Human Rights Council holds interactive dialogue with Special Rapporteurs on protecting human rights while countering terrorism and on torture

MORNING

7 March 2011

The Human Rights Council this morning held a clustered interactive dialogue with Martin Scheinin, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and Juan Ernesto Mendez, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Martin Scheinin, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, presenting his latest report, said that it dealt with best practices in the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism that had been developed based on his six years of experience as the first Special Rapporteur to hold this mandate. Best practice referred not only to what was required by international law, including human rights law, but also the principles that went beyond these legally binding obligations. The identification of best practice was based upon three criteria: (a) a credible claim that the practice was an existing or emerging practice or one that was required by or recommended by international, regional or domestic courts; (b) the practice related to and promoted the effective combating of terrorism; and (c) the practice complied with human rights and or promoted the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The report identified ten areas of best practice in countering terrorism: 1. Consistency of counter-terrorism law with human rights, refugee law and humanitarian law, 2. Consistency of counter-terrorism practice with human rights, refugee law and humanitarian law, 3. Principles of normalcy and specificity, 4. Regular review of counter-terrorism law and human rights violations, 5. The requirement of effective remedies for human rights violations, 6. Reparations and assistance to victims of terrorism and victims of counter-terrorism measures, 7. Model definition of terrorism, 8. Model definition of the offence of incitement to terrorism, 9. Minimum safeguards in the listing of terrorists, 10. Core rules concerning the arrest and interrogation of terrorist suspects.

Juan Ernesto Mendez, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said he believed that efforts to combat torture required a victim-centered perspective that sought an integrated long-term approach to adequate redress and reparation, including compensation and rehabilitation for victims and their families. While international law and practice required certain minimum standards and principles in relation to redress and reparations for victims of torture, he was concerned that some States only awarded formal rights which were often modest and peripheral to the justice system.

With respect to the rehabilitation of victims and survivors of torture, Mr. Mendez said that efforts to provide assistance had to seek to recognize and validate the traumatic experience of torture that victims had suffered, as well as to prevent their further isolation by reintegrating victims into society. Victims had to address the main aim of torture which was generally to isolate and engender fear in victims in order to break their will. Mr. Mendez said his role as Special Rapporteur not only gave him an opportunity to assess the situation with regard to torture, but also to provide credible and human rights-friendly forensic and other scientific alternatives which had been proven to achieve better results than the use of torture. During his tenure, he intended to identify and further develop the linkages between forensic and other sciences, not only with a view to eradicating torture but also to offer States credible alternatives to employ in law enforcement, counter-terrorism and effective criminal prosecution. Successful prosecutions and safe convictism of verifiably guilty parties went a long way in restoring and enhancing the public’s confidence in the institutions of the rule of law. In turn, that public confidence was the best guarantee of success in fighting crime of all sorts.

Peru, Tunisia, Greece and Jamaica spoke as concerned countries.

In the interactive dialogue regarding the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, speakers said that it was important to set up a proper legal framework consisting of law and policy that implemented human rights standards. As the Special Rapporteur’s work illustrated, countering terrorism was a global challenge, which called for States to be vigilant and creative, receptive to new ideas, and diligent in ensuring that measures taken to prevent and combat terrorism complied with their obligations under applicable international law. Terrorism was an international hazard and a direct violation of human rights and as such it must be tackled in a comprehensive manner, both in its consequences and in its root causes and by using legislative and judicial perspectives. Some speakers insisted that secret detention and mistreatment must be resolutely stopped, while numerous speakers also acknowledged that striking the balance between fundamental freedoms, civil liberties and public safety and security was a complex task.

Speakers also pointed out that the adoption of an overly wide definition of terrorism carried with it a risk of deliberate misuse of the term. One of the worst violations was the use of secret or unacknowledged detention and shameful torture and interrogation methods which involved serious violations of human rights. In recent yeas, Muslims had suffered the consequences of those anti-terrorist measures which were discriminatory and had led in some countries to laws and practices that stifled dissent and opposition. It was recommended that the Special Rapporteur consider this issue with the aim of ensuring the protection of human rights for all. Many speakers thanked the Rapporteur for his list of best practices and suggested that other important areas where best practices should be identified were international cooperation, capacity building and technical assistance. People also asked Mr. Scheinin how civil society and private companies could assist in this mandate; the biggest obstacles he faced in implementing his mandate; and whether the definition of terrorism that he used in compiling his list of best practices needed to be refined.

With regards to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, many speakers said they welcomed Mr. Mendez’s victim-centered approach and they asked him to elaborate on such an approach. For example, how did it compare or contrast with the approach undertaken by previous mandate holders? Also, were the victims of terrorism, whose rights were also violated, entitled to redress just like those people whose rights had been infringed due to counter terrorism measures? Speakers noted that countries should consider the Rapporteur’s 5 recommendations which were victim-based. Speakers also said they appreciated his long term approach and that in the international arena, the ratification of the International Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol were important instruments to implement the National Mechanism of Prevention. It was pointed out that most developing countries might lack the necessary resources to combat torture and speakers called for more financial assistance to be provided to those countries.

States asked how they could be of assistance to the Special Rapporteur on torture in his work in strengthening the application and implementation of existing standards and some speakers requested that the Special Rapporteur elaborate on awarding formal rights to victims and other practical measures to improve the situation of victims of torture. Concerning the need to include forensic expertise in combating torture, the Rapporteur was asked if there were examples of good practices or particular policy approaches in this regard. Mr. Mendez was also asked to further elaborate on torture during pre-trial detention and what measures needed to be taken to diminish the risk of torture during pre-trial detention. Conditions of detention in many places did not meet the minimum standards and the Rapporteur was asked if those standards, over half a century old, were still adequate or if there was a protection gap.

The following countries spoke: Uruguay, Chile, China, Turkey, Switzerland, Iran, Spain, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), the United States, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Cuba, the European Union, France, Mexico, Algeria, Indonesia, the Republic of Moldova, the United Kingdom, Austria, Bangladesh, Nepal, Iraq on behalf of the Arab Group, Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, Czech Republic, Colombia, Egypt, the Russian Federation, Afghanistan, the Maldives, Norway, Jordan, Brazil, Belarus, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Togo and Nigeria.

The following national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations also spoke: the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions, the National Commission for Human Rights of Greece, the World Organization against Torture, the Asian Legal Resource Centre, Corporación Humanas y Conectas Derechos Humanos, Human Rights Advocates, the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, Amnesty International, France Libertes: Fondation Danielle Mitterand and the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights.
The next meeting of the Council will be at 2 p.m. today when there will be a clustered interactive dialogue with the Chairs of the Working Group on enforced disappearances and the Working Group on arbitrary detention as well as the Special Rapporteur on internally displaced persons.
Documents

The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, (A/HRC/16/51), lists the key activities of the Special Rapporteur from 1 August to 10 December 2010. It presents a compilation of best practice in countering terrorism, which is the outcome of an analysis undertaken by the Special Rapporteur on the basis of his work conducted over almost six years and involving various forms of interaction with multiple stakeholders. The outcome of the process is the identification of 10 areas of best practice distilled from existing and emerging practices in a broad range of States throughout the world. The compilation also draws upon international treaties, resolutions adopted by international organizations and the jurisprudence of international and regional courts.

Communications to and from Governments, (A/HRC/16/51/Add.1), is a summary of cases transmitted to governments and replies received between 1 January and 31 December 2010.

Mission to Tunisia (22 to 26 January 2010), (A/HRC/16/51/Add.2), examines the current terrorist threats and the legal and institutional frameworks that form the backdrop for the country’s counter-terrorism efforts. The Special Rapporteur concludes that the current definition of terrorism is vague and broad, hence deviating from the principle of legality and allowing for wide usage of counter-terrorism measures in practice. He therefore discusses the importance of a strict definition of the concept of terrorism, also since the latter impacts on other legal provisions relating to membership in/support for terrorist organizations and incitement to terrorism. He is concerned that some of the existing provisions may lead to undue restrictions of other human rights, e.g. freedoms of expression, religion and association.

Mission to Peru (1 to 8 September 2010), (A/HRC/16/51/Add.3), examines the measures taken by Peru to support victims of terrorist crimes and of human rights violations committed by State security forces during the internal armed conflict between 1980 and 2000. The Special Rapporteur analyses the current legislative framework for countering terrorism and its application and implementation in practice and concludes that Peru provides important lessons with regard to the provision of justice and compensation for the suffering caused by the internal armed conflict and considers a best practice the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Corrigendum, (A/HRC/16/51/Add.3/Corr.1), Paragraph 17, fifth sentence For The aid Decree read The said Decree.

Compilation of replies to the Questionnaire, (A/HRC/16/51/Add.4), contains written submissions by Governments to the questionnaire of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights related to the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, containing ten areas of best practice in countering terrorism.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, (A/HRC/16/52), gives an overview of the activities of the mandate over the reporting cycle, including the activities carried out by the former Special Rapporteur up to the end of his mandate on 31 October 2010. The Special Rapporteur outlines his working methods and vision, and notes, in relation to follow-up country visits, that invitations from States to conduct follow-up visits constitute a good practice that should be disseminated.

Communications to and from Governments, (A/HRC/16/52/Add.1), is a summary of communications sent and replies received from governments and other actors.

Follow-up to Recommendations, (A/HRC/16/52/Add.2), contains follow-up to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on his visits to Azerbaijan, Brazil, China (People’s Republic of), Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Paraguay, the Republic of Moldova, Spain, Sri Lanka, Togo, Uruguay and Uzbekistan.

Mission to Jamaica (12 to 21 February 2010), (A/HRC/16/52/Add.3), contains the findings and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his mission to Jamaica. The Special Rapporteur did not find that torture, in the classical sense of deliberately inflicting severe pain or suffering as a means of extracting a confession or information, constitutes a major problem in Jamaica. He did find, however, a general atmosphere of violence and aggression in almost all police stations, as well as discriminatory practices against detainees.

Mission to Greece (10 to 20 October 2010), (A/HRC/16/52/Add.4), presents the findings and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, on his mission to Greece, from 10 to 20 October 2010. In the police stations visited, he almost exclusively found foreign nationals and it seemed that the stations operate as facilities for detention awaiting deportation contrary to their normal function. In all but one facility under the authority of the Ministry of Citizen’s Protection (police stations, border guard stations and migration detention centres) he found foreign nationals detained in overcrowded, dirty cells, with inadequate sanitary facilities, no or insufficient access to outdoor exercise and inadequate medical attention. He found such conditions to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Articles 7 and 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Mission to Papa New Guinea (14 to 25 May 2010), (A/HRC/16/52/Add.5), contains the findings and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, on his mission to Papua New Guinea, from 14 to 25 May 2010. The Special Rapporteur found a considerable number of cases where persons were subjected to different degrees of beatings by the police during arrest and as a form of punishment, which may also amount to torture. He also found a general atmosphere of violence and neglect in places of detention. In police stations, detainees were locked up for long periods in overcrowded and filthy cells, without proper ventilation or natural light for periods of up to one year. The conditions in correctional institutions were better, but generally overcrowded. There was also an overall lack of medical attention.

Presentation of Reports

MARTIN SCHEININ, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, said the report dealt with best practice in countering terrorism based on six years of experience as the first Special Rapporteur assigned to the mandate of the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The notion of ‘best practice’, mentioned in the resolutions by the Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights Council and the central Security Council resolutions related to counter-terrorism, referred to the legal and institutional frameworks that serve to promote and protect human rights and the rule of law in all aspects of counter-terrorism. Best practice referred not only to what was required by international law, including human rights law, but also the principles that went beyond these legally binding obligations. The identification of best practice was based upon three criteria: (a) credible claim that the practice was in an existing or emerging practice or one that was required by or recommended by international, regional or domestic courts; (b) the practice related to and promoted the effective combating of terrorism; and (3) the practice complied with human rights and or promoted the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The report identified ten areas of best practice in countering terrorism: 1. Consistency of counter-terrorism law with human rights, refugee law and humanitarian law, 2. Consistency of counter-terrorism practice with human rights, refugee law and humanitarian law, 3. Principles of normalcy and specificity, 4. Regular review of counter-terrorism law and human rights violations, 5. The requirement of effective remedies for human rights violations, 6. Reparations and assistance to victims of terrorism and victims of counter-terrorism measures, 7. Model definition of terrorism, 8. Model definition of the offence of incitement to terrorism, 9. Minimum safeguards in the listing of terrorists, 10. Core rules concerning the arrest and interrogation of terrorist suspects.

The Special Rapportuer said during his mission to Tunisia, he had expressed concern about wide definitions of terrorism and associated crimes having far-reaching negative consequences for the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. The wide notion of terrorism was not isolated to Tunisia as demonstrated by Colonel Gaddafi’s accusations against demonstrators as drugged al Qaeda fighters and that this justified the use of brutal force. The ongoing reforms in Tunisia involved many of the issues identified in the Special Rapportuer’s recommendations after the mission, including the decision to ratify a number of human rights instruments, including the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, and the opening of all places of detention for an independent national visiting mechanism. Concerning the visit to Peru, the Special Rapporteur commended the Government and legislature of Peru that repealed Legislative Decree 1097 which could have granted impunity for gross human rights violations committed by state officials in the name of countering terrorism; however he expressed grave concern for Legislative Decree 1095 which was based on a serious misconception of the legal application of international humanitarian law and included a definition of hostile groups that could be applied to legitimize the use of military force against social protest by indigenous peoples’ movements. The Special Rappporteur reiterated his commitment to engage with Peru in the replacement of the Fujimori era framework of Decree law 25.475 with a proper counter-terrorism law.

JUAN ERNESTO MENDEZ, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said that the ordeal of victims of torture endured even when the torture itself had ended. Victims experienced many forms of long-term physical and psychological damage as a result of torture and ill treatment. In this regard, Mr. Mendez was encouraged by the heroic efforts of various organizations whose work ensured that there were appropriate remedies and reparation for victims. The work of such organizations sought to include and promote the perspective of victims and survivors in the development of programmes and policies aimed at addressing torture. This was a goal that the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment wholeheartedly supported and would pursue during his tenure. The Special Rapporteur believed that efforts to combat torture required a victim-centered perspective that sought an integrated long-term approach to adequate redress and reparation, including compensation and rehabilitation for victims and their families. While international law and practice required certain minimum standards and principles in relation to redress and reparations for victims of torture, he was concerned that some States only awarded formal rights which were often modest and peripheral to the justice system.

Mr. Mendez was equally dissatisfied by the lack of progress in institutionalizing basic principles and guidelines which sought to provide minimum standards for victims. It was his conviction that victims had to have a central role in holding torturers accountable for their actions. Indeed, the criminal procedures of some States were more favourable than those of others to this engagement by victims; nevertheless, without undermining defendants’ rights to all guarantees of a fair trial, victims should be allowed to participate actively in attempts to hold their torturers accountable through criminal prosecutions and trials. With respect to the rehabilitation of victims and survivors of torture, efforts to provide assistance had to seek to recognize and validate the traumatic experience of torture that victims had suffered, as well as to prevent their further isolation by reintegrating victims into society. Victims had to address the main aim of torture which was generally to isolate and engender fear in victims in order to break their will. Article 15 of the torture convention served an important preventive function by requiring the exclusion of statements and confessions obtained through torture in criminal proceedings. In this manner, the norms denied those who engaged in torture the ability to use information wrongfully obtained against the defendant. The purpose of the exclusionary rule was to discourage torture, even though in addition it was a key feature of the right to a fair trial to which all criminal defendants were entitled. The torturer had to know that his mistreatment of the person under interrogation jeopardized the State’s ability to bring changes and successfully punish offenders. Mr. Mendez said his role as Special Rapporteur did not only give him an opportunity to assess the situation with regard to torture, but also to provide credible and human rights-friendly forensic and other scientific alternatives which had been proven to achieve better results than the use of torture. During his tenure, he intended to identify and further develop the linkages between forensic and other sciences, not only with a view to eradicating torture but also to offer States credible alternatives to employ in law enforcement, counter-terrorism and effective criminal prosecution. Successful prosecutions and safe convictism of verifiably guilty parties went a long way in restoring and enhancing the public’s confidence in the institutions of the rule of law. In turn, that public confidence was the best guarantee of success in fighting crime of all sorts.

Statements by Concerned Countries

FERNANDO ROJAS SAMANEZ (Peru), speaking as a concerned country, said that addendum three of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism referred to the visit to Peru which took place on the basis of an open invitation extended by the Government to the Special Procedures. The Government had received the report in a constructive spirit and its content was a subject of serious consideration. Terrorist violence during the 1980s and 1990s had had a serious impact in Peru, as seen by the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Terror, including destruction of infrastructure had arrested development and to a degree paralyzed State institutions. The Special Rapporteur highlighted a series of measures undertaken by Peru which might be considered as best practices. Some of those measures were the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which had made many recommendations such as reparation to victims and measures to strengthen national reconciliation. Concerning reparations, the Special Rapporteur noted with satisfaction the system established in Peru, for both individual and collective reparations. The Special Rapporteur had considered as a very important step forward, the trial of persons considered responsible for intellectual instigations. While Peru agreed as to the risks of wide definition of terrorism, as stipulated in the Special Rapporteur’s report, it was important to mention that terrorism in Peru included wide destruction of infrastructure. Regarding the concerns in delay in reparations, the delegation said that the Government had developed a plan for individual and collective reparations, which so far had covered thousands of individuals, communities and projects.

MOHAMED SAMIR KOUBAA (Tunisia), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur for his presentation and his visit to Tunisia from 22 to 26 January 2010. The revolution had reaffirmed the new Government’s break with the past to accede to dignity, liberty, democracy and human rights for all citizens. Tunisia had comprehensively restructured its legislation with a view to bringing it into line with international conventions and treaties. Tunisia agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s concern on the scope of applications of terrorism which might jeopardize the efficiency of the fight against terrorism. The Government had passed Law 2003-75 which would support international efforts against terrorism and money laundering. The Government would continue to work with civil society to provide for greater independence for the judiciary and there would be no detention centers that remained secret as all would be open to international visitors. The role of human rights defenders would be paramount as well as the number of non-governmental organizations. Tunisia had signed the Optional Protocol to the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and the Rome Statute. The Government would also provide amnesty for prisoners who had been accused of terrorism; it had launched an invitation to all United Nations Special Procedures to visit Tunisia as well as the Special Rapporteur to return to Tunisia to assess the situation.

CONSTANTINA ATHANASSIADOU (Greece), speaking as a concerned country, said that Greece considered torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as major violations of human rights and fully subscribed to the principles of constant international monitoring for the eradication of torture. In this regard, Greece was a party to all relevant international and regional instruments and had recently signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Since the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Greece, substantial legislation had been adopted and implemented in order to address all aspects of the phenomenon of illegal migration to Greece: The Presidential Decree about the asylum procedures had come into force (PD 114/2010). This Decree re-introduced the second instance examination of asylum applications and provided for the clearing of pending asylum applications at second instance as a first, step towards improving the treatment of asylum seekers in their country.

Greece shared Mr. Nowak’s concern over a “detention crisis”, as he had put it, It was true, as according to data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in 2010, about 90 per cent of illegal migrants apprehended at the external borders of the European Union were detected at the Greek borders. These overwhelming numbers were leading to a critical situation, one aspect of which was the problem of overcrowding of irregular migrants in relevant facilities. In this context, Greece appreciated Mr. Nowak’s recommendations with regard to the migratory pressure their country was facing, as Greece was required to manage the vast majority of irregular migrants towards the European Union on their own. In this vein, they also sincerely thanked Mr. Nowak for his recommendations as regards burden sharing within the European Union.

WAYNE MCCOOK (Jamaica), speaking as a concerned country, said that Jamaica was pleased that their communication of certain errors of law and fact in the initial report had been taken into account and reflected in the final report. During the visit of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to Jamaica, the Government had provided its fullest cooperation and provided full access to all stakeholders and prisoners and detainees. The firm commitment of Jamaica to principles of humane treatment was inscribed in its Constitution and reflected in its laws and legal practice. Jamaica said that due note must be taken of status and precedents and sources of the common law. Jamaica informed the Human Rights Council that ratification of the Convention against Torture was under review. Jamaica disagreed in the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur that certain acts of beating, which were used as punishment, amounted to torture. The incident had been investigated internally and by an independent authority. Concerning conditions in detention, Jamaica recognised that resource constrains continued to prevent it from improving conditions in detention facilities to the level desired and could not agree with the Special Rapporteur that conditions in some adult facilities reflected a complete disregard for the dignity of detainees and could be regarded as inhuman. The Government was making efforts to improve living conditions of inmates in all institutions to address the challenges, some of which were highlighted by the Special Rapporteur. The problems in the penal and correctional institutions must be seen in the context of the high level of crime in Jamaica. In conclusion, Jamaica stressed that its Government took seriously the findings and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur aimed at improving the conditions in its correctional institutions and would endeavour to implement them.

Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteurs on Counter-Terrorism and on Torture

LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE (Uruguay) said that in connection to follow-up to the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations, the Government of Uruguay had renewed its commitment to deal with the conditions of deprivation of liberty, transitioning to a national rehabilitation center for adults and one for adolescents which would be run along a multidisciplinary approach, providing social services. The budget included a line for staff and infrastructure for detention centers. In 2010 there were reforms to the criminal code and the code for criminal procedures to provide a clearer description of police violence and for police to take action against domestic violence and the establishment of a hotline for violence. In the institution for children and adolescents there was work against drug abuse. The prison population administration as of 1 January 2009 had a budget line to deal with primary level care and people working with inmates with mental disabilities and with HIV ADIS and a National Institute for Human Rights would be established which would develop a mechanism for torture. The Government had also considered a draft law concerning impunity and would continue to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur.

VICENTE ZERAN (Chile) said that Chile reiterated its support for the work carried out by both the Special Rapporteurs. Combating terrorism was a pressing need for the international community and Chile appreciated the work of the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism who identified 10 areas of best practices in fighting terrorism. It was important to set up a proper legal framework and a combination between law and policy; through the implementation of human rights standards it was possible to combat terrorism. Secondly Chile welcomed the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan Ernesto Mendez, and wished him a lot of success. Chile appreciated the approach he had followed for his work and the fact that he sought to integrate long term approach. In the case of torture countries should consider five recommendations which were victim-based. In the international arena, the ratification of the International Convention Against Torture and it Optional Protocol were important instruments to implement the national mechanisms of prevention. Finally, Chile supported the important work of the Special Rapporteur.

XU JING (China) said that terrorism was an international hazard and a direct violation of human rights. It must be tackled in a comprehensive manner, both in its consequences and in its root causes. Secret detention and mistreatment must be resolutely stopped. The issue must be tackled from both legislative and judicial perspectives. The compilation of best practices presented by the Special Rapporteur this morning should be implemented by all governments. China was committed to working with all parties on protecting human rights while countering terrorism. As one of the first countries to sign up to the Convention against Torture, China was deepening judicial reforms as to strengthen the system of checks and balances, and was also reviewing the conditions in detention facilities. China took note of the statement in the report of the Special Rapporteur that torture was still prevalent, particularly in the context of combating terrorism and in immigration. It was necessary to mention that most developing countries might face a lack of resources in their combat against torture and China called for more financial assistance to be provided to those countries.

YAPRAK ALP (Turkey) said the fight against torture and ill treatment had been a priority item on the Turkish Government’s agenda for several years and the Government was committed to preventing and eradicating torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Government had adopted a policy of zero tolerance for torture and in line with this policy had introduced various legislative amendments. The Turkish Parliament had passed the law ratifying the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and had benefited from its cooperation with the United Nations Committee Against Torture and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Turkey was closely cooperating with the United Nations special mechanisms in the field of human rights and had issued a standing invitation to the thematic Special Procedures.

NATHALIE CHUARD (Switzerland) said Switzerland welcomed the new Special Rapporteur on torture and wished him best success. Switzerland had read his report and welcomed his work to ensure the continuation of the positions defended in his mandate and strengthen the absolute and non derogable provision of torture. Switzerland welcomed the will of the Special Rapporteur to work with regional mechanisms and the fact that he wished to place victims at the centre of the mandate and this approach was fully supported by Switzerland. They took note of the fact that the Special Rapporteur wished to raise some questions in a dispassionate and rational way, such as the death penalty and the link between the death penalty and torture. Switzerland welcomed this ambitious approach. Switzerland also reiterated the importance of the Special Rapporteur on countering terrorism and the role accorded to Special Procedures and the good practices in the area against countering terrorism.

MOHAMMAD ZAREIAN (Iran) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism recognised that effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights were complementary and mutually reinforcing goals. The adoption of the overly wide definition of terrorism carried with it a risk of deliberate use of the term. One of the worst forms of violations had been the use of secret or unacknowledged detention and shameful torture and interrogation methods which involved serious violation of human rights. In the recent decade Muslims had suffered the consequences of those anti-terrorist measures which were discriminatory and had led in some countries to laws and practices that stifled dissent and opposition. Iran recommended that the Special Rapporteur consider this issue and provide different aspects of this cruelty with the aim of ensuring protection of human rights for all.

BORJA MONTESINO (Spain) said that Spain welcomed the Special Rapporteur on human rights and countering terrorism before the Council and referred to the means of effective recourse and reparation and assistance to victims mentioned in the report. The Special Rapporteur established two areas different from each other: those whose rights were violated due to counter terrorism measures and had recourse and those who were victims of terrorism and should be provided effective reparation. Between these two areas Spain understood that when a person had undergone a violation of his rights through counter terrorism activity, judicial bodies should determine possible civil and criminal responsibility; but it had not understood if this same treatment would be given to terrorism victims and would like to ask if the reparation for damage should not be carried out by judicial bodies but by ad hoc bodies so that the victims’ rights were not victimized twice.

KSHENUKA SENEWIRATNE (Sri Lanka) wished to observe that violations of fundamental guarantees could take place irrespective of the nature of the legal regime adopted. The legal regime could be the product of the adoption of normal laws or emergency provisions. Whatever the result, it was important to ensure that the said regime was not subject to such abuse that would result in the violations of the rights of a person. Derogable rights had therefore to be accompanied by the appropriate checks and balances that would ensure the proper balance of the sustainability of such derogations.

Sri Lanka said that it had to be appreciated that illegal arrest and detention were tantamount to infringement of the Bill of Rights of Sri Lanka and any infraction of these process rights would give rise to the intrusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The remedy of habeas corpus was acknowledged to be a bulwark against abuse of executive powers of arrest and detention and these constitutionally entrenched rights were in existence in Sri Lanka as an efficacious remedy for any illegal detention.

CAROLINE SWEEMEY (Ireland) said Ireland welcomed the calls made for the eradication of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and said those were among the worst violations of human rights and human dignity. Ireland welcomed the intention of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to take a victim-centered approach in his mandate. Ireland asked how States could be of assistance to the Special Rapporteur in his work on strengthening the application and implementation of existing standards. Furthermore, Ireland requested that the Special Rapporteur elaborate on awarding formal rights to victims and on other practical measures that could be taken to improve the situation of victims of torture. Concerning the need to include forensic expertise in combating torture, Ireland asked if there were examples of good practices or particular policy approaches in this regard.

MARIAM MADIHA AFTAB (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism focused on the compilation of 10 areas of best practices for countering terrorism in the full compliance with human rights. The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference believed that this was an important exercise and concurred with the Special Rapporteur that people who were arrested on suspicions of terrorism must be given the benefit of legal assistance of their choosing and must be informed of that right. The Organization of the Islamic Conference concurred with his observation that the prohibition against torture was absolute and non derogable and applied to the treatment of any person within the power and effective control of the State, even when not situated in the territory of the State. Other important areas where best practices should be identified were international cooperation, capacity building and technical assistance. The Organization of the Islamic Conference fully supported the observations concerning the important role played by forensic and other sciences in eradicating the use of torture and would like the exclusionary rule to be further examined and a balance maintained between the responsibility of the State to ensure the safety and security of its citizens and the application of the exclusionary rule.

MARK J. CASSAYRE (United States) said the United States welcomed this opportunity to engage with the Special Rapporteur on the goals of his future mandate. In this regard, they were happy to hear that he would continue the work of his predecessor with respect to torture in prisons, especially, during pretrial confinement. The United States read with interest the Special Rapporteur’s report, particularly his “victim-centered approach” and would be interested to hear more about this approach, and how it compared or contrasted with the approach undertaken by previous mandate holders.

The United States thanked the Special Rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, for his most recent and final report on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and for his tireless work to promote and protect human rights, not only in his tenure as the first Special Rapporteur to hold this post but throughout his career as well. As the Special Rapporteur’s work illustrated, countering terrorism was a global challenge, which called for States to be vigilant and creative, receptive to new ideas, and diligent in ensuring that measures taken to prevent and combat terrorism complied with their obligations under applicable international law.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism largely focused on the compilation of best practices. This endeavour was very useful and beneficial and it was particularly heartening to note that there were a number of valuable elements from which the States could draw inspiration and consider developing in the future. Some elements though might require more reflection. The African Group noted the efforts made by the Special Rapporteur on a model definition of terrorism. While appreciating that effort, the African Group believed that a more comprehensive definition of this concept should be worked on with all concerned, since terrorism was a common threat to all States. The African Group expressed its concern at the prevalence of the practice of torture and shared the view of the Special Rapporteur that given the brutality of this form of punishment, there was a need for all concerned parties to work out quick and effective means to address this issue. The African Group welcomed the observations the Special Rapporteur made with regard to the role of forensic and other sciences in eradicating the use of torture and supported his call to States to continue working with the relevant international organizations to ensure capacity building and technology transfer in this field.

LUIS AMOROS NUNEZ (Cuba) said the report provided a summary of best practice in countering terrorism and understood the limitations of the definition of terrorism. The focus on best practice would help to unravel and unmask the serious violations of human rights during the so-called war on terrorism which undermined the link between legislation and the interrogation of terrorist suspects. In the war against terrorism, hundreds of thousands of people had been denied their human rights. What good practices could be defended by those who had established secret detention centers and who had protected the best known terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles in the Western hemisphere? Five Cuban young people were serving time in United States prisons and Cuba would like the Special Rapporteur to investigate these detentions. Cuba would also like to know more details about the secret detention centers in Europe or in Guantanamo Bay.

NICOLE RECKINGER (European Union) said the European Union reiterated the importance it attached to country visits and called upon all States to cooperate with the mandate holders and facilitate such visits. Full cooperation by States was of great importance in order to ensure a meaningful engagement between States and mandate holders. The European Union offered the following questions: What were the main obstacles that the Special Rapporteur on promoting human rights while countering terrorism encountered in fulfilling his mandate and how could this Council contribute to addressing these obstacles? The Special Rapporteur had identified 10 best practices from various regions of the world: to what extent did the “effectiveness for combating terrorism” play a role in the selection of best practices? How did the Special Rapporteur assess the degree of implementation of these practices, and did he identify a positive trend? What were his further thoughts on the implementation of best practices?

Turning to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, Juan Ernesto Mendez, the European Union was pleased to congratulate him on his appointment as Special Rapporteur and assured him of its full and unreserved co-operation. The European Union strongly supported his mandate.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) said that torture and other cruel and inhuman forms of treatment remained too wide spread and the efforts to eradicate them must be intensified. France was a party to the Convention against Torture and had established an independent overseeing mechanism for places of detention. France was also a contributor to the United Nations Fund for victims of torture. France urged the concerned States to respond to queries by the Special Rapporteur. With regard to the suggestion on the use of forensic science, France wished to hear more from the Special Rapporteur. Turning to the report presented by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, France said that the fight against terrorism must always be conducted in compliance with the international law and those principles must always be respected. In the study of best practices, the Special Rapporteur also proposed a definition of terrorism and France asked if this definition could inspire States?

SALVADOR TINAJERO (Mexico) said Mexico thanked the Special Rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism for submitting his report. Mexico was not mistaken six years ago when it proposed this mandate. The protection of human rights was an indispensible compliment to any policy of countering terrorism. Mexico welcomed the appointment of Juan Ernesto Mendez as the Special Rapporteur on torture and also welcomed the forensic and scientific mechanisms presented in applying the law against torture. Mexico had been working on implementing the recommendations by the Sub-Committee against the Prevention of Torture.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said Algeria welcomed the Special Rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, and congratulated him for his work and affirmed that terrorist acts aimed at the destruction of democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms and meant the negation of these rights. Effective actions against terrorism and for the protection of human rights were synergistic and complementary aims. It was important that the 10 best practices identified by Mr. Scheinin in countering terrorism were adopted and implemented, taking into account the reality and the specific contexts of each situation and the legislative framework of each State. One of the main responses adopted by Algeria when coming out from the crisis was the protection of all victims of the national tragedy in 1990. With respect to the need to adopt a legal definition of terrorism this was one of the constant claims of Algeria at the United Nations and they would like to have more clarification on the nature of the mechanism that might give power to the judiciary. The Special Rapporteur on torture should work in the framework of his mandate and this would avoid duplication. With the concern to be coherent and respect competences it was important to keep in mind that the complaint procedure to the Convention against Torture concerned the Convention against Torture exclusively as well as a State party and a complainant.

DICKY KOMAR (Indonesia) said that combating terrorism had become a key priority for the Government of Indonesia, focusing on its democratic response approach through law enforcement and empowering the moderate. The 2003 Anti-terrorism Law set out provisions for the lawful arrest, detention, investigation and prosecution of suspects. The specialised Counter-Terrorist Unit had made important progress in combating terrorist violence and in bringing to justice those responsible. Striking the balance between fundamental freedoms, civil liberties and public safety and security was a complex task and Indonesia was facing up to this challenge. Concerning the reports by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Indonesia said that it was working hard to ensure further progress in preventing and combating torture in the country. Indonesia was working with the independent national human rights institution Komnas HAM to ensure the legislation was monitored and upheld. Continued efforts to enhance the understanding of the importance of human rights amongst the army and law enforcement agencies were also being made through the dissemination of information about human rights and through training programmes, seminars and other initiatives.

VLADIMIR CHIRINCIUC (Republic of Moldova) said the Government of the Republic of Moldova appreciated the permanent dialogue with the former Special Rapporteur on torture since his visit in 2008 and the follow up visit in 2009, including his participation in the Workshop on the National Preventive Mechanism and Ending Impunity for Torture. The Government of the Republic of Moldova would like to cooperate with the former Special Rapporteur in regard to the follow up activities to his missions under the European Union Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. The report tackled the complex problem of the conditions of detention and the Special Rapporteur expressed his concern at the large number of places of detention that do not meet minimum international standards and that he would engage with States that permitted such conditions as well as with those that lacked the resources to institute minimum standards. The Republic of Moldova would like to hear more details about the modality and methods of dealing with this issue and would like to know if the Special Rapporteur would take into account that in the majority of States the conditions of detention, including those related to food, water, clothing, health care and minimum space, as well as hygiene, privacy and security necessary for a humane and dignified existence were inappropriate because of the complicated economic and social situation which many countries faced due to insufficient budgetary funding and international assistance and not due to a lack of political will. The Government regretted that the National Torture Preventive Mechanism could not be applied in the Transnistrian Region in the eastern part of the Republic of Moldova.

MARIA TODD (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom thanked Martin Scheinin, the Special Rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism, for his dedication to his mandate in this complex field over the past six years and for the challenging debates which he had initiated. They wished him well in his future work on human rights. The United Kingdom agreed strongly that counter terrorism work had to be done in a way entirely consistent with human rights obligations and that the practices used should be regularly reviewed and scrutinized. The United Kingdom was pleased to see that his report focused on the practical delivery of these objectives and they welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the consultation.

The United Kingdom welcomed the emphasis in the report of Juan Ernesto Mendez, the Special Rapporteur on torture, on both torture prevention and tackling impunity. They would be interested to hear from him with regards to the role he saw for himself in responding to both historical and current allegations of torture in the Middle East and North Africa. In light of worrying reports of instances of torture in Belarus following the elections last December, the United Kingdom would be interested to hear his thoughts on how to address this issue.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) said Austria firmly believed that respect for human rights and the rule of law were fundamental to all efforts to combat terrorism and ensure accountability. An effective and rule of law-based national system of law enforcement and criminal justice was essential to prevent terrorist acts and to bring terrorists to justice. Austria commended the work of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime on building fair and effective criminal justice systems. With regard to the Security Council, Austria as chair of Al Qaida/Taliban Sanctions Committee in 2009 and 2010 had worked intensively to enhance due process and fair and clear procedures with regard to listing and delisting. Austria then asked the Special Rapporteur what the role of civil society and the private sector could play in the implementation of the best practices examples mentioned in the report. Regarding the report by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Austria asked the Special Rapporteur to further elaborate on torture during pre-trial detention and what measures needed to be taken to diminish the risk of torture during pre-trial detention. Conditions of detention in many places did not meet the minimum standards and Austria asked if those standards, over half a century old, were still adequate or if there was a protection gap. In closing, Austria asked what the Human Rights Council could do to support the Special Rapporteur in ensuring that he got access to the places where he was the most needed.

NAHIDA SOBHAN (Bangladesh) said the Government of Bangladesh appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s report, but there were areas which needed further discussion. The three criteria used as the basis for selecting best practices were within functional norms; however the effectiveness of counter terrorism measures might depend on multiple factors that should be considered under a broader spectrum. It should be mentioned that legal measures alone could not defeat terrorism and that the underlying factors that motivated some people to follow such destructive paths should be evaluated and addressed and that the legal definition of terrorism should be comprehensive to better realize the fight against terrorism without infringing upon human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Government had ratified 12 out of 13 United Nations conventions on terrorism and was a signatory to the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation’s Regional Convention on Terrorism. Bangladesh emphasized the need to respect and uphold the principle of non-discrimination, human dignity, privacy and freedom of movement by all in the context of adopting measures countering terrorism.

BHRIGU DHUNGANA (Nepal) said that Nepal had made it clear that, as a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, it remained committed to end torture in all its forms. The constitution recognized the right against torture as a fundamental right. Any form of physical or mental torture was prohibited and legally punishable. A victim of torture was entitled to compensation. The Torture Related Compensation Act, 1996, was a special legislation in this respect which provided for sufficient legal mechanism for the prevention of torture and compensation to the victims thereof.

The Government of Nepal was seriously considering the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on Torture for making necessary legal reforms. Democratic Nepal did not tolerate any forms of torture under any pretention. State policy did not allow any known perpetrators go with impunity. The Government was seriously considering a bill to criminalize the act of torture. Their commitment to ensuring more reform in the entire criminal justice procedures was well reflected in the progress of drafting penal code, sentencing legislation and criminal procedure code, currently underway, which would, upon promulgation, adequately address wide-ranging issues of criminal justice system.

RIADH YALDA OSHANA (Iraq), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that many Arab counties had been targeted by terrorists, causing numerous victims and destruction of private and public property. The Arab Group welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism and said that legal procedures should be respected in order ensure transparent processes. Paying ransom to terrorists who took hostages should be avoided. It was also important to abide by the human rights standards while countering terrorism. The Arab Group supported all international and national efforts to combat terrorism.

IRINA SCHOULGIN NYONI (Sweden) said Sweden would like to ask two questions about the report presented by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Juan Ernesto Mendez had expressed his intention to propose the expansion of the protection against torture to situations that had not previously been envisioned. Did Mr. Mendez foresee any situations or practices that should be considered in this regard? Could Mr. Mendez elaborate further on how he intended to work for enhanced substantial rights for victims of torture?

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) said New Zealand appreciated Mr. Scheinin’s report on good practices in promoting and protecting human rights while countering terrorism. New Zealand supported his work and the objectives that underlined his role and they were honored that he had referenced several areas of their own legislation in his study. Within the 10 practices identified in his compilation, they agreed with the emphasis on upholding the rule of law while protecting national security. As he had stated, there was an absence of a universally agreed upon, comprehensive and concise definition of terrorism.

New Zealand noted that a successful conclusion to the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, including agreement on a universal definition for terrorism, would help to strengthen the international community’s commitment and efforts in combating terrorism. New Zealand thanked the Special Rapporteur for his proposed definition and would be grateful for his views on the best means to progress this definition.

STEFFEN SMIDT (Denmark) said Denmark believed that country visits by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment were indeed good practices and asked what avenues could be taken to ensure they took place. Concerning redress, repatriation and rehabilitation of victims of torture, Denmark asked if there were thoughts to join the mechanisms already in existence in some countries. Development of human rights standards needed to be based on law and how could this be done in systems such as regional courts, Denmark asked. Turing to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Denmark said it was pleased at the outlining of some of the best practices and asked if the Special Rapporteur could further outline best practices in the prohibition of torture. Concerning the listing of terrorist entities, Denmark wished to know more about safeguards and the authority of ombudsmen.

RAUL MARTINEZ (Paraguay) said Paraguay thanked the Special Rapporteur on torture for submitting his report and considered it constructive and important for human rights work. Paraguay was studying an update to the law on torture and would shortly release the results. The Government appreciated the information on forensic and scientific methods to enable the implementation of the law on the prevention of torture and asked for a description of specific examples countries might use to implement these techniques in addition to potential surveillance measures that should be used in prisons and institutions to prevent torture.

PATRICK RUMLAR (Czech Republic) said the Czech Republic thanked the Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan Ernesto Mendez, for his report and welcomed his efforts to follow up on the work of Manfred Nowak, the former Special Rapporteur, also as regards the findings made during country visits by his predecessor, including follow-up visits in the most appropriate cases. In article 39 and 49 Mr. Nowak mentioned the importance of cooperation with the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, especially with regard to the upcoming country visits and monitoring conditions in places where persons were deprived of their liberty. The Czech Republic asked Mr. Mendez if he could elaborate more on this issue.

ALVARO ENRIQUE AYALA MELENDEZ (Colombia) said that the application of security measures and policies in Colombia were in line with its Constitution and laws. Such compliance gave legitimacy to State actions against persons who opted to resort to acts of terrorism. In the legislation Colombia recognised the right of victims to reparation and Colombia was now developing other acts to protect victims of terrorism. The Government had allocated the budget of over $ 25 million, which would cover reparations for one million families over the period of ten years.

MAHMOUD AFIFI (Egypt) said Egypt welcomed the two Special Rapporteurs’ reports but believed other important issues like extraterritorial measures infringing on the right to privacy, especially those involving the use of modern information and communications technologies or best practices in international cooperation and technical assistance should be examined and would like to listen to the Special Rapporteur’s views on these issues. A number of proposed constitutional amendments had been finalized in Egypt and would be put for a public referendum on 19 March including amending the present article 148 to state that the President had the right to declare the state of emergency for a maximum period of six months subject to the approval by the People’s Assembly and that the state of emergency should not be extended without the approval of the people through a public referendum. The Government, during its Universal Periodic Review, affirmed its intention to review as soon as possible the definition of torture in its penal code so that it became consistent with article 1 of the Convention against Torture.

GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation), said that they were grateful to Martin Scheinin, the Special Rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism for the report he presented and taking into consideration his upcoming retirement they thanked his efforts made in the six years that he held the post. The Russian Federation took as an undisputed fact that effective countering terrorism and respect for human rights were mutually complementing concepts and the Russian Federation was a co-sponsor of the resolution on this issue. They believed that the three criteria used in this were well founded and the 10 elements in the report were not undisputed and this related to the proposed model definition of terrorism and he would like to know what other aspect the Special Rapporteur wanted to bring to the attention of his predecessor.

The Russian Federation took note of the methods of work in which Juan Ernesto Mendez, the Special Rapporteur on torture, saw the framework of his mandate and believed that his approach to focus on the victims of torture and on rehabilitation was an appropriate one. The idea of legal interpretation of norms might be contentious and the Russian Federation believed that one of the sections in the report was about progress methods in forensic medicine and the Russian Federation would like to see Mr. Mendez’s view on how he saw the application of these methods.

ZALMAI AZIZ (Afghanistan) said that it was fair to protect the human rights of those who were falsely accused of acts of terror and it was humane to protect the human rights of even the perpetrators of acts of terror. It was justice at its best to protect the human rights of victims of acts of terror and there was a need to be more conscious of their losses and sufferings. For more than a decade now, too many innocent people in Afghanistan and around the world were suffering from losses and violations of their fundamental human rights at the hands of terrorists. Afghanistan concurred with the statement of the United Nations Secretary-General that the needs of victims of terrorism had for far too long gone unrecognised and unmet. Afghanistan appealed to the Human Rights Council to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of victims of terrorism, and to request the United Nations General Assembly to designate an international day of victims of terrorism to raise awareness of their plight.

IRUTHISHAM ADAM (Maldives) said that combating terrorism was one of the Maldives’ key priorities as a member of the Human Rights Council. Until the advent of democracy two years ago, torture had been widely practiced in the Maldives, both as a tool to suppress dissent and punish opponents, and as a means to extract confessions. The Maldives welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s emphasis on adopting a victim-orientated approach to combating torture including adequate redress and reparation. Victims should play a central role in holding perpetrators accountable. Taking this approach had been proven to be rather difficult in the Maldives, especially because torture remained an extremely politicized issue, implicating powerful political forces in the country. The Maldives had invited the Special Rapporteur to visit the country and believed that this would present an extremely valuable exercise to look at the issue of torture remedy and redress in the context of a country undergoing a democratic transition.

GEIR SJOBERG (Norway) said that Norway appreciated the commitment of the Special Rapporteur on torture to engage with States on following up conclusions and recommendations formulated during country visits. There was an important need to consider the extension of international norms and standards to cover new areas of concern. Moreover, the victim-centered approach of the Special Rapporteur was of critical importance going forward and was fully supported by the delegation of Norway. Norway also welcomed the compilation of best practices in countering terrorism submitted by the Special Rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism. In closing, Norway said that it firmly believed that all countering of terrorism, including prevention, investigation and prosecution had to ensure full respect for human rights.

MUTAZ FALEH HYASSAT (Jordan) said that Jordan had been following up on the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture since 2006 and had provided updated information on their implementation of these recommendations. The Government of Jordan reiterated its commitment to strengthen the existing complaints mechanisms to ensure that all torture and ill-treatment allegations were properly and effectively investigated, that those responsible were prosecuted, and that the victims were compensated.

RUI VASCONCELLOS (Brazil) said that Brazil supported the victim-centered approach of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and his focus on prevention as the most effective way to achieve compliance with the absolute prohibition of torture by international law. The Brazilian Government had been active in taking a number of important initiatives aimed at preventing torture and ill treatment, including the formation of the National Committee for the Prevention of Torture, responsible for the implementation of the Convention on a national level and for formulating campaigns on human rights violations. Also, Brazil had been strengthening its domestic law. Turning to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Brazil welcomed the compilation of best practices and said that compliance with human rights was essential for addressing the underlying causes. Counter-terrorism must be respectful of laws and comply with human rights standards. Victims of counter-terrorism measures must have access to effective remedies, particularly the judiciary.

ANDREI TARANDA (Belarus) said concerning the report by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Belarus noted that it seemed that the Special Rapporteur had not taken into account the source of the information given to him. Belarus disagreed with the joint statement made by a number of Special Procedures, to which the Special Rapporteur on torture joined, in which the situation in Belarus had been fabricated. This joint statement had clearly demonstrated the incompetence of the Special Procedures. Belarus expected that the future activities of the Special Rapporteur would be more thorough in evaluating the information received before he associated himself with various initiatives. Belarus also reminded the Human Rights Council that all Special Procedures had an obligation to comply with the code of conduct. Belarus condemned any attempts to pressure the Special Rapporteur in his dealings with States.

MOHAMED SIAD DOUALEH (Djibouti) said Djibouti thanked the Special Rapporteur on torture for his presentation and reaffirmed their staunch commitment to preventing torture and all forms of ill-treatment. Turning to the issue of terrorism, Djibouti stated that terrorist acts sought to destroy human rights and required collective, international measures. Following six years of painstaking efforts to research the issue of counter-terrorism and human rights, Djibouti was grateful for the set of best practices that had been drafted. These best practices provided a very useful starting point for countering terrorism in the most effective way, whilst taking into account fundamental human rights. As this was the last report of Professor Martin Scheinin, the Special Rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, the delegation of Djibouti thanked him for his hard work and wished him all the best in his future endeavours.

AHMED FAHAD ALMAREK (Saudi Arabia) said that Saudi Arabia fully supported the work of the Special Rapporteur on torture. Concerning terrorism, Saudi Arabia had adopted measures to fight terrorism, on all levels, and had done so with human rights in mind. In this regard, Saudi Arabia had established special security forces that had been trained in counter terrorism. Furthermore, on the issue of guaranteeing fair trials for suspected terrorists, Saudi Arabia reiterated its commitment to conducting balanced and transparent trials.

RIADH YALDA OSHANA (Iraq) said Iraq thanked the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism for his report and the compilation of best practices. Terrorism targeted all groups of Iraqi people and one of the best ways to fight terrorism was through cooperation with neighbouring countries to prevent the movement of terrorist groups and control their sources of financing. Iraq was paying particular attention to the issue of compensation for victims and had recently promulgated a law to that effect. Also, Iraq had been paying particular attention to human rights education to those fighting terrorists.

SEBADE TOBA (Togo) said Togo closely followed the presentation of the reports by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Since the visit of the Special Rapporteur on torture to Togo in 2007, things had moved forward, particularly in strengthening the legal framework and in ratification of the Convention against Torture, this was also due to the opening of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Lome and the assistance received in strengthening the capacity and preparing for the Universal Periodic Review in October this year. Provisions were now underway for the adoption of the new bill on places of detention. In order to address violence, particularly against women and children, the Government had established a helpline, which was open to all victims of violence. The reform of the Criminal Procedures Code was underway, in which the protection of persons in the initial stages of custody and arrest was reinforced. Combating impunity was one of the priorities for the Government and with this in mind, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that had been established in 2009 had just concluded collecting statements from victims.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria) said that, on the issue of corporal punishment, while Sharia courts still existed in Nigeria, there existed a court of appeal. Any ruling by a Sharia court could be nullified if it was proven that the ruling ran counter to Nigeria’s constitution. The Nigerian Government was committed to helping detainees in need of legal aid and had put in place structures to protect the human rights of prisoners. Finally, Nigeria stated that it would continue to engage with the Special Rapporteurs on all the issues identified and would provide further insight as needed.

ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, of Network of African National Human Rights Institutions, speaking on behalf of “A” Status national human rights institutions in Africa, said that African national human rights institutions were faced with many challenges in their daily work. Overbearing governance by most African States often resulted in the limited independence and financial assistance to African national human rights institutions. As such, capacity building measures for national human rights institutions were of the utmost priority if these institutions were to continue being effective in promoting and protecting the human rights.

KATHARINA ROSE, of National Commission for Human Rights of Greece, said throughout his mission report on Greece, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had emphasized the link between the critical conditions observed in quasi totality of detention facilities and the overwhelming increase of irregular migrants entering Greece, as well as the financial difficulties the country was facing. There was an urgent need for a fairer system of burden sharing among European countries regarding asylum and migration policies. Regarding torture and ill treatment in police stations, the National Commission for Human Rights of Greece had criticised the dysfunctional mechanism of complaints’ handling and recommended the establishment of an independent body with fully investigative power. Concerning the dramatic conditions in Greek prisons, police stations, and aliens’ detention facilities, the Commission had produced a series of relevant reports and resolutions and its recommendations, proposals and positions were congruous with the observations and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur.

ALEXANDRA KOSSIN, of World Organization Against Torture, welcomed the victim-centered approach in the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In their practice, the World Organization against Torture had witnessed multiple legal and practical obstacles in obtaining redress, including lack of adequate victim protection, or the absence of independent complaints system. The World Organization Against Torture remained concerned over the persistent lack of accountability for torture and other serious human rights violations in the context of counter-terrorism. Despite overwhelming evidence of torture and other crimes under international law, no credible action had been taken to bring those responsible to justice for the United States’ interrogation, secret detention and rendition policies. Other countries too had yet to fully address the dimension of their responsibility and complicity in those violations. In closing, the non-governmental organization urged States to accept outstanding country visiting requests by the Special Rapporteur on torture, as well as to cooperate fully with him, including Bangladesh responding promptly and comprehensively to its urgent appeals.

MICHAEL ANTHONY, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, said that in North Africa and the Middle East, revolutions were toppling repressive governments that had used torture and other grave abuses to control populations through fear. During the recent Special Session on Libya, Pakistan made a landmark statement on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, in which justice, equality and law had to prevail. For several years, the non-governmental organization had reported to the Council on the existence of tens of torture camps being operated by the Pakistani military. The speaker urged the Pakistani Government to close these camps without delay and to ensure that it immediately lifted all reservations made when ratifying the Convention Against Torture.

PETALLA B. TIMO, of Regional Center for Human Rights and Gender Justice "Corporacion Humanas", in a joint statement with Conectas Direitos Humanos, said that there was a need to interpret more broadly the concept of torture in order to protect a larger group of victims. The issue of overcrowding in Brazilian prisons was a real problem and thousands of detainees continued to be held in police stations, which had not been established for these purposes. In conclusion, Corporacion Humanas and Connectas Derechos Humanos said that the main way of preventing torture was to continue monitoring countries, and in particular prisons, where torture was most common.

LISA D'AZZURZIO, of Human Rights Advocates, raised the issue that resulted in the torture of thousands or prisoners worldwide: the death row phenomenon. The death row phenomenon was responsible for severe physical and mental deterioration in death row prisoners through extremely harsh conditions of imprisonment, long periods of time spent on death row, and the constant mental anguish of anticipating one’s own execution. In Japan, death row inmates were kept in isolation and prohibited from talking to other prisoners. In California, the average lapse of time from sentence to execution has been reported as over 20 years and more prisoners died from suicide than from execution. Human Rights Advocates urged countries to declare a moratorium not only on executions but on new death sentences and that moratoriums should contain a clear deadline for abolition and would like to know if the Special Rapporteur had examined the death row phenomenon and had considered making an assessment regarding when the circumstance rise to the level of torture.

NATHALIE JEANNIN, of International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, welcomed the first report and the victim centered approach favored in the report. Torture was one of the most serious crimes against human dignity and yet on the ground torture was a widespread practice. Torture should be criminalized to prevent its occurrence and to ensure compensation to victims. The mandate should be to assist governments to improve the situation and the International Federation called on States to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur and to promptly and effectively implement the measurements in the report and called on the Human Rights Council to sanction those members who have not done so.

TANIA BALDWIN-PASK, of Amnesty international, welcomed the attention given by the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on countering terrorism to the issue of secret detentions in their reports to this Council. They welcomed also the stated intention of the Special Rapporteur on torture to follow up on any new and credible allegations of such cases. The 2010 “Joint Study in Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in the Context of Countering Terrorism” published by the four Special Procedures who were to present their reports today, indentified the United State Government as the prime mover for resurrecting the practice among western states. It also alleged that several countries aided or abetted the United State with respect to secret detention practices following the 11 September 2001 attacks. These included Egypt, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Yemen and the United Kingdom.

ANTILEO HAYIN-RAY, of France Libertes: Fondation Danielle Mitterand, said that application of law against terrorism with human rights law indicated the procedure in which the anti-terrorism measures should comply with the definition of torture. In Chile, the Maputo population was deprived of their lands and natural resources for many centuries. The Chilean State in light of the social demands of the indigenous people had implemented a strategy to silence the Maputo movement and had started to criminalize the territorial demands through the application of the anti-terrorism law. They had realized from social organizations and from the Maputo community that between 13 and 17 people of the Maputo communities were convicted under the procedure established by the antiterrorism law which criminalized the Maputo protests. The Chilean Government had started to listen to the demands of the Maputo community desisting from requesting the application of the antiterrorist law. This political message sent by the government meant in practice the release of 13 prisoners.
France Libertes asked the Chilean Government to be consistent and to give freedom to the remaining indigenous community that had been condemned.

HORAZIO RAVENNA, of Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, expressed its concern for the present situation of prisons in Argentina. In terms of documenting cases of torture or degrading treatment, 325 cases had been recorded between 2007 and 2009 but this number had increased significantly in recent years. Falsifying records and statistics also remained an issue and the speaker called on the Government of Argentina to review new allegations of torture and to systematically criminalize all perpetrators of torture.

Concluding Remarks

MARTIN SCHEININ, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, in his closing remarks, reiterated the need for best practices and agreed that a new definition of terrorism was also needed. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur stated that the definition should not contain exceptions and it was important to agree on a definition that was universally accepted by all States, as well as being clear and concise. In identifying best practices, Mr. Scheinin said that he had been influenced by his visit to Peru and mentioned that States needed to improve their judicial review procedures for any cases that concerned counter-terrorism. In response to questions raised by the European Union on how to best implement the set of best practices, the Special Rapporteur said that national Governments needed to establish clear counter-terrorist methods and encourage the mobilsation of civil society.

Mr. Scheinin also noted the positive tone from the delegations of Egypt and Tunisia and encouraged both countries to continue supporting human rights. The Special Rapporteur also called on the United States to shut down the prison in Guantanamo Bay. In addition, secret detention centres in other countries remained a big concern for the Special Rapporteur and he urged these centres to be shut. Finally, Mr. Scheinin said that one of the main obstacles to his mandate was the need to obtain official invitations in order to visit countries. Without access to certain countries, it was impossible to effectively monitor the situation of human rights and counter-terrorism and to make clear recommendations.

JUAN MENDEZ, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, responding to questions, said he would be at the disposal of the governments of Jamaica and Greece regarding their questions but that the terms of the mandate had been carefully crafted and were not used in a dramatic way. Torture was applied to certain acts that related to physical and mental suffering based on scientific, medically compiled information and the Special Rapporteur stood by what the report said. The word torture was used with great care when there was evidence to merit the use. Regarding the application of recommendations that were not easy in societies with a low level of resources, Mr. Mendez said he would highlight that through the application of the norms required. Most important was political will, if the latter existed then States could live up to their obligations against torture. Regarding the use of forensic science and other methods there was a network of forensic science institutions to have discussions with developing countries so that there could be a professional exchange of information.

Regarding the norms of international law on inhuman or degrading treatment, Mr. Mendez said these norms applied to all international human rights law. The definition of torture should be defined in terms of non state actors and domestic violence, and should consider how States could be held responsible for torture when it was not represented by a direct agent. Many States had only assigned a formalistic approach which was not practical for victims. Forensic science ensured that if a real case of torture had occurred even if the most visual remarks, evidence disappeared with modern scientific advances should allow the detection of cases of torture, including exhumation analyses and the detection of symptoms on dead bodies but also on live bodies.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record