Committee against Torture hears from the Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture

GENEVA (5 May 2017) - The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard a presentation by Malcom Evans, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, who presented the Subcommittee’s 2016 annual report.
 
Malcom Evans, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said that this was a presentation of the tenth annual report of the Subcommittee.  There were 83 States parties to the Optional Protocol, informed Mr. Evans, but a number of States had made commitments to ratify before the end of the year.  There was a slow, subtle but important change of the pattern of participation.  There were 21 States parties from Africa, which now had a numerical predominance among regional groups.  The Subcommittee’s membership had been refreshed in 2016, after seven members had ended their mandates, and had been replaced by seven new members.  Speaking about visits, Mr. Evans said that the approach to visits had been changed compared to earlier years.  Now, the Subcommittee simply had a programme of visits with various foci, rather than being focused on one single aspect of prevention in each visit, and it conducted 10 visits per year.
 
One of the positive aspects of 2016 was the growing number of States which agreed to have visit reports published on the Subcommittee’s website; almost two-thirds of reports were now made public.  There were some contacts even with those countries which had not formally responded to the Subcommittee’s requests and inquiries.  Of the 83 States parties of the Optional Protocol, 57 had officially notified the Subcommittee of the designation of their national preventive mechanisms; no new notifications have been received in 2016.  As of 31 December 2016, 23 States parties had not complied with their obligations under article 17 of the Optional Protocol; it was hoped that some States would be removed from that list shortly.  Mr. Evans further informed that the grants to the Special Fund in 2016 had amounted to $ 240,000.  One of the Subcommittee’s visits – to Ukraine – had been suspended due to the failure to visit all desired places of detention; the visit had been completed several months later in a satisfactory manner. 
 
Due to the pressure on the length of the report, there was no substantive section containing the Subcommittee’s views, which could not be presented in another way.  The Subcommittee was now considering presenting its views in the form of general comments.  The sheer volume of work had increased to such a level that the Subcommittee was under extreme time pressure during its sessions; one additional week of working time was thus requested.
 
In the discussion which followed, a Committee Member raised the issue of challenges of access to places of detention and wondered of possibilities to visit de facto independent territories such as Transnistria, Republic of Moldova.  A question was asked on the evaluation system used by the Subcommittee; could the Subcommittee play a monitoring role to ensure that diplomatic assurances were in line with the law?  The issue of overlapping visits by the Committee and the Subcommittee was raised by another Expert, who brought up the possibility of a notification system and coordination between the two bodies.  One area of cooperation would obviously be on drafting general comments and position papers.
 
Responding to questions, Mr. Evans stated that the Subcommittee had always taken the view that it was not its role to give formal accreditation to national preventive mechanisms; that was the role of States parties.  Most national preventive mechanisms responded to what the Subcommittee said and gratefully listened to its constructive feedback.  On the whole, the Subcommittee’s relationship with many national preventive mechanisms was very positive.  The Subcommittee had not visited the Transnistria region because there had been other visits ongoing there at the same time; in Ukraine, the Subcommittee had gone to the Donetsk area and met with the de facto local authorities.  If the Subcommittee tasked national preventive mechanisms to provide evaluation of the system of diplomatic assurances in particular cases, their independence could be seen as being compromised that way.  It was a very practical question which was currently under discussion in several places.   Mr. Evans stated that the Subcommittee ought to seek further cooperation with other international bodies with similar mandates; ways needed to be considered of better coordinating the work of the Committee and the Subcommittee.  The Subcommittee found it difficult, though, to announce all of its 10 visits at the same time, which was the reason it refrained from publishing an annual schedule at once.       
 
The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 9 May at 3 p.m. for a discussion on follow-up to articles 19 and 22.

_________

For use of the information media; not an official record