COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE TAKES UP REPORT OF VENEZUELA

MORNING
HR/CAT/99/6
29 April 1999





The Committee against Torture this morning took up the initial report of Venezuela, listening as the Venezuelan delegation detailed how the Government implemented the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Rafael Simon Jimenez, the Deputy Minister of the Ministries of Interior and Justice of Venezuela, introduced the report to the Committee. A new President had won the elections in December, he said, following a campaign in which the protection of human rights was a major issue. There were major changes going on, in particular a comprehensive overhauling of the country's judiciary that would take effect on 1 July. Venezuela was also considering a preliminary draft law defining torture.

Alejandro Gonzalez Poblete, who served as the Committee's rapporteur to the report, praised the new Government's recent prioritization of the protection of human rights and pointed to the planned preventive detention change as evidence that the State was backing up its words with action. But he also noted that the report, which had been overdue, lacked necessary statistics and particulars. According to figures that the Committee had, the practice of torture was extensive amongst the police and the armed forces in areas of emergency and conflict. However, it should be recognized that there had been a decrease in torture cases in recent years.

Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar, the Committee’s co-rapporteur to the report, stressed the importance of education and training as essential tools in the battle against torture and ill-treatment. He asked the delegation for a statistical breakdown of the frequency of cases of ill-treatment and torture, and wanted to know if the public prosecutor's office had the authority to undertake a special inquiry into police violence.


Other Committee questions focused on the training of medical personnel, compensation for torture victims, and the criminal liability of junior officers acting on the orders of superiors.

The Committee will return this afternoon at 3 p.m. to hear the reply of Mauritius, which presented its report on Wednesday. The Venezuelan delegation will return Friday at 3:30 p.m. to respond to the Committee's questions.

Report of Venezuela

The initial report of Venezuela (CAT/C/16/Add.8) details the internal structures in place to ensure that violations of human rights, and particularly torture, are not carried out in the country. Venezuela’s Constitution guarantees such basic fundamental rights and freedoms to all who live in the country.

The report also illustrates article-by-article efforts to fully comply with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Venezuelan law has a myriad of prohibitions against law enforcement personnel treating prisoners in cruel or inhuman manners, and there is no justification or legitimization for torture under any statute or court ruling. That prohibition cannot be lifted or suspended under any circumstances. Likewise, there is no circumstance in which torture is tolerated, including due obedience to a superior. The Constitution elaborates criminal penalties for anybody ordering such an act or executing such an order.

Introduction of Report of Venezuela

RAFAEL SIMON JIMENEZ, the Deputy Minister of the Ministries of Interior and Justice, said there were free elections in his country last December and one of the new President's biggest campaign issues was the protection of human rights. The country had a long tradition of defending human rights and respecting the dignity of people. Venezuela had signed and ratified human rights instruments. Domestically and in the international sphere, it was the country's policy to protect human rights and to condemn any violations of these rights.

Significant progress had been made in implementing mechanisms since the Covenant was signed, Mr. Jimenez said. There had been a number of administrative and judicial measures implemented at the time.

In the legislative arena, the Deputy Minister said the State was considering a preliminary draft law defining torture. It was necessary to adopt a special law saying what the penalties for torture were. The first of July would mark the entrance to the new judicial procedure. That had direct implications to human life and condemned all forms of torture and degrading punishment. There would be a reduction in the preventive detention of citizens. That had been one of the biggest complaints about the old system, that it was too long. Now preventive detention would be limited to 48 hours.

Mr. Jimenez said another important element was the separation of the forensic medicine unit from the judicial system. It used to be under the police force, but it would be moved to the Ministry of the Interior, which was the body that defended human rights. There had been a privilege enjoyed by civil servants that they were not susceptible to lawsuits. That would be eliminated. There was also a change in the value of a confession. In the previous system, a confession was a serious prejudice. Now the only confession that was admissible was one made in front of lawyers, in other words, there would be no torture-induced confessions. Another important progressive step was the change in the law of violence against women and the family which offered protection to women and children. The State also had approved a decree that regulated the conduct of public officials -- it required education about protecting human rights. That would have a preventive effect.

There was a problem because of the economic situation in the country, the Deputy Minister said. There were no resources for the construction of new prisons which led to poor conditions. The State was looking for a new way to punish some prisoners. One of the objectives in the administrative field was easing the crowding of prisons. In the past year, 1,126 people were able to serve their sentences outside of prisons. The authorities were also considering the privatization of part of the prison services like dining rooms and medical care.

Under the new judicial procedure, a jury system would replace the unitary judge system, Mr. Jimenez said. In the case of torture, there were specific punishments for the perpetrators. Venezuela had established the inclusion of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights in the training of police officers. There were also going to be improved standards for entrance into the police force, including more stringent academic requirements. The Ministry of Education had also established compulsory human rights education in primary and secondary schools.

Mr. Jimenez said the new President had said he would give priority to human rights and since he took office, his actions had reflected that. The President had re-established the constitutional guarantees in the areas of the country near the Colombian border. Because of problems there stemming from the internal conflict in Colombia, constitutional guarantees had been suspended in the area for three years. There still could be isolated cases of acts carried out, but they did not reflect the policies of the State which was committed to protect human rights.

DISCUSSION

ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ POBLETE, who served as Committee rapporteur to the report, said it included a lot of information. The new draft law respected the provisions of the Convention with regard to torture. He hoped it would be accepted by the Venezuelan Parliament. It was pleasing to see the new Government prioritize the promotion and protection of human rights in Venezuela. The preventive detention change was a sign of great progress.

Mr. Gonzalez Poblete said this initial report had been awaited for many years by the Committee. The date for the second report had already expired, it should have had been given in 1996. The date for the third report was due in December. The report contained no description of the present situation with regards to practical application of the Convention. Neither was there any inclusion of relevant statistical data of the actual application of the Convention as required by the general guidelines. There was a practice in Venezuela where first people were detained and then they were investigated. It should be the opposite. It was hoped that this practice would change because it resulted in a high incidence of torture in Venezuela. According to figures that the Committee had, the practice of torture was extensive amongst the police and the armed forces in areas of emergency and conflict.

Only a few number of torture cases were denounced, he said. A report from one non-governmental organization that looked at the situation from 1992 to 1998 said that on the whole, there were thousands of cases of torture, with 26 resulting in death. That confirmed that torture was not a systematic procedure, but it also confirmed that it was not rare. The two bodies with the highest degree of torture were the bodies charged with investigation of crimes. That was a perversion of their function. The most frequent methods of torture were the well-known ones. It should be recognized that there had been a decrease in torture cases in recent years. This was to say that the procedural and legal code would not end this practice completely. It did not suffice to have good laws. It was an important step forward, but if it was not accompanied by a process of prosecution and control, the difference the laws would make would be lessened.

ANTONIO SILVA HENRIQUES GASPAR, who served as Committee co-rapporteur to the report, said the sincerity and frankness of the report should be applauded. It admitted to difficulties and instances of torture and there was a political will to put a stop to that. The main exercise of the Committee was to start a dialogue. It was not to judge or implicate anybody, but to find proper solutions to the problem.

Article 10 of the Convention was very important to this aspect, he said. Education was essential in the protection of human rights. Additional clarification about the training of police officials was needed, as was curricula of human rights, hours for the courses, and how often they were offered.

Mr. Gaspar said article 11 of the Convention required a monitoring of interrogations and the detention of prisoners. It appeared that this obligation had not been complied with because the report did not say what the measures taken were. Article 12 required States to carry out surveys when it was learned that torture was committed. This was not very well complied with either. Under the new judicial procedure, would the public prosecutor's office be able to carry out a special inquiry into police violence?

He said there needed to be additional explanation about the jurisdiction of the military. What was the breakdown of cases of ill-treatment versus torture?

Other Committee experts raised further questions about the education of medical personnel, compensation for victims of torture, trials in military courts, criminal liability of subordinates acting on orders from a superior, and how many commissions existed pertaining to the protection of women and children.