Committee against Torture meets with Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture

AFTERNOON

10 May 2011

The Committee against Torture this afternoon held a meeting with the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture to discuss its fourth annual report and areas of collaboration between the two bodies.
Malcom Evans, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, presenting the Subcommittee's fourth annual report, noted that the report marked a distinctive shift from the presentation of previous reports with a new structure which provided substantive information on the Subcommittee’s approach to the mandate. The report was organized into four sections: the Year in Review, which focused on key areas of operation; Engagement of Other Bodies in the Field of Torture Prevention, which focused on cooperation with other United Nations entities including the Office of the High Commissioner; Issues of Note, which was designed to draw attention to issues arising from visit reports; and Substantive Issues, which presented a formalized statement on the Subcommittee’s thinking on selected topics.
The Chairperson of the Subcommittee said there were now 57 ratifying States and one additional signatory to the Subcommittee, Greece, which occurred in March 2011. The fourth report covered four country visits to Lebanon, Bolivia and Liberia and the Subcommittee’s first follow-up visit which was to Paraguay. Mr. Evans said that the expansion of the Subcommittee from 10 to 25 members entailed the designation of four vice chairs to discrete areas of competence: visits, national preventive mechanisms, engagement with international, regional bodies and organizations, and the role of Rapporteurs. Mr. Evans concluded by stating that this year there would be three regular country visits to Brazil, Mali and Ukraine.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts asked a number of questions on national preventive mechanisms including whether or not the Subcommittee thought there should be an evaluation or ranking of these mechanisms. Questions were asked about the use of international law to make recommendations to a State following a visit and many Committee Experts asked how cooperation could be increased between the Committee against Torture and the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee Chairperson responded to all of these questions and noted that it was not the Subcommittee’s role to rank the national preventive mechanisms, but to advise and assist States in their implementation and operation. Mr. Evans said that an extensive network of peer monitoring among national preventive mechanisms provided considerable help and benefit to configuring national preventive mechanisms. The Chairperson said that the Subcommittee used international law in its recommendations, but its report was not primarily addressed to international lawyers.

In concluding remarks, Claudio Grossman, Chairperson of the Committee against Torture, said that the contribution of the Subcommittee to structuring mechanisms, dealing with issues of enlargement, working with other international organizations and the evolution on confidentiality and providing access to information was impressive.

When the Committee against Torture next meets on Wednesday, 11 May at 10 a.m., it will begin consideration of the second periodic report of Kuwait.

Statements

MALCOLM EVANS, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, said the fourth annual report marked a distinctive shift from the presentation of previous reports with a new structure that provided substantive information on the Subcommittee’s approach to the mandate. The first section, The Year in Review, focused on key areas of operation. This was followed by a section on Engagement of Other Bodies in Field of Torture Prevention, which focused on cooperation with other bodies including the Office of the High Commissioner. Another section, Issues of Note, was designed to draw attention to a number of issues that arose from visit reports while the final section, Substantive Issues, presented a formalized statement on the Subcommittee’s thinking on selected topics. The reporting period covered April 2010 to December 2010.

There were now 57 ratifying States and one additional signatory to the Subcommittee, that of Greece, which took place in March 2011. There were elections for 20 members in October 2010 and the expanded Subcommittee met for the first time in February 2011. The Fourth Report covered four visits by the Subcommittee to Lebanon, Bolivia and Liberia and the Subcommittee’s first follow-up visit to Paraguay. Five of the completed reports were made public, which was a good trend. The Chairperson said that extensive discussions on how to operationalize the special fund, which was an important aspect of the Convention framework, had taken place.

Mr. Evans said it was important that there should be complete clarity in the various translations regarding Article 24 of the Protocol which allowed States to defer their obligations for up to three years. The Chairperson also said that confidentiality was important to the system but that the Subcommittee had not considered that its activities and approaches to its work were confidential and hoped that these would be more widely understood to enhance working operations with other treaty bodies.

The fourth report covered guidelines on national preventive mechanisms with regards to practical experience; however the Subcommittee would not develop a legal concept of prevention as it felt it was more important to set out guiding principles on prevention.

Until now the Subcommittee operated with 10 Members and 3 or 4 visits per year. The budgetary constraints and the challenge with enlargement were how to most efficiently use all 25 members and how supplementary visits could be made with other mechanisms. With the expanded bureau, the Subcommittee designated four vice chairs to discrete areas of competence: visits, national preventive mechanisms, engagement with international and regional bodies and organizations and the role of the Rapporteur. Mr. Evans concluded by stating that this year there would be three regular country visits to Brazil, Mali and Ukraine.

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee against Torture, said that the contribution of the Subcommittee to structuring mechanisms, dealing with issues of enlargement, working with other international organizations and the evolution on confidentiality and providing access to information was impressive.

Questions and Comments by Committee Experts

One member asked if information on the national preventive mechanisms played a role in determining the Subcommittee’s choice of follow-up actions. In the programme of work for the Subcommittee this year there would be a visit to Brazil and the Expert wanted to know if the Committee against Torture’s report on the systematic practice of torture in Brazil was taken into account when organizing the visit?

A Committee Expert asked what was happening in the Western European countries that had not ratified the Protocol. In what way had the Subcommittee collaborated with the International Committee for the Red Cross?

A Committee member asked how the Subcommittee used international law to make recommendations to a State following a visit. The Expert asked if the Subcommittee found certain situations prevailed following a visit and did the Subcommittee submit discrete complaints through confidential channels, especially if wide spread and systematic violations of the convention against torture were found. Could early warning mechanisms be used? How were the Rapporteurships handled in the Subcommittee? Were they regional or thematic?

An Expert asked about the cooperation between the Committee against Torture and the Subcommittee and how the Committees should reinforce work with one another without violating confidentiality concerns.

A Committee member asked who the Subcommittee thought should assess the national preventive mechanisms in a country since the Subcommittee had not taken on that responsibility. If a State Party had not allowed a national preventive mechanism to make a visit or report, which body in the treaty system would report on that and had the Subcommittee considered ranking or evaluating national preventive mechanisms?

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chairperson of the Committee against Torture, asked if the Committee against Torture could play a role in supporting the Subcommittee’s work to ensure that all countries had complied with their obligations to implement the national preventive mechanisms.

Answers by the Subcommittee Chairperson

Mr. Evans, in reply to the Experts, said that the best placed persons to engage in follow-up would be the national preventive mechanism as they were on the spot and ideally placed to follow-up on recommendations which would allow the Subcommittee to concentrate on countries where the national preventive mechanism was not in existence. Regarding the programme of work, the Subcommittee always took into account information from other United Nation’s bodies in constructing its work.

Mr. Evans said there were many reasons that many Western European countries had yet to ratify the Protocol; some States that had rushed to ratify were slow to implement the national preventive mechanisms while others, before ratification, were working to put the institutions into place first. There were also issues of cost associated with establishing national preventive mechanisms. A key concern in cooperating with the International Committee for the Red Cross was logistical coordination. The Subcommittee used international law in its recommendations but its report was not primarily addressed to international lawyers. At the end of visit the Subcommittee issued orally its concerns on the last day but the Subcommittee’s role was a more systematic role. The Subcommittee would not attempt to trigger procedures outside of its mandate.

The Chairperson said that it was not the Subcommittee’s role to rank the national preventive mechanisms because it was the job of the State to designate the national preventive mechanisms and the Subcommittee’s job to advise and assist States in their implementation and to explain what a national preventive mechanism should be doing to operate better. The Subcommittee preferred to focus on the effectiveness of the national preventive mechanisms framework rather than compliance and formal assessment. An extensive network of peer monitoring among national preventive mechanisms provided considerable help and was more beneficial to configure national preventive mechanisms than was anticipated. The issue of prisoner self-governance was a problem in many States and levels of self-governance was extremely high and the report had tried to strike a constructive balance on prisoner self-governance by providing guidelines.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record