SUB-COMMISSION DISCUSSES REPORT ON MILITARY TRIBUNALS

Sub-Commission on Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
54th session
5 August 2002
Afternoon




Debate Continues on Administration of Justice



The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights discussed this afternoon a report written by a former Expert recommending that the competence of military tribunals be abolished in favour of those of ordinary courts for trying persons responsible for serious human rights violations, such as extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, and torture.
The report, written and introduced by former Sub-Commission Expert Louis Joinet, states that administration of justice by military tribunals is being gradually "demilitarized" through such steps as inclusion of civilian judges in the composition of military tribunals; increasing use of civilian lawyers; transfer of appeals to ordinary courts; abolition of military tribunals in peace time; and strengthening of guarantees of the right to a fair trial by military tribunals in time of war.
Mr. Joinet said in introducing the document that one source of concern was that increasing numbers of civilians were being judged before military tribunals -- that such tribunals had become less and less involved in judging military personnel and more often judged civilians or simply those in opposition to the State.
Sub-Commission Experts noted favourably a series of rules suggested by Mr. Joinet to offer minimal guarantees of a fair trail in cases where military tribunals were used. Several lamented what they said was a new trend, led by the United States, to use military justice in efforts to combat terrorism following the 11 September attacks. Expert Leila Zerrougui said such an approach could have bad consequences and could perpetuate past patterns of impunity for military officials who committed serious human rights violations, and Expert Soli Jehangir Sorabjee said it was a worrying development that the recent increase in military tribunals had been mainly in democracies.
Following its commentary on Mr. Joinet's report, the Sub-Commission carried on with its general discussion on matters related to administration of justice, hearing from a series of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) contending, among other things, that indigenous peoples suffered judicial discrimination, that recent limitations on the International Criminal Court were damaging its independence and effectiveness, and that journalists should not be brought before military courts, as was occurring in some countries.
The following NGOs delivered statements: the International Commission of Jurists; Interfaith International; the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; the Indigenous World Association; International PEN; the American Association of Jurists; the Japan Federation of Bar Associations; Pax Romana; the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations; the World Federation of Trade Unions; International Educational Development; North-South XXI; Young Doctors without Frontiers Tunisia; the Transnational Radical Party; the World Muslim Congress; and the World Organization against Torture.
Also addressing the afternoon meeting were Sub-Commission Experts El Hadji Guisse, Francoise Jane Hampson, and Emmanuel Decaux.
The Sub-Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 6 August, and is expected over the course of the morning to begin debate on its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights.

Administration of Justice, Rule of Law and Democracy
Before the Sub-Commission there is a report submitted by Louis Joinet, former Sub-Commission Expert, on the issue of the administration of justice through military tribunals (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/4). The report states that the administration of justice by military tribunals is being gradually "demilitarized". This is taking the form of increasing restrictions on the jurisdiction of such tribunals and changes in their composition. The most frequently encountered stages in this process are: inclusion of judges in the composition of military jurisdiction; increasing use of civilian lawyers; transfer of appeals to the ordinary courts; abolition of military tribunals in peace time; and strengthening of guarantees of the right to a fair trial by military tribunals in time of war. The report recommends among other things that in all circumstances, the competence of military tribunals be abolished in favour of those of the ordinary courts for trying persons responsible for serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, torture and so on. Other recommendations highlight the limitations of military secrecy; state that public hearings must be the rule, not the exception; encourage access of victims to proceedings and the strengthening of the rights to defence, particularly through the abolition of military lawyers as well as through recourse procedures in the ordinary courts; encourage the abolition of the competence of military tribunals to try children and minors under the age of 18; and encourage the abolition of the death penalty and, as a transitional measure, suspension of its execution.

Statements on the Administration of Justice, Rule of Law and Democracy
LOUIS JOINET, former Sub-Commission Expert, introduced his report on the issue of administration of justice through military tribunals, saying that he had reviewed the relevant references to international instruments from two points of view, from the typology of competence and the typology of composition. He stressed that a partial de-militarization and a civilization of military tribunals had taken place. Each individual had the right to be judged through common law and specialized tribunals must not be established to substitute common law. He called upon those countries that had established military tribunals to ensure that these tribunals were fully integrated with common law. The long-term objective, in his opinion, was the total removal of military tribunals.
One source of concern was the increasing number of civilians being judged in military tribunals - this was not acceptable. The military tribunals had become less and less involved in judging military personnel, and more often judged civilians or simply opposition to the State.
Mr. Joinet said he had drawn up several recommendations, amongst which were sections aiming to ensure the adherence of military tribunals to humanitarian law. He recommended that the competence of military tribunals be limited to military personnel. However, if military personnel were the perpetrators of flagrant crimes against humanity, they must be judged by national courts or the International Criminal Court. It was also necessary to limit military secrecy and prevent secret detentions; increase the publicity of hearings and access of victims to proceedings; strengthen the right to defence and provisions of recourse proceedings in civilian courts; ensure that due obedience must not be evoked in all cases; prevent trials of child soldiers or children under the age of 18 years; and abolish the death penalty. He concluded that in order to finalize this study, special jurisdictions as well as the administration of justice during United Nations peace-keeping mandates needed to be studied.
LEILA ZERROUGUI, Sub-Commission Expert, said there had been more and more questions raised about military tribunals, especially when they reviewed cases involving civilians; there had seemed to be a consensus emerging that civilians should be excluded from being tried by military tribunals. Some countries had launched important reforms, such as Bahrain. Mr. Joinet had listed some laudable long-term objectives in his report so as to ensure the respect for fair trials where tribunals were used. The problem was that this attitude had changed recently following the 11 September attacks, led by the United States, which had taken steps that violated fair-trial guarantees. The resort in some countries to military tribunals following 11 September could have bad consequences and could perpetuate past patterns of impunity for military officials who had committed serious human rights violations. Palestinians were subject to military tribunals. Mr. Joinet's minimal rules for guaranteeing respect for a fair trial should be the subject of a resolution with strong backing by the Sub-Commission.
El HADJI GUISSE, Sub-Commission Expert, asked what would happen in countries where there were strong habits to submit to military tribunals crimes of a civilian nature. Most often, this was done to place the defendants in a surrounding they did not understand and hence to benefit from their vulnerability. In most countries, this practice had led to summary executions and injustices. When someone was party to a crime and did not have the means to defend himself, a person would be at a considerable disadvantage. Mr. Guisse supported the issue of civilian lawyers in military tribunals. In fact, they did not always understand all the techniques of defence to do with civilian cases. Where was the concern for civilians, he asked. The introduction of civilian lawyers in military courts must be undertaken in the name of justice. Sometimes military tribunals were used for minor crimes and delinquents. Military crimes must be judged by military tribunals, he said. But it was necessary to define what a military offense consisted of. It was necessary to draw up directives which established and defined the competence of military tribunals. Only then, could the competence of the military tribunals be subject to action.
FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said she welcomed the decision over the weekend of the Turkish Grand Parliament to abolish the use of the death penalty during peace time. She also welcomed the United States Federal Court decision that names must be released of those detained on terrorism suspicions. She hoped Mr. Joinet's report would result in a list of codified principles. There was a place for military justice, even in peace time, under certain circumstances; she did not share the goal of abolishing court martials, but they should be used with the guarantee that they were applied only to military personnel, and that they provided extensive free-trial assurances. Such courts should never have jurisdiction over civilians.
One problem was the hierarchical relationship between the defense lawyer and/or suspect and the military courts. Standards of military secrecy also should be subject to review, and soldiers should have the right to a lawyer of their own choosing who need not necessarily be in the military. The issue of whether civil tribunals should on occasion have military judges represented on them seemed to her to deserve study, and she hoped Mr. Joinet would look into the matter.
SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Sub-Commission Expert, said the report was timely since there was a worrying increase in military tribunals. And this increase was mainly in democracies, and not in dictatorships as probably expected. The report was well-researched and provided recommendations for the strengthening of adherence to international humanitarian law. There were weighty arguments advanced in the world to maintain military tribunals. However, whatever the force of the arguments, legality of proceedings needed to be maintained. A civilian court must therefore judge the legality of proceedings.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, said this report demonstrated once again the Sub-Commission's ability to deal with urgent issues. Independent and impartial justice was the goal, and that had to be kept in mind when and if military tribunals were used. The measures implemented since 11 September and the whole matter of "special cases" were a cause of concern; one hoped progress that had been made in recent years would not be rolled back in the campaign against terrorism. The de-militarization of justice was important, and the Sub-Commission should follow up on Mr. Joinet's valuable recommendations.
SERGIO POLIFRONTI, of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), said reality taught that military tribunals usually did not comply with international standards on the independence and impartiality of courts and of the right to a fair trial. The ICJ considered that a consensus had emerged on the incompatibility of the trial of civilians by military tribunals with international law. The ICJ also believed that gross violations of human rights -- such as extrajudicial executions, torture and forced disappearances -- committed by military or police officers must not be treated as military offenses but as crimes to be judged by the ordinary courts. Experience showed that in such cases trials by military tribunals were a source of impunity.
A frequent practice was to resort to states of emergency to excessively broaden the scope of military justice; in several cases, as recently in the United States, such extraordinary powers had been used to create pseudo-judicial bodies which in fact were organs of the executive branch. The rights of those judged by military courts were frequently violated by national criminal military law. Furthermore, military criminal law in many States allowed military courts to enjoy extraterritorial jurisdiction and to judge military or police officers when they committed crimes in the context of peace operations of the UN or other intergovernmental organizations. The Expert in charge of drafting a study on military tribunals was encouraged to identify and propose principles on jurisdiction, functioning and structure.
LOUIS JOINET, former Sub-Commission Expert, said that he agreed with the utility of a code of principles or minimal requirements for military tribunals. Recommendations did need to be fine-tuned, however, minimum requirements had been considered as well as general guidelines. With regard to the definition of a "military offense", he agreed that it provided some difficulties. However, in paragraph 6 of his report there had been attempts to define what a military offense entailed. Concerning equitable solutions both for the military and civilians, Mr. Joinet referred to his report and more specifically the situation of South Africa. He stressed again that legality of proceedings needed to be maintained and that a civilian court must therefore judge the legality of proceedings. September 11 had changed many things, particularly the lines of jurisdiction. It was important to consider, from a legal viewpoint, the consequences of the anti-terrorist measures.
ALI ALI AL-ADHADH, of Interfaith International, said that since 1924, under the British mandate, there had been two types of Iraqi citizenship -- "Ottoman Iraqis" and "Iranian Iraqis". The second category had been subject to long-term discrimination, especially under the Ba'ath Party; when it came to power it began to deport many Iraqi Shi'a to Iran, claiming they were of Iranian origin, and Kurdish Faili, Arab Shi'a, Turcomen Shi'a and some Assyrio-Chaldeans were also involved. Some half a million people were brutally deported while others were kept in camps; deportations were still being carried out. It was a kind of ethnic cleansing on the basis of religion.
The Sub-Commission should study the impact of colonialism on current Iraqi legislation, should have its Working Group on minorities take up the problem of Iraqi minorities, and should call on the Iraqi regime to abolish these racist classifications which had existed since 1924 and to create new citizenship laws without discrimination.
SYED YOUSAF NASEEM, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said that on 2 April, the Indian Government had promulgated a new draconian law named the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Government, true to its character, had ignored voices of concern raised not only by the international human rights agencies, but also by many quarters within Indian society. Within four months of the promulgation of the Act, its application, which unfortunately had been shamefully discriminatory, had led to a lot of debate both within and outside India. The Act consisted, among other aspects, of provisions making abetting of a terrorist act punishable without spelling out the requisite intent; setting out a legal presumption that if a person was found in unauthorized possession of arms in notified areas, he or she would be automatically considered having links with terrorist activity; giving powers of confiscation of property to the investigating officer; and empowering investigating officers to extract information from individuals and if they failed to provide information, they could expect a summary trial.
This law was incompatible with international human rights treaties and while some State governments had refused to implement it, the government of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir had decided to implement it immediately. The Act was one of the many laws used by the Government of India to brutalize the Kashmiri people and to silence any dissenting voice. The selective application of this and other discriminatory legislation against Muslims also exposed the hollowness of secularism in India. The state of judicial rights of Kashmiris and Muslims in India must be a matter of great concern for the members of this Sub-Commission, especially to its Working Group on Administrative Justice.
RONALD BARNES, of the Indigenous World Association, said administration of justice was selective at best in the United States when it came to indigenous peoples. Even if such peoples were successful in their litigation over land disputes, the United States did not implement the findings, as had happened with the Black Hills. Today the United States had a "new" and improved case concerning submerged lands in southeast Alaska, and was trying to get unsuspecting traditional chiefs to admit they were not claiming title to the land. But the Elders Council of Tununak denied title and dominion to the United States and asserted their right as international States since the United States and the United Nations had not followed procedure regarding the independent indigenous peoples of Alaska.
Also the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had supported the argument that the U.S. Government used illegitimate means to gain control of ancestral Shoshone lands. Leonard Pelletier remained in prison although many papers made available showed that he was not given a fair trial. The Sub-Commission should consider his case.
FAWZIA ASSAAD, of International PEN, said that the bringing before military courts of writers and journalists whose only "offense" had been to practice their right to freedom of expression and association was a clear example of the manner in which trials of civilians by the military could breach international standards. At the current time, International PEN was monitoring such cases in Lebanon, Turkey, Myanmar and Israel. The heaviest sentence passed by military courts in recent years against a writer was that in Myanmar where poet and journalist Aing Myint was sentenced to a 21-year prison term. His "offense" was to pass on to overseas press agencies and diplomats information on the repression of the opposition National League for Democracy. International PEN called for his release, alongside that of nine other writers and journalists detained in Myanmar.
In Lebanon, a trial had been opened before a military court against a journalist accused of having taken part in a panel discussion in May 2000 with an Israeli official deemed to be "a member of the enemy". In Turkey, a group of writers, artists, activists and intellectuals were brought before a military court in 2001 for publishing an article deemed to discourage people from carrying out military service. International PEN had noted with concern the resumption of the use of administrative detention in Israel against Palestinian journalists. Neither detainees nor their lawyers were granted access to the evidence against them. At present five journalists were known to be held under administrative detention. International PEN requested that this be among the issues to be scrutinised by the Working Group on the administration of justice.
JAIRO SANCHEZ, of the American Association of Jurists, said the principle of independence of the judiciary had been dashed by the recent Security Council decision ordering the International Criminal Court to refrain from investigating acts committed by peacekeeping troops of certain powerful countries that were not parties to the Rome Statute. This was granting a general privilege of immunity in advance and was not helpful for establishment of an effective, independent Court. This kind of general prohibition was not acceptable under the Treaty of Rome which many of the Security Council Member States had signed. Also, the fundamental principles of independence of the bench and equality before the law had been violated.
The United States, France, and Britain had obtained this impunity by a kind of diplomatic blackmail. The Member States of the Security Council could not ignore these very serious consequences, but had accepted this blackmail. The Working Group on the administration of justice should also look into the recent, new tendency to give increasing importance to military tribunals.
MITSUYUKI SUGA, of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, welcomed the report on the administration of justice by the Working Group of the Sub-Commission, in particular, one of the parts dealing with the domestic implementation in practice of the obligation to provide domestic remedies. In this document, Ms. Hampson had raised the issue of the extent to which national judges could or actually did use human rights standards when dealing with cases involving human rights violations. The Association wanted to provide the Sub-Commission with information on how inadequately the Supreme Court of Japan implemented international human rights instruments ratified by Japan. One of the most serious issues of concern was the persisting discrimination against children born out of wedlock in Japan, which neither the legislative nor the judiciary would rectify. The Civil Code of Japan prescribed that the inheritance of a child born out of wedlock should be one half that of a legitimate child.
The tendency of the Supreme Court of Japan to try to avoid implementing international human rights treaties was remarkable. The implementation of the international human rights treaties in Japan was quite inadequate. Japan had not ratified the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1979 when it ratified it. This showed the half-hearted stance of Japan towards the international human rights instruments. Japan must change such an attitude immediately to avoid giving a bad example to other States and should try to be a role model in the international community.
JOHN VINCENT, of Pax Romana, said the independent judiciary of India was not sufficiently accessible to the country's 160 million Dalits. The police who were supposed to prosecute offenses of caste were largely insensitive to the Dalit cause, and the inability of the police and courts to deal with such crimes had had a backlash effect on young Dalits. If the low conviction rate was any indication, the judiciary had responded poorly to efforts to end caste-based discrimination and violence. The study recently undertaken for the Sub-Commission on discrimination based on work and descent had failed to address impunity within the justice system, and the Sub-Commission should look into the matter.
Pax Romana's experience of military tribunals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo indicated that since 1997 the competence of military courts there extended to political and civilian matters, and did not allow sufficient right of appeal. Preventive detention could not be reviewed by civilian courts, resulting in preventive detention that lasted up to a year. The principle of ensuring that detention was carried out legally was vital.
SHAMIZA SHAWI, of the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accorded primacy to equality before law for individuals and protection against abuse of fundamental rights in the form of arbitrary arrests and detention. In Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, the authorities were flouting these provisions of the international bill of human rights to which India was a party. The Indian legislation enforced in occupied Kashmir was unjust and unfair. The narrow doors of relief and justice available to Kashmiri people had in fact been closed with the promulgation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in April 2002. This law accorded the Indian security forces the impunity and wide discretionary powers that had been mercilessly abused by them. India was rejecting all of the international human rights community's repeated calls for independent investigations into alleged incidents of mass murder and killings of civilians. The Sub-Commission was informed about incidents in the India-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, which the Federation said not only brought out the barbarity of the Indian security forces, but revealed a pattern of Indian policy to conceal the truth and mutilate evidence to justify their claims and propaganda on cross border terrorism.
The Sub-Commission was called upon to extend its moral support to the Kashmiris' demand for deployment of independent observers and fact-finding mechanisms to protect the Kashmiri people from the abuse of their fundamental rights to a fair trial.
AIDA AVELLA, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, said the Federation was still very concerned about the crimes against union leaders and activists in Colombia. There were illicit links between police and paramilitary leaders which increased the climate of impunity. The military Criminal Code of 2000 did not exclude the competence of such tribunals for serious crimes such as extrajudicial executions and sexual abuse committed against civilians. Prosecutors had cancelled investigations; witnesses were murdered; former generals were not held accountable for serious crimes; and investigations went on for years without result.
There had been beatings, kidnapping, torture and assassination of union leaders. Some 113 trade unionists had been murdered between 2 June 2001 and 12 April 2002. Very strong reaction was needed from the international community to end this intolerable situation of impunity and to punish those responsible for innumerable acts of violence and to dismantle paramilitary and other groups that were carrying out such offenses.
KAREN PARKER, of International Education Development, raised concern about the total perversion by the United States of the Geneva Convention rules regarding persons detained as a result of armed conflict. The United States was holding a number of persons captured or turned over to the United States in an isolated prison camp in Guantanamo, Cuba. Some of these prisoners had been part of the armed forces of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and were accordingly clearly prisoners of war. However, they must be afforded all the rights guaranteed to them under Geneva Convention III. Some of the prisoners had not participated as combatants in the war in Afghanistan but were held as alleged members of Al Qaeda. These prisoners must be chargeable under criminal law, but were entitled to all the protections of criminal law such as right to counsel, presumption of innocence, and the right to petition in ordinary criminal courts. The international community must insist that the United States appropriately honour all rules pertaining to all prisoners.
Sadly, violations of the Geneva Conventions and criminal procedure rights were not limited to Guantanamo. In the United States, persons who were United States citizens and accused of either participating in the armed conflict in Afghanistan or of being members of Al Qaeda were held under several different pretexts - mutually contradictory. In addition, the United States had adopted national anti-terrorism legislation, insultingly entitled the "Patriot Act", which so deeply abrogated protected human rights that under its provisions, one of America's most treasured patriotic acts - the Boston Tea Party - would now be viewed as a terrorist act. The Patriot Act should be most strongly condemned by the Sub-Commission.
ADNAN AL-SABAH, of North-South XXI, said he had come from Jenin in Palestine. Israel continued to kill Palestinians in Jenin, to destroy homes, to cut off access to work and medical help, and to violate human rights in many ways. On a daily basis Israel killed people before the eyes of the world, and the world did nothing, taking its lead from the United States and the United Nations. The United Nations was not independent and did not act on principle, as it should, to end the atrocities being committed in Palestine. What was being done in Palestine would be a stain on the world's history for centuries.
Palestine was a small, helpless nation, and even the small part of Palestinian land that remained was being occupied by Israel. Israel used tanks and planes and missiles to kill Palestinians while the United Nations issued reports. Palestinians were killed without trial; justice was denied to them; handicapped people were killed as their houses collapsed upon them. Houses were blown up with inhabitants inside them. In Jenin, most houses were uninhabitable. People were used as human shields. There should be an international protection force for Palestine.
MOHAMED ELYES BEN MARZOUK, of the Young Doctors without Frontiers Tunisia, said it was an essential precondition for human rights to safeguard the integrity of the rule of law. All individuals deserved the right to a fair, open and transparent trial. It was time to ensure that the administration of justice was conducted in adherence to international humanitarian law. Each State had a responsibility to establish a judicial system which was fair, legitimate, efficient and moral. The fight against crime in the world was a shared responsibility which required adequate coordination between and within States. The creation of an ethical judiciary was fundamental. In order to fight the prevention of crime on the transnational and local levels, development and democratization were important factors. Governments, civil societies, and communities as a whole must start a reform of traditional human values.
In certain countries, authorities did not have enough medical or legal capacity or competency. In such cases, investigative methods could prove inadequate. It was therefore necessary for such countries to receive institutional support and technical assistance. It was added that the independence of the judiciary was essential and must be guaranteed in each country's respective Constitution.
VANIDA TEPSHOUVAN, of the Transnational Radical Party, said the organization was concerned about the situation in Laos, whose legal system was part of a State system for terrorizing citizens. There were arbitrary arrests, disappearances, torture, and inhuman treatment of detainees. A legal system with standard fair-trial norms was non-existent. The Code of Criminal Procedure established heavy sentences for anyone who contested the power of the single State party, resulting in abuses of minorities and of those who were political opposition. Detainees had been held for up to 10 years without trial; they did not even know what crimes they were charged with committing. Torture began with the arrival in police stations; detainees were handcuffed and beaten. In many cases detainees were left to die. They had no legal defense.
In recent years arbitrary arrests and abuses of religious minorities had increased. The five leaders of the peace movement of 26 October 1999 had disappeared on that date and it was not known what had happened to them. The Sub-Commission should look into the fate of these peace leaders. The Commission on Human Rights should send a mission to Laos to look into the human rights situation and the situation of administration of justice.
MUHAMMAD SARAF, of the World Muslim Congress, said India was engaging in systematic human rights violations in the region in total disregard of international humanitarian norms. India was awash with legislation that had been employed to counter ambiguously defined threats, applied over large swathes of the country, including the occupied state of Jammu and Kashmir. These acts contained provisions that were incompatible with the principles of international human rights conventions. Preventive detention, extraordinary powers to the police and occupation forces to arrest, detain and even shoot suspects were measures that normally followed the proclamation of a state of emergency, which, in turn, was justifiable in extreme exigencies only. The extensive nature of these laws had ensured that virtually the entire country remained in a state of undeclared emergency.
The Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, the Jammu and Kashmir Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act and finally the Prevention of Terrorism Act, were highlighted as draconian acts of the Indian Government that created more harm than good. India had exploited the events of 11 September to enforce anti-terrorism policies and legislation. The Sub-Commission was requested to investigate the systematic human rights violations and to appoint a representative for continued monitoring of the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir.
ERIC SOTTAS, of the World Organization against Torture, said witnesses could be threatened and intimidated so that they did not give full expression to the truth. Medical confidentiality was another matter -- it could protect the privacy of a patient but also could hide the occurrence of torture. Many victims, due to the psychological pressure they had undergone, did not want doctors who had found evidence of torture to present the necessary evidence in court. On 26 June 2002, the International Day for Victims of Torture, a seminar had been held on the issue of medical confidentiality in cases of torture.
Those who took part in the seminar decided to appeal to the Sub-Commission to consider whether medical confidentiality should be waived when doctors determined that torture had taken place. The seminar also recommended further information and training for doctors and medical students on identifying and responding to torture. And the seminar asked the Sub-Commission to consider if it would be worthwhile to complete the principles of medical ethics of 18 December 1982.



* *** *