人权理事会开始与酷刑问题和人权维护者问题特别报告员举行互动对话（部分翻译）

人权理事会
下午

2015年3月9日

人权理事会今天下午开始与酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚问题特别报告员胡安·门德斯（Juan Méndez）以及人权维护者处境问题特别报告员迈克尔·福斯特（Michel Forst）举行集体互动对话。

酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚问题特别报告员胡安·门德斯关注了被剥夺自由的儿童，并表示必须对其采用更高的标准和更广泛的保障措施。他强调，儿童受到不得保释的终身监禁和无期徒刑、单独监禁以及体罚构成残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇，甚至是酷刑。他还对拘留移徙儿童问题表达了一系列关切。

人权维护者处境问题特别报告员迈克尔·福斯特（Michel Forst）表示，他已决定将一大部分时间和精力投入到研究分析中，关注能帮助他制定新方法来加强人权维护者保护机制的趋势和问题。他表达了进一步和其他特别报告员配合以及与政府开展建设性合作的必要性，不过个别案件仍会是其任务授权的基础。

在对话中，发言人欢迎酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚问题特别报告员在报告中聚焦于被剥夺自由的儿童，他们还强调了国家预防和惩治酷刑的首要责任。发言人强调了被剥夺自由儿童特别的脆弱性，并同意各国必须采取额外措施，防止他们受到侵害。发言人遗憾地表示，特别报告员报告公布太迟，他们没有充分的时间来准备对话。

发言人承认，人权维护者发挥着重要作用，对他们的保护必须通过立法和可执行的机制来确保。他们欢迎特别报告员提出倡议，指明他们受到的威胁，从而提出更好的预防对策。发言人还对报复行为深表关切，并强调了致力于经济和环境问题的人权维护者以及致力于男女同性恋、双性恋和跨性别者人权维护者的具体脆弱性。

墨西哥、塔吉克斯坦和突尼斯作为当事国发言。

在互动对话中发言的有欧盟、代表伊斯兰合作组织的巴基斯坦、代表非洲集团的阿尔及利亚、卡塔尔、爱尔兰、奥地利、挪威、塞拉利昂、巴拉圭、波兰、西班牙、丹麦、巴西、多哥、泰国、拉脱维亚、葡萄牙、刚果共和国、布基纳法索、爱沙尼亚、澳大利亚、荷兰、摩洛哥、白俄罗斯、斯洛文尼亚和大韩民国。

人权理事会将在3月10日（周二）举行全天会议。上午9点，会上首先将进行与酷刑问题和人权维护者问题特别报告员的集体互动对话，随后与残疾人权利问题和宗教或言论自由问题特别报告员举行集体互动对话。当日下午，理事会将举行关于残疾人权利问题的年度互动辩论。

文件

理事会面前有酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚问题特别报告员胡安·门德斯的报告（A/HRC/28/68）

理事会面前有酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚问题特别报告员胡安·门德斯的报告增编——对来文的意见（A/HRC/28/68/Add.1）

理事会面前有酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚问题特别报告员胡安·门德斯的报告增编——后续报告：访问塔吉克斯坦和突尼斯（A/HRC/28/68/Add.2）

理事会面前有酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚问题特别报告员胡安·门德斯的报告增编——访问墨西哥（A/HRC/28/68/Add.3）

理事会面前有酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚问题特别报告员胡安·门德斯的报告增编——访问冈比亚（A/HRC/28/68/Add.4）

理事会面前有人权维护者处境问题特别报告员迈克尔·福斯特的报告（A/HRC/28/63）

理事会面前有人权维护者处境问题特别报告员迈克尔·福斯特的报告增编（A/HRC/28/63/Add.1）

Presentation of Reports

JUAN MÉNDEZ, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said his main report focused on children deprived of their liberty, who, due to their unique physiological and psychological needs, were at a heightened risk of violence and abuse and more vulnerable than adults to be subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Accordingly, higher standards and broader safeguards had to be applied to children, and depriving them of their liberty had to be limited to exceptional cases. Regarding children in conflict with the law, not only life without parole sentences but also life imprisonment and lengthy sentences were grossly disproportionate and therefore cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The imposition of solitary confinement and any form of corporal punishment on children constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or even torture. The lack of vocational, educational and recreational activities for children deprived of their liberty created situations of risk of abuse and ill-treatment. Immigration detention practices across the globe put children at risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The deprivation of liberty of children based on their or their parents’ migration status was not absolutely essential and constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of migrant children. When the child’s best interest required keeping the family together, authorities had to choose alternative measures to detention for the entire family.

States had to adopt child-friendly administrative and criminal court procedures and train staff on children’s vulnerabilities, and particularly those of special groups such as girls, minorities, children with disabilities, and migrant children. Regular and independent monitoring of places where children were deprived of their liberty was key and should be done by an independent body with authority to receive and act on complaints. Turning to his country visit to Mexico, the Special Rapporteur underlined significant progress in relation to the obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment, although such practices remained generalized. On his visit to the Gambia, the Special Rapporteur regretted the Government’s unwillingness to grant freedom of movement and inquiry to all areas of detention facilities. After a follow-up visit to Tajikistan, the Special Rapporteur was pleased to find that considerable efforts had been made but noted that substantial changes still needed to take place to prevent and eliminate torture and mistreatment. After a follow-up visit to Tunisia, he welcomed positive institutional and legal reforms undertaken and urged the Government to continue pursuing serious reforms and breaking the cycle of impunity for serious human rights violations, especially in the context of counter-terrorism operations.

MICHEL FORST, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said that he had just completed a series of regional consultations with almost 350 courageous persons, who had told him stories of threats and attacks, but also of their hopes and expectations regarding fulfilment of his mandate. Mr. Forst said that he had been mandated to be the eyes and ears of the Council, an observer, listener, witness and protector of human rights defenders, which had enabled him to complete the first report being presented now. The Rapporteur stressed that he had decided to dedicate an important part of his time and efforts to the analysis of tendencies and issues which could help him develop new methods to reinforce protection mechanisms. In that context he had launched seven regional consultations across various regions, which should allow him to analyse national and regional trends, evaluate threats against specific groups and evaluate efficiency of regional and national protection measures. Mr. Forst had promised people he had met that he would be their spokesperson and ensured that their concerns and protection needs were heard.

Repression of the human rights of human rights defenders was often accompanied by unjustified repression of the rights to peaceful assembly and association, as well as freedom of expression. For that reason, it was necessary to further work on developing greater synergy with other Special Rapporteurs, with whom a meeting had been held in Paris. Mr. Forst emphasized that he was a firm believer in permanent cooperation and constructive dialogue with Governments, which was why he was concerned about the low rate of implementation of recommendations by United Nations human rights mechanisms. While individual cases would remain a cornerstone of his mandate, Mr. Forst said that he considered it essential to promote and disseminate good practices which could then be reproduced in various countries with the Special Rapporteur’s assistance. During the reporting period, 231 communications had been submitted to 84 States with regard to 530 human rights defenders; the response rate was 55 per cent. All States were urged to provide substantive responses in a timely manner. The Special Rapporteur was extremely concerned about the growing number of acts of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders, which was even more shocking if they took place in States which were members of the Council.

Statements by Concerned Countries
Mexico, speaking as a concerned country, said that the visit of the Special Rapporteur on torture in 2014 was part of Mexico’s policy of openness and cooperation that it maintained with respect to international human rights mechanisms. The commitment to prevent, fight and eradicate torture was one of the Government’s priorities. Mexico identified a series of steps needed to achieve the full eradication of torture. However, the Government could not share the observation of the Special Rapporteur that torture was a general practice in the country because there was no evidence to support such an observation and because it did not reflect the Government’s enormous efforts to strengthen laws and practices, and to foster a culture of respect for human rights. Mexico invited the Special Rapporteur to continue investigating specific torture cases, so that the Mexican Government could secure access to justice to victims of torture, and hold perpetrators accountable. Information was provided to the Special Rapporteur on 95 per cent of cases.

Tajikistan, speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur for his visit to the country. The Government had recently strengthened its legislation, particularly the criminal code. The code now provided for procedural equality for all parties, and inadmissibility of any evidence gained through torture or other cruel treatment. There was a ban on causing physical or moral suffering, and articles on the inviolability of Islam were removed. All relevant parties were brought together in order to discuss the eradication of torture. A draft programme on judicial reform was looking into guidelines to prevent and investigate torture. The Government was taking measures to ensure independent monitoring procedures and receiving of complaints, and a telephone hotline had been established. The Government noted a generally objective tone of the Special Rapporteur’s report, and reiterated its willingness and commitment to continued cooperation.

Tunisia, speaking as a concerned country, said that just a week ago, the Minister of Foreign Affairs had reaffirmed Tunisia’s determination to eradicate all forms of torture and mistreatment. Tunisia had taken good note of the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur and would continue to communicate with him and ask for his assistance on the matter.

Interactive Dialogue

European Union appreciated the clear practical focus in Mr. Mendez’s report, and supported greater engagement by the rest of the United Nations system in support of human rights defenders. Proper government oversight and regular, independent monitoring of places where children were deprived of liberty were key to preventing torture and ill-treatment.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said that human rights defenders played an important role in promoting and protecting human rights and should be guaranteed protection regardless of the fact of which universally recognized group right they sought to defend. Member States were urged to adopt child-friendly administrative and criminal court procedures.

Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, agreed that identifying the specific threats faced by human rights defenders would improve States’ response to them. The African Group welcomed that technical assistance would be provided on this issue. On torture, the African Group recognized States’ responsibility to prevent torture and the key role of national human rights institutions in that regard. The African Group also shared the view that States should have a formal obligation to inform a relative about a child deprived of their liberty.

Qatar said that States had an ethical commitment to prevent torture, and Qatar had therefore amended its penal code to include a definition of torture. Qatar had also withdrawn its reservations to the Convention against Torture and was now in full conformity with international human rights standards.

Ireland said the components of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders should be seen as valuable tools in assisting all stakeholders, particularly States, to better support human rights defenders and strengthen their protection on the ground. It asked for elaboration on mechanisms that focused on groups of defenders most at risk, and about concrete examples of preventive mechanisms that could be put in place.

Austria expressed concern about the shrinking space for civil society all over the world, and asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on strengthening the protection of human rights defenders cooperating with United Nations mechanisms. As for torture, Austria asked for examples of national complaint mechanisms for children deprived of their liberty, or good examples for enhancing children’s access to justice.

Norway strongly condemned reprisals against human rights defenders and called on the international community to address them. Norway called on all States to issue a standing invitation and accept requests for a visit by the Special Rapporteur, and said it would like to see more follow-up missions to countries. The fight against torture should be on everyone’s agenda.

Sierra Leone recognized that human rights defenders had an important role to play and their protection had to be guaranteed by both legislation and enforceable mechanisms. Sierra Leone agreed on the need for children to be held in special facilities and the need to exempt them from the death penalty.

Paraguay believed that the Special Rapporteur on torture should receive more support from countries he visited. Paraguay stressed that the issue ought to be understood at the global level and could be addressed only with the engagement of all stakeholders. The problem of children deprived of liberty should keep all States vigilant in order to ensure their dignified treatment.

Poland expressed concern about the increasing trend in some States to cut back the rights of human rights defenders. Shrinking space for civil society organizations was a phenomenon which required concerted actions and should be publicly criticized. Legal, financial and registry restrictions faced by human rights defenders ought to be abolished.

Spain agreed that the unique vulnerability of children in detention warranted specific attention from States. Spain appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s position against the death penalty. On human rights defenders, Spain underlined the need to convert national human rights institutions as allies to follow-up on communications, which would be a good step forward. Spain also agreed that impunity was a key factor for the persistence of violations against human rights defenders.

Denmark echoed the Special Rapporteur’s concerns about reprisals against human rights defenders, and sought his views on how better to prevent them. On torture, Denmark said that children deprived of their liberty indeed constituted a particularly vulnerable group, and called on all States to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

Brazil welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s initiative for the identification of threats faced by human rights defenders. Brazil requested the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on positive steps that States had to take to ensure that human rights defenders did not face threats or other violations of their rights. Brazil underlined also the specific vulnerability of defenders working on economic, social and cultural rights and on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.

Togo said it had appointed a national human rights commission to assume the functions of the national mechanism for the prevention of torture. As for children in conflict with the law, a certain number of measures had been taken with the support of UNICEF and the National Catholic Bureau of Childhood. The Government expressed full readiness to cooperate and put in place recommendations with respect to the right of human rights defenders.

Thailand said it had organized inter-agency meetings and public hearings on the draft law that would criminalize acts of torture and enforced disappearance committed by State officials. As for the protection of human rights defenders, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department was tasked to find a balance between the protection of human rights defenders and freedom of expression, in consultation with civil society.

Latvia welcomed the roadmap to ensure greater protection for human rights defenders worldwide, and to address the challenges they faced on the ground. It strongly supported the intention of the Special Rapporteur to follow up on relevant communications, urgent appeals and visits. It asked what could be done to improve the current communications system and ensure a more relevant and faster response.

Portugal said that the best interest of the child presided over its national public policies, and asked for Mr. Méndez’s opinion on how the entry into force of the Third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child could contribute to addressing children’s vulnerability in articulating complaints. A safer and enabling environment ought to be created to fully protect the rights of human rights defenders.

Republic of Congo, said that during its campaign to be re-elected to the Human Rights Council, it had reiterated its commitment to cooperating with the human rights treaty bodies. Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo had established a joint commission of inquiry into alleged violations during the operation “Mbata ya bakolo”, which should shed light on a wide range of issues.

Burkina Faso stated that human rights defenders had to be able to do their work in full safety and protection. Burkina Faso was a co-sponsor of the Council resolution on the protection of human rights defenders. In 2014, Burkina Faso had adopted a law preventing torture and related practices.

Estonia shared the view that the detention of children brought high risks of violence and ill-treatment against them. On human rights defenders, Estonia said it was crucial to guarantee their right to participate in the fight for democracy, and to ensure that their rights were protected, including online.

Australia attached great importance to its human rights obligations and rejected the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that its migration policy breached the provisions of the Convention against Torture. This policy had the effect of preventing deaths at sea and human rights abuses that arose from people smuggling.

Netherlands supported the Special Rapporteur’s focus on follow-up to cases of human rights defenders raised with his office, and welcomed his engagement in regional consultations. The Netherlands condemned acts of reprisals against human rights defenders, and demanded how the Special Rapporteur would engage with the wider United Nations system on the support and protection of defenders.

Morocco noted that the detention of children and minors should be only applied as the last resort. In Morocco that issue deserved and received full attention. Judges could use sentences of incarceration for minors exceptionally in extreme cases, and only for limited periods of time. Other measures and provisions were also in place to ensure the protection of juvenile delinquents.

Belarus said it was developing a system of child friendly justice, which introduced an individual approach to every child, and a boarding type of institutionalization for child offenders. Belarus shared the concern of the Special Rapporteur about the cruel treatment of child migrants. That subject could be a specific mandate. It asked the Special Rapporteur to provide information about torture in CIA prisons, and actions that could be taken to end it and hold accountable those who perpetrated it.

Slovenia said it was unacceptable that in many regions of the world human rights defenders still faced risks of discrimination, threats, mistreatment and even criminalization. It asked how the international community could ensure the protection of human rights defenders in places where there were no specific national mechanisms and no political will by State authorities.

Republic of Korea agreed that States should ensure that human rights defenders could exercise their functions within a national framework. The overriding duty of States represented a vital cornerstone of an environment that both enabled and encouraged human rights defenders. Independent national human rights institutions could and should be effectively supported by voluntary initiatives from civil society organizations.

Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on Torture

JUAN MÉNDEZ, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, responding to Australia, said that the appendix to his report included some 200 cases. His worry regarding Australia was limited to the question of non-refoulement, but prolonged detention of asylum seekers was also a matter of concern. Regarding Congo, massive deportations, performed without a possibility of challenge, presented a concern from a human rights perspective. On Mexico, Mr. Méndez said that testimonies had been received from people in prisons and those just released. State and municipal forces were reported to be using similarly high levels of torture, which was why the term “generalized torture” was used. It was, nonetheless, recognized that Mexico was making a concerted effort to improve the situation, but much was left to be desired.

___________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr