Committee against Torture hears response of Syria

AFTERNOON

4 May 2010

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Syria to questions raised by Committee Experts on the initial report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on Monday, 3 May, the delegation, which was led by Najm Al Ahmad, Deputy Minister of Justice of Syria, said it had been alleged that Decree No. 64 of 2008 gave immunity to security officers if they committed criminal acts during their duties, including torture. However, that decree provided no one with any immunity whatsoever and a text would be provided to the Committee. It was a military judiciary court that was seized of such acts and it only provided for immunity for specific acts carried out in the line of duty. Regarding the riot in Sednaya Prison, in that case the prisoners had taken the prison guards hostage and had threatened to kill them if the prison authorities did not meet their demands. Some of the guards had in fact been killed. The police had not used force against the rioters at the start, but only after long negotiations. An investigation had been carried out and detailed responses had been sent to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A copy of that response would be provided to the Committee.

As for the study by the Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, and the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, which alleged that Syria had secret places of detention, the delegation noted that both Special Rapporteurs had requested information from Syria and those requests had been responded to. There were no places of secret detention in Syria. Unfortunately, the information that the Government had provided to that effect had not been included in the reports by the Special Rapporteurs. Nevertheless, it would be included in a new study to be drawn up by Mr. Scheinin, which would be submitted to the Human Rights Council in 2010.

The Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Syria, Fernando Mariño Menendez, reiterated his remaining concern about the continuing detention of persons by the security or intelligence agencies coming under the competence of the Ministry of the Interior and a lack of safeguards for persons being held incommunicado in security detention facilities that made them vulnerable to torture.

Nora Sveaass, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report, said she had not heard enough details about complaint mechanisms that were open to individuals who had been subjected to torture or ill-treatment. Moreover, as far as she could see, all the monitoring bodies for places of detention were composed of members of the judiciary, and she wondered if Syria had contemplated allowing other experts and independent bodies to undertake such monitoring.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Syria towards the end of the session on Friday, 14 May.

As one of the 146 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Syria is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 5 May, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Austria (CAT/C/AUT/4-5).

Response of Syria

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Monday, 3 May, the delegation of Syria wished, at the outset, to express its surprise that a number of issues that had been raised yesterday by Experts were not under the mandate of this Committee, but of other human rights bodies and mechanisms, including the Working Group on enforced disappearances, the Committees on the rights of women and the rights of the child and the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders.

It was true that there was no specific definition of torture in Syria. That was because, before 2000, the definitions were not within the competence of the legislature to establish, but rather the judiciary. Since Syria joined the Convention against Torture, the definition contained in the Convention was applicable and, indeed, the definition set out in article 1 of the Convention was incorporated word for word in the new draft Criminal Code.

Explaining the relative status of the Convention in Syrian law, the delegation noted that international conventions took precedence over national law, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on law of treaties, to which Syria was a party.

The penalty for torture ranged from three months to three years in Syrian law, and Experts had commented that that was not commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The delegation noted that those penalties were only for lighter forms of torture, ones which did not result in any visible harm. For torture that resulted in a physical handicap, the punishment could be for up to 15 years' hard labour, and if it resulted in death, a convicted perpetrator could be sentenced to up to 20 years' hard labour.

Turning to the issue of the state of emergency, the delegation underscored that that regime did not in any way create impunity for any act of torture. As for the effect on human rights, it had to be acknowledged that a state of emergency did impact on the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms; however no fundamental rights as set out in the Constitution were derogable rights.

Regarding the allegations of crimes committed by the Security Forces and that that text establishing their powers was way too general, the fact was that in the legal system there was no crime or punishment except in accordance with the law and any crime or punishment had to be described in detail to be punished. The state of emergency did not grant any absolute powers. It was according to administrative decisions issued by the Martial Administrator and fell under the Administrative Council who alone could determine whether any laws could be applied. Those laws could be repealed and could also be appealed.

A person could be held under arrest for 24 hours before they were brought before a judge, and that could be extended for a second 24 hours before being brought before a General Prosecutor. If that period was extended further, the arresting officer could be prosecuted, the delegation said. The General Prosecutor was part and party of the judiciary. The Directorate of Judicial Inspection also supervised prisons and criminal first instance courts and did so in a regular manner.

It had been alleged that Decree No. 64 of 2008 gave immunity to security officers if they committed criminal acts during their duties, including torture. The delegation stressed that that decree provided no one with any immunity whatsoever and a text would be provided to the Committee. It was a military judiciary court that was seized of such acts and it only provided for immunity for specific acts carried out in the line of duty.

Regarding the riot in Sednaya Prison, the delegation said that the prisoners had taken the prison guards hostage and had threatened to kill them if the prison authorities had not met their demands. Some of the guards had in fact been killed. The police had not used force against the rioters at the start, but only after long negotiations. An investigation had been carried out and detailed responses had been sent to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A copy of that response would be provided to the Committee.

On the issue of rights of detainees, the delegation noted that any accused had a right to a defence lawyer, and in a criminal case a lawyer was indispensable. If the accused did not have a lawyer, the court could ask an independent bar association to appoint counsel.

Responding to claims that there had been 40 cases of deaths in prison owing to torture, the delegation stated that that was categorically untrue, and asked for information on the names of the prisoners so that they could investigate and refute those cases. In cases involving the death of a prisoner, by law the body could not be buried without an autopsy being carried out and clearly establishing the cause of death.

The delegation also responded to accusations of deaths following torture in detention of a number of persons. In one case reported, the facts showed a simple case of murder by members of the person's extended family following a religious dispute (regarding succession) and the person had not even been in detention.

As for compensation, Syrian law provided for compensation and judges could decide on whether and how much compensation the victim should receive. Victims could of course appeal any such decision.

Solitary confinement was illegal in Syria. Imprisonment was collective and no one was kept separately in general.

Regarding disappearances, the delegation noted that Syria was working closely with the Working Group on involuntary or enforced disappearances to establish the fate of those persons. Many cases had been clarified and the authorities were working with the Working Group on the 18 cases that remained.

As for the study by the Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, and the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, which alleged that Syria had secret places of detention, the delegation noted that both Special Rapporteurs had requested information from Syria and those requests had been responded to. There were no places of secret detention in Syria. Unfortunately, the information that the Government had provided to that effect had not been included in the reports by the Special Rapporteurs. Nevertheless, it would be included in a new study to be drawn up by Mr. Scheinin, which would be submitted to the Human Rights Council in 2010.

Concerning the procedural rules and scope of the State Security Court, the delegation said that court considered crimes against state security, in accordance with the Criminal Code. Before the court even looked at any case, it was reviewed by specialized judges, in accordance with the same legal procedures followed in the other courts. The court was open, and if members of the Committee came to Syria they could attend sessions of the court.

Regarding selection of judges, there were two methods. First, there were competitive examinations following which the Judicial Council would select candidates in accordance with ranking. Those candidates were sent to the President of the Republic, in order to be adopted by decree. The decree was promulgated without changing any of the names in the list. The second method, which was used in the selection of about 25 per cent of the judges, was to choose among the lawyers that had wide experience or among university professors renowned for their knowledge and integrity.

Responding to allegations that in its withdrawal from Lebanon, Syria had taken a number of Lebanese detainees, the delegation said that, during its exit from Lebanon, no one was taken with the Syrian Army. Those allegations continued to be raised repeatedly, despite the fact that all had witnessed the retreat and had seen that no one had been brought with the army. Indeed, a joint judicial investigation commission had been established, containing members of the Syrian and Lebanese judiciary, to look into all the cases raised by either the Syrian or the Lebanese side following the withdrawal. All the cases had been resolved and the Lebanese side had not complained.

There were, of course, ordinary Lebanese prisoners in Syrian jails, the delegation said, who were accused of things like drugs or human trafficking. However, there was currently a draft law in the works to provide for such persons to be transferred to serve their sentences in their home countries.

It had been said that there had been about 4,000 complaints about Lebanese nationals being held in Syrian jails. In that regard, the delegation said that, after having been reviewed by the Human Rights Council, it had been established that all of those were politicized complaints and they were not substantiated.

On allegations of 16 cases of deaths during military service of Kurds as a result of suicides and accidents and that the families were not allowed to bury their loved ones or to see their corpses, the delegation explained the background regarding the Kurds, and the major influx that had occurred following the Iraq War. Those refugees were supposed to return, but had not been able to do so or to settle in third countries, and subsequently they had created a number of problems for political and other motives. In the particular incident raised by the Committee, a number of Kurds had fired at police officers in a celebration and had killed two police officers. Another, in early 2004, took place against the background of an international football match, when Kurds made use of the events for political purposes. Those who had created the unrest had been arrested and tried with full due process rights. Today, all of those persons were now free and carrying on with their lives.

Turning to the issue of refugees, the delegation just cited a few numbers, including the over 500,000 Palestinian refugees that had entered Syria in 1948 and the 1.2 million Iraqis that had flowed into the country following the Iraq War. If one added to those the Lebanese who had entered the country following the 2006 aggression by Israel and others, the total percentage of refugees in the country came to 12.5 per cent. That said, those granted asylum in Syria enjoyed all the rights that all other Syrians enjoyed, including the right to assume public office. Palestinians, by law, could assume public office without foregoing their Palestinian citizenship. Any refugee had a right to free medical care, free education, the right to redress and the right to property, under certain conditions.

Regarding the presence of children in detention facilities and the claim that 20 children had been victims of torture, the delegation noted that, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Syrian legislature only allowed for detention of children as a means of last resort. As of new juvenile laws, there were many alternative measures that allowed for juveniles to avoid the court system. Moreover, juveniles who were remanded to the court system could obtain bail and be released to the custody of their parents. Syrian law focused on the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Those under 10 were not held to be criminally responsible. For those over 10 and under 15, no criminal sanctions were applied but reform measures were imposed to ensure their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. For those between the ages of 15 and 18 who had committed very serious crimes, such as murder, the punishment was temporary imprisonment.

On the statute of limitations, according to Syrian law, all national crimes were subject to a statute of limitations, including crimes of torture. That was a policy that sought to protect the stability of society and the law. Of course, for war crimes and other international crimes no statute of limitations applied.

It had been said by Experts that a woman who was raped was forced to marry her rapist, which was simply not true. It had also been discussed as if that were a daily occurrence in the country. The delegation stressed that only one of every 2,000 cases involved a rape. According to law, rape victims were allowed to marry their rapist if she wished to. It should be remembered that they were living in an eastern society. That type of marriage, moreover, occurred in very few cases.

As to Syria's decision not to extradite Alois Brunner, a key operative of Adolf Eichmann, for trial for Nazi war crimes, the delegation asked what connection that had with the Convention against torture?

In conclusion, the delegation said it was not true that Syria punished members of the Muslim Brotherhood for being members, but rather for crimes that members of the Muslim Brotherhood had perpetrated.

Further Comments and Questions by Committee Experts

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Chairperson, responding to the delegation's comments on the scope of the Committee's competence, informed the delegation that it was not alone in being asked questions on issues such as forced disappearances, rape of women, torture of children and human trafficking. Those were crosscutting areas that came under the competence of several human rights bodies.

FERNANDO MARIÑO MENENDEZ, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Syria, reiterated his question regarding whether the Convention had been directly applied in the courts in Syria. A remaining concern was the continuing detention of persons by the security or intelligence agencies coming under the competence of the Ministry of the Interior and a lack of safeguards for persons being held incommunicado in security detention facilities that made them vulnerable to torture.

Mr. Mariño Menendez still had questions about impunity for State officials for acts of torture. Reading from a translation made by an non-governmental organization of decree 269, amending the military criminal code, he said that, according to that text, members of the police could not be detained, nor members of security forces or customs officials, if it would impede the carrying out of their functions.

Other remaining concerns voiced by Mr. Mariño Menendez included the fate of disappeared Lebanese nationals, while noting the information provided on the joint Lebanese-Syrian commission; guarantees of independence and fair trial with regard to the State Security Court; the death penalty and how many such sentences had been carried out; harassment of human rights defenders; enforced disappearances in detention centres; and the continuing state of emergency in force.

NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report, asked if training in human rights and the prohibition against torture was also applicable to the military and if monitoring of such training was carried out. Moreover, she had not heard enough details about complaint mechanisms that were open to individuals who had been subjected to torture or ill-treatment.

As far as Ms. Sveaass could see, all the monitoring bodies for places of detention were composed of members of the judiciary, and she wondered if Syria had contemplated allowing other experts and independent bodies to undertake such monitoring.

Ms. Sveaass would be very interested in taking up Syria's invitation to witness the proceedings of the State Security Court, and in that connection she noted concern about the moral tone of the charges against persons being held for trial by that court, such as "weakening national sentiments".

As to low numbers of rapes in Syria, Ms. Sveaass commented that rape was a form of torture and noted that it was a crime that was chronically underreported in all countries.

Other Experts then raised further concerns, including whether prisoners or detainees making complaints of torture were automatically transferred to a facility where they would not be in contact with their alleged torturer; persistent allegations - which remained unanswered except for a flat denial by the authorities - that the State Security Court had systematically failed to investigate torture claims; and a lack of information in the report on cases where compensation had been provided to torture victims.

With regard to the delegation's position that it would appreciate names and dates in order to be able to respond to allegations of torture or disappearance, an Expert pointed out that the cases raised by Experts were not new, and the names and information had been reported on by a number of non-governmental organizations, among others, including based on information published by the United States State Department.

Response by Delegation

Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Syria said that, regarding the lack of an element of non-discrimination in the crime of torture, they would try and ensure that that element was included in future legislation. As regarded the security bodies under the management of the Ministry of the Interior, if they were independent and had a specific mandate they would guarantee the security of the State. The decree promulgated in 2008 did not accord immunity to any person. The Expert had read a text that in no way reflected the actual one, and an official text would be provided. The State Security Court was a judicial court and not an administrative one. The judges came from the Ministry of Justice.

The death penalty was rarely applied in Syria, the delegation reported. Among limitations on the death penalty, it could not be applied to a minor; the law postponed the death penalty for pregnant women until they gave birth; it could not be carried out on Fridays, Sundays or during official religious celebrations; and there had been no case of the application of the death penalty without a final judgement or legislative procedures to that end. When there was no appeal or the appeal was thrown out, the Prosecutor submitted the case to the Court of Cassation and the penalty was not carried out until a decision was handed down by a panel of five judges. The death penalty had been carried out following convictions for very serious crimes, including murder, rape accompanied by murder, and four sentences of the death penalty had been carried out for murder accompanied by other crimes as well.

With regard to trainings mentioned, those were available to members of the police only and the army were not included. As to protections for those who complained of torture, there were two separate bodies which heard those complaints – the police and the courts. In that way the person was protected from reprisals.

As regarded war criminals, perpetrators of war crimes were not to be found in Syria, the delegation said. There was no information that such persons were in the country.

___________

For use of the information media; not an official record