Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Statements Treaty bodies
Default title
30 April 2001
Share
CAT
26th session
30 April 2001
REMARKS OF DR BERTRAND RAMCHARAN,
DEPUTY HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee against Torture, ladies and gentlemen,
On behalf of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, I welcome you at the start of your twenty-sixth session and wish you a successful session. I should like to thank you for your efforts to help implement the Convention and to encourage you to search for further dynamic approaches to the implementation of the Convention in the future.
The problem of torture has been with us a long time. Daniel P. Mannix, in The History of Torture (1964), writes that the idea of torture carries us back to thoughts of a dim, distant past, and yet, until quite recently, torture was openly accepted, an integral part of the justice system in nations all over the world:
"For virtually all man's history on earth, torture has been an accepted form of punishment, and in this start arena man has nearly outdone himself with his grisly creativity"
Edward Peters in his book on Torture (1985) described the history and use of torture in western countries from Ancient Greece to present times and examined the evolution of the legal and political theory behind it. He noted that Victor Hugo had claimed, in good faith, in 1874, that 'Torture has ceased to exist'. Yet, Peters commented sadly, a century later, "torture is used routinely in one in every three countries."
In the last century a determined struggle was made to help develop international norms against torture. The interdiction of torture in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a notable landmark. The Declaration against Torture and then the Convention you watch over gave us the vital legal framework necessary to help stamp out this evil phenomenon.
In 1984, Amnesty International published its path-breaking report, Torture in the Eighties. It told a story of political suspects and other prisoners facing torture in police stations, secret detention centres, camps and military barracks in countries throughout the world. Condemning torture under all political systems, the report spelled out a global programme for its abolition. Amnesty called for :
1. Official condemnation of torture.
2. Limits on incommunicado detention.
3. No Secret detention.
4. Safeguards during interrogation and custody.
5. Independent investigation of reports of torture.
6. No use of statements extracted under torture.
7. Prohibition of torture in law.
8. Prosecution of alleged torturers.
9. Training procedures for law enforcement officials to prevent torture.
10. Compensation and rehabilitation.
11. International response.
12. Ratification of international instruments.
On the issue of international response, Amnesty International urged that Governments should use all available channels to intercede with governments accused of torture. Inter-governmental mechanisms should be established and used to investigate reports of torture urgently and to take effective action against it. Governments should ensure that military, security or police transfers or training do not facilitate the practice of torture.
Sixteen years after the publication of Amnesty International's Report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur against torture, a mandate established in 1985, reported to the Commission on Human Rights earlier this year:
"If the test of the scope of the problem were the amount of information on torture and ill-treatment reaching the United Nations, then it would be necessary to conclude that the incidence of the phenomenon is increasing, certainly substantially more rapidly than the resources available to service the mandate... What is clear is that no area of the world can claim yet to be a 'torture-free zone'.
The Commission's Rapporteur, Sir Nigel Rodley, called for further ratifications of the Convention against Torture beyond its current 123 States Parties, for the highest authorities to publicly condemn torture in all its forms, for interrogation to take place only at official centres; for the abolition of secret places of detention; for regular inspection of places of detention; for particular attention to the risks of torture during incommunicado detention; for controls on administrative detention; for all detained persons to be able to challenge the lawfulness of treatment in detention; for inquiries whenever a torture complaint is lodged; for training and training manuals to be provided for police and security personnel to safeguard against torture; for health sector personnel to be instructed in the Principles of Medical Ethics; and for national legislation and practice to reflect article 3 of the Convention against Torture, namely, the prohibition of the return, expulsion or extradition of a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
At about the time Amnesty International launched its report on Torture in the Eighties, the Convention against Torture was adopted on 10 December, 1984- Human Rights Day! The Convention requires each State Party to take 'effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction." No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
States Parties to the Convention are required to submit reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under the Convention within one year after the entry into force of the Convention for the State Party and supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken and such other reports as the Committee may request. The Committee is required to consider each such report and may make such general comments on the report as it may consider appropriate and shall forward these to the State Party concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the committee.
If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to cooperate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned. The procedure in Article 20 then ensues.
States Parties may declare that they recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. Article 21 provides a procedure for this.
A State Party may at any time declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. Article 22 provides a procedure for this.
The Convention against Torture entered into force on 26 June, 1987, and this Committee began to function in January, 1988. During twenty-five previous sessions, it has developed its methods and approaches regarding the reporting process, adopted general comments, conducted in-country inquiries, and considered communications. It would be fair to say that this is still a young Committee whose methods and approaches are in evolution. After twenty five previous sessions, some questions might be in order:
A. Ratifications: How can one act to speed up ratifications by the more than sixty states that have not yet done so?
B. The role of the Committee: What is the future role of the Committee in relation to the Special Rapporteur against torture, the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture, the optional Protocol under discussion, and international tribunals currently developing a jurisprudence on the question of torture? Shouldn't one see the Committee in relation to the international architecture to combat Torture and isn't there a leadership role for the Committee within this architecture? After all, it is the global body striving for the prevention of torture.
C. Prevention of Torture: While performing its mandated functions under the Convention, what can the Committee do to spearhead the efforts of the international community to prevent torture - keeping in mind the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur to the Commission on Human Rights earlier this year? The report submitted to the Commission on Human Rights earlier this year on the activities of the working group to draft an optional protocol to the Convention noted that "Many delegations found it positive that an international instrument should establish the obligation of States Parties to set up national mechanisms for the prevention of torture. Others welcomed the idea that an international instrument should encourage States parties to create such mechanisms. Some recalled that the establishment or strengthening of such mechanisms had been repeatedly recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture with respect to many of the countries it had visited." (E/CN.4/2001/67, para. 28)
D. Dynamism in combatting torture: Faced with mounting evidence of the persistence and widespread practice of torture, what room is there for more dynamism in combatting torture within the framework of the Convention.
E. Thematic reports: The first report of a State Party within a year is mandatory under the Convention. After that the manner of reporting is up to the Committee: Is there a case for a regular thematic report and follow-up exercise on the efforts of States Parties to prevent torture? The emphasis on prevention should surely be one of the policy planks of the Committee in the future.
F. International Jurisprudence : How can the jurisprudence of the Committee and the emerging jurisprudence of other international and regional bodies be given more prominence?
G. Torture and racism : What can the Committee recommend to the forthcoming World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance from its vantage point.
I have posed these questions for three reasons: first the evidence that torture persists on a widespread scale; second the need to look to the evolving role of the Committee after twenty five earlier sessions; third an environment in which many voices are calling for reforms in the implementation of human rights treaties.
It is important for each treaty body to have a clear view of its objectives, its evolving roles, its practices, its efficiency and effectiveness, and its place within the international movement for the protection of human rights.
Doubtless, there are many other questions that will come to your mind. My purpose in offering these reflections has been to invite you to engage in such a process of examining where you are and where you wish to go in the future. For this Committee, as for other treaty bodies, business as usual will not suffice. The challenges of international human rights protection demand dynamic action. Rooting out torture requires international mobilisation.
*****
26th session
30 April 2001
REMARKS OF DR BERTRAND RAMCHARAN,
DEPUTY HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee against Torture, ladies and gentlemen,
On behalf of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, I welcome you at the start of your twenty-sixth session and wish you a successful session. I should like to thank you for your efforts to help implement the Convention and to encourage you to search for further dynamic approaches to the implementation of the Convention in the future.
The problem of torture has been with us a long time. Daniel P. Mannix, in The History of Torture (1964), writes that the idea of torture carries us back to thoughts of a dim, distant past, and yet, until quite recently, torture was openly accepted, an integral part of the justice system in nations all over the world:
"For virtually all man's history on earth, torture has been an accepted form of punishment, and in this start arena man has nearly outdone himself with his grisly creativity"
Edward Peters in his book on Torture (1985) described the history and use of torture in western countries from Ancient Greece to present times and examined the evolution of the legal and political theory behind it. He noted that Victor Hugo had claimed, in good faith, in 1874, that 'Torture has ceased to exist'. Yet, Peters commented sadly, a century later, "torture is used routinely in one in every three countries."
In the last century a determined struggle was made to help develop international norms against torture. The interdiction of torture in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a notable landmark. The Declaration against Torture and then the Convention you watch over gave us the vital legal framework necessary to help stamp out this evil phenomenon.
In 1984, Amnesty International published its path-breaking report, Torture in the Eighties. It told a story of political suspects and other prisoners facing torture in police stations, secret detention centres, camps and military barracks in countries throughout the world. Condemning torture under all political systems, the report spelled out a global programme for its abolition. Amnesty called for :
1. Official condemnation of torture.
2. Limits on incommunicado detention.
3. No Secret detention.
4. Safeguards during interrogation and custody.
5. Independent investigation of reports of torture.
6. No use of statements extracted under torture.
7. Prohibition of torture in law.
8. Prosecution of alleged torturers.
9. Training procedures for law enforcement officials to prevent torture.
10. Compensation and rehabilitation.
11. International response.
12. Ratification of international instruments.
On the issue of international response, Amnesty International urged that Governments should use all available channels to intercede with governments accused of torture. Inter-governmental mechanisms should be established and used to investigate reports of torture urgently and to take effective action against it. Governments should ensure that military, security or police transfers or training do not facilitate the practice of torture.
Sixteen years after the publication of Amnesty International's Report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur against torture, a mandate established in 1985, reported to the Commission on Human Rights earlier this year:
"If the test of the scope of the problem were the amount of information on torture and ill-treatment reaching the United Nations, then it would be necessary to conclude that the incidence of the phenomenon is increasing, certainly substantially more rapidly than the resources available to service the mandate... What is clear is that no area of the world can claim yet to be a 'torture-free zone'.
The Commission's Rapporteur, Sir Nigel Rodley, called for further ratifications of the Convention against Torture beyond its current 123 States Parties, for the highest authorities to publicly condemn torture in all its forms, for interrogation to take place only at official centres; for the abolition of secret places of detention; for regular inspection of places of detention; for particular attention to the risks of torture during incommunicado detention; for controls on administrative detention; for all detained persons to be able to challenge the lawfulness of treatment in detention; for inquiries whenever a torture complaint is lodged; for training and training manuals to be provided for police and security personnel to safeguard against torture; for health sector personnel to be instructed in the Principles of Medical Ethics; and for national legislation and practice to reflect article 3 of the Convention against Torture, namely, the prohibition of the return, expulsion or extradition of a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
At about the time Amnesty International launched its report on Torture in the Eighties, the Convention against Torture was adopted on 10 December, 1984- Human Rights Day! The Convention requires each State Party to take 'effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction." No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
States Parties to the Convention are required to submit reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under the Convention within one year after the entry into force of the Convention for the State Party and supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken and such other reports as the Committee may request. The Committee is required to consider each such report and may make such general comments on the report as it may consider appropriate and shall forward these to the State Party concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the committee.
If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to cooperate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned. The procedure in Article 20 then ensues.
States Parties may declare that they recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. Article 21 provides a procedure for this.
A State Party may at any time declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. Article 22 provides a procedure for this.
The Convention against Torture entered into force on 26 June, 1987, and this Committee began to function in January, 1988. During twenty-five previous sessions, it has developed its methods and approaches regarding the reporting process, adopted general comments, conducted in-country inquiries, and considered communications. It would be fair to say that this is still a young Committee whose methods and approaches are in evolution. After twenty five previous sessions, some questions might be in order:
A. Ratifications: How can one act to speed up ratifications by the more than sixty states that have not yet done so?
B. The role of the Committee: What is the future role of the Committee in relation to the Special Rapporteur against torture, the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture, the optional Protocol under discussion, and international tribunals currently developing a jurisprudence on the question of torture? Shouldn't one see the Committee in relation to the international architecture to combat Torture and isn't there a leadership role for the Committee within this architecture? After all, it is the global body striving for the prevention of torture.
C. Prevention of Torture: While performing its mandated functions under the Convention, what can the Committee do to spearhead the efforts of the international community to prevent torture - keeping in mind the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur to the Commission on Human Rights earlier this year? The report submitted to the Commission on Human Rights earlier this year on the activities of the working group to draft an optional protocol to the Convention noted that "Many delegations found it positive that an international instrument should establish the obligation of States Parties to set up national mechanisms for the prevention of torture. Others welcomed the idea that an international instrument should encourage States parties to create such mechanisms. Some recalled that the establishment or strengthening of such mechanisms had been repeatedly recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture with respect to many of the countries it had visited." (E/CN.4/2001/67, para. 28)
D. Dynamism in combatting torture: Faced with mounting evidence of the persistence and widespread practice of torture, what room is there for more dynamism in combatting torture within the framework of the Convention.
E. Thematic reports: The first report of a State Party within a year is mandatory under the Convention. After that the manner of reporting is up to the Committee: Is there a case for a regular thematic report and follow-up exercise on the efforts of States Parties to prevent torture? The emphasis on prevention should surely be one of the policy planks of the Committee in the future.
F. International Jurisprudence : How can the jurisprudence of the Committee and the emerging jurisprudence of other international and regional bodies be given more prominence?
G. Torture and racism : What can the Committee recommend to the forthcoming World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance from its vantage point.
I have posed these questions for three reasons: first the evidence that torture persists on a widespread scale; second the need to look to the evolving role of the Committee after twenty five earlier sessions; third an environment in which many voices are calling for reforms in the implementation of human rights treaties.
It is important for each treaty body to have a clear view of its objectives, its evolving roles, its practices, its efficiency and effectiveness, and its place within the international movement for the protection of human rights.
Doubtless, there are many other questions that will come to your mind. My purpose in offering these reflections has been to invite you to engage in such a process of examining where you are and where you wish to go in the future. For this Committee, as for other treaty bodies, business as usual will not suffice. The challenges of international human rights protection demand dynamic action. Rooting out torture requires international mobilisation.
*****