Committee against Torture discusses follow-up to Articles 19 and 22 and to reprisals

GENEVA (29 November 2016) - The Committee against Torture this afternoon discussed follow-up to Articles 19 and 22 and to reprisals.

Presenting the report on follow-up to Article 19, Committee Expert and Rapporteur Abdelwahab Hani informed that all States parties but one had complied with the procedure regarding concluding observations.

Jens Modvig, Committee Chairperson, presented the report on follow-up to Article 22, and stated that out of six cases considered since May 2016, the dialogues had been closed in two cases, whereas in four the follow-up dialogues would continue.

Alessio Bruni, Committee Member and Rapporteur on follow-up to reprisals, recalled that on the same day the report of Burundi was being considered in July 2016, the Burundian authorities requested that four lawyers who had contributed to the shadow report be disbarred, which led to a statement by the Committee. 

The Committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 7 December at 10 a.m. for the public closing of the fifty-ninth session.

Follow-up to Article 19

ABDELWAHAB HANI, Committee Member and Rapporteur on follow-up to Article 19, said that only one State was yet to reply, and for that State a reminder letter had been prepared.  Almost all States which had come before the Committee were thus in compliance with the procedure.  Turkey, to which a letter had been sent requiring clarifications,  had replied in several communications and provided additional elements as requested.  Burundi had been given two months for clarifications, following the adoption of the recommendations; the Government had responded, respecting the deadline.  The Committee continued to receive follow-up information from civil society, particularly from a number of countries, including Colombia, Turkey, China, and others, which demonstrated civil society’s interest in follow-up procedures.   Mr. Hani noted the positive approach by States in general, which had largely respected given deadlines. 

At the following session, a substantive analysis of the quality of information submitted would need to take place. 

JENS MODVIG, Committee Chairperson, concurred that it was a positive development that compliance was so high. 

Follow-up to Article 22

JENS MODVIG, Committee Chairperson, presenting the report on individual communications since the May 2016 session, said that there were six cases in total. 

In the first case, Khalsa-Singh et al. v. Switzerland, the Committee had urged the State party to inform the Committee of the steps it had taken in accordance with the Committee’s observations.   The case dealt with the potential removal of an Indian citizen requiring asylum status from Switzerland to India.  While there were some doubts whether the F residency permit given to the complainant was adequate, it was recommended to close the follow-up procedure. 
The case Aarrass v. Morocco dealt with the deterioration of the complainant’s health in detention.  The State claimed that the scars found on his body were improbable to have resulted from torture.  The depression with which he was diagnosed had nothing to do with the alleged acts of torture.  In October 2016, the complainant had again informed the Committee about his ill-treatment, including solitary confinement; his submission had been transmitted to the State party for observations.  There was no reply by the deadline.  The Committee would keep the follow-up dialogue open. 

In the third case, Ramirez et al. v. Mexico, which also referred to the acts of torture, the Committee had urged the State party to conduct a thorough and effective investigation and to prosecute the persons found guilty of the violations, and to award adequate compensation to the complainants.  Mexico had replied that the complainants had been released, and a number of steps had been taken to investigate the acts of torture.  The complainants had reported new acts of intimidation and harassment by the authorities.  Mexico had been asked by the Committee to take measures to preserve the physical and moral integrity of the complainants, and the Committee would keep the follow-up dialogue open.

The Committee, in the case Ela¿ba v. Tunisia, had urged the State party to conduct an impartial investigation into the events and provide the complainant with redress for as full rehabilitation as possible.  The State party claimed that the complainant had been admitted to prison with pre-existing health conditions and claimed that he had not suffered cardiac attest.  An investigative judge had heard the complainant and other witnesses regarding his torture complaint; compensation claims would be considered afterwards, if the complainant was declared as an aggrieved party.  The Committee would keep the follow-up dialogue open.

The fifth case was R.D. et al. v. Switzerland.  The Committee had decided that Article 3 had been violated, and asked that the complainants not be forcibly returned to Belarus, Russia or any other country where they would run a real risk of being returned to Russia.  The complainants had been granted residence permits and were considered no longer at risk of deportation.  The follow-up dialogue was thus closed with a note of satisfactory resolution.

Finally, in J.N. v. Denmark, the Committee was of the opinion that the State party had an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning the complainant to Sri Lanka.  The Danish Refugee Appeals Boars had decided to reopen the complainant’s asylum case, and Denmark would inform the Committee once a decision had been reached.  The follow-up dialogue would thus remain open. 

Follow-up to Reprisals

ALESSIO BRUNI, Committee Member and Rapporteur on Follow-up for Reprisals, recalled that the same day the Committee had been examining the report of Burundi, 29 July 2016, the authorities had requested that four lawyers who had contributed to the shadow report be expelled from the Bar Association.  The Committee had issued a press release and requested the Government to explain the reasons for the expulsion.  A reply had been received, saying that those four persons were under judicial proceedings because of their participation in an attempted coup d’état.  The Bar Association had refused to expel the four lawyers on the basis of the presumption of their innocence.   The Attorney-General was reportedly planning to appeal that decision by the Bar Association.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record