TUNISIA PRESENTS REPORT TO COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

MORNING
HR/CAT/98/40
18 November 1998





The Committee against Torture this morning started its examination of a report presented by the Government of Tunisia on how that country was implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Kamel Morjane, Permanent Representative of Tunisia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, introduced the second periodic of his country, stating that within a few years, a series of profound reforms and measures had been adopted which were aimed at consolidating the practice of respect for human dignity, physical and moral integrity and guaranteeing rights and freedoms.

Sayed Kassem El Masry, the Committee expert who served as rapporteur on the report of Tunisia, said that numerous positive measures had been adopted to promote and protect human rights in the country. Nevertheless, there were concerns with regard to the difference between the law and its practice. Some non-governmental organizations, including Amnesty International, had in recent reports cited cases of torture in Tunisia.

As one of 105 States parties to the Convention, Tunisia must submit periodic reports to the Committee on efforts made to implement the provisions of the treaty.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will offer its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Croatia. It will also hear the responses of Tunisia to the questions raised by Committee members this morning.

Report of Tunisia

The second periodic report of Tunisia (CAT/C/20/Add.7) reviews the measures Tunisia adopted to comply with the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on an article-by-article basis. The report affirms that the number of death sentences has been considerably reduced by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, death sentences have been carried out only under very rare circumstances and for villainous crimes that are particularly shocking to the public. The report further affirms that Tunisia has abolished the practice of corporal punishment.

The report states that the provisions of the Convention take precedence over domestic legislation. And the definition of torture as contained in the Convention has been illustrated in the Penal Code with the concept of violence encompassing any physical or mental aggression, whether direct or indirect and whether or not leaving traces. The report also says that Tunisian legislation categorically prohibits incommunicado detention and the Penal Code provides for punishment for incommunicado detention. In recent years, more than 100 law-enforcement officials have been brought before the correctional and criminal courts for offenses involving abuse of authority, says the report.

Introduction of Tunisian Report

KAMEL MORJANE, Permanent Representative of Tunisia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, stated that since 7 November 1987, Tunisia had embraced democracy and the promotion and safeguarding of human rights which were respected and consolidated. The country's head of State constantly recalled Tunisia's obligations in that regard, stressing that "human rights were not a slogan which one acts upon but a daily practice which one was obliged to promote and consolidate in favour of citizens to guarantee security, stability and dignified life".

Within a few years, a series of profound reforms and measures had been adopted which were aimed at consolidating the practice of respect for human dignity and physical and moral integrity and guaranteeing rights and freedoms, Mr. Morjane went on to state. It was under this context that Tunisia ratified in September 1988, without any reservations, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, he added. It had also recognized the competence of the Committee to receive individual communications.

Mr. Morjane affirmed that Tunisia was determined to scrupulously apply the dispositions of the Convention, which was in perfect harmony with its orientations and political visions. He said that it was important to underline that the Convention had become an integral part of Tunisian domestic law and was directly invoked. In addition, the Constitution provided for international conventions to prevail over domestic legislation. And the laws promulgated before the ratification of any conventions were amended to be in conformity with the new situation, he added.

Furthermore, Mr. Morjane said that Tunisian legislation, which was based on universal values for the respect for human rights, repressed torture and any ill-treatment in all its forms and protected the individual against all physical and non-physical aggression. The law provided severe sanctions against the perpetrators of such acts, he said.

Besides the reforms, Tunisia had adopted measures allowing the prevention of torture through education and dissemination of information, Mr. Morjane said. The Government of Tunisia had introduced the teaching of human rights in programmes aimed at training magistrates, law-enforcement agents and staff of prison administration. The programmes were intended to sensitize officials with norms regarding respect of domestic and international human rights.

Mr. Morjane also said that in his effort to promote and protect human rights, Tunisia's President had created in 1991 a commission empowered to independently investigate complaints of human rights violations filed by individuals. The members of the commission had the competence to visit police stations and other detention centres.

In conclusion, Mr. Morjane said that his country's political will was to definitively anchor democracy and human rights in Tunisia under an open and tolerant society. The difficult moments that Tunisia had lived through and which risked to lead to a state of violence and chaos had constituted a rich experience that had permitted the country to further its attachment to those ideals, and to continue with determination the strengthening of the state of law, he said.

SAYED KASSEM EL MASRY, the Committee expert who served as rapporteur on the report of Tunisia, said that numerous positive measures had been adopted to promote and protect human rights in the country. An independent commission was set up to investigate all sorts of human rights abuses in all parts of the country. The Government should be commended for all the efforts made and the measures adopted to prevent torture.

Nevertheless, Mr. El Masry said, there were concerns with regard to the difference between the law and its practice. Some non-governmental organizations, including Amnesty International, had in recent reports cited cases of torture.

Mr. El Masry asked the Tunisian delegation if the Government was fully complying with the various resolutions of the General Assembly on the code of conduct of law-enforcement personnel of December 1979 and that of 1982 on the principles of medical ethics relevant to the role of health personnel, particularly physicians, in the protection of prisoners and detainees against torture. He asked in what way the Government had dealt with the subject.

The expert also asked if the Government was envisaging to shorten the pre-trial detention period, which he said was prolonged instead of shortened. The report had indicated that pre-trial detention might not exceed 12 months for ordinary offences and 18 months for serious offences. Although it was reduced to 10 and 14 months respectively, the examining magistrate could decide to extend the detention on the advice of the Public Prosecutor. Explanation was requested on that point.

Mr. El Masry, referring to the definition of torture given in the Tunisia legislation, said that violence and not torture was used to define it. The definition was not satisfactory, he said. The concept of violence was different from torture; torture could take place without violence. The delegation was requested to clarify the situation.

Further, the rapporteur said that the report had mentioned that following the examination of cases submitted to the Commission of Investigation, 88 cases were referred to the courts. Various sentences, including prison sentences, were handed down to the offenders and 21 law-enforcement officials were dismissed. But the nature of the offences was not indicated. The date, place and the circumstance in which the offenses were committed should be mentioned, said the expert.

With regard to incommunicado detention, Mr. El Masry said that Tunisian legislation categorically prohibited incommunicado detention. However, a 10-day pre-trial incommunicado detention was permitted by the law. Were suspected individuals shown arrest warrants?

Concerning extradition, Mr. El Masry said that Tunisian law did not permit extradition if the crime was of political nature or if there were indications that the extradition was requested for political motives. Neither the political authorities not the administrative authorities assessed the matter. Only the Tunis Court of Appeal was competent to consider application for extradition.

Mr. El Masry also put questions on such issues as the right of a foreign detainee to see his country's representative; the role of the Bar Association of Tunisia; administration of justice; and the rule of procedure.

GUIBRIL CAMARA, the Committee expert who served as co-rapporteur on the report, asked the members of the delegation if they had already received a copy of the International Federation of Human Rights which dealt with the existence of secret detention places in Tunisia.

Mr. Camara asked the delegation if police intervened to reexamine an individual once his case was transmitted to court. He also wanted to know if the beginning and the end of a custody were recorded. What would be the consequence if the policeman omitted his obligation in that regard?

Mr. Camara said that the Commission of Investigation had found that abuses had been committed by individuals who had not taken account of State policy or of the guidelines of the President of the Republic. It was stated that it had been informed of judicial investigations and inquiries into those abuses and of the disciplinary measures taken against those responsible. What were the measures taken?

He asked about the causes of inadmissibility of civil party in criminal indemnification proceedings. How did jurisprudence solve those problems?

On the exclusion of confessions obtained under duress, Mr. Camara said that there was no provision in the Tunisian law enabling a statement obtained under torture to be null and void.

Other experts also put questions. One expert asked if a detainee was provided with a lawyer of his choice; if he was provided with medical care; and the conditions of publication of hearings. Another expert said that Tunisia was active in setting standards of rules and submitting reports, and had the political will to improve the situation. Nevertheless, there was still specific concern over torture in the country. What ought to be done was not being done.

An expert wanted to know the number of political prisoners in Tunisia and mentioned that he was informed by non-governmental sources that there were 2,000 of them. He asked the extent of independence of the investigating bodies from the executive.

Another expert also asked the number of female prisoners and if they were segregated from male prisoners? Why were female staff not present during the interrogation of female prisoners? Why were relatives of political opposition in exile harassed and persecuted, as reported by Amnesty International?