禁止酷刑委员会讨论关于结论性意见和个人来文的后续问题（部分翻译）

禁止酷刑委员会

2013年5月17日

禁止酷刑委员会今天早上审议了关于结论性意见和个人来文的后续问题，并听取了委员会成员、结论性意见后续报告员菲丽丝·盖尔和个人来文后续报告员费尔南多·马里诺·梅内德斯的口头报告。

盖尔女士介绍了她关于第十九条中的结论性意见的后续问题的报告。她表示，目前已有136个国家受到后续程序的审查，其中有39个国家未向程序报告，委员会应就如何处理这种不答复的问题进行讨论。叙利亚的特别报告已到期，盖尔女士也提请委员会注意该国日益恶化的局势、新形式的暴力、酷刑及残害等问题，这在叙利亚独立调查委员会和人权事务高级专员最近的报告中都有概述。讨论的另一个问题在于简化的新报告程序或报告前的问题清单是否应该根据高级专员的建议消除后续程序。

委员会专家、个人来文问题报告员费尔南多·马里诺·梅内德斯介绍了关于个人来文问题的后续进展。他表示应该在委员会提交联合国大会的报告中加入个人案件的相关信息。之前共有来自14个国家的24例案件接受审议，其中大多与第三条中的不推回原则相关。案件分别来自阿尔及利亚、澳大利亚、加拿大、丹麦、哈萨克斯坦、摩洛哥、挪威、塞内加尔、塞尔维亚、西班牙、瑞典、瑞士、突尼斯和土耳其。马里诺·梅内德斯先生概述了各案件的情况及委员会在此方面采取的行动。

在随后的讨论中，委员会专家评论道：如何处理不答复后续程序的国家是很困难的问题，并同意在报告之前的问题清单中加入后续程序，向不回复的国家发送提醒并有选择性地与其常驻日内瓦代表团举行会议。专家希望了解委员会在何种情况下应该结束审理个人案件，以及相关国家或原告的法律顾问未作出答复是否可以成为结案或继续审理的理由。各国国家预防机制的存在对委员会而言是极大优势，使其在这些国家机构中获得自然的合作伙伴。

委员会将会于今天（5月17日）下午三点再次举行公众会议，届时将继续审议玻利维亚2013年5月16日开始编写的第二份定期报告 (CAT/C/BOL/2)。

Discussion

FELICE GAER, Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations, presenting her report on article 19 of the Convention, noted that the responses of States to the follow- up procedure had fallen from 75 per cent to about 70 per cent.  A total of 136 States had been reviewed under the follow-up procedure so far, of which 39 had not reported on the procedure; 32 had never replied and 8 State reports were due, that from Albania, Armenia, Canada, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Greece, Rwanda and Syria.  Syria was due to provide a special follow-up report, said the Rapporteur and noted that the update of the Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria presented during the Human Rights Council session in March 2013 summarised new developments in Syria and stated the spread of violence and new forms of violence at checkpoints.  It also addressed sexual violence and extensively discussed massacres.  In her recent report on Syria, the High Commissioner had indicated that the number of violent deaths in Syria had passed the 80,000 mark and had addressed violence against civilians, acts of torture and mutilation and forced marriages. 

Turning to the States which never replied to the follow-up procedure, Ms. Gaer noted that out of the 32 States, one was from Western Europe, two from Eastern Europe, six from Asia, six from Latin America, and 15 from Africa.  The follow-up procedure was essential to the Committee which should discuss what steps it wanted to take in addressing non-reporting.  Another issue for discussion was whether the new simplified reporting procedure or the list of issues prior to reporting should eliminate the follow-up procedure.  Follow-up letters for Ireland, Belarus, Germany and Sri Lanka and the list of issues prior to reporting for Finland, Monaco, Slovenia and Bulgaria, should be finalized during this current session the Committee.

In the ensuing discussion, Experts said that the question of what to do with States which never replied was a difficult issue; some States thought that this procedure was not within the mandate of treaty bodies and it was hard to treat it as an obligation.  On the other hand, complying with the procedure demonstrated the commitment of States to implement the treaty in good faith.  Perhaps the first step would be to contact the permanent representative of the non-reporting State in Geneva and get the picture of obstacles encountered in replying.  Also, the follow-up questions could be taken into consideration while preparing the list of issues prior to reporting, which should be inserted in the section of Relevant Issues. 

Committee Experts stressed that the Committee should ensure that its action under the follow-up was not monotonous and proposed that its comments on the follow-up history of a State become its standard procedure and to develop a three-step procedure in dealing with non-replies to the follow-up procedure which would include a second letter, a meeting with the State and a country visit.

XUEXIAN WANG, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee noted the consensus within the Committee to include the follow-up in the list of issues prior to reporting, to send reminders to non-replying States and to have meetings with their permanent missions in Geneva on a selective basis.

FERNANDO MARINO MENEDEZ, Committee Expert and Rapporteur on follow-up to individual communications, presented his report on compliance with individual communications based on article 22 and said that the information on individual cases should be included in the Committee’s report to the General Assembly, while the general information on individual cases should be victim oriented.  There were 24 cases under consideration from 14 States: Algeria, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Norway, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia and Ukraine.  The acceptance of the individual process by States led to a more diversified type of cases being brought up before the Committee, and the majority of them related to the principle of non-refoulement under article 3.  The action of the Committee was being blocked by ongoing domestic processes in some instances, in several cases the Committee was awaiting dialogue with the States concerned, or was awaiting communication with the complainant’s lawyer. 

Committee Experts wondered about instances in which the Committee should close cases; for example would the lack of response from the State or complainant’s counsel – as was the situation with one of the cases from Serbia - be a reason to close the case or to keep it active.  The existence of national preventive mechanisms in States was an advantage for the Committee which could have a natural partner in those national bodies. 

Continuing the discussion, a representative of Trial took up the issue of individual communications and the specific cases in which dialogue with the State party was lacking and asked what steps in terms of follow-up the Committee could undertake.  A representative of the Open Society Justice Initiative updated the Committee on the development in the case of Mr. Garasimov from Kazakhstan for the torture he had suffered at the hands of the police and encouraged the Committee to follow up with Kazakhstan concerning payment of compensation and guaranties of non-recurrence.

Mr. Mariño Menendez said concerning the case of Mr. Garasimov that the Committee took note of the behaviour of Kazakhstan and expressed surprise that the individual in question did not contact the Committee. 

XUEXIAN WANG, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee welcomed the contributions from non-governmental organizations and thanked the two Rapporteurs for their efforts.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record