of arrests and arbitrary detentions, unduly prolonged police custody and infrequent cases of violence reported by citizens to the ordinary courts or to the Constitutional Court".

Among steps taken to ban torture, according to the report, have been the closing of a notorious detention centre; the carrying out of a campaign to halt arbitrary arrests and ill-treatment in police stations, gendarmeries, and military camps; improvement of living conditions; liberalization of the press; greater emphasis on not exceeding the 48-hour limit on detention for investigation; liberalization of religious practices; and authorization given to some non-governmental organizations to conduct activities in the country. However, Benin's domestic criminal legislation does not currently have a definition of torture.

A Human Rights Office has been established that has among its responsibilities the review of domestic legislation to ensure compatibility with international human rights standards; inspection of detention centres and prisons; investigation of complaints of human rights violations; and promotion of the rights of women and children, the report notes.


Introduction of report

JOSEPH H. GNONLONFOUN, Minister of Justice of Benin, said the country was ready to confess that there had been torture in Benin, but was happy to say that that was no longer the case. He knew what such cruel treatment was like, because he and his family had suffered it personally. Benin was a small country of 6 million with a problematic colonial past; it had suffered in numerous ways after independence but finally had ended up as a democracy following a national conference and an exorcism of its old demons. Now it was fully committed to human rights. If torture was no longer a system of government, and while the Government fought against it, it was possible that here and there such abuses continued. Nonetheless they were being rooted out, and impunity was no longer allowed.

Laws were being established to bolster human rights, but implementation was the true challenge, Mr. Gnonlonfoun said; the road before the country was long, and economic issues tended to override other considerations. Combatting poverty was using up all the country's energy, giving the impression that all ethical and moral issues were being left aside. One positive development was a flourishing free press which served as a guardian of human rights; and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operated in the country and sought to promote human rights.

Benin still had the death penalty, Mr. Gnonlonfoun said, and the Committee had to understand that when someone took a human life, citizens expected that the perpetrator should pay the same penalty; in part that was because after years of trouble they did not have much faith in justice and the rule of law -- they thought it slow and undependable, and instead they were likely to band together to kill the guilty party themselves, to take justice into their own hands. The Government was struggling to halt the trend towards citizen or vigilante justice and to build confidence in the police and the courts, but that would take time, and meanwhile it was clear that the public would not accept abolition of capital punishment, although a moratorium on the death penalty had been declared. This example perhaps gave the Committee an idea of the situation prevailing in the country. Benin sought the Committee's help in this and other matters.


Discussion

Serving as Rapporteur on the situation in Benin was Committee Expert GUIBRIL CAMARA, who said the report was open and frank, with nothing concealed, which augured well for the country. He noted that there was a lack of a definition of torture in Benin's criminal law, and a lack of a specific punishment for torture, and said the Government had to understand that a definition based on the definition given in the Convention, and a specific law criminalizing torture, were vital for implementing the Convention.

Among his questions were if citizens were able to address the Constitutional Court directly in claiming violations of their human rights; if the country's 1990 amnesty law protected perpetrators of acts of torture or other serious violations of human rights committed during the period 1972-1990, the so-called "revolutionary period"; if the Constitutional Court had dealt with cases related to acts of torture and what consequences had resulted; and if steps were being taken to ensure that national legislation was compatible with the standards of the Convention.

Mr. Camara also put several questions related to asylum, asking if there was a national extradition law, who made asylum decisions, and if there was a mechanism for appeal for someone whose request for asylum was denied.

Mr. Camara sought information, among other things, about the right of a detainee to legal counsel, to see a doctor, and to notify or have access to family members; about what was planned to close the admitted gap between legal standards for preventing torture and their actual implementation -- since Amnesty International, among other sources, contended that at present these norms were not implemented; and if there had been complaints filed alleging torture.

Serving as Co-Rapporteur on the situation in Benin was Committee Expert ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ POBLETE. He queried the delegation on the diversity of detention facilities, noting that the report referred to military camps and police stations and locations included under the term "and so forth"; he wished to know what these other places were, and if they were publicly acknowledged. He asked about how much freedom of operation was given to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as it appeared that some which were reputable and dedicated to promoting human rights might have had trouble carrying out their work in Benin. He requested information on the competence of the Constitutional Court in matters related to torture -- if it could deal with related civil aspects of such abuses, if it could order compensation to be paid, and if it could apply administrative penalties such as having a public official suspended or dismissed from his job for committing torture.

Among Mr. Gonzalez Poblete's other questions were what role the Government's Office of Human Rights could play in reacting to specific cases of torture; what practical effects had resulted from the Office's work; what criteria had been used to define torture by an inter-ministerial commission established to look into abuses committed during the "revolutionary period"; and what institutions exercised police authority in the country, and if they included the national armed forces.

Other Committee members also put questions. They asked, among other things, about the maximum length persons could be held in police custody, as the total appeared to vary in the report from 24 hours to 48 hours to eight days; how often custody was extended to eight days; what the conditions of police detention were; where and under what circumstances interrogations could be carried out; what was being done to ease apparently dire conditions in the prisons; about how often solitary confinement was extended to the allowed maximum of three months, and what were the conditions of solitary confinement; what the death rate was in prisons; if army personnel described in the report as "notorious" for past abuses were still in positions of authority; what measures the Government was taking to end reported trafficking in Benin children for domestic servitude in neighbouring countries; and what was being done to end such reportedly widespread traditional practices as female genital mutilation.

Mr. Gnonlonfoun, the Minister of Justice of Benin, responded to some questions immediately, saying that many of the abuses referred to by Committee members were part of the country's past -- they were history. No one was trying to hide them, but they dated from the revolutionary period and no longer reflected the situation in the country. The Constitutional Court did not punish acts of torture but examined crimes that had been committed and declared such acts unconstitutional, he said; on the basis of that, authorities held subordinates responsible. Any citizen could bring a complaint of torture or ill-treatment before the Court, with or without the assistance of a lawyer. The Supreme Court, which also could review cases of ill-treatment, operated by considering cases that arose from the lower courts, and lawyers had to bring such cases.




* *** *