SUBCOMMITTEE ON PREVENTION OF TORTURE PRESENTS FIRST PUBLIC ANNUAL REPORT TO COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

Committee against Torture

13 May 2008



The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture this afternoon presented its first public Annual Report to the Committee against Torture.

Silvia Casale, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, said that the Annual Report covered the initial twelve months of the Subcommittee’s operations. The material included therein was as up to date as possible and included their most recent visit from March of this year. It touched on the start-up challenges of the Subcommittee. Also, the Subcommittee had felt that it was important to go out in the field as soon as possible. The report discussed the Subcommittee’s mandate, not for formalistic reasons, but because there was a serious issue of interpretation: the mandate was not limited to visits and sessions in Geneva, it had three elements: organising visits to places where people were or might be deprived of their liberty, working in direct contact with National Preventive Mechanisms and cooperating with relevant United Nations and other bodies.

Ms. Casale underlined that the National Preventive Mechanisms were the best placed bodies to do the work on the ground and thus were seen as the most efficient and important mechanisms for the prevention of torture. The Subcommittee had conducted three visits, the countries to be visited had been chosen through a lottery in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Mauritius, the Maldives and Sweden had been the first countries visited by the Subcommittee and Benin, Mexico and Paraguay were the next programmed visits for 2008.

Committee Experts made comments and asked questions. Concerning the choice of countries to be visited, an Expert said the Chairperson had indicated that this was done by lottery and wondered how the Subcommittee could ensure that there was a consistency. An Expert noted that there was an entire list of countries where worrisome matters were taking place and it seemed that there were some priorities to set up. Also could the Subcommittee visit prisons outside a State’s territory? After having completed three visits, did the Subcommittee have any different views about the way it carried out visits? Were the National Preventive Mechanisms part of the country visits and were they taking up the follow-up work?

The Subcommittee is a newly created body that was established according to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It consists of 10 independent experts who work with National Preventive Mechanisms and carry out regular unannounced visits to places of detention in all States parties to the Optional Protocol, with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of persons deprived of liberty against torture and other forms of ill treatment. Advising and assisting in the development of effective and independent national preventive mechanisms is also another key element in the Subcommittee's work and forms an important part of each visit. Every State party is obliged under the Optional Protocol to grant the Subcommittee unrestricted access to any place of detention and to provide all the relevant information the Subcommittee may request. The Subcommittee may have private interviews with persons deprived of liberty and any other persons believed by the Subcommittee to be able to provide relevant information.

The Optional Protocol has been ratified or acceded to by the following 34 States: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.

The 10 members of the Subcommittee are: Silvia Casale (United Kingdom), Mario Luis Coriolano (Argentina), Marija Definis Gojanovic (Croatia), Zdenìk Hájek (Czech Republic), Zbigniew Lasocik (Poland), Hans Draminsky Petersen (Denmark), Victor Manuel Rodríguez Rescia (Costa Rica), Miguel Sarre Iguíniz (Mexico), Wilder Tayler Souto (Uruguay) and Leopoldo Torres Boursault (Spain).

The Committee against Torture will meet on Friday, 16 May to issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the reports which it has considered this session before closing the session.

Statement

Silvia Casale, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, presenting the first public Annual Report, said that the Subcommittee had a very special relationship with the Committee against Torture. The Annual Report covered the initial twelve months of the Subcommittee’s operations. The material included therein was as up to date as possible and included their most recent visit from March of this year.

Ms. Casale noted that the Subcommittee’s mandate was different from other treaty bodies’ mandates. The Annual Report touched on the start-up challenges of the Subcommittee. Also, the Subcommittee had felt that it was important to go out in the field as soon as possible. The report discussed the Subcommittee’s mandate, not for formalistic reasons, but because there was a serious issue of interpretation: the mandate was not limited to visits and sessions in Geneva, it had three elements: organising visits to places where people were or might be deprived of their liberty, working in direct contact with National Preventive Mechanisms and cooperating with relevant United Nations and other bodies.

Ms. Casale underlined that the National Preventive Mechanisms were the best placed bodies to do the work on the ground and thus were seen as the most efficient and important mechanisms for the prevention of torture.

The Subcommittee had conducted three visits, the countries to be visited had been chosen through a lottery in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Mauritius, the Maldives and Sweden had been the first countries visited by the Subcommittee and Benin, Mexico and Paraguay were the next programmed visits for 2008, said Ms. Casale.

Also, the Subcommittee was guided by a principle of confidentiality, said Ms. Casale. They had to maintain a strict confidentiality about their findings and discussions with States parties when addressing any shortcomings or abuses. They also had the opportunity to exchange views once a year with the Committee against Torture on issues of common interest. Ms. Casale noted that the Committee had special powers in relation to the Subcommittee as it had the power to lift the veil of confidentiality if States refused to collaborate with the Subcommittee and refused to implement its recommendations.

Concerning administrative and budgetary matters, Ms. Casale said that they there was no budget line for the work concerning the National Preventative Mechanisms. They had to find ways in the future in order to provide resources for the work that needed to be done. If not, the development of National Preventive Mechanisms would occur without the Subcommittee’s input. National Preventive Mechanisms were asking the Subcommittee for advice and assistance and she hoped that a way would be found in the future to revise the budget in this regard.

Questions and Comments by Experts

Committee Experts made comments and asked questions. Concerning the choice of countries to be visited, an Expert said the Chairperson had indicated that this was done by lottery and wondered how the Subcommittee could ensure that there was a consistency. An Expert noted that there was an entire list of countries where worrisome matters were taking place and it seemed that there were some priorities to set up.

Another Expert asked whether the Subcommittee could visit places of detention outside a State’s territory? How were the so-called “bad practices” determined? Was there a theoretical explanation? Could visits have a negative impact on the National Preventive Mechanisms? What was meant by “formalized relationships” with non-governmental organizations?

One Expert noted that the Subcommittee had only received notice of designation of National Preventive Mechanisms from five of the States parties to the Optional Protocol; this was felt to be a very low number. Did the Subcommittee have any insights on whether the National Preventive Mechanisms were capable of a preventive rather than a reactive approach? Had the Subcommittee found any National Preventive Mechanisms that had not lived up to their expectations?

After having completed three visits, did the Subcommittee have any different views about the way it carried out visits? Were the National Preventive Mechanisms part of the country visits and were they taking up the follow-up work?

National Preventive Mechanisms were a great priority, said one Expert. Also, the Committee had very much benefited from the Subcommittee’s report of its visit to Sweden, when they had considered this State’s report during their current session. Would it be possible to co-invite members of each body to attend their respective sessions?

Another Expert wondered how it was possible for the two bodies to cooperate fully and share information with the Subcommittee if their reports were confidential and those of the Committee were public. The Expert also noted that the Committee was always reminding countries to ratify the Optional Protocol during their interaction with them, what was the Subcommittee doing in this regard?

Answer by the Subcommittee

The Vice-Chairperson of the Subcommittee noted that the first three countries that had been selected to be visited had been chosen through a lottery. Thereafter, they had set a list of criteria for a country to be selected. One criterion required that twelve months had passed since the ratification of the Optional Protocol, this was the time limit given for the creation of a National Preventive Mechanism. Another criterion was regional representation. The Subcommittee also wished to firstly have some experience with countries with simpler systems in the first place before addressing more complicated issues in countries. Also, they could not afford visiting big countries one after the other. Selecting countries to be visited was a balance between criteria of geography, complexity and the Subcommittee’s own available resources.

Concerning places outside the territory, this was an interesting question which they were currently looking at. This was a tricky legal question; it might be possible to visit an official military base under the control of one State in a foreign country, but not some other places, said Ms. Casale

Concerning confidentiality, it was a tricky question. Reports were confidential, until a State party decided to lift the veil of confidentiality. This had to be respected and one could not override a State’s wish, said Ms. Casale.

About the National Preventive Mechanisms, their work was far more important when it came to visits to particular places than the Subcommittee’s work. The Subcommittee could only visit a limited number of institutions within its one week visit in the country and this only every four to five years. But the National Preventive Mechanisms could do all this throughout the year, noted Ms. Casale

Also, it might take some time for States parties to agree to the publishing of country visit reports, but Ms. Casale was of the view that it could eventually become the norm to do so. They were also grateful that the Committee against Torture was encouraging ratification of the Optional Protocol. It would also be helpful if the Committee encouraged the creation of National Preventive Mechanisms.
____________

For use of the information media; not an official record