Committee against Torture begins examination of Report of Jordan

Committee against Torture
MORNING

29 April 2010

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the second periodic report of Jordan on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Introducing the report, Shebab A. Madi, Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said it was undeniable that no country was immune from torture, and Jordan did not claim that some incidents of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment did not occur in the country. While acknowledging that, the Government did not and would not condone or tolerate such incidents. Quite the contrary, Jordan was exerting sincere efforts to respond to some gaps in the implementation and follow-up of its commitments with respect to the Convention. Jordan was increasingly focused on capacity-building and awareness raising in support of aligning national laws with the Convention and other international human rights standards, including translating relevant United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions into practice. Jordan was aware of the imperative to work even harder on areas relating to effective investigation; independent monitoring of detention/rehabilitation and correctional centres; legal safeguards; accountability; and reparation for victims. To achieve more progress in those areas, Jordan was also enhancing its partnership with interested stakeholders, such as the Government of Denmark and other Danish organizations, as well as with civil society.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Jordan, Committee Expert Felice Gaer noted that there were a number of recurring issues in the reports submitted by non-governmental organizations and others that were before the Committee. Numerous sources reported that torture in Jordan was not treated as a serious crime, but rather as a misdemeanour, and did not carry the serious penalties it deserved. Moreover, there were reports of a lack of prosecutions in torture allegations. Another concern was the widespread use of administrative detention – some 20,000 people for one year. There were also questions about basic legal safeguards for detainees that came up again and again, including the right to a medical examination, access to a lawyer, the right to contact a member of one's family, and the right to know the cause of the detention or the charges against the detainee.

Luis Gallegos Chiriboga, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Jordan, asked about human rights training for security and military personnel, including whether such training was undertaken systematically and was monitored. He was also concerned to know if monitoring mechanisms for places of detention included detention cells of the General Intelligence Department. Further concerns included allegations of secret detention facilities; the continued existence of the State Security Courts and whether they used confessions obtained under torture in their judgements; and the lack of an independent investigation body for complaints against police or other security officials.

Other issues of concern raised by Experts included whether the police courts fulfilled the requirements of due process or fair trial; foreign female domestic workers and the need for monitoring to protect those persons; allegations of threats and harassment of human rights defenders and measures the Government was taking to protect those persons; whether there were any facilities to rehabilitate torture victims; what support there was for abused women who did not want to return to live with their abusers; a too light penalty for acts of torture – six months to three years' imprisonment; and whether the non-derogable right not to be tortured was explicitly set out in national law, in particular that torture was not permitted in a state of emergency when a number of rights were restricted.

Also representing the delegation of Jordan were representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of the Interior; the Public Security Department; the Ministry of Justice; and the Permanent Mission of Jordan in Geneva.

The delegation will return to the Committee at 10 a.m. on Friday, 30 April, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.

Jordan is among the 146 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 30 April, it is scheduled to hear the replies of Jordan to the questions raised this morning.

Report of Jordan

The second periodic report of Jordan (CAT/C/JOR/2), notes that the Jordanian Government has recently taken meaningful action to ensure that the Convention is applied on the ground, including via the establishment of the National Centre for Human Rights in 2003, which carries out numerous activities, including receiving and processing complaints from the public. The Centre set up a special unit to deal with reform and rehabilitation centres in Jordan and has submitted several reports to the Government with recommendations on improving conditions for prisoners. Further to these recommendations, the Government drew up a comprehensive plan to improve conditions in reform and rehabilitation centres by constructing new centres and creating a better living, physical and mental health environment in these centres. Trades workshops have been set up and agricultural and vocational activities are organized in some reform and rehabilitation centres so as to preserve their dignity and facilitate their return to society free from the stigma and psychological effects usually associated with prison life. Recreational, sports and educational facilities, such as games areas and libraries, are also established in reform and rehabilitation centres. Inmates receive legal assistance, while lawyers’ rooms are made available in all reform and rehabilitation centres to enable prisoners to talk to their legal representatives on their own, as a legal guarantee afforded at all stages of proceedings.

All reform and rehabilitation centres in Jordan are open to persons legally authorized to monitor and inspect them, such as the Prosecutor-General, his deputies, court presidents and public prosecutors. These persons pay visits in order to hear complaints, to listen to comments, to make performance assessments, to deal with any failings and to make sure that prisoners’ rights are not being violated and that the laws on prisoners are being obeyed. All civil society organizations, including the National Centre for Human Rights, human rights organizations, political parties and associations, together with international human rights organizations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), are able to visit reform and rehabilitation centres and meet with inmates on their own. The authorities responsible for these centres take note of constructive comments, accept objective criticisms and give them due consideration. They also provide these organizations with whatever facilities are needed and establish appropriate procedures for them. More than 400 visits were carried out in 2006. Al-Jafr Prison was closed down by order of His Majesty the King on 17 December 2006 and was converted into a vocational training school. In addition, new reform and rehabilitation centres with a capacity to accommodate more than 1,000 inmates each are being constructed, one in Muwaqqar that was fitted out and recently began to admit prisoners, and another in Mafraq which is still under construction. The aim is to resolve once and for all the overcrowding problem in some centres and to leave scope for classifying prisoners according to age group, offence and the gravity of the offence.

Presentation of Report

SHEBAB A. MADI, Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said it was undeniable that no country was immune from torture, and Jordan did not claim that some incidents of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment did not occur in the country. While acknowledging that, the Government did not and would not condone or tolerate such incidents. Quite the contrary, Jordan was exerting sincere efforts to respond to some gaps – most of which the Members of the Committee had already raised – in the implementation and follow-up of its commitments with respect to the Convention.

In that regard, Mr. Madi wished to assure all the Members that their comments and questions, and ultimately the concluding observations and recommendations of the Committee, would be considered very seriously and consequently acted upon in order to ensure improvements in Jordan's overall compliance with the Convention.

Jordan was increasingly focused on capacity-building and awareness raising in support of aligning national laws with the Convention and other international human rights standards, including translating relevant United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions into practice. It was worth noting in that regard that Jordan was among the sponsors of the resolutions on torture [in the United Nations framework] and had actively participated in the informal consultations to ensure a strong and consensual outcome.

Mr. Madi said Jordan was aware of the imperative to work even harder on areas relating to effective investigation; independent monitoring of detention/rehabilitation and correctional centres; legal safeguards; accountability; and reparation for victims. Jordan was determined to achieve more progress in those areas. It was also enhancing its partnership with interested stakeholders, such as the Government of Denmark and other Danish organizations, as well as with civil society.

In that connection, Mr. Madi noted that Jordan had taken note with appreciation of the shadow reports and remarks submitted by the National Centre for Human Rights and other Jordanian civil society organizations. Jordan expressed its sincere thanks for their valuable contributions and reiterated its commitment to continuing its cooperation and partnership with them so that they could build on the progress made and tackle the remaining challenges to prevent and eradicate the scourge of torture.

In conclusion, Mr. Madi observed that Jordan continued to take significant measures both in the legislative and institutional framework to effectively deliver on its commitments with respect to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Equally, Jordan was striving in earnest to improve implementation of the Convention in order to eliminate the crime of torture and ill-treatment and they trusted that the outcome of the meeting would better guide them in achieving that quest.

Questions Raised by Committee Experts

FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Jordan, observed that the last report of Jordan had been written in 1992 and presented in 1995. That was longer than the Convention contemplated or than the Committee wished. That said, she welcomed the detailed information provided in the report before them.

Ms. Gaer noted with great interest the establishment of the National Centre for Human Rights in 2003, the establishment of human rights divisions in many of the Government departments, and the creation of the Ombudsman's Office, as well as the Government's commitment to introducing a rehabilitative element to places of detention. In addition, measures taken in response to the recommendations from the previous review were set out, such as the renovation of prisons, the construction of new prisons and the closing of Al-Jafr prison.

Ms. Gaer noted also that corporal punishment had been prohibited and would appreciate details of how that was done and the relevant laws and guidelines in place.

Among concerns, Ms. Gaer noted that there were a number of recurring issues in the reports submitted by non-governmental organizations and others that were before the Committee. Numerous sources reported that torture in Jordan was not treated as a serious crime, but rather as a misdemeanour, and did not carry the serious penalties it deserved. Moreover, there were reports of a lack of prosecutions in torture allegations. Another concern was the widespread use of administrative detention – some 20,000 people for one year. While Jordan's report noted that the number had been reduced to 16,000, and some non-governmental organizations spoke of 12,000 people – this was still a substantial number and of concern. There were questions about basic legal safeguards for detainees that came up again and again, the right to a medical examination, access to a lawyer, the right to contact a member of one's family, and the right to know the cause of the detention or the charges against the detainee.

In Jordan's written replies, Jordan said that "there was no single incident of torture committed by public security personnel since [article 208 of the Penal Code] was amended on 15 November 2007". Ms. Gaer said statements such as these always raised the Committee's interest. Given that even Jordan recognized that, while not systematic, acts of torture did occur in Jordan, the Committee would appreciate more information on how the Government could be sure that no cases existed and it was not simply that no cases had been prosecuted. Organizations such as Amnesty International had argued that the lack of cases was, among others, due to the fact that there was no independent investigative authority, and that police were charged with carrying out the investigations against accused police officers.

In that connection, Ms. Gaer said the Committee would appreciate statistics on cases brought on lesser charges against police officers.

Ms. Gaer then raised a number of specific cases. In one case mentioned by the Special Rapporteur against torture, in which he claimed to have corroborated that torture had indeed occurred with an examination undertaken by a forensic medical expert, apparently the Government had subsequently transferred the case to another court and tried it under other charges [conspiracy].

Ms. Gaer asked if current anti-terrorism laws and administrative procedures impeded the accused's ability to have contact with a lawyer or a member of their family. The law allowed in "certain cases" for persons to be held for up to one year without being charged. She asked for further clarification of what those "certain" cases consisted of.

Returning to the issue of administrative detentions, Ms. Gaer asked about the number and content of complaints made by those in administrative detention, whether such persons were heard by a judge, and how the Government ensured that only people who had committed serious offences and not minor ones were kept in such detention.

On the issue of protective custody of women and girls, Ms. Gaer requested clarification about the actual status of those individuals: were the 13 women the Committee had been told about still in custody in administrative detention, or would they be moved to safe houses and shelters?

The Committee had asked for the State Security Courts to be abolished in its previous concluding observations. While noting the information in the report that the Government was not considering abolishing these courts, Ms. Gaer then asked how was the impartiality of that body was ensured, how many detainees were held by the Security Forces and how many of those detainees had been charged.

Ms. Gaer was a bit confused by a lack of information on the new Ombudsman's Office in the report. She noted that it had received 1,124 cases, but asked how many of those had led to prosecutions and for what charges, and how the complaints mechanism of the Ombudsman's Office was made accessible to the public.

Regarding honour crimes, both the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women had raised that issue with a degree of alarm. That brought them back to the custody issue, and whether there was impunity for perpetrators of such crimes against women. She noted that, according to Jordanian law, if a rapist married their victim that nullified the charge against them. Rape was held to constitute a form of torture by a number of national and international legal bodies. To allow a rapist therefore to escape prosecution by marriage was not comprehensible. Under what conditions would a rape be prosecuted and punished in Jordan, Ms. Gaer asked?

The report stated that if a person's life was in danger if they were returned to a certain country that person would not be returned there. But that was not the same as the non-refoulement guarantees of article 3 of the Convention. Ms. Gaer asked what legal provisions existed in Jordanian law to ensure that no one was returned to a country where they were at risk of torture or ill-treatment? In connection with her last question, she asked about a specific case of a person arriving at the national airport who had reportedly been extradited to a third country – Syria – by car, which raised a whole host of questions.

LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Jordan, asked about the training for security and military personnel, including the introduction of a human rights element and in particular information on the Convention. Moreover, was such training undertaken systematically, and was it monitored? In addition, while the report set out information about training for judges and public prosecutors, there was also no information on training for doctors.

On the issue of monitoring of places of detention, Mr. Gallegos wanted to know if that included detention cells of the General Intelligence Department. He further asked for confirmation that there were no places of secret detention, as had been alleged by some sources.

The report said "there is no truth to the allegations that the State Security Court handed down death sentences based on confessions obtained under duress and torture according to information". Mr. Gallegos asked for the relevant law that prohibited the use of such confessions in the State Security Courts.

Mr. Gallegos further asked about the procedures for investigating complaints about the behaviour of the police or security authorities, and called for Jordan to establish an independent investigation body for such complaints.

Further concerns raised by Mr. Gallegos included a lack of legal provisions for compensation to be paid to torture victims; the situation of female migrant workers, in particular domestic workers, and protections for them; the situation of the large number of refugees that Jordan hosted, and what the Government's intentions were with regard to repatriation and treatment of juvenile refugees; and inspection mechanisms for institutions caring for those with mental or physical disabilities.

Other Committee Experts then asked questions on a number of issues, including the disposition of a 2007 bill before Parliament to limit the death penalty to a smaller number of crimes than under current law and calling for a moratorium on the execution of that sentence; whether, in fact, there had been any death sentences carried out in Jordan since 2007; access to justice, and whether the police courts fulfilled the requirements of due process or fair trial; a lack of clarification between detention and interrogation functions; a lack of coordination between the length of detentions and the length of sentences and a need to clarify the starting times of such detentions; reports of human trafficking; and foreign female domestic workers and the need for monitoring to protect those persons.

Other concerns raised by Experts included who was competent to order an expulsion of a foreigner and the procedure for such a hearing; allegations of threats and harassment of human rights defenders and measures the Government was taking to protect those persons; whether there were any facilities to rehabilitate torture victims; what support there was for abused women who did not want to return to live with their abusers; whether detainees who alleged they had been victims of torture could ask for an independent medical examination by a doctor trained in the Istanbul Protocol; that it appeared prison sentences for torture would only be handed down if substantial injuries had been sustained; a too light penalty for acts of torture – six months to three years' imprisonment; and whether the non-derogable right not to be tortured was explicitly set out in national law, in particular that torture was not permitted in a state of emergency when a number of rights were restricted.

An Expert noted that Jordan was not intending to accept the Committee's competence under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention to hear individual communications nor was it planning to adopt the Optional Protocol to the Convention. He asked for further reasons as to why that was so. Related to this, he noted that visits to prisons could not be made unannounced in Jordan.

An Expert noted numerous sources that reported that Jordan had participated in the whole process of extraordinary renditions in the context of the war on terror. While Jordan had denied those allegations, were the authorities considering undertaking an extensive investigation to report on that situation to demonstrate to the international community that those allegations were untrue?

___________

For use of the information media; not an official record