COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE TAKES UP REPORT OF MOROCCO

MORNING
HR/CAT/99/16
6 May 1999



The Committee against Torture this morning took up the report of Morocco on how that country implemented the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Nacer Benjelloun-Touimi, Morocco's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that a new Government was ordered by King Hassan II in April 1998. In its investiture statement before Parliament, the Government had clearly affirmed its determination to carry out a policy of promoting and protecting human rights.

Mr. Benjelloun-Touimi said the problem of prison overcrowding was being alleviated, particularly with regards to health care, by the addition of new doctors into the system. And the State was trying to strengthen its relationship with organizations - both governmental and non-governmental - that could help it improve its human rights situation.

Guibril Camara, who was the Committee's rapporteur to the report, noted that Morocco had not adopted a specific definition of torture or a specific crime of torture into its domestic laws.

Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar, the co-rapporteur, asked the delegation about its training programmes on human rights and torture prevention for members of law enforcement bodies and the military.

Other Committee members asked questions pertaining to the jurisdiction of military courts, the rights of a detainee to immediate counsel, and the torture prevention training given to medical personnel.

Joining Mr. Benjelloun-Touimi on Morocco's delegation was Driss Belmahi of the Ministry of Human Rights, Mohamed Habib Belkouch, a counselor to the Minister of Human Rights, and Mohamed Majdi, the first counselor at the Permanent Mission at Geneva.

The delegation of Morocco will return to answer the questions of the Committee experts on Friday, 7 May, at 3.30 p.m. The Committee will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. to offer its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Italy and to hear replies to from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Report of Morocco

The second periodic report of Morocco (CAT/C/43/Add.2) details in various sections its attempts to adhere to the tenets of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The report provides general information about constitutional provisions and international conventions, and then specifies on an article by article basis its compliance with the Convention.

Morocco ratified the Convention in 1993 and submitted its first periodic report in 1994. Its determination to promote human rights was consolidated in a new revision of the Constitution, whose preamble states that “aware of the need to set its action within the context of the international organizations of which it is an active and energetic member, the Kingdom of Morocco adheres to the principles, rights and obligations deriving from the charters of these organizations and reaffirms its commitment to human rights as they are universally recognized.”

Presentation of Report of Morocco

NACER BENJELLOUN-TOUIMI, the Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Kingdom of Morocco in the 1990s had taken a number of measures to promote human rights. The arrival of a new government was a historic moment for the country. The Prime Minister said last year that the protection of human rights was one of the main missions of the Government. And the Government's investiture statement before Parliament last year clearly affirmed its determination to carry out a policy of promoting and protecting human rights. Before that, there was the Royal pardon of 1994, which released 424 political prisoners. The reform of the justice system was being given prominence in the country. It was the main pillar for strengthening a state of law.

Despite the difficulties of prison overcrowding, he said, the situation had improved, particularly with regards to health care because there were now more new doctors. Any detainee who died was automatically given an autopsy. There was an ideal of humanizing prisons. Jurists and non-governmental organizations were being called upon to put forward ideas to help reform the prison system.

Mr. Benjelloun-Touimi said with these trends, Morocco was trying to extend its commitment to human rights. The country was also trying to strengthen its relationship with organizations, regional and national, governmental and non-governmental, to improve dialogue with respect to human rights.

He said all forms of torture in the Convention were prohibited by the Moroccan Government. The Prime Minister had said that Morocco would adopt all provisions of international treaties in Moroccan law.

Discussion

GUIBRIL CAMARA, who served as the rapporteur to the report of Morocco, thanked the delegation for its introduction. He noted that the second periodic report of Morocco should have been presented last year, which was a slight delay.

Mr. Camara said there were recommendations of the Committee on the first Moroccan report which were not addressed in the present one. One was defining torture in the general statutes and another was making torture specifically a crime.

In paragraph 32, he said, the report described the procedures used for expulsion from Morocco. It said decisions may be appealed. Could the legal mechanisms in the appeals be described? Were they effective?

ANTONIO SILVA HENRIQUES GASPAR, the co-rapporteur, said the report was very detailed and attested to the commitment of the State to support the Convention.

Mr. Gaspar referred to article 10, which required members of the armed forces and the police force to be educated in human rights. Despite the positive aspects in the report, it seemed there were difficulties, especially in rural areas. Training was the best way to prevent torture, and it would be necessary to see additional information about study programmes in this area.

He said the Committee received information from non-governmental organizations that there were, at times, no investigations into allegations of torture if there was no formal complaint. What was the channel for the complaints to lead to public prosecution.

Mr. Gaspar said that in June 1998, an NGO had provided a list of complaints relating to torture subsequent to ill-treatment in prisons. Investigations were undertaken which led to a conviction. In October 1998, the advisory council on Human Rights had a list with the names of 112 missing persons. Sixty five of these individuals had died. Was compensation planned for those people who had disappeared, who may eventually be found in prison? Were inquiries undertaken to investigate the deaths?

He said the report was not clear whether or not evidence obtained through torture could be admissible. It was necessary to bring the law into line with article 16.

Mr. Gaspar said article 16 talked about cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that could not be classified as torture. Experts had been told that a common practice of police was raiding, and there had been reports received about a serious case on 7 April 1995 when a person under arrest was forced into a public square and was forced to confess to crimes. That constituted cruel and inhuman punishment. Was this investigated? Were disciplinary measures taken.

Other Committee experts raised further questions. There was no reference in the report about criminal acts in the military. Was there jurisdiction for military courts to judge civilians? Were there unannounced visits to police stations to ensure that standards were being met? Was a person who was arrested entitled to a lawyer immediately after arrest? Did permission have to be granted in that case? Was there anything about prohibition against torture in the core curriculum for doctors? Did a person who was just arrested have the right to inform a third party about the arrest? Could the person be examined by a doctor of his own choice? There was a case told to the Committee by Amnesty International about two teenagers who were put into an adult prison. One of them were raped. The prison authorities had stalled in responding to complaints. The family were not advised that this had taken place, and only when the family complained did the prison announce what had happened and then open an inquiry. Why were juveniles put in such a situation? What was done with the prison authorities who were directly involved?