Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
16 November 1999
Share
MORNING
HR/CAT/99/37
16 November 1999
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS REPORT OF KYRGYZSTAN
Expressed Concern About Allegations of Militia's Use of "Casual Brutality"
The Committee against Torture this morning took up the initial report of Kyrgyzstan, which detailed steps taken to implement the provisions of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
In presenting the report, Mr. A. Sharshenaliev, Prosecutor General of the Kyrgyz Republic, described a number of steps taken to ensure a positive climate for human rights, including the establishment of a Commission on Human Rights. Other efforts were under way to ensure the rights of minorities. A moratorium had been established on supreme punishment. However, in spite of these and other steps, he said the country was in transition and, as such, was restricted by serious economic and social problems in the country.
Other members of the delegation included O. Kutuev, Minister of the Interior of the Kyrgyz Republic and Bakir Uulu, Chairman of the National Commission for Human Rights under the President of the Kyrgyz Republic.
Peter Burns, Chairman of the Committee and rapporteur for the report, noting allegations by the Kyrgyz Committee for Human Rights, said the cases mentioned had some alarming similarities. The report stated "the militia deal with the public with casual brutality." The dearth of medical evidence of torture was of concern, and there was the question about whether a detainee had the right to have access to a lawyer. Mr. Burns said he had the impression that the institutions were going through considerable changes in order to achieve the goals the Government wished. This would not happen overnight, he said, but he was "quite concerned" about allegations of torture and would like to know if the allegations were true.
Yu Mengjia, Vice-Chairman of the Committee and co-rapporteur to the report, said Kyrgyzstan had made an effort to improve human rights. He recognized the social and economic legacies the country had inherited which were not as favourable as one would wish. However, he said there remained a number of concerns; whatever the circumstances, there should be no excuses for torture. It was, he said, a scourge that needed to be eradicated.
The Committee will meet this afternoon when it will present its conclusions and recommendations to Peru and receive responses from Azerbaijan.
Report of Kyrgyzstan
The initial report of Kyrgyzstan (CAT/C/42/Add.1) reviews what the country has done in terms of promotion and protection of human rights. The report also describes Kyrgyzstan's attempts to comply with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Kyrgyzstan's initial report includes the terms for detention and punishment; the right of asylum for aliens; penalties for coercing testimony from a detained person; terms of extradition; and compensation of victims of torture.
Introduction to the Report
A. SHARSHENALIEV, Prosecutor General of the Kyrgyz Republic,
said human rights in his country was a priority for the country's domestic and international affairs. The Government had signed six international instruments covering all aspects of human rights.
Mr. Sharshenaliev then described a number of steps taken by the Government to ensure a positive climate for human rights. A Commission on Human Rights had been set up comprising of representatives of Parliament, as well as members of ministries and departments. The President of the Commission was a member of the delegation, he said. The Government had made it a priority to develop laws to assure the rights of minorities, and a moratorium had been established on supreme punishment.
The economy was in transition in this young state with a certain amount of crime and migration of peoples, the delegate said. As such, an absolute guarantee of the observance of social and economic rights -- including the right to work -- was not possible.
Discussion
PETER BURNS, the Committee's co-rapporteur to the report, said he had some conceptual difficulty with the report because Kyrgyzstan's institutions did not immediately lend themselves to a full extrapolation of the Convention. Mr. Burns then posed a number of questions that, he said, might illustrate his puzzlement.
Mr. Burns said the Committee had received a fair amount of material from NGOs which referred to a number of cases. While torture was prohibited, it did not seem to be defined in the criminal procedure. If this was so, how are people prosecuted for the crime if it was undefined? How could the Government report on the state of torture if there was no defined crime that enables the Government to gather statistics and rates?
Regarding the Constitutional article that stated fundamental rights were guaranteed, how could one assert that a person's human rights were guaranteed if there was a case involving litigation? How did Kyrgyzstan incorporate treaties into its domestic law? In terms of the restriction of human rights and freedom in the Republic, what were some examples of such restrictions and did they remain in force today?
Regarding the Human Rights Commission, if it had members of the government on its board, it could not be regarded as independent, he said. What was the function and power of the Commission? Who were its members? Does the head of the Commission function as a true Ombudsman?
Mr. Burns then asked several questions about the meaning of certain articles in the country's constitution including: While torture is prohibited, how was it implemented? What was meant that "no one shall be subject to arrest or detention except on the grounds of law"? What does the term "exceptional cases" mean, as described under the country's Constitution? What was the method of execution under the death penalty? What was understood by "systematic or brutal violence"? Was evidence obtained under force admissible in a court of law? Does a detained person have access to a lawyer and a medical officer of his own choosing? Mr. Burns said he had received a number of reports of people who had been beaten during detention, went without medical assistance, and then died as a result.
Was the prosecutor the judicial officer who ensured protection rather than a judge? What was the actual situation? Who appointed the prosecutor and how long was their tenure? The same question was asked in relation to judges.
In terms of conditions of detention, what was the nature of a punishment cell? What were the terms of pre-trial detention? What were the instructions given to police authorities and militia men? What training do they receive concerning human rights in general and torture in particular? What training do doctors receive during medical training to look for signs of torture?
Mr. Burns noted allegations by the Kyrgyz Committee for Human Rights that "have some basic similarities that are quite alarming". The report stated "the militia deals with the public with casual brutality”. In one case, it was alleged that a man was brutally beaten simply because the militia wished to assert its authority. Others, he said, complained of extortion, prompting the torture of some of them. If these reports were true, Mr. Burns said, there was an atmosphere of impunity; the State did little to follow-up on complaints which led to further brutalization of the victim. How did the State deal with complaints by the public against militia brutality? It appeared to be endemic.
Kyrgyz law appeared to be pretty good, he said, but the application of the law seemed to be lacking. The dearth of medical evidence was of concern. If a detainee had no access to medical treatment, this was as much a problem for the guards and police as it was for the detained. A medical report served as evidence of mistreatment.
Another concern Mr. Burns raised was access to a lawyer. How does a detainee get access to a lawyer and at what point? Was there a legal aid scheme and, if so, what was it? Mr. Burns said he had the impression the institutions were going to go through considerable changes in order to achieve the goals the Government wished. This would not happen overnight, he said. But he said he was "quite concerned" about allegations of torture and would like to know if the allegations were accurate.
YU MENGJIA, Vice-Chairman of the Committee and co-rapporteur to the report, said Kyrgyzstan had made an effort to improve human rights. He recognized the social and economic legacies the country had inherited were not as favourable as one would wish. These efforts were to be complimented, he said. However, there were a number of concerns. His questions were not meant to accuse but were, instead, intended to identify the actual conditions in order to provide suggestions to help the Government improve the service of the Convention.
Apart from the legislative effort, what were the principle achievements in the practical activities toward the eradication of torture? Mr. Yu said that the Committee had received reports of allegations that appeared to be quite serious in nature; they appeared to be instructive of the problems the Government was faced with. Some of these case resulted in the death of the victim. Were there other examples of more typical cases that showed how the Government was dealing with offenses of torture? Concerning news media reports of torture, were these reports investigated? If so, by who? Were there independent mechanisms to carry out investigations?
Do the perpetrators have impunity? Mr. Yu said that in one glaring case in the human rights reports, the perpetrator was reassigned and promoted. There were allegations that juvenile offenders -- some of them very young -- were confined together with adult criminals. In some cases, the children were alleged to have been tortured. If this was the case, what will be done about it? What is being done to cope with reports of serious over-crowding?
Mr. Yu said he was not unaware of the serious and complex tasks the country had taken as it went through a period of transition. According to one report, even police officers were underpaid. This adversely impacted the Government's efforts. Whatever the circumstances, there should be no excuses for torture, he said, and this scourge needed to be eradicated.
Other experts expressed sentiments of alarm and shock over the documents presented by NGOs about the victims and the methods used for torture. Concerns about the amnesty law were expressed. Another expert asked about the legal framework and practical mechanisms to ensure that the law was being implemented. He said he was unconvinced that there was the political volition to improve the human rights climate and much more needed to be done.
HR/CAT/99/37
16 November 1999
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS REPORT OF KYRGYZSTAN
Expressed Concern About Allegations of Militia's Use of "Casual Brutality"
The Committee against Torture this morning took up the initial report of Kyrgyzstan, which detailed steps taken to implement the provisions of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
In presenting the report, Mr. A. Sharshenaliev, Prosecutor General of the Kyrgyz Republic, described a number of steps taken to ensure a positive climate for human rights, including the establishment of a Commission on Human Rights. Other efforts were under way to ensure the rights of minorities. A moratorium had been established on supreme punishment. However, in spite of these and other steps, he said the country was in transition and, as such, was restricted by serious economic and social problems in the country.
Other members of the delegation included O. Kutuev, Minister of the Interior of the Kyrgyz Republic and Bakir Uulu, Chairman of the National Commission for Human Rights under the President of the Kyrgyz Republic.
Peter Burns, Chairman of the Committee and rapporteur for the report, noting allegations by the Kyrgyz Committee for Human Rights, said the cases mentioned had some alarming similarities. The report stated "the militia deal with the public with casual brutality." The dearth of medical evidence of torture was of concern, and there was the question about whether a detainee had the right to have access to a lawyer. Mr. Burns said he had the impression that the institutions were going through considerable changes in order to achieve the goals the Government wished. This would not happen overnight, he said, but he was "quite concerned" about allegations of torture and would like to know if the allegations were true.
Yu Mengjia, Vice-Chairman of the Committee and co-rapporteur to the report, said Kyrgyzstan had made an effort to improve human rights. He recognized the social and economic legacies the country had inherited which were not as favourable as one would wish. However, he said there remained a number of concerns; whatever the circumstances, there should be no excuses for torture. It was, he said, a scourge that needed to be eradicated.
The Committee will meet this afternoon when it will present its conclusions and recommendations to Peru and receive responses from Azerbaijan.
Report of Kyrgyzstan
The initial report of Kyrgyzstan (CAT/C/42/Add.1) reviews what the country has done in terms of promotion and protection of human rights. The report also describes Kyrgyzstan's attempts to comply with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Kyrgyzstan's initial report includes the terms for detention and punishment; the right of asylum for aliens; penalties for coercing testimony from a detained person; terms of extradition; and compensation of victims of torture.
Introduction to the Report
A. SHARSHENALIEV, Prosecutor General of the Kyrgyz Republic,
said human rights in his country was a priority for the country's domestic and international affairs. The Government had signed six international instruments covering all aspects of human rights.
Mr. Sharshenaliev then described a number of steps taken by the Government to ensure a positive climate for human rights. A Commission on Human Rights had been set up comprising of representatives of Parliament, as well as members of ministries and departments. The President of the Commission was a member of the delegation, he said. The Government had made it a priority to develop laws to assure the rights of minorities, and a moratorium had been established on supreme punishment.
The economy was in transition in this young state with a certain amount of crime and migration of peoples, the delegate said. As such, an absolute guarantee of the observance of social and economic rights -- including the right to work -- was not possible.
Discussion
PETER BURNS, the Committee's co-rapporteur to the report, said he had some conceptual difficulty with the report because Kyrgyzstan's institutions did not immediately lend themselves to a full extrapolation of the Convention. Mr. Burns then posed a number of questions that, he said, might illustrate his puzzlement.
Mr. Burns said the Committee had received a fair amount of material from NGOs which referred to a number of cases. While torture was prohibited, it did not seem to be defined in the criminal procedure. If this was so, how are people prosecuted for the crime if it was undefined? How could the Government report on the state of torture if there was no defined crime that enables the Government to gather statistics and rates?
Regarding the Constitutional article that stated fundamental rights were guaranteed, how could one assert that a person's human rights were guaranteed if there was a case involving litigation? How did Kyrgyzstan incorporate treaties into its domestic law? In terms of the restriction of human rights and freedom in the Republic, what were some examples of such restrictions and did they remain in force today?
Regarding the Human Rights Commission, if it had members of the government on its board, it could not be regarded as independent, he said. What was the function and power of the Commission? Who were its members? Does the head of the Commission function as a true Ombudsman?
Mr. Burns then asked several questions about the meaning of certain articles in the country's constitution including: While torture is prohibited, how was it implemented? What was meant that "no one shall be subject to arrest or detention except on the grounds of law"? What does the term "exceptional cases" mean, as described under the country's Constitution? What was the method of execution under the death penalty? What was understood by "systematic or brutal violence"? Was evidence obtained under force admissible in a court of law? Does a detained person have access to a lawyer and a medical officer of his own choosing? Mr. Burns said he had received a number of reports of people who had been beaten during detention, went without medical assistance, and then died as a result.
Was the prosecutor the judicial officer who ensured protection rather than a judge? What was the actual situation? Who appointed the prosecutor and how long was their tenure? The same question was asked in relation to judges.
In terms of conditions of detention, what was the nature of a punishment cell? What were the terms of pre-trial detention? What were the instructions given to police authorities and militia men? What training do they receive concerning human rights in general and torture in particular? What training do doctors receive during medical training to look for signs of torture?
Mr. Burns noted allegations by the Kyrgyz Committee for Human Rights that "have some basic similarities that are quite alarming". The report stated "the militia deals with the public with casual brutality”. In one case, it was alleged that a man was brutally beaten simply because the militia wished to assert its authority. Others, he said, complained of extortion, prompting the torture of some of them. If these reports were true, Mr. Burns said, there was an atmosphere of impunity; the State did little to follow-up on complaints which led to further brutalization of the victim. How did the State deal with complaints by the public against militia brutality? It appeared to be endemic.
Kyrgyz law appeared to be pretty good, he said, but the application of the law seemed to be lacking. The dearth of medical evidence was of concern. If a detainee had no access to medical treatment, this was as much a problem for the guards and police as it was for the detained. A medical report served as evidence of mistreatment.
Another concern Mr. Burns raised was access to a lawyer. How does a detainee get access to a lawyer and at what point? Was there a legal aid scheme and, if so, what was it? Mr. Burns said he had the impression the institutions were going to go through considerable changes in order to achieve the goals the Government wished. This would not happen overnight, he said. But he said he was "quite concerned" about allegations of torture and would like to know if the allegations were accurate.
YU MENGJIA, Vice-Chairman of the Committee and co-rapporteur to the report, said Kyrgyzstan had made an effort to improve human rights. He recognized the social and economic legacies the country had inherited were not as favourable as one would wish. These efforts were to be complimented, he said. However, there were a number of concerns. His questions were not meant to accuse but were, instead, intended to identify the actual conditions in order to provide suggestions to help the Government improve the service of the Convention.
Apart from the legislative effort, what were the principle achievements in the practical activities toward the eradication of torture? Mr. Yu said that the Committee had received reports of allegations that appeared to be quite serious in nature; they appeared to be instructive of the problems the Government was faced with. Some of these case resulted in the death of the victim. Were there other examples of more typical cases that showed how the Government was dealing with offenses of torture? Concerning news media reports of torture, were these reports investigated? If so, by who? Were there independent mechanisms to carry out investigations?
Do the perpetrators have impunity? Mr. Yu said that in one glaring case in the human rights reports, the perpetrator was reassigned and promoted. There were allegations that juvenile offenders -- some of them very young -- were confined together with adult criminals. In some cases, the children were alleged to have been tortured. If this was the case, what will be done about it? What is being done to cope with reports of serious over-crowding?
Mr. Yu said he was not unaware of the serious and complex tasks the country had taken as it went through a period of transition. According to one report, even police officers were underpaid. This adversely impacted the Government's efforts. Whatever the circumstances, there should be no excuses for torture, he said, and this scourge needed to be eradicated.
Other experts expressed sentiments of alarm and shock over the documents presented by NGOs about the victims and the methods used for torture. Concerns about the amnesty law were expressed. Another expert asked about the legal framework and practical mechanisms to ensure that the law was being implemented. He said he was unconvinced that there was the political volition to improve the human rights climate and much more needed to be done.