Committee against Torture meets with States Parties to discuss its working methods, including the New Optional Procedure

Committee against Torture
AFTERNOON

16 May 2011

The Committee against Torture this afternoon met with States parties to discuss its working methods in the implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Claudio Grossman, Chairperson of the Committee, explained the new optional procedure of the Committee which consisted of preparing a List of Issues Prior to Reporting to be submitted to States parties before they made their periodic report. This optional procedure allowed Member States to benefit from knowing the list of issues to be considered and out of 75 States, 53 had accepted, 19 had not replied and 3 had not accepted, which indicated that the procedure had received strong approval by States parties. Mr. Grossman also said that it was important for the Committee to hear the opinions of Member States on its working methods including the List of Issues Prior to Reporting, the adoption of the General Comment on Article 14 and the harmonisation of working methods among treaty bodies.

In the discussion, the United Kingdom said it supported the List of Issues Prior to Reporting as it focused the country review and suggested two improvements to country reviews: reducing the meeting period from two days to one and requiring the Committee to submit questions on the report a day in advance, especially when questions involved requests for additional data. China said that it hoped that the Committee would enhance fairness, independence and professionalism in the promotion of constructive dialogue and cooperation with State Parties. Concerning the new List of Issues Prior to Reporting, China had not accepted the new procedure and required more time to study the implications of this new reporting on the rights of States parties to choose the relevant information to discharge. Algeria agreed with the concerns raised by the China delegation regarding the List of Issues Prior to Reporting, while Chile, Finland and Australia supported the new procedure and said it was a positive contribution to the work of the Committee. Egypt said advanced questions at an earlier stage in the process would allow delegations to improve their efficiency in response.

Mr. Grossman, in reply to the issues raised by Member States, said the List of Issues Prior to Reporting was a voluntary procedure which would not limit dialogue because a State had the right to add any questions to the List of Issues. The Chairperson valued the fact that China would take more time to study this Optional Procedure as it was meant to help States carry out their obligations. Mr. Grossman said that there were important mechanisms to ensure the Committee was impartial as a whole and the Committee had standards and rules concerning non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including a disclaimer on the website that the Committee had not certified the information posted by NGOs.

Other States parties represented at the meeting were Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Maldives, Moldova, Monaco, Spain, Switzerland and Ukraine.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 17 May, it will consider the initial report of Turkmenistan (CAT/C/TKM/1).

Introductory Remarks

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee against Torture, welcomed an open dialogue with Member States and explained the new optional procedure of the Committee which consisted of preparing a List of Issues Prior to Reporting to be submitted to States parties before they made their periodic report. This optional procedure allowed Member States to benefit from knowing the list of issues to be considered and out of 75 States, 53 had accepted, 19 had not replied and 3 had not accepted, which indicated that the procedure had received strong approval by States parties. The Committee looked forward to discussing its working methods including adopting a General Comment on Article 14, harmonisation of working methods and any other subjects with States parties.

Discussion

A Representative of the United Kingdom said the list of issues was of interest and wanted to know if the Committee would consider having one meeting instead of two during the review and to submit questions a day in advance to the review of the report, especially when it involved data requests.

A Representative of China said that it respected the Committee’s right to develop its rules of procedures but also hoped that the Committee would enhance its fairness, independence and professionalism to promote constructive dialogue and cooperation. Concerning the new List of Issues Prior to Reporting, the Chinese delegation required more time to study the implications of this new reporting, for example how would this method fit when States parties had the right to choose relevant information to discharge information. China said this new procedure had created confusion because on what basis did the Committee develop the basis of issues. Three countries had not accepted and China was among one of them and would like to study the procedure further.

China said that concerning the Committee’s modification of its rules of procedure to ensure fairness, impartiality and integrity, it would like to see concrete measures so these principles could be translated into practice. China proposed the development of a code of conduct in order to translate impartiality into practice. Within the framework of Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council there was already a code of conduct for experts and China recommended this should be done for the experts in the Committee against Torture. In the rules of procedure there was another new development, non-participation of experts in the review of certain reports, China appreciated this development and said that non-participation should apply not only to nationality issues but also to other conflicts of interests. China raised an issue about the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and said there should be a mechanism to ensure their orderly and responsive participation and all information provided by NGOs should be verified. China said a cautious attitude should apply to the posting of information by NGOs on the Committee’s website and China said there should be a verification process through accreditation by the United Nations Economic and Social Council to ensure there was no abuse of power. The Committee should pay due attention to the different views of countries and conduct adequate research.

A Representative of Chile said it was always useful to have an interactive dialogue between the Committee and States parties and said that the List of Issues Prior to Reporting had allowed for a better interaction between the States and the Committee and would like more information from the Committee on the methodology of the List of Issues. This year there would be elections for five new members and Chile thanked the work of those departing Committee members.

A Representative of Algeria asked if the List of Issues Prior to Reporting was not a method of putting pressure on States parties as it was based on the principle of pick and choose. Algeria agreed with comments from the China delegation.

A Representative of Finland said it accepted the List of Issues Prior to Reporting and that its experience had been positive because it had made coordination within Ministries easier by providing greater focus. Finland said the List of Issues was one part of the dialogue with the Committee and it also welcomed the work on the General Comment on Article 14.

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee, in reply to the issues raised by Member States, said that out of 75 States, 53 had accepted, 19 had not replied and 3 had not accepted the new List of Issues Prior to Reporting. To the Committee this indicated that the procedure had received strong approval by States parties because it had allowed the States to know the Committee’s thinking prior to the review. The questions had not limited dialogue because a State had the right to add any questions to the List of Issues. The Chairperson valued the fact that China would take more time to study this optional procedure and it was meant to help States to carry out their obligations and every State had the right to examine this procedure. Article 15 of the rules of procedure said that independence of the members of committees was essential and that members should not accept instructions from anyone and should apply the standards of the Convention equally to States and persons. An essential rule was that the Committee should never be put in a situation of a conflict of interest. The Committee consisted of 10 experts and there were important mechanisms to ensure the Committee was impartial as a whole. Concerning non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the Committee of Experts elected by the Member States had knowledge of the subjects under consideration and what mattered was the credibility in the final observations of the Committee’s comments. The Committee had standards and rules concerning NGOs and listened to and verified the information and applied the information to the parameters of the Convention. On the Committee’s website there was a disclaimer stating that the Committee had not certified the information it had received. In response to the comment by Algeria, the Chairperson said the List of Issues was voluntary and it was up to each country to decide if they would use it or not; it was not intended to be a method of exercising pressure against States parties.

A Committee member said efforts to change procedures were made to make the Committee more efficient under the constraints imposed under the Convention. When the Treaty was negotiated it had not taken into account the growth of States parties and the expansion of issues. This Committee would for the next three sessions have four weeks instead of three, which was essential in order to take into account the reports of States. The Committee was always trying to look for better alternatives to engage in constructive dialogue with States. There should be greater participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from civil society by adopting new technology to incorporate the voices of local NGOs from developing countries who could not afford to send individuals to Geneva. The Expert said that all of the Committee’s meetings should be made available to the public through video conferencing as this would help people to be aware of the Committee’s work and raise awareness of individual rights under the Convention.

An Expert said that there should be an expansion of the interpretation of torture, for example to include inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment that could be equivalent to torture and cited conditions that disabled persons experienced in hospitals or institutions as an example. The Expert said that Article 14 considered reparation for victims of acts that were equivalent to torture and welcomed the opinion of Member States on this important issue. The Expert stressed that financial considerations should not drive the Committee’s work and although the Secretariat served the Committee with great efforts, he stressed that it was each State party’s responsibility to provide sufficient finances to make sure the Committee could act efficiently.

An Expert said that Article 14 had been the object of a General Comment and was an essential subject to the fulfilment of the Convention. Article 14 helped States to define whether or not they had the responsibility to compensate a victim of torture and the Committee looked forward to hearing States parties opinions on this question. Concerning the independence of Committee members, this could not really apply when the Committee was not there to sanction States but to provide help on how they should carry out their obligations. It would be difficult to create a code of conduct for a judicial body such as the Committee whose work followed precise judicial procedures and was not political.

A Committee Expert said that technically it would be possible to have reporting from States parties in one meeting instead of two but experience had shown in the past that one meeting was insufficient as delegations did not have the time to prepare answers. One meeting would also limit the ability to have enough time for dialogue between Committees and delegations. Concerning the List of Issues Prior to Reporting, the Expert said that the classic approach to State Party reporting had not covered the issues that the Committee desired to cover and then the State Party felt that the questions raised in the session were unfair because they had not been prepared to respond to them either by not having the appropriate expertise in the room to represent or the data to answer the issues raised.

An Expert said that if the United Nations desired reform then it should exercise family planning when considering each committee because it was the States parties that had decided to give birth to these committees and conventions; consequently it was the State party who was would be responsible to support committees and subcommittees. Concerning treaty bodies, it was the responsibility of each committee to ensure that they were run efficiently.

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee, updated Member States on the meeting last week in Sion to discuss the working methods of treaty bodies with States parties. There were 150 people who took part and 90 countries were represented. There was a discussion on the way that reports were to be submitted, translation costs, the request for a more focused dialogue and the possibility of applying new technologies and there was mention of an upcoming study by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to assess the costs of adopting new technology in the workings of the treaty bodies. The Chairperson said the meeting was useful and the participants stressed the importance of the treaty body system and the distinction between judicial and semi-judicial systems and that the treaty bodies had to resist the politicisation of their work. Harmonisation of working methods was considered and to what extent that could be in alignment with costs. The High Commissioner would make proposals for the harmonisation of working methods.

A Representative of Australia said that in response to the two day format currently in use by the Committee, Australia was drawn to moving it to a one day format due to resource concerns. Australia suggested this could be done by reducing the amount of time spent on presenting the report which was submitted in writing and if the Committee provided the questions in advance then the delegation could proceed to an interactive dialogue on the first day. Australia had accepted the List of Issues Prior to Reporting process and felt it was a positive contribution and thanked the Committee for pioneering this effort.

A Representative of Egypt asked if the Committee had considered looking into rotating the new procedure in reporting to ensure that all information was covered and to guarantee equality of treatment with other treaty bodies. Advanced questions at an earlier stage in the process would allow delegations to improve their efficiency in response.

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee, in reply to Australia and Egypt said that the issue of translation was a barrier to the performance of the Committee’s work; over 60 per cent of the Committee’s cost was in translation. There was considerable voluntary work done in the Committee and there were different safeguards to ensure that questions were focused and the Chairperson said they would consider how they could send questions in advance but there were logistical problems because the Committee was a collective body that had to meet to put their questions together.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record