Committee against Torture discusses ways to enhance cooperation with Non-Governmental Organizations

MORNING

12 May 2011

The Committee against Torture this morning discussed ways to enhance cooperation with non-governmental organizations.

Felice Gaer, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, said that the Committee against Torture considered itself one of the most advanced committees in its working methods with non-governmental organizations as it had sought their input for more than 15 years. The Committee formally instituted a policy of meeting with non-governmental organizations in private the day before the review of a State report and posted on the Committee’s website the follow-up procedure for a State Report which identified up to four items that were urgent, protective and could be carried out within one year for action by the State and follow-up by the Committee. Ms. Gaer explained that the List of Issues Prior to the Report was a new procedure that focused the State party report and sped up the review process. The List of Issues Prior to the Report was voluntary for a State Party to accept and in this session there were four countries which had accepted it. Ms. Gaer stressed the important role that non-governmental organizations played in informing the Committee and said that Article 20 allowed for a confidential procedure whereby non-governmental organizations or others could submit information and if this information indicated systematic torture in a country then this could lead to a confidential inquiry and engagement with the State Party concerned.

Questions raised by non-governmental organizations covered the option of examining one non-reporting State per session as with the Human Rights Committee, including both the country Rapporteur and United Nations country offices in the follow-up, introducing new technology, including web and video casting and real time email exchanges and holding meetings in places other than Geneva and New York, particularly in regions where there were many non-reporting States. Non-governmental organizations also suggested that the Committee against Torture should ensure its work was accessible to persons with disabilities, including access to premises, documentation and accessible sessions for wheelchair users.

In reply, Committee Experts said that an in-depth evaluation of a State’s compliance with the Convention could not occur without the work and input of the non-governmental organizations, however, Experts were disappointed that the deadline for the submission of written information by civil society organizations was frequently not met and that there was insufficient attendance at the allocated time of one hour for non-governmental organizations prior to considering the report of every State Party. The Committee hoped to hear more from local non-governmental organizations and encouraged national and regional non-governmental organizations to develop links with local human rights organizations and to bring the testimony from victims or witnesses before the Committee.

The non-governmental organizations that participated in the meeting were International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, World Organization against Torture, Association for the Prevention of Torture, International Disability Alliance, Alkarama, Corporacion Humanas, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Centre for Political and Civil Rights.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon it will hear the response of Kuwait to questions raised by the Committee members on Wednesday, 11 May.

Statements

FELICE GAER, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee against Torture, said that the Committee against Torture considered itself one of the most advanced committees in its working method with non-governmental organizations as it had requested their input for more than 15 years. The Committee pioneered the List of Issues Prior to the Report and had formally instituted a policy of meeting with non-governmental organizations in private the day before the review by the Committee of a State report. The follow-up procedure for a State Report was posted on the website and identified up to four items for action by the State and follow-up by the Committee, items that were urgent, protective and could be carried out within one year. The national human rights institutions and the expansion of regional bureaus of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had placed greater pressure on the Committee as it now received more information including from national human rights mechanisms. Article 20 was a confidential procedure whereby non-governmental organizations or others may submit information to the Committee. If information indicated there was systematic torture in a country this could lead to a confidential inquiry and an engagement with the State Party concerned. The List of Issues Prior to Reporting was a new procedure that was voluntary for a State Party to accept and in this session there were four countries that had accepted it. The Committee did not webcast their meetings but their proceedings were made public.

A Representative of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims said the Committee should consider issuing the information on the List of Issues Prior to Reporting earlier and suggested that there should be a focus on non-reporting or delayed reporting States. Would the Committee consider examining one non-reporting State per session as with the Human Rights Committee? On accessibility, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims encouraged the finding of resources for webcast and video casting which could improve the quality of the Committee’s dialogue through real time email exchanges. If there was a lack of resources, would it be permissible for non-governmental organizations to webcast the Committee’s meetings on their own? The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims encouraged the Committee to consider a competent profile of expertise for its members so that States understood the type of skills needed.

A Representative of the World Organization against Torture said the lack of implementation of concluding observations was a serious challenge. Taking account of the considerable amount of work that follow-up required, the Country Rapporteur should be involved to improve coordination and more time should be allocated to follow-up discussions within the Committee. Remedies in relation to individual complaints should be detailed and specific. Non-governmental organizations should be involved in the procedure by being allowed to intervene in the Committee’s meetings during the follow-up discussion. Additional efforts could be made to improve the information provided on the follow up which was one area of the Committee where there was not enough transparency. The World Organization against Torture recommended the creation of a separate webpage to post general information on the case, recommendations and actions to be taken. The Committee could intensify efforts with its own follow-ups into the field, especially in cases where there was no follow-up action by the State party. The creation of a specific form of treaty body follow up was necessary and there was a need for a best practices study on the implementation of follow-up

A Representative of the Association for the Prevention of Torture said that General Comments adopted by the Committee were useful information for non-governmental organizations and encouraged the Committee to adopt more General Comments.

A Representative of the International Disability Alliance said there were three areas that the Committee against Torture should focus on: making its work accessible to persons with disabilities, ensuring the participation of civil society organizations and ensuring substantive harmonization of standards across treaty bodies. All treaty bodies should comply with relevant accessibility standards including access to premises, documentation and accessible sessions for wheelchair users. Documents should be provided in a format that was other than pdf for those with visual impairments. The process for participation by civil society to provide input into the List of Issues Prior to Reporting was limited.

A Representative of Alkarama said there were a number of Arab States whose reports were overdue and that the Committee should follow what was done in the Human Rights Committee where one slot was open to non-reporting States per session. When engaging with local civil society, these non-governmental organizations should feel they could interact with the Committee. There should be widespread diffusion of General Comments.

A Representative of Corporacion Humanas said there should be a use of regional offices to distribute information so that civil society organizations could benefit through the strong regional system in Latin America and information should be provided in local languages.

A Representative of Human Rights Watch said there were several stakeholders responsible for implementation but treaty bodies should include the United Nations country team in the follow-up with the State party.

A Representative of Amnesty International asked if there was scope for further follow-up for individuals to provide information to the Committee. Was the proposal for in-country reviews made by a Committee member under consideration by the Committee?

A Representative of the Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child said that the Committee should take into account child friendly policies and encouraged the members to refer themselves to Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 13 on the right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence, no. 12 on the right of the child to be heard, and no. 10 on children’s rights in juvenile justice.

A Representative of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights said that the Committee against Torture remained a model when it came to cooperation with non-governmental organizations, especially with debriefing. There should be a general calendar of all upcoming sessions over the medium term for the List of Issues Prior to Reporting and though the non-governmental organizations saw this principle in a positive light there were some problems encountered in the shelf life of three years in the list of questions. Was there the possibility of holding meetings in places other than Geneva and New York? Could there be figures provided on cost of meetings and that the meetings could occur in regional offices of the United Nations. There should be clear assessments on implementation to assist the Universal Periodic Review. For each session there should be pressure brought to bear on one State that did not respond.

Discussion

Committee Experts said they took the views of the non-governmental organizations seriously and reminded the non-governmental organizations that when the Committee considered the report of every State Party, the Committee allocated one hour for non-governmental organizations and often there were no non-governmental organizations that turned up and this was a disappointment. The Committee hoped to hear more from the local non-governmental organizations. To draw conclusions and make recommendations to State parties, the Committee had to use reliable information and all information should be double checked which would be more convincing for the State party.

The new procedure allowed for three hours of interaction with the State Party, two hours to reply and then one hour of interactive questions and replies, which allowed for a fresher, ongoing debate. An Expert said the drafting of concluding observations should be done by the Committee and it was based on the Committee’s evaluation and judgment. There was a clear criterion for follow-up articles.

Committee members further noted that there were technical reasons for the delay in distribution of the List of Issues Prior to Reporting. The webcast question had financial implications within the United Nations. The idea of a field follow-up mission was excellent and the Expert said that being on the spot was the best way to engage in follow-up. To involve the United Nations country team into the follow-up procedure was complicated because they did not only deal with human rights issues. Historically the first treaty body that was able to hold a session outside the headquarters was the Committee against Discrimination who held the session in Vienna but it posed considerable financial implications. The Expert said that all deadlines for the submission of written information should be respected and this was two weeks before the session. Currently half of the information was received late. The Expert suggested that non-governmental organizations submit a paper on a synthesis on what had been achieved or not in the follow-up.

The Committee could use meetings outside of Geneva to focus on a specific region experiencing particular challenges, for example in the Middle East or Latin America, a Committee Expert said. The Committee had been creative in developing links with local human rights organizations but there was still a presence missing from many countries and the Expert said testimony from victims or witnesses that could accompany non-governmental organizations would be of great benefit to the Committee. The information provided by non-governmental organizations was critical when discussing systematic violence and discrimination against specific groups and where the international community demanded rapid involvement and response. The Committee agreed that there should be more General Comments because in preparing them there was the intervention of non-governmental organizations.

The issue of technology and accessibility was one of particular concern and could easily be done and was not extremely costly. New mechanisms in technology could improve the Committee’s access to local non-governmental organizations. Geneva was an expensive city and this forbade local non-governmental organizations from coming. The Committee had obtained a one week extended period to reduce the backlog. The Committee discussed expanding the number of Committee members, with 147 Member States there should be a larger manpower with at least 15 Committee members rather than 10. This Committee was a hard law committee which was almost a judiciary process. The best way to follow-up in a State was to have local non-governmental organizations take the initiative on the ground because the Committee did not have the resources. The issue of harmonisation between treaty bodies was related to the efficient working of the Committees and the Expert was concerned that these efforts were being driven by budgetary analysis rather than to achieve the objectives of the Committee. The Committee member found it frustrating that there were cases when no non-governmental organizations from specific countries would come for the hour before the consideration of the report.

A Committee Expert said an in-depth evaluation of a State party could not occur without the work and input of non-governmental organizations. The presence of non-governmental organizations during the examination of all State parties required better coordination among the non-governmental organization community to coordinate their presence and fill the gap.

A question was raised about the feasibility of joint General Comments. An Expert said he would like to know why there were not more African non-governmental organizations attending the Committee’s meetings.

FELICE GAER, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee against Torture, explained two recent procedural rules. Rule 15 stated that the independence of members was essential and that members served in their personal capacity. Rule 73, which was adopted at the last session, regarding obligatory non participation if the member of the Committee was a national of the State party considered and that the member would not be present at non public meetings with national human rights mechanisms and others. Ms. Gaer said that the Committee adopted the List of Issues Prior to Reporting as a necessity because it focused the State party report as all the State needed to do was answer questions and it sped up the review process. Yesterday’s proceeding with Kuwait was webcasted and the idea of non-governmental organizations facilitating webcasting was an interesting idea. Ms. Gaer suggested that non-governmental organizations in Geneva could come to the meeting to present the information on behalf of local non-governmental organizations as a means of reducing the cost burden.

The non-governmental organizations commented that the United Nation’s field offices could host local non-governmental organizations to attend via webcast the Committee’s meetings. The appeal to go into the field to carry out monitoring missions was something that could give rise to better implementation of the recommendations and decisions, and they suggested that the Committee start with certain countries as a precedent.
__________

For use of the information media; not an official record