禁止酷刑委员会与酷刑问题特别报告员和防范酷刑小组委员会讨论有关报复的问题（部分翻译）

禁止酷刑委员会 

2013年11月15日

召开会议讨论委员会的后续活动 
 
禁止酷刑委员会今天上午与酷刑问题特别报告员和防范酷刑小组委员会讨论了有关报复的问题。委员会还在今天上午早些时候就《禁止酷刑公约》第19条和第22条的后续行动问题举行了会议。

委员会主席克劳迪奥·格罗斯曼（Claudio Grossman）表示，应对报复的最有效方法就是努力创造一个不允许报复发生的环境。在此方面，培训、一般与个别问责是至关重要的。确定行动所依据的原则，如合法性原则和采取以受害者为中心的方法等是十分关键的。
 
防范酷刑小组委员会副主席怀尔德·泰勒-桑托（Wilder Taylor-Santo）表示，报复的发生是因为其发生的环境允许。报复问题和委员会处理之的方式目前已成为一个主要的行动障碍，因为如果人们出于对报复的畏惧不愿作证，就不可能打击酷刑等主要问题。
 
酷刑问题特别报告员胡安·门德斯（Juan Mendez）表示，报复的威胁和报复本身一样严重。在这种情况下，进行公开谴责只会使受到威胁的人情况更糟。以受害者为中心的方法是十分有效的，这样可以重点保护受害者并确保其不受到任何方式的威胁。证人总是处于弱势地位，所以应保证其匿名，并努力保护他们免遭报复。
 
在随后有关报复的对话中，委员会和防范酷刑小组委员会成员们讨论了预防和制止报复的方法，包括利用国家防范机制以确保采取基于受害者的方法处理报复问题。 

非政府组织酷刑受害者国际康复理事会在有关报复的互动对话中发言。

委员会副主席菲丽丝·盖尔（Felice Gaer）在今天上午早些时候介绍有关委员会后续活动的报告时表示，11月22日截止的133份后续报告中，委员会已收到93份。盖尔女士还告知委员会有关与斯里兰卡和爱尔兰通函的最新情况。委员会向叙利亚发出的信函尚未收到回复。

在有关后续活动的互动对话中，参会者以爱尔兰的“玛德莲洗衣店”一案为例，探讨了委员会的工作如何能推进具体事宜。参会者还提出了有关如何使委员会后续程序的成果更广泛可得方面的建议。

下列非政府组织在有关后续行动的互动对话中发言：酷刑受害者国际康复理事会，Alkarama人权组织。

秘书处向理事会介绍了与委员会正在处理的案件相关的未决问题方面的最新信息。  

委员会将于11月22日星期五上午10点再次召开公开会议，届时将通过有关莫桑比克、乌兹别克斯坦、波兰、拉脱维亚、比利时、布基纳法索、葡萄牙、安道尔和吉尔吉斯斯坦报告的结论性意见和建议，委员会将在会议闭幕前结束对以上国家报告的审议。
 
Follow-Up to Articles 19 and 22 of the Convention
 
FELICE GAER, Committee Vice-Chairperson, presenting the report on follow-up to Articles 19 and 22 of the Convention, said that each State party had to provide within one year information on follow-up to recommendations made.  Whenever deemed necessary, the State might be asked to include additional information, for example on how the State provided remedies and redress to the victims.  Of the 133 follow-up reports due by 22 November, 93 had been received by the Committee.  Thirty-seven States had not provided follow-up information.  Since 2012 follow-up replies had been received from 12 States.  Since June 2013, another eight replies had been received.  Reports had also been received from non-governmental organizations.
 
Ms. Gaer informed the Committee that follow-up information had been received from Sri Lanka, on a request made by the Committee that the Special Investigations Unit investigate allegations of torture carried out by the authorities, and from Ireland, on concerns expressed by the Committee about financial issues facing Irish Human Rights Institutions and the “Magdalene Laundries” case.  Syria had not yet responded to a letter sent by the Committee requesting follow-up information on the recommendations it had made.  Ms. Gaer said that communications with Ireland were a good example of how effective the follow-up procedure could be, especially when States were responsive.
 
A Committee Member pointed out that all information received about the “Magdalene Laundries” case had initially been received from non-governmental organizations, although afterwards the Irish Government cooperated with the Committee and the case had since been investigated. 
 
Committee Members made suggestions about making follow-up information widely available and more visible on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner. 
 
Ms. Gaer said that sometimes the quality of information received from States was weaker than the implementation of the actual recommendations, and sometimes implementation was not as good as the information provided by States, so each country should be dealt with on its own terms rather than comparatively.
 
International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims said that the procedure of the Committee was getting increasingly complex and asked whether there were any initiatives taken to formalize the follow-up procedure and go more public with its findings.
 
Alkarama said that the use of a classification system of individual cases would be useful because it would send out a clear message to States that implementation of the recommendations made to them was important.
 
In response to comments from non-governmental organizations, Ms. Gaer said that the issue of classification had been explored on a trial basis and would be discussed further with Committee Members.   
 
The Secretariat informed the Committee of developments in a number of cases followed up on since the Committee’s fiftieth session, including the Gerasimov and Abdussamatov cases in Kazakhstan, the Hanafi case in Algeria, the Eftekhary case in Norway, the Ristic and Dimitrov cases in Serbia, and the Saadia case in Tunisia.
 
Meeting with the Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture
 
The meeting was co-chaired by Claudio Grossman, Chairperson of the Committee against Torture, and Malcolm Evans, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the prevention of Torture.
 
WILDER TAYLOR-SANTO, Vice-Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, said that if reprisals occurred it was because the environment within which they occurred allowed that.  The issue of reprisals and the way it was handled by the Committee was now becoming a major operative obstacle, because if people did not want to testify for fear of reprisals it would be impossible to tackle major issues such as torture.   In Australia reprisals were penalized and the law contained a definition of a reprisal as an autonomous and independent crime.  Certain States did not hesitate to apply collective reprisals, so the issue had to be tackled more decisively.    
 
A Committee Member said that in the United Nations there was a general concern about reprisals against political activists.  Reprisals against those who collaborated with the Committee was a specific area within the general chapter of reprisals, so a joint statement should be drafted with the Special Rapporteur and the Committee, looking more closely at the issue of reprisals and focusing more on ways of tackling the problem.
 
FELICE GAER, Committee Vice-Chairperson, said that States had a responsibility to protect individuals from reprisals but, at the same time, supervisory committees should put more pressure on States to protect their citizens.  
 
A Committee Member said that the prohibition of reprisals by law was a good idea but it would be difficult to implement in prisons and detention centres, where sanctions could be imposed without necessarily looking like reprisals.  A senior focal point for reprisals should be established within the United Nations.
 
JUAN MENDEZ, Special Rapporteur on Torture, said that threats of reprisals were as serious as reprisals themselves.  In such cases, making public condemnations would only make matters worse for the person receiving the threats.  Mr. Mendez said that he based his engagement with States about reprisals on the terms of country visits, which were generally accepted by all, and stated that persons cooperating with the Special Rapporteur should not be subjected to reprisals.  A victim-centred approach was very useful in that regard, focusing on protecting the victim and making sure that they were not endangered in any way.  Mr. Mendez said that on a recent visit to Ghana, many persons had said they were afraid of reprisals.  Witnesses were always vulnerable, so their anonymity should be guaranteed and every effort should be made to protect them from reprisals, although the final decision on whether or not to talk was for the witnesses’ to make.
                                                                    
A Member of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, said that any information received by the Committee should be followed up on, regardless of any existing limitations.  If the Committee’s activity had triggered reprisals of any kind, then the Committee should deal with those issues as they arose. 
 
A Member of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture suggested that the Committee could establish a link with national preventive mechanisms as a means of preventing torture and reprisals in those countries.
 
A Committee Member said that the Committee should strengthen and expand its contact with national preventive mechanisms.
 
A Committee Member said that there were also countries without a national preventive mechanism.  In those countries, contact should be made with the national human rights institution, if there was one, to ensure a direct exchange of information about reprisals.  He asked the Special Rapporteur at what level reprisals were carried out.
 
A Committee Member wondered whether there was enough information online for those who wanted to report on reprisals.       
 
Concerning the criminalization of reprisals, a Committee Member said that the problem was that there was no clear-cut definition of reprisals and threats of reprisals, which made it difficult to deal with threats, in particular.  International bodies needed to be provided with clearer definitions so they could help States parties to identify and tackle such phenomena.  

International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims requested information on how the Committee and its mechanisms responded to complaints about reprisals, and asked what the timeframe was for replies to communications sent directly to the Committee.
 
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Committee Chairperson, said that the most effective way of dealing with reprisals was to work towards creating an environment which did not allow reprisals to occur.  In that regard, training was extremely important, as was general and individual accountability.  The identification of principles on which to act, such as the principle of legality and the principle of adopting a victim-centre approach, was essential.
 
In response to the questions asked by the non-governmental organization representative, a Committee Member said that the type of reaction envisaged by the Committee largely depended on the circumstances and the person or persons concerned.  Communication with detainees was always more challenging.
 
_________

For use of the information media; not an official record