Committee againt Torture starts consideration of initial report of Rwanda

Committee against Torture
MORNING 

15 May 2012

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the initial report of Rwanda on how it implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Introducing the report, Soline Nyirahabimana, Permanent Representative of Rwanda to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that after the 1994 genocide against Tutsi people which killed over one million innocent people, Rwanda knew better than anyone else how violations of human rights could ruin a nation.  The post-genocide leadership used human rights as a core principle to reverse that terrible history, starting with the abolition of the death penalty in 2007.  Significant achievements in the fight against torture had been achieved, often using home-grown solutions derived from Rwandan cultural values which had helped to mend the shattered society.  Dignity and torture were incompatible, and while there had been achievements, there was still much more to do, including ratification of the Optional Protocol.  Rwanda did not tolerate impunity, and any reported crime would be investigated, while any perpetrator would face the long arm of the law.

Alessio Bruni, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Rwanda, asked about the new Penal Code and a definition of torture, about invocation of the Convention in courts, and about Gacaca courts, which were apparently established in 2001 to deal with crimes committed during the genocide.  At the end of 1999 over 94,000 people had been sentenced to the Work for General Interest programme, without pay, and Mr. Bruni asked about the conditions they were detained under.  The detention of children younger than 12, and of infants held in prison with their mothers, was also raised, as was overcrowding in prisons.

Nora Sveaass, Committee Expert also serving as Rapporteur for the report of Rwanda, said that considering what Rwanda had been through its recent achievements were both amazing and impressive and the Government of Rwanda must be commended.  Questions of concern included difficulties faced by non-governmental organizations and journalists working in Rwanda, corporal punishment, monitoring places of detention, and political prisoners.

Committee Experts asked about juvenile justice and child labour, secret military detention facilities, compensation for both victims of the 1994 genocide and of torture and about difficulties experienced by non-governmental organizations and media working in Rwanda. 

In an initial response, Ms. Nyirahabimana, thanked the Committee for its recognition of the strides Rwanda had made since the 1994 genocide and said the Government was committed to hear constructive criticism aimed at helping Rwanda and following it up to go beyond what it had already achieved. 

The delegation of Rwanda consisted of representatives from Rwanda’s National Correctional Services, the Ministry of Justice and the Permanent Mission of Rwanda to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The next public meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. today when it will hear the replies of the Czech Republic.  The replies of Rwanda will be heard at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 16 May. 

Report

The initial report of Rwanda can be read here: (CAT/C/RWA/1).

Presentation of the Report

SOLINE NYIRAHABIMANA, Permanent Representative of Rwanda to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that after the 1994 genocide against Tutsi people which killed over one million innocent people, Rwanda knew better than anyone else how violations of human rights could ruin a nation.  The post-genocide leadership used human rights as a core principle to reverse that terrible history, starting with the abolition of the death penalty in 2007.  Rwanda was engaged in convincing other countries worldwide to also abolish the death penalty, and worked closely with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on that.  Significant achievements in the fight against torture and related ill-treatments had been achieved, often using home-grown solutions derived from Rwandan cultural values which had helped to mend the shattered society.  Those values were ‘agaciro’ or dignity, ‘ubudahungabanywa bw’ubuzima’ or right to life and ‘gacca’ or traditional mechanism of justice, truth and reconciliation.  When the initial report was written torture was not listed as a stand-alone offence in the Criminal Code, but today the newly adopted Penal Code had amended that.  It used the Convention’s definition of torture and listed appropriate penalties for the crime from six months to life imprisonment.  International conventions, including the Convention against Torture, ruled supreme over national laws in Rwandan courts, with case precedent to enforce it.   Torture was defined as a cross-border crime that fell under universal jurisdiction. 

The law on the administration of evidence prohibited the use of torture to obtain evidence or confessions, whatever the alleged crime.  The Criminal Code provided guarantees of the rights of detained persons, including a medical examination, medical insurance, access to a lawyer and contact with persons of his or her choice, including family members.  Habeas corpus had been invoked in courts.  Institutional mechanisms such as the Office of the Ombudsman, the Inspection of Police and Inspection of the National Public Prosecution Authority had been established to oversee those areas, with contributions from the Rwandan National Commission of Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross and international and national NGOs, all of which operated freely in the country.  Continuous training was provided for judges, public prosecutors, judicial police officers, lawyers and other relevant personnel.  The new Isange One Stop Centre had been a success in caring for and rehabilitating victims of sexual violence, including torture, and won a United Nations award which would be presented in New York next month.  Allegations made by NGOs of individual cases of torture in secret detention facilities were simply un-statements by people who did not know much about Rwanda.  Dignity and torture were incompatible, and while there had been achievements, there was still much more to do, including ratification of the Convention’s Optional Protocol.  Rwanda did not tolerate impunity, and any reported crime would be investigated, while any perpetrator would face the long arm of the law.

Statement by Committee Chairperson

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Committee Chairperson, said that after the Second World War mankind thought that genocide could not happen again, but the 1994 genocide in Rwanda proved the world wrong.  What happened in Rwanda was a failure of the international community to provide a collective guarantee that those things would not happen again.  The world learned that when indications showed things were going the wrong way it was very important to have preventative mechanisms in place to stop it. 

Questions from Rapporteurs on Rwanda

ALESSIO BRUNI, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Rwanda, warmly welcomed Rwanda to the Committee for the first time and thanked them for the well-presented report that had been prepared in consultation with a variety of stakeholders, including civil society organizations in the human rights field.  Some NGOs had told the Committee they had not been included in the process, however, so could the delegation explain any selection process?  Mr. Bruni asked for information on the National Human Rights Commission, such as its composition, its funding and how its independence was guaranteed.  The new Penal Code gave rise to many questions: the offence of torture was listed as a separate offence, in line with the Convention, but there was no definition of it.  The minimum penalty for torture was six months: torture was a serious crime and no form of torture deserved just six months imprisonment.  The provisions referred to physical damage caused by torture, but not the mental suffering that could be caused. 

Mr. Bruni said he was glad the Convention could be invoked in courts, including administrative courts, but could the delegation confirm whether the absence of a definition of torture in the Penal Code was automatically replaced by the Convention’s definition?  A Rwandan national, Leon Mugesera, accused of participating in the genocide was extradited from Canada to Rwanda in January 2012.  Could the delegation give any information on the precise charges against him, his conditions of detention and whether he had access to a lawyer?  The report referred to Gacaca courts, which were apparently established in 2001 to deal with crimes committed during the genocide such as murder, bodily damage and property damage.  Some international human rights NGOs criticized the Gacaca courts and said they held trials without lawyers, without thorough enquiries prior to confessions and with acquittal rates of only 20 per cent.  Could the delegation provide more information on how they worked?  At the end of 1999 more than 94,000 people had been sentenced to the Work for General Interest programme and about 50,000 people had served their sentences in such work camps, without pay.  The report did not say how long those sentences lasted and in what conditions.  How many penal sanctions had been applied to officials guilty of torture since 1999? 

Regarding detention centres and the detention of minors, the law stated that children younger than 12 could not be held in adult detention centres, without exceptional reasons.  Could the delegation give any examples of children younger than 12 held in adult detention centres for exceptional reasons, and for how long?  What was being done to reduce the period of pre-trial detention for minors?  Mr. Bruni referred to the problem of overcrowding in prisons.  NGO reports stated that in February 2012 the rate of occupation was 149 per cent.  About 400 children younger than three years old lived with their detained mothers in difficult conditions in overcrowded prisons: what measures were being taken to accommodate those mothers and children in other prisons?  The 2007 abolition of the death penalty was welcomed.  At the time it was replaced by imprisonment in solitary confinement, which was in itself a form of cruel treatment, although later that provision was abolished and persons committed to life imprisonment were no longer held in solitary confinement.  A new law was soon to be adopted on allowing extradition in the absence of bilateral agreements with other countries.  What mechanisms ascertained whether a person was at risk of torture if they departed, as per the principle of non refoulement contained within the Convention?

NORA SVEAASS, Committee Expert also serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Rwanda, said that considering what Rwanda had been through its recent achievements were both amazing and impressive.  The Government of Rwanda must be commended for the many achievements and positive practices it had made to allow the country to heal following the 1994 genocide.  There were questions of concern, and the Committee welcomed any information that could be given on steps taken forward in Rwanda.  Regarding the training of officials, was the Istanbul Manuel taught, as it documented practices of torture and was very helpful.  There were strong measures to prevent violations of women and children’s rights, including street-level working groups: could the delegation elaborate?  Ms. Sveaass highlighted difficulties NGOs faced in working in Rwanda, and also reported intimidation and harassment of journalists: the 2009 Media Law ruled that all journalists must satisfy certain Government requirements.  What were those criteria?  Concerning prison overcrowding, had the Government developed alternative sentences to custodial ones?  Furthermore, what sort of crimes had the 400 women who were imprisoned with their infants committed; did they need to serve custodial sentences?  The shelter for victims of gender-based violence referred to the in report was a very good thing.  Corporal punishment as punishment was not allowed, but it was as a disciplinary measure.  Was there any way it out be entirely outlawed, even as a form of education?

There were problems in monitoring places of detention.  The International Committee of the Red Cross had access, but that was, of course, very confidential.  What about the prison inspection teams, what sort of regular visits did the National Human Rights Commission make, and what possibilities were there for other NGOs?  Could the delegation give information on political prisoners, there had been cases of people detained for years, such as Bernard Ntaganda, a candidate for the presidential election, who may have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment.  What investigations had been made into the beheading of the Vice-President of the Democratic Green Party in 2010?  The State’s responsibility to redress acts of torture was deeply rooted in the Convention, as was the right of victims to be compensated.  Rwanda’s law was that once guilt was established in court the victim became the creditor and was entitled to the perpetrators property and assets.  Rehabilitation services, including psychiatric services, for victims of the genocide have been established and were commendable.  However, the State party should take measures of reparation for torture that occurred since the genocide. 

Questions from Committee Experts

An Expert highlighted the importance of first reports, which were given priority, and hoped that the Committee’s extensive and diverse concerns would be conveyed to the appropriate authorities.  The Expert congratulated the State party, which had a very troubled history, on developments since 1994.  Developments that were very encouraging in many, many ways in showing how one operated following a genocide of the proportion, speed and devastation that happened in Rwanda.  The abolition of the death penalty was one of the more visible examples of how a tragedy could be turned into something good for human dignity.

Merging cultural traditions with international obligations was a positive thing, as the State party did not feel international obligations were something imposed from outside.  An Expert commended the use of continual professional development training for judges.  However, Rwanda was at a cross-road between achievements and deterioration.  The issue of secret detention facilities, incommunicado detentions and safe houses in Kigali was highlighted.  The Expert said their very existence was unjustified: what justification did the Government have for them?  The State party could not just say NGOs were making statements about them without substance; they needed to make clear rebuttals.  The media law has been amended to make the media self-regulated, but how would its impartiality be ensured in order to enhance press freedom?  

There were major problems with juvenile delinquents being tried in adult courts and there was no separate juvenile justice system.  There were reports of homeless street children, categorized as vulnerable persons, being arrested for being vagabonds and held in special detention centres for lengthy period of time without any legal framework.  Children were held in deplorable prison conditions and not separated from adults.  The genocide left many children as heads of households, and there was a clear problem concerning children in Rwanda that needed to be addressed.  The genocide recovery programme was commendable, but could the delegation provide some information on how it remained impartial and dealt with political opposition?  Child labour was another issue, as the High Commissioner’s report to the Human Rights Council cited International Labour Organization observations that 352,000 children were working in Rwanda.  How was child labour regulated and how was it ensured that children could go to school and complete their education? 

The delegation responded to allegations from NGOs about secret detention facilities by saying “they were un-statements by people who did not know Rwanda”.  There were reports of 45 serious cases of people being held in military and secret detention facilities and suffering torture such as electrocution.  Could the delegation provide a substantive response to those reports?  On a separate note, there seemed to be problems regarding compensation of victims of the genocide and of certain officials shouldering their responsibilities. 

The Chairperson wondered if the State party had considered inviting the Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit in order to benefit from his advice.  He raised the matter of enforced disappearances.  An Amnesty International report referred to the cases of Sheikh Iddy Abassi, who was allegedly abducted from his home on 25 March 2010, and of Robert Ndengeye Urayeneza, allegedly abducted on 26 March 2010.  The Committee on Human Rights asked Rwanda to clarify their situation as well, and the Committee would like to hear about follow-up to those important situations. 

Response of the Delegation

SOLINE NYIRAHABIMANA, Permanent Representative of Rwanda to the United Nations Office at Geneva, thanked the Committee for its recognition of the strides Rwanda had made since the 1994 genocide.  The follow-up questions were aimed at helping Rwanda to go beyond what it had already achieved.  The Government was committed to hear and follow-up positive and constructive criticism in order to do that.  Rwanda did not only like compliments, it wanted to explore other ways of working, methods of correcting its procedures and to benefit from the advice of the Experts. 

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record