Informal note on the press conference by Mr. Nigel Rodley, Special Rapporteur on Torture

2 April 1998


Drawing attention to some points in his report Mr. Nigel Rodley, Special Rapporteur on Torture, said that during the past year, he sent 48 letters to 45 Governments on behalf of 380 individuals and 24 groups involving about 655 persons. He also transmitted 119 urgent appeals to 45 countries on behalf of some 563 individuals (at least 19 known to be women and 9 known to be minors), as well as 22 groups of persons (one involving about 780 children) with regard to whom fears that they might have been subjected to torture had been expressed.

Mr. Rodley said he had not produced this year the usual long list of recommendations as in previous years. The standard recommendations found in a report issued a few years ago remained as valid as they ever did. The use of prolonged incommunicado detention was still a problem and facilitated the torture of persons deprived of their liberty. As long as States permitted prolonged incommunicado detention, either de jure or de facto, they were also creating the pre-conditions for torture to take place, whether they formally wished it to happen or not. Moreover, if impunity persisted; if those responsible for detention and interrogation were not held accountable nor brought to justice for committing crimes under national and international law the system was acquiescing to torture. This had been the case and remained the case.

In his report this year, Mr. Rodley said he tried to look at what the international community could do to try and make a dent in the problem of impunity. He looked in particular at international and universal jurisdiction. The former concerned the proposal for an International Criminal Court, which was currently under discussion. There was going to be a diplomatic conference in Rome with a view to establishing a statute for such a Court. It would, almost certainly, have within its mandate the right to try war crimes and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, which would include persons convicted of torture in armed conflicts. It would also have a right to try crimes against humanity, which would mean serious human rights crimes, certainly including torture committed on a widespread or systematic basis, even unconnected with armed conflict in a “peace time” situation.

Mr. Rodley said he was not “rose starry eyed” about the ability of any such Court to get its hands on war criminals and criminals against humanity around the world over night. The existence of that Court, however, would act as some kind of symbolism and potentially some kind of deterrent. Such criminals would no longer be able to enjoy the immunity and impunity enjoyed at home. It would also be difficult for countries and peace makers to negotiate a spurious peace, by trading peace off against justice. With an International Criminal Court perpetrators of international law would be brought to justice.

Concerning universal jurisdiction, Mr. Rodley said it was already envisaged as regarded the State parties to the Convention Against Torture. It meant that any State, where a suspected case of torture happened to be found, could and should exercise jurisdiction over that person, unless extradited to another State intending to exercise jurisdiction. There should be a system in place, either in through an international institution, such as the Criminal Court or amongst all individual countries to ensure that there was no safe haven for torturers who committed crimes in their own country. Mr. Rodley also noted the practice of torture was still depressingly widespread after 13 years of the mandate. He regretted he could not recommend termination of the mandate.

Responding to a question on a possible visit to Algeria, Mr. Rodley said the state of play was that last year, in a letter sent to the Government of Algeria, he had suggested the Government might care to invite him for a visit. This was followed by a meeting with the Ambassador at the Permanent Mission in Geneva. The focus of this constructive discussion was the possibility of a joint mission with the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Summary and Arbitrary Executions, who, as he understood, had already been formerly invited by the Algerian Government. The next step was to be discussion with a Minister, during this session of the Commission, with a view to setting dates. So far, it had not been possible to take that discussion forward, despite requests to the Algerian Mission for him to visit them.

Asked whether he was being given the “run around”, Mr. Rodley said he always wanted to be optimistic that the initial commitment to cooperate with UN machinery had not changed and that it would be possible to discuss the establishment of a mission. His optimism, however, had to be somewhat reduced by the fact he was finding it difficult to maintain the dialogue.

Continuing questions on Algeria, a correspondent asked if the Special Rapporteur was able to look at acts of torture by non-State actors. Responding, Mr. Rodley said, as he had mentioned in an earlier report, that he did not do so, unless the Commission on Human Rights indicated otherwise, which, so far, it had not done. It was a very important part of the context and if he was to go on a mission he would try to reflect that reality. The Governments themselves would think twice before calling on the Special Rapporteurs to treat armed opposition groups with the same kind of dignity as they treated Governments, he added.

A correspondent asked for the results of the Special Rapporteur’s trip to Mexico; had he heard from the Government, were any of his recommendations being taken into account? Mr. Rodley said the short answer was “no”. Although the Government was provided with an informal copy, it had only received the official report a few days ago. The Ambassador of Mexico had said to the Commission yesterday, that it was not long enough for the Government to formulate a formal response. In his statement, the Ambassador had indicated he would take the recommendations very seriously and study them attentively. Mr. Rodley hoped this would lead to implementation of his recommendations. The ultimate goal was indeed for positive action to be carried out by the Government.

Responding to a question on a potential visit to Turkey, Mr. Rodley said the Turks had formerly invited him to the country during the second week of November. A week was not enough, he added and said he had made this clear to the Turkish Government and the Commission. This would be his first visit to the country.

A correspondent asked why Turkey had invited him and whether a report on torture would have some form of remedial effect. Responding, Mr. Rodley said he thought the invitation was made in a general spirit of cooperation with the international community with a view to addressing human rights problems and remedying them. Concerning effectiveness, he said it was very hard to know what kind of developments were attributable to what kind of activities. It was only possible to see whether his recommendations were being followed up.

Asked for information on the evolution of torture during the 13 years of this mandate, Mr. Rodley said it was very difficult to talk in terms of trends. Firstly, he was thoroughly dependent on information provided by NGOs, which constituted over 90 per cent of information received. A lot depended on what countries or human rights NGOs were concentrating on in a particular year. Secondly, in some countries it was very difficult to obtain information.

Moreover, as situations evolved sources of information were not always geared to look at other aspects of the problem. For example, in Chile, few of the traditional human rights organisations were focusing on the ill-treatment of common criminals. One could not know whether this was a hang over from practices introduced during the military regime or whether it already existed but had simply been overlooked. In this respect it was very difficult to be very firm on trends.

Asked whether the establishment of an International Criminal Court could really have an impact on reducing the incidences of torture and putting it more in the limelight, Mr. Rodley said he didn’t think the existence of the statute on its own would make a difference. If a State became a party to the statute it could begin to make a difference in the country in question. It could make a major impact, however, in respect of individual situations where there was a change of Government and the new Government was not able to handle the history it had inherited. It would also make it much harder to grant the de jure immunity and impunity to perpetrators of serious human rights crimes. With an International Court these would be “judged not pardoned”.

A correspondent asked whether the Special Rapporteur shared the present view that progress was being made with regard to human rights in China. Responding, Mr. Rodley said he continued to receive allegations of substantial levels of torture in China and had an outstanding request to visit the country. There was no reason to believe that, as far as torture was concerned, the situation had improved, making that request any the less worthy of a positive reply. The absence of a positive reply was regrettable, he added.