LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA PRESENTS REPORT TO COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

MORNING
HR/CAT/99/14
5 May 1999


The Committee against Torture this morning started its consideration of the report of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on how the country implemented the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Introducing its third periodic report, Najib Tleba, the head of the Human Rights Department in the General People's Committee of Justice and head of the delegation of Libya, said that the State was committed to defending human rights and enumerated a number of legislative and judicial decisions to illustrate that. Libya also had adopted several provisions of the Convention, including a specific definition and crime of torture in its general laws, and the allowance of torture victims to be compensated.

Bent Sorensen, who served as the Committee's rapporteur to the report, questioned the State's policy of enabling police to keep prisoners incommunicado for up to seven days. It was during that time, he said, when mistreatment or torture was most likely applied.

Yu Mengjia, who was the Committee’s co-rapporteur, pointed out that although Libya had taken a number of steps to comply with the Convention, reliable non-governmental organizations had continued to allege instances of torture. Were these complaints fully investigated and punished?

Other Committee members asked the delegation questions about the death penalty, corporal punishment, and the procedure for extraditing the Libyan nationals who were suspects in the Lockerbie bombing to the Netherlands for trial.

The Libyan delegation will return to the Committee on Thursday, 6 May, at 3.30 p.m. to respond to the queries. The Committee will meet at 3 p.m. this afternoon to offer its recommendations and conclusions on the report of Bulgaria, and to hear responses from the delegation of Luxembourg.

Report of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

The third periodic report of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CAT/C/44/Add.3) reviews the legal framework in the Government's domestic laws, and overviews the legislative and judicial safeguards aimed at ensuring implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The report details the mechanisms for enacting legislation, and the executive branch's role in the process, as well as the setup of the country's court system, and the procedure for selecting members of the judiciary.

Libya addresses its compliance with the Convention on an article-by-
article basis, illustrating the importance it attaches to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Provisions of several international instruments and treaties are reflected in Libyan law, and have also served as a major source of domestic legislation. For example, the Promotion of Freedom law of 1991 set forth basic principles contained in international instruments and treaties, including the Convention.

Introduction of Report of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

NAJIB TLEBA, head of the Human Rights Department in the General People's Committee of Justice and head of the delegation of Libya, said the political system was based on a popular democracy. All citizens who had reached 18 years of age had the authority to partake in all decisions, starting at the local level and up to foreign policy. The people were the masters of themselves.

He said the report dealt with the general legal framework of the country. The provisions of legislation were in line with the provisions of the Convention. Provisions against torture were also incorporated into the judicial system.

Mr. Tleba said a detainee had the right to a private lawyer or one who could be appointed at no charge. Lawyers in Libya had a separate bar association, and practised in total freedom. The bar association had a Committee for Human Rights, a Committee for Legislation, a Committee for Women, and a Centre for Legal Research. He expressed surprise at a claim that there were no private lawyers in Libya, and no independent bar association there.

The report, he said, compared provisions of the Convention and those provided in Libyan legislation. Legislation had prohibited torture and confessions that were extracted with torture were inadmissible. Such violations should be severely punished. The detainee had a right to contact relatives at all stages of detention. Medical care was available in all prisons.

Mr. Tleba said any person who had been harmed physically or psychologically had a right to receive compensation for his or her injuries.

Violations could happen, he said, but they were just individual acts, and did not reflect the policies of the Government.

Discussion

BENT SORENSEN, the Committee’s rapporteur to the report, praised the document which was submitted on time and was comprehensive. It fulfilled the old guidelines, but they had been amended. They were published so late, however, that it could not have affected this report.

Mr. Sorensen said that reliable non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had provided the Committee with reports of state-sanctioned violations. The NGOs recommended that the Government should sent clear messages to its police by providing training for them on human rights matters, and following up allegations of violations.

He said that under Libyan law, a prisoner could be held incommunicado for up to seven days. The judge could forbid a prisoner from receiving visitors. Also, allegations continued to come in that a prisoner could not see a doctor of his choice. Did the Government have statistics of, for example, people who were denied visits? How long had they been denied that access? Had there been cases of people who could not contact their lawyer?

The time when a prisoner was held incommunicado was a very dangerous time, Mr. Sorensen said. It was the time for mistreatment or torture. How many instances of torture had been alleged in recent years? Were they examined fully?

On article 3, he pointed out that the report said it was not permissible to extradite certain asylum-seekers to any party. There had been reports of people being sent back to Tunisia where they had suffered torture. Could there be a clarification of the practice of the article? In another question on asylum, he asked if a person were coming from a country that had not ratified the Convention, and in which torture was not a crime, could he be extradited to that country? Would the provision that the offense may not be politically motivated prevent extradition?

He said the Committee was pleased that there was a specific crime against torture, although there was a question if the 3-to-10 year prison sentence for committing torture was sufficient.

YU MENGJIA, the Committee’s co-rapporteur to the report, said the third report addressed in greater detail than the second report the education aspect. It reflected awareness that it was possible to establish of a culture against torture.

Mr. Yu said in article 11, it was important to know if Libya had introduced any special review mechanisms or procedures.

Paragraph 23 cited several examples of how Libya implemented the Convention. Mr. Yu said this was welcome, however, the Committee continued to receive allegations of torture being perpetrated, as well as other illegal acts. The Committee hoped the delegation would comment on the allegations to dispel doubts. Had investigations been conducted in cases of deaths in custody? And were the results of the investigations published?

Other Committee experts raised further questions. One was about the independence of the judiciary, and another was about the sentencing structure. How was the death penalty carried out? Was there corporal punishment? What was the legal basis for the extradition of the Lockerbie suspects to the Netherlands? What were the domestic laws concerning freedom of association? What was meant by the claim that there were no independent NGOs or human rights groups in Libya? Amnesty had made certain claims that they had received reports of arbitrary arrests in Libya. Could that be addressed? A Special Rapporteur reported last year that he had received reports that torture had been applied to extract confessions. Could this be addressed? Had there been instances of capital punishment in the last three or four years? Was whipping or flogging still used as a form of corporal punishment?