Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
23 March 2001
Share
Human Rights Committee
Seventy-first Session
23 March 2001
1906th Meeting (AM)*
The Human Rights Committee this morning began its consideration of the fourth periodic report of the Dominican Republic on its compliance with the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights.
In her opening statement, Rhady Abreau De Polanco, Ambassador of the Dominican Republic responsible for Human Rights in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, said the Dominican Republic was determined to continue implementing the provisions of the Covenant. Her country had made progress in guaranteeing full enjoyment of Human Rights to all inhabitants. In 1994, she noted, the national Constitution had been amended to provide for full independence of the judiciary. The judges of the Supreme Court, appointed with the participation of civil society, included five women, and an Office of the Ombudsman had been created.
Another member of the delegation said that, in line with domestic legislation, human rights of foreigners in the Dominican Republic were respected in the same way as they were for citizens. All rights were protected and defended by the relevant bodies. Another representative said measures had been taken in the Dominican Republic to address questions of family violence, access to credit and land for women, and increasing the quota of women in municipal posts.
A national plan for gender mainstreaming, training activities and awareness-raising in the judiciary had been adopted, she continued. A woman had been chosen to preside over Parliament and to be Vice-President of the Republic. There were four women Generals in her country, she added.
Following the delegation’s presentation, Committee members made comments and posed questions. While acknowledging the progress that had been made with regard to addressing human rights issues in the Dominican Republic, many speakers felt that the report had not been detailed enough and that more issues required clarification. Concern was expressed on, among other things, the issue of the Haitian population in the country, impunity of the police and armed forces and the role and function of police courts, prison reform and the problem of violence against women.
The Committee will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue its consideration of the report of the Dominican Republic.
Background
When the Human Rights Committee met this morning, it had before it the fourth periodic report of the Dominican Republic on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/DOM/99/3). The report states that the Dominican Republic is a party to the United Nations and Organization of American States human rights treaties and covenants. Those conventions have been ratified by Congress and therefore have the force of domestic law, in accordance with the Constitution.
The competent bodies in human rights matters are the judiciary and the Office of the Public Prosecutor, who is appointed by the President; the departments of Labour, Foreign Affairs, Health and Education, each of which is responsible for human rights in its own field; and the Department for the Promotion of Women, the Department for the Promotion of Youth and the Immigration Department. In 1999, the National Standing Commission on the Application of International Humanitarian Law was established. There is also a Department for the Prevention of Corruption, with responsibility for education, publication of documents and supervising State institutions.
In electoral matters, the report states, legislation had been enacted to allocate a quota of 25 per cent of elected offices to women. The death penalty was abolished in 1924. According to the General Education Act of 1997, education is a permanent non-negotiable human right. According to the Constitution, article 9 (g), “All residents of the Dominican Republic shall attend the country’s educational establishments in order to acquire at least an elementary education”.
The report states that there is no discrimination of any kind in the Dominican Republic. The principle of equality is enshrined in the Constitution. Aliens in the country enjoy the same civil rights as those granted to Dominicans by treaties with that alien’s State.
Equality between men and women in terms of the exercise of all the civil and political rights defined in the Covenant is guaranteed by, among other things, the Constitution, the Electoral Act, the Agrarian Reform Act, the Education Act and labour legislation.
Torture and harmful practices are prohibited under the Constitution. According to the Prison Reform Act, prisoners shall not be subjected to torture, ill treatment, harmful practices or humiliation of any kind. The Dominican Republic has replaced the penalty of hard labour by imprisonment.
There are some 11,000 prisoners in the Dominican Republic, of whom 76 per cent are in pre-trial detention, the report states. Any person detained illegally has the right to the remedy of habeas corpus. Nevertheless, the law states that if the judge considers there to be evidence of guilt, the person should continue to be detained even if the detention is illegal.
According to the report, the press has access to trials, except for reasons of morality, public order or national security, at the judge’s discretion. The country’s judges are elected by the Supreme Court of Justice, on the basis of competitive examinations, in the presence of the public and the press. The principle of presumption of innocence is enshrined in the Constitution and no one may be compelled to testify against himself or make a confession.
Freedom of worship and of opinion are also provided for in the Constitution, the report states. With regard to the family, the country’s Civil Code was amended to establish a regime of partnership between husbands and wives. It established equal rights and duties for both partners in respect of custody, maintenance, upbringing and guardianship.
The 1992 Labour Code prohibits children under the age of 14 from working and contains provisions to protect children, the report states. With regard to women’s equality, the report notes that 5 of the 16 members of the Supreme Court of Justice are women. Women hold 2 out of 30 seats in the Senate and 25 out of 149 seats in the lower chamber. Women hold 60 per cent of posts in the foreign service.
Opening Statement by Dominican Republic
RHADY ABREAU DE POLANCO, Ambassador of the Dominican Republic responsible for Human Rights in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, said the Dominican Republic was determined to continue implementing the provisions of the Covenant. Representatives from various institutions responsible for human rights were present and had come with the explicit instruction to answer all questions put to her country.
Her country had made progress in guaranteeing full enjoyment of human rights to all inhabitants. In 1994 the Constitution was amended to provide for full independence of the judiciary. The National Council of the Magistrate publicly elected judges of the Supreme Court, which included five women. Article 8 of the Constitution enshrined the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
She said an Office of the Ombudsman had been created, providing a body for complaints, free of charge, about violations of fundamental rights by public institutions or any illegal act committed by personnel of public institutions.
The Dominican Republic wished to build a fair and free society offering education and respect for human rights in the broadest sense. All foreign residents had the same guarantees as citizens. In conforming with the Optional Protocol of the Covenant, there had only been one case, and that had been settled.
Her country was also party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on Discrimination against Women. Her Government had taken many actions to strengthen the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW). Women had made progress towards equality. That equality was also guaranteed in the Constitution.
She said all cases of extra-judicial executions were investigated and did not remain unpunished. She added that there was an armed forces establishment for human rights to guarantee that all members were properly educated on the subject.
A compilation of international instruments on human rights had been published and distributed throughout the Dominican Republic, she said. The competence of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights was recognized. She reiterated that all present were willing and prepared to answer all questions.
Turning to questions posed in writing to the delegation by the Committee, she noted that the Office of Ombudsman had been set up to guarantee all foreign and national citizens free access to denounce alleged human rights violations. All foreigners had the same rights as nationals of the Dominican Republic.
JULIO CESAR CASTANOS GUZMAN (Dominican Republic) said that, in line with domestic legislation, aliens had the same rights as Dominicans. They had the right to sue and to buy and sell property. The human rights of foreigners were respected in the same way as they were for citizens. All rights were protected and defended by the relevant bodies. The Immigration Law established the categories of immigrants -- and non-immigrants -– such as seasonal agricultural workers, ships crews or individuals in transition.
He said the Legal Code made it possible for the national courts to apply a law within the whole of the country which had been passed abroad. Before such application, however, it was verified that such laws were in line with the Constitution and the national moral order.
With regard to questions asked about women’s rights, ANABELLA DE CASTRO (Dominican Republic), Advisor for Human Rights, said measures had been taken relating to family violence, access to credit and land for women, and increasing the quota of women in municipal posts. A national plan for gender mainstreaming, training activities and awareness-raising in the judiciary had been adopted. A woman had been chosen to preside over Parliament and to be Vice-President of the Republic. There were four women Generals in her country.
Regarding the disappearance of B. Mojica, she said the case was still being investigated. So far, it was clear that Mr. Mojica had had problems with neighbours. A few days after his disappearance, he was seen walking barefoot, obviously suffering from mental problems. The files of the investigation were open to the Committee, she said.
Answering a question about ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which seeks the abolition of the death penalty, she said ratification was before Parliament.
JOSE FRANCISCO GARCIA LARA (Dominican Republic), Sub-Director of the Legal Department of the National Police, answered a question about 200 persons who had been killed by the National Police in 1999. Since March 1999 until 21 April 2000, 222 infringements of the law had been recorded which had led to loss of life caused by the police. All cases had been investigated and sent to the police court. Crimes committed by the National Police exercising their duties come under the competence of the police court. Law 285, passed by the Parliament, provided for the police jurisdiction. For some time now, offices of prosecutors had been opened in police departments. Together with police commissioners, prosecutors had carried out investigations. He mentioned that crimes committed by members of police forces while not on duty led to suspension and cases were referred to ordinary courts. There had been hundreds of cases handled in that manner.
In view of the Committee’s comments on the provision of measures taken to tighten regulations governing the use of firearms by the police, he noted that the police force had recently instituted a Department of Internal Affairs, which coordinated anti-corruption activities. The Department planned to convert the national police into an institution beyond criticism.
The main objective, he said, was to look into the behaviour of each member of the police force, both on and off-duty, with a view to sanctioning any inappropriate behaviour. The higher echelons of the police force and the Government were in the process of reforming the structures of the force. A draft law had been submitted to the National Parliament containing proposed reforms.
He had recently participated in the first course on human rights given by a military institute on the subject of the justification of the police courts. A number of legal provisions had been considered, and it had been decided that those courts must be reformed. It had also been determined, among other things, that the courts should not meet in the same building as the police department. They were very much in favour of reforming, not dismantling, the police courts. He noted that there had been many cases where severe sentences had been handed down against members of the police force.
In response to a question on the institutional system which controlled the operational orders, training and disciplinary proceedings for the national police, he said the police mandate was given by the President of the Republic, independent of the Interior Ministry. As it now stood, the direct orders of the police were given by the Head of the Police Force. In the reform, the title, Head of the Police Force, would be changed to Director General, who would be assisted by a collegiate body. The draft reform, which included other changes, was currently going through Parliament. He then read a number of the police court’s decisions. The police courts, whose members were part of the force, often handed down severe punishment when criminal legislation had been violated, he stressed.
Answering a question about the number of persons currently held in pre-trial detention and exceptions to the 48-hour limit on detention, Mr. CASTANOS GUZMAN, said at the moment 13,000 people were in prison, 80 per cent of whom were in detention. There was an amnesty law and periodical pardons occurred. His country also had a habeus corpus law. Bail was obligatory. The Supreme Court had the power of review and could order cases re-opened when new facts came to light.
He said the 48-hour limit was a headache not only in his country but everywhere in the world. Police and judicial institutions complained that that time period was not always sufficient to carry out investigations. It was a constitutionally established time period, however, to protect the accused, and respect for that limit was increasingly improving. People could be released while investigations continued. The mentality surrounding arrests had also been improved. Increasingly, the police investigated crimes before making an arrest and imprisonment was now more related to scientific evidence.
Addressing the problem of the backlog of cases pending before the court, he said since 1997, a judicial revolution had taken place with a judicial reform, and the appointment, with participation of civil society, of an excellent Supreme Court. Internal improvements in proceedings had also been made. Time limits on investigations had been put in place. The backlog of the Supreme Court had been eliminated.
Regarding the registration of prisoners, he said there was a general directorate of prisoners -- a detailed list of entries and exits. The process was being improved by computerization. All matters related to human rights had been improving significantly, as had been acknowledged by the international community, he added.
The question of juvenile offenders was quite difficult because, for various reasons, more and more juveniles were becoming delinquents, he said. The country had specialized centres to host juvenile offenders, and there was a code concerning minors, which considered them as young people -- rather than adults -- for whom much had to be done, especially with regard to education. He added that there were many related programmes under way and that non-governmental organizations were operating in the country. He noted a programme in place which attempted to recover children in the street to turn them into productive members of society.
PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI of India, Committee Chairman, asked for a further clarification on question four on mechanisms in place to facilitate implementation of the views of the Committee under the First Optional Protocol on communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations.
Ms. ABREU DE POLANCO (Dominican Republic) said that when the Dominican Republic had ratified the Optional Protocol, it had done so in the certainty that it would recognize the views of the Committee. One case of the Dominican Republic had reached the Committee, but there were no other cases pending before the Committee. However, once any international instrument was ratified, it was transposed into national law, and there was an obligation to follow those laws.
Questions and Comments by Experts
An expert recognized the major efforts made by the Dominican Republic towards improving respect for human rights –- very important in a country where until recently it could be said that the shadow of authoritarianism was in place. He was aware that the objectives to ensure rights and freedoms were being pursued by the current Government. Despite progress, however, much remained to be done to implement the provisions of the Covenant. He felt that some areas of the report needed further elaboration.
He commented on the problems which arose given the presence of the Haitian population in the country. He said he was aware that improvements had been made, and that the work on the sugar cane plantations had lessened and that work had diversified. Among other things, he asked how many inspectors there were who monitored that work.
In the fight against impunity of the police and armed forces, progress had been made, he noted. He asked for clarification on two cases. There had been complaints of some 200 homicides mostly committed by the police and armed forces in 1999 and that there were approximately the same number of cases in 2000. He wished to know the outcome of the investigations into those cases.
He said he was not convinced that the police courts were abiding by the relevant principles arising from the Covenant. He said he could not understand why police offenders, on or off-duty, were not judged by civil courts. He also asked for more information regarding specific cases of extra-judicial killings.
A lot of sources suggested that there were applications of excessive torture by the police and armed forces, he noted. What measures were being taken to fight against that scourge? he asked. The situation of prisons in the country represented degrading and inhuman treatment, he added. He asked for further information in that regard. The Government had said it was going to undertake prison reform. What deadlines had been set?
He asked what the policy of the Government was in regard to expulsions, particularly of Haitians, and whether mass expulsions would be continued. He also asked what measures the Government would take to ensure that violators of human rights crimes would be judged in ordinary courts and not in police or military courts. Regarding recruitment for the armed forces, he asked if conscientious objectors were recognized if military service was compulsory.
Another expert said she was disappointed by the lack of information in the report. What little information there was simply showed that situations in the Dominican Republic were inconsistent with provisions of the Covenant. She asked what the hierarchy in the law was regarding the Covenant and whether judges were trained sufficiently to apply the Covenant directly. She also asked what mechanisms were available to implement the views of the Committee.
She wanted to know more about the overall situation of women’s rights. Four or five laws had been mentioned, but the answer did not provide an overview of women’s situation, including violence against women and women’s possibility to participate in society on an equal footing with men, among other things. She also asked questions about the necessity of police courts and the case status of the 229 deaths at the hands of police forces.
She also asked questions regarding the average period of detention, availability of habeus corpus recourse for detainees and separation of detainees from prisoners, and the rights of aliens, particularly non-immigrant aliens.
Given the fact that the fourth periodic report of the country was being considered, an expert noted the continuing interest of the Dominican Republic in the exchange of views. He said, however, that the report left much to be desired. A periodic report should focus on the most serious issues -- such as the question of police courts and the judicial system. The issue of extra-judicial killing was also not given much space. There was a lack of basic information. It was the obligation of the State party to report in a way that gave the Committee the information it needed.
There must be some mechanism in place to implement the views of the Committee, he said. What happened when the Government received opinions from the Committee? he asked. Which ministry was responsible? Was it discussed in the Government? He sought further clarification on the concept of “transit aliens” -- what did the concept mean? Transit usually meant a short time, but it seemed also to be applied to people in the country for 10 years or longer.
He had listened carefully to what the delegation had said on the police courts. There must be a reason to have established the courts. What was it?
He also asked what the application of the relevant law on torture and arbitrary detention was. He had been pleased to learn that a prison register existed -- was it accessible to the public? He was concerned about the role of the military within the country’s security forces and sought further clarification on what they did. If they violated the law, were they tried by military courts?
There were considerable gaps between the normative standard of the Covenant and the situation “on the ground” in the country. More energy should be expended to fill the gap.
Another expert said the report was so lacking in detail and substantiation that it was really impossible for the Committee to judge whether or not the Dominican Republic was complying with its obligations or not. It was not sufficient, he stressed, to cite constitutional provisions and laws.
He sought further clarification on the question of women’s equality with regard to education, pay level, and standing in civil society and the private sector. The limited information provided in the report was not sufficient to permit the Committee to arrive at any determination on the issue.
He also asked for further information regarding the national institutions or agencies to monitor implementation of the Covenant’s provisions. Passing reference had been made to the Ombudsman’s Office, but nothing had been said about, for example, its jurisdiction. No indication had been given of whether an effort had been made to ensure impartial and transparent investigations of alleged police violations, he added.
An expert said it was not always easy to change the legacies of the past, and he had the impression that that was the case here as well. He asked whether sentence and leniency would have been different if cases put before the police courts would have been put before a civil court. He also asked why the percentage of those held awaiting trial had increased and what the future trend would be. Regarding prison overcrowding, he wanted to know whether juveniles were held in the same cells as adults.
Another expert said that according to guidelines for drawing up the report, the State party should also describe the factual situation, which in this case had not been done. The report therefore lacked credibility. He had the impression that the police had the discretion to arrest anybody for 48 hours, and that the 48-hour rule was not always complied with, and asked what the grounds were to arrest a person without a warrant and what mechanisms existed to make sure that the police complied with the 48-hour rule. He also asked questions about the discretion a judge had to allow bail and about the reasonability of the amount of bail.
An expert said he had a feeling of great dissatisfaction regarding the implementation of the outcome of the Committee’s consideration of the Dominican Republic’s third periodic report. There were many areas of real concern, he said, citing the conditions in prisons and issues relating to equality. He asked if there were any other kinds of special courts besides the military and police courts. He also asked why police courts were necessary. Were the courts open to the public and, if not, why weren’t they? He could not understand why there was a special procedure to try police officers.
The existence of so many pre-trial detainees affected the country’s implementation of the Covenant. What resources were open to such people? Under article 14 of the Covenant, a person must be tried without undue delay – that was not a relative period of time. He asked for further information on the practical application of the Covenant.
An expert said he had listened with interest to the delegation, particularly since reforms had been announced and a new course taken. Reading the report, however, he had a number of reservations and questions in his mind. The information provided had been very limited from a legal point of view and lacked facts. Why had such a limited report been presented? he asked. Had the Dominican Republic really wanted to inform the Committee on how it was giving effect to the principles of the Covenant? he wondered.
He too asked if there was any other exceptional jurisdiction in the country. He still did not understand what it was about the functioning of those jurisdictions that made them necessary.
He expressed concern at the high percentage of pre-trial detainees. Amnesty and pardons, when implemented, could only relate to those who had been sentenced, he noted, meaning the majority would not be affected by such measures. There was apparently no separation between the sentenced and non-sentenced, young and old, in prisons -- that was also a cause for concern.
The subject of police arrests and supervision of their work remained vague, he said. Wrongly or rightly, the Committee had the impression that freedom in the country was subject to a number of outrages, which also affected aliens. There was little in the report, he added, regarding equality between men and women. Among other things, there was no reference to the kind of employment enjoyed by women. He wondered if the Government could pay more attention to women’s issues and adopt anti-discrimination measures.
He noted that in cases of accusation of corruption, civil service employees were presumed to be guilty -- no matter what the charge or their level of responsibility. They were citizens with the same rights as everyone else, he noted. Such a presumption of guilt went against the principles of the Covenant.
An expert thanked the delegation for the regular submission of reports, but shared the general feeling of disappointment in the current report. He said the status of the Covenant in the national law was not clear. What prevailed if contradictory provisions existed between treaties and national law? He also required information about conditions to be met for acquiring naturalization or permanent residency. He understood that Haitians married with Dominicans often did not register births of their children and wondered what the legal status of those children was and whether their situation was different from that of non-registered children born of Dominican parents.
Regarding the presumption of innocence, he asked what criteria judges used to determine the illegality of detention and evidence of guilt. He also asked for information on procedures and requirements to form trade unions and whether trade unions had the right to collective bargaining.
Another expert asked what the general thinking in the institution of the Dominican Republic was regarding the police. Was it recognized as a civilian body, or was it seen as part of the military forces?
________
*The 1903rd , 1904th and 1905th meetings of the Human Rights Committee were closed.
* *** *
Seventy-first Session
23 March 2001
1906th Meeting (AM)*
The Human Rights Committee this morning began its consideration of the fourth periodic report of the Dominican Republic on its compliance with the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights.
In her opening statement, Rhady Abreau De Polanco, Ambassador of the Dominican Republic responsible for Human Rights in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, said the Dominican Republic was determined to continue implementing the provisions of the Covenant. Her country had made progress in guaranteeing full enjoyment of Human Rights to all inhabitants. In 1994, she noted, the national Constitution had been amended to provide for full independence of the judiciary. The judges of the Supreme Court, appointed with the participation of civil society, included five women, and an Office of the Ombudsman had been created.
Another member of the delegation said that, in line with domestic legislation, human rights of foreigners in the Dominican Republic were respected in the same way as they were for citizens. All rights were protected and defended by the relevant bodies. Another representative said measures had been taken in the Dominican Republic to address questions of family violence, access to credit and land for women, and increasing the quota of women in municipal posts.
A national plan for gender mainstreaming, training activities and awareness-raising in the judiciary had been adopted, she continued. A woman had been chosen to preside over Parliament and to be Vice-President of the Republic. There were four women Generals in her country, she added.
Following the delegation’s presentation, Committee members made comments and posed questions. While acknowledging the progress that had been made with regard to addressing human rights issues in the Dominican Republic, many speakers felt that the report had not been detailed enough and that more issues required clarification. Concern was expressed on, among other things, the issue of the Haitian population in the country, impunity of the police and armed forces and the role and function of police courts, prison reform and the problem of violence against women.
The Committee will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue its consideration of the report of the Dominican Republic.
Background
When the Human Rights Committee met this morning, it had before it the fourth periodic report of the Dominican Republic on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/DOM/99/3). The report states that the Dominican Republic is a party to the United Nations and Organization of American States human rights treaties and covenants. Those conventions have been ratified by Congress and therefore have the force of domestic law, in accordance with the Constitution.
The competent bodies in human rights matters are the judiciary and the Office of the Public Prosecutor, who is appointed by the President; the departments of Labour, Foreign Affairs, Health and Education, each of which is responsible for human rights in its own field; and the Department for the Promotion of Women, the Department for the Promotion of Youth and the Immigration Department. In 1999, the National Standing Commission on the Application of International Humanitarian Law was established. There is also a Department for the Prevention of Corruption, with responsibility for education, publication of documents and supervising State institutions.
In electoral matters, the report states, legislation had been enacted to allocate a quota of 25 per cent of elected offices to women. The death penalty was abolished in 1924. According to the General Education Act of 1997, education is a permanent non-negotiable human right. According to the Constitution, article 9 (g), “All residents of the Dominican Republic shall attend the country’s educational establishments in order to acquire at least an elementary education”.
The report states that there is no discrimination of any kind in the Dominican Republic. The principle of equality is enshrined in the Constitution. Aliens in the country enjoy the same civil rights as those granted to Dominicans by treaties with that alien’s State.
Equality between men and women in terms of the exercise of all the civil and political rights defined in the Covenant is guaranteed by, among other things, the Constitution, the Electoral Act, the Agrarian Reform Act, the Education Act and labour legislation.
Torture and harmful practices are prohibited under the Constitution. According to the Prison Reform Act, prisoners shall not be subjected to torture, ill treatment, harmful practices or humiliation of any kind. The Dominican Republic has replaced the penalty of hard labour by imprisonment.
There are some 11,000 prisoners in the Dominican Republic, of whom 76 per cent are in pre-trial detention, the report states. Any person detained illegally has the right to the remedy of habeas corpus. Nevertheless, the law states that if the judge considers there to be evidence of guilt, the person should continue to be detained even if the detention is illegal.
According to the report, the press has access to trials, except for reasons of morality, public order or national security, at the judge’s discretion. The country’s judges are elected by the Supreme Court of Justice, on the basis of competitive examinations, in the presence of the public and the press. The principle of presumption of innocence is enshrined in the Constitution and no one may be compelled to testify against himself or make a confession.
Freedom of worship and of opinion are also provided for in the Constitution, the report states. With regard to the family, the country’s Civil Code was amended to establish a regime of partnership between husbands and wives. It established equal rights and duties for both partners in respect of custody, maintenance, upbringing and guardianship.
The 1992 Labour Code prohibits children under the age of 14 from working and contains provisions to protect children, the report states. With regard to women’s equality, the report notes that 5 of the 16 members of the Supreme Court of Justice are women. Women hold 2 out of 30 seats in the Senate and 25 out of 149 seats in the lower chamber. Women hold 60 per cent of posts in the foreign service.
Opening Statement by Dominican Republic
RHADY ABREAU DE POLANCO, Ambassador of the Dominican Republic responsible for Human Rights in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, said the Dominican Republic was determined to continue implementing the provisions of the Covenant. Representatives from various institutions responsible for human rights were present and had come with the explicit instruction to answer all questions put to her country.
Her country had made progress in guaranteeing full enjoyment of human rights to all inhabitants. In 1994 the Constitution was amended to provide for full independence of the judiciary. The National Council of the Magistrate publicly elected judges of the Supreme Court, which included five women. Article 8 of the Constitution enshrined the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
She said an Office of the Ombudsman had been created, providing a body for complaints, free of charge, about violations of fundamental rights by public institutions or any illegal act committed by personnel of public institutions.
The Dominican Republic wished to build a fair and free society offering education and respect for human rights in the broadest sense. All foreign residents had the same guarantees as citizens. In conforming with the Optional Protocol of the Covenant, there had only been one case, and that had been settled.
Her country was also party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on Discrimination against Women. Her Government had taken many actions to strengthen the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW). Women had made progress towards equality. That equality was also guaranteed in the Constitution.
She said all cases of extra-judicial executions were investigated and did not remain unpunished. She added that there was an armed forces establishment for human rights to guarantee that all members were properly educated on the subject.
A compilation of international instruments on human rights had been published and distributed throughout the Dominican Republic, she said. The competence of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights was recognized. She reiterated that all present were willing and prepared to answer all questions.
Turning to questions posed in writing to the delegation by the Committee, she noted that the Office of Ombudsman had been set up to guarantee all foreign and national citizens free access to denounce alleged human rights violations. All foreigners had the same rights as nationals of the Dominican Republic.
JULIO CESAR CASTANOS GUZMAN (Dominican Republic) said that, in line with domestic legislation, aliens had the same rights as Dominicans. They had the right to sue and to buy and sell property. The human rights of foreigners were respected in the same way as they were for citizens. All rights were protected and defended by the relevant bodies. The Immigration Law established the categories of immigrants -- and non-immigrants -– such as seasonal agricultural workers, ships crews or individuals in transition.
He said the Legal Code made it possible for the national courts to apply a law within the whole of the country which had been passed abroad. Before such application, however, it was verified that such laws were in line with the Constitution and the national moral order.
With regard to questions asked about women’s rights, ANABELLA DE CASTRO (Dominican Republic), Advisor for Human Rights, said measures had been taken relating to family violence, access to credit and land for women, and increasing the quota of women in municipal posts. A national plan for gender mainstreaming, training activities and awareness-raising in the judiciary had been adopted. A woman had been chosen to preside over Parliament and to be Vice-President of the Republic. There were four women Generals in her country.
Regarding the disappearance of B. Mojica, she said the case was still being investigated. So far, it was clear that Mr. Mojica had had problems with neighbours. A few days after his disappearance, he was seen walking barefoot, obviously suffering from mental problems. The files of the investigation were open to the Committee, she said.
Answering a question about ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which seeks the abolition of the death penalty, she said ratification was before Parliament.
JOSE FRANCISCO GARCIA LARA (Dominican Republic), Sub-Director of the Legal Department of the National Police, answered a question about 200 persons who had been killed by the National Police in 1999. Since March 1999 until 21 April 2000, 222 infringements of the law had been recorded which had led to loss of life caused by the police. All cases had been investigated and sent to the police court. Crimes committed by the National Police exercising their duties come under the competence of the police court. Law 285, passed by the Parliament, provided for the police jurisdiction. For some time now, offices of prosecutors had been opened in police departments. Together with police commissioners, prosecutors had carried out investigations. He mentioned that crimes committed by members of police forces while not on duty led to suspension and cases were referred to ordinary courts. There had been hundreds of cases handled in that manner.
In view of the Committee’s comments on the provision of measures taken to tighten regulations governing the use of firearms by the police, he noted that the police force had recently instituted a Department of Internal Affairs, which coordinated anti-corruption activities. The Department planned to convert the national police into an institution beyond criticism.
The main objective, he said, was to look into the behaviour of each member of the police force, both on and off-duty, with a view to sanctioning any inappropriate behaviour. The higher echelons of the police force and the Government were in the process of reforming the structures of the force. A draft law had been submitted to the National Parliament containing proposed reforms.
He had recently participated in the first course on human rights given by a military institute on the subject of the justification of the police courts. A number of legal provisions had been considered, and it had been decided that those courts must be reformed. It had also been determined, among other things, that the courts should not meet in the same building as the police department. They were very much in favour of reforming, not dismantling, the police courts. He noted that there had been many cases where severe sentences had been handed down against members of the police force.
In response to a question on the institutional system which controlled the operational orders, training and disciplinary proceedings for the national police, he said the police mandate was given by the President of the Republic, independent of the Interior Ministry. As it now stood, the direct orders of the police were given by the Head of the Police Force. In the reform, the title, Head of the Police Force, would be changed to Director General, who would be assisted by a collegiate body. The draft reform, which included other changes, was currently going through Parliament. He then read a number of the police court’s decisions. The police courts, whose members were part of the force, often handed down severe punishment when criminal legislation had been violated, he stressed.
Answering a question about the number of persons currently held in pre-trial detention and exceptions to the 48-hour limit on detention, Mr. CASTANOS GUZMAN, said at the moment 13,000 people were in prison, 80 per cent of whom were in detention. There was an amnesty law and periodical pardons occurred. His country also had a habeus corpus law. Bail was obligatory. The Supreme Court had the power of review and could order cases re-opened when new facts came to light.
He said the 48-hour limit was a headache not only in his country but everywhere in the world. Police and judicial institutions complained that that time period was not always sufficient to carry out investigations. It was a constitutionally established time period, however, to protect the accused, and respect for that limit was increasingly improving. People could be released while investigations continued. The mentality surrounding arrests had also been improved. Increasingly, the police investigated crimes before making an arrest and imprisonment was now more related to scientific evidence.
Addressing the problem of the backlog of cases pending before the court, he said since 1997, a judicial revolution had taken place with a judicial reform, and the appointment, with participation of civil society, of an excellent Supreme Court. Internal improvements in proceedings had also been made. Time limits on investigations had been put in place. The backlog of the Supreme Court had been eliminated.
Regarding the registration of prisoners, he said there was a general directorate of prisoners -- a detailed list of entries and exits. The process was being improved by computerization. All matters related to human rights had been improving significantly, as had been acknowledged by the international community, he added.
The question of juvenile offenders was quite difficult because, for various reasons, more and more juveniles were becoming delinquents, he said. The country had specialized centres to host juvenile offenders, and there was a code concerning minors, which considered them as young people -- rather than adults -- for whom much had to be done, especially with regard to education. He added that there were many related programmes under way and that non-governmental organizations were operating in the country. He noted a programme in place which attempted to recover children in the street to turn them into productive members of society.
PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI of India, Committee Chairman, asked for a further clarification on question four on mechanisms in place to facilitate implementation of the views of the Committee under the First Optional Protocol on communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations.
Ms. ABREU DE POLANCO (Dominican Republic) said that when the Dominican Republic had ratified the Optional Protocol, it had done so in the certainty that it would recognize the views of the Committee. One case of the Dominican Republic had reached the Committee, but there were no other cases pending before the Committee. However, once any international instrument was ratified, it was transposed into national law, and there was an obligation to follow those laws.
Questions and Comments by Experts
An expert recognized the major efforts made by the Dominican Republic towards improving respect for human rights –- very important in a country where until recently it could be said that the shadow of authoritarianism was in place. He was aware that the objectives to ensure rights and freedoms were being pursued by the current Government. Despite progress, however, much remained to be done to implement the provisions of the Covenant. He felt that some areas of the report needed further elaboration.
He commented on the problems which arose given the presence of the Haitian population in the country. He said he was aware that improvements had been made, and that the work on the sugar cane plantations had lessened and that work had diversified. Among other things, he asked how many inspectors there were who monitored that work.
In the fight against impunity of the police and armed forces, progress had been made, he noted. He asked for clarification on two cases. There had been complaints of some 200 homicides mostly committed by the police and armed forces in 1999 and that there were approximately the same number of cases in 2000. He wished to know the outcome of the investigations into those cases.
He said he was not convinced that the police courts were abiding by the relevant principles arising from the Covenant. He said he could not understand why police offenders, on or off-duty, were not judged by civil courts. He also asked for more information regarding specific cases of extra-judicial killings.
A lot of sources suggested that there were applications of excessive torture by the police and armed forces, he noted. What measures were being taken to fight against that scourge? he asked. The situation of prisons in the country represented degrading and inhuman treatment, he added. He asked for further information in that regard. The Government had said it was going to undertake prison reform. What deadlines had been set?
He asked what the policy of the Government was in regard to expulsions, particularly of Haitians, and whether mass expulsions would be continued. He also asked what measures the Government would take to ensure that violators of human rights crimes would be judged in ordinary courts and not in police or military courts. Regarding recruitment for the armed forces, he asked if conscientious objectors were recognized if military service was compulsory.
Another expert said she was disappointed by the lack of information in the report. What little information there was simply showed that situations in the Dominican Republic were inconsistent with provisions of the Covenant. She asked what the hierarchy in the law was regarding the Covenant and whether judges were trained sufficiently to apply the Covenant directly. She also asked what mechanisms were available to implement the views of the Committee.
She wanted to know more about the overall situation of women’s rights. Four or five laws had been mentioned, but the answer did not provide an overview of women’s situation, including violence against women and women’s possibility to participate in society on an equal footing with men, among other things. She also asked questions about the necessity of police courts and the case status of the 229 deaths at the hands of police forces.
She also asked questions regarding the average period of detention, availability of habeus corpus recourse for detainees and separation of detainees from prisoners, and the rights of aliens, particularly non-immigrant aliens.
Given the fact that the fourth periodic report of the country was being considered, an expert noted the continuing interest of the Dominican Republic in the exchange of views. He said, however, that the report left much to be desired. A periodic report should focus on the most serious issues -- such as the question of police courts and the judicial system. The issue of extra-judicial killing was also not given much space. There was a lack of basic information. It was the obligation of the State party to report in a way that gave the Committee the information it needed.
There must be some mechanism in place to implement the views of the Committee, he said. What happened when the Government received opinions from the Committee? he asked. Which ministry was responsible? Was it discussed in the Government? He sought further clarification on the concept of “transit aliens” -- what did the concept mean? Transit usually meant a short time, but it seemed also to be applied to people in the country for 10 years or longer.
He had listened carefully to what the delegation had said on the police courts. There must be a reason to have established the courts. What was it?
He also asked what the application of the relevant law on torture and arbitrary detention was. He had been pleased to learn that a prison register existed -- was it accessible to the public? He was concerned about the role of the military within the country’s security forces and sought further clarification on what they did. If they violated the law, were they tried by military courts?
There were considerable gaps between the normative standard of the Covenant and the situation “on the ground” in the country. More energy should be expended to fill the gap.
Another expert said the report was so lacking in detail and substantiation that it was really impossible for the Committee to judge whether or not the Dominican Republic was complying with its obligations or not. It was not sufficient, he stressed, to cite constitutional provisions and laws.
He sought further clarification on the question of women’s equality with regard to education, pay level, and standing in civil society and the private sector. The limited information provided in the report was not sufficient to permit the Committee to arrive at any determination on the issue.
He also asked for further information regarding the national institutions or agencies to monitor implementation of the Covenant’s provisions. Passing reference had been made to the Ombudsman’s Office, but nothing had been said about, for example, its jurisdiction. No indication had been given of whether an effort had been made to ensure impartial and transparent investigations of alleged police violations, he added.
An expert said it was not always easy to change the legacies of the past, and he had the impression that that was the case here as well. He asked whether sentence and leniency would have been different if cases put before the police courts would have been put before a civil court. He also asked why the percentage of those held awaiting trial had increased and what the future trend would be. Regarding prison overcrowding, he wanted to know whether juveniles were held in the same cells as adults.
Another expert said that according to guidelines for drawing up the report, the State party should also describe the factual situation, which in this case had not been done. The report therefore lacked credibility. He had the impression that the police had the discretion to arrest anybody for 48 hours, and that the 48-hour rule was not always complied with, and asked what the grounds were to arrest a person without a warrant and what mechanisms existed to make sure that the police complied with the 48-hour rule. He also asked questions about the discretion a judge had to allow bail and about the reasonability of the amount of bail.
An expert said he had a feeling of great dissatisfaction regarding the implementation of the outcome of the Committee’s consideration of the Dominican Republic’s third periodic report. There were many areas of real concern, he said, citing the conditions in prisons and issues relating to equality. He asked if there were any other kinds of special courts besides the military and police courts. He also asked why police courts were necessary. Were the courts open to the public and, if not, why weren’t they? He could not understand why there was a special procedure to try police officers.
The existence of so many pre-trial detainees affected the country’s implementation of the Covenant. What resources were open to such people? Under article 14 of the Covenant, a person must be tried without undue delay – that was not a relative period of time. He asked for further information on the practical application of the Covenant.
An expert said he had listened with interest to the delegation, particularly since reforms had been announced and a new course taken. Reading the report, however, he had a number of reservations and questions in his mind. The information provided had been very limited from a legal point of view and lacked facts. Why had such a limited report been presented? he asked. Had the Dominican Republic really wanted to inform the Committee on how it was giving effect to the principles of the Covenant? he wondered.
He too asked if there was any other exceptional jurisdiction in the country. He still did not understand what it was about the functioning of those jurisdictions that made them necessary.
He expressed concern at the high percentage of pre-trial detainees. Amnesty and pardons, when implemented, could only relate to those who had been sentenced, he noted, meaning the majority would not be affected by such measures. There was apparently no separation between the sentenced and non-sentenced, young and old, in prisons -- that was also a cause for concern.
The subject of police arrests and supervision of their work remained vague, he said. Wrongly or rightly, the Committee had the impression that freedom in the country was subject to a number of outrages, which also affected aliens. There was little in the report, he added, regarding equality between men and women. Among other things, there was no reference to the kind of employment enjoyed by women. He wondered if the Government could pay more attention to women’s issues and adopt anti-discrimination measures.
He noted that in cases of accusation of corruption, civil service employees were presumed to be guilty -- no matter what the charge or their level of responsibility. They were citizens with the same rights as everyone else, he noted. Such a presumption of guilt went against the principles of the Covenant.
An expert thanked the delegation for the regular submission of reports, but shared the general feeling of disappointment in the current report. He said the status of the Covenant in the national law was not clear. What prevailed if contradictory provisions existed between treaties and national law? He also required information about conditions to be met for acquiring naturalization or permanent residency. He understood that Haitians married with Dominicans often did not register births of their children and wondered what the legal status of those children was and whether their situation was different from that of non-registered children born of Dominican parents.
Regarding the presumption of innocence, he asked what criteria judges used to determine the illegality of detention and evidence of guilt. He also asked for information on procedures and requirements to form trade unions and whether trade unions had the right to collective bargaining.
Another expert asked what the general thinking in the institution of the Dominican Republic was regarding the police. Was it recognized as a civilian body, or was it seen as part of the military forces?
________
*The 1903rd , 1904th and 1905th meetings of the Human Rights Committee were closed.
* *** *