Committee against Torture discusses proactive approachs to prevent torture with Subcommittee

23 April 2014

Hears from Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard a presentation from the Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture. The Chairperson summarized the Subcommittee’s annual report, describing ways in which it focused on an innovative, sustained and proactive approach to the prevention of torture and ill treatment. Representatives of the two human rights treaty bodies also discussed country visits, reprisals against human rights defenders and ways of disseminating the Subcommittee’s work.

In his presentation, Malcolm Evans, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, recalled that the Subcommittee was established pursuant to the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) and was a United Nations treaty body with a preventive mandate focusing on an innovative, sustained and proactive approach to the prevention of torture and ill treatment. Summarizing the Subcommittee’s annual report, Mr. Evans said to date there were 76 States parties to the OPCAT, the most recent of which was Mongolia. That figure was around 50 per cent of the number of States parties to the Convention against Torture. He noted that a number of States had made commitments during the Universal Periodic Review process to ratify the OPCAT.

During 2014, the Subcommittee undertook seven country visits, the highest number yet, including to Nicaragua, Togo, Azerbaijan and Nigeria, said Mr. Evans. He said the visit to Azerbaijan unfortunately had to be suspended but was happy to note that it had been rescheduled and was currently taking place. In 2015 the Subcommittee would undertake nine visits, including to Azerbaijan, Nauru, Guatemala, Philippines, Brazil, Italy, Turkey, Netherlands and an additional follow-up visit to another country. The Subcommittee desired to make country visits to States parties with a similar degree of regularity as the review cycle of the reports of States parties undertaken by the Committee, commented Mr. Evans.

To date 61 of the 76 States parties had active national preventative mechanisms, which showed the degree of commitment from many States parties to implement their OPCAT obligations, said Mr. Evans. The increase in national preventative mechanisms had led to an exponential growth in the number of requests received by the Subcommittee for advice regarding their mandate, specific cases, organizational structure and how best to follow-up on country visits. Although welcome, that increase did create difficulties with regard to capacity, he remarked. A matter of high priority was that the resources of the OPCAT Special Fund, which had supported many valuable projects in States parties, had been depleted. Funds were urgently needed in order for the very good work of the OPCAT Special Fund to continue, he said.

Mr. Evans drew attention to two reports published on the Subcommittee’s website. The first was a statement on the obligations of States parties relating to the facilitation of the Subcommittee’s visits, and the second was a statement on the Subcommittee’s policy on reprisals. The latter indicated both the seriousness of the issue and the seriousness of the response; it was a topic of great current significance and consideration and the Subcommittee wanted its contribution to the debate to be as public as possible, commented Mr. Evans.

In other developments, Mr. Evans said the Subcommittee had started using Twitter to disseminate its work and had a hashtag (#OPCAT). It was looking to expand and develop its presence on social media in the future, within the confines of its mandate. The Subcommittee was changing its follow-up procedures with States on issues arising from country visits to favour face-to-face conversational discussions immediately after a visit rather than an exchange of documentation. It hoped that change would be a major enhancement of the quality of the dialogue arising out of visits. The annual report included a statement on pre-trial detention, noted Mr. Evans, adding that the next annual report would include a statement on women in detention. Finally, he said the Subcommittee wished to change the way it compiled and published its annual report in future as it was not workable in the current format.

In an ensuing dialogue with Committee Members, matters including the suspension and re­-scheduling of the country visit to Azerbaijan and the dissemination of the Subcommittee’s work were discussed. Members commented on the impact of resource restraints and the status of the OPCAT Special Fund. The issue of reprisals was also highlighted at a matter of utmost seriousness, and it was hoped that the adoption of a firm policy on reprisals would help ensure that people the Subcommittee came into contact with during country visits did not suffer reprisals as a result.

Information about the Subcommittee against Torture can be found on its webpage and its annual report can be read here (CAT/C/54/2).

The Committee against Torture will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon at the Palais Wilson to complete its consideration of the initial report of Congo (CAT/C/COG/1).

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record