禁止酷刑委员会讨论报复问题以及建议和个人来文的后续工作（部分翻译）

禁止酷刑委员会

2015年12月2日

禁止酷刑委员会今天下午审议结论性意见和建议以及个人来文的后续问题，听取了委员会成员结论性意见后续问题报告员延斯·莫德维（Jens Modvig） 、个人来文后续问题报告员萨塔布孙·戈普特·多马（Satyabhoosun Gupt Domah）  以及报复问题共同报告员乔治·图古斯（George Tugushi）和阿莱西奥·布鲁尼（Alessio Bruni）。

莫德维先生在呈报关于第19条结论性意见后续问题的报告时表示，通过程序以来，总体的合规度为72%。第五十届会议，八个缔约国中有六个提交了报告（75%）。第五十一届会议，九个缔约国中六个在此之前提交了报告（67%）。第五十一届会议，八个缔约国中六个报告（75%）。后续程序新准则的落实将从第五十六届会议开始。这意味着第五十届会议以及之后会议收到的后续报告将按照新的准则进行答复。

莫德维先生  呈报了基于第22条关于个人来文合规性的报告并作了关于八个缔约国九个个案的简报：芬兰、西班牙、保加利亚、摩洛哥（两个案件）、哈萨克斯坦、加拿大、布隆迪和瑞士。在所有案件中，委员会都建议继续与缔约国对话。

关于报复问题，委员会副主席兼公约第19条之下的报复问题共同报告员图古斯先生表示，泰国的一起案件和巴林的另一起案件得到了积极的解决。第一起案件中对当事人的起诉罪名被撤销了，另一起案件中 当事人获得了国王的赦免。没有新的直接的案件。

委员会成员兼公约第22条之下的报复问题共同报告员布鲁尼先生提到了针对与委员会在个人来文方面合作个人的报复行为，表示他将在委员会不公开会议中进行大量报告。他对儿童权利委员会设立报复问题联络点这一积极进展表示欢迎。

委员会将于12月9日（周三）上午10点召开下一次公开会议，通过未来届会的工作方案，并结束第五十六届会议。

Follow-up to Concluding Observations

JENS MODVIG, Committee Expert and Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations, explained that the aim of the follow-up procedure on the periodic State party reporting according to Article 19 in the Convention was to obtain information about the measures that the State party might have taken to implement selected recommendations following the consideration of the State party report. He noted that the compliance rate varied greatly among sessions. The overall compliance since the adoption of the procedure was 72 per cent. For the fiftieth session, six out of eight States parties submitted a report (75 per cent). For the fifty-first session, six out of nine countries had reported (67 per cent). The fifty-second session yielded six out of eight reports, amounting to 75 per cent. Thus, the overall reporting compliance, including sessions fifty to fifty-second, was 72 per cent, corresponding to the overall compliance.

At its fifty-fifth session the Committee had adopted guidelines for the follow-up procedure, with the purpose of strengthening the procedure and aligning with the follow-up procedures for other treaty bodies. The new guidelines included: the use of an assessment system for the Committee’s analysis of the States parties follow-up reports; a reply letter to all States parties which had submitted a follow-up report, including the assessment of the implementation of each follow-up recommendation; an invitation to States parties to provide a plan for the implementation of all or some of the recommendations in the concluding observations; introducing the possibility of meetings between Committee members and States parties on follow-up issues; highlighting the follow-up recommendations in the concluding observations as well as in the lists of issues or lists of issues prior to reporting; making the recommendations clearer and easier to implement; consolidating the role of civil society organizations and national human rights institutions in monitoring of and supporting the implementation; and a strengthened reminder procedure in cases of non-compliance with the follow-up reporting.

The implementation of the new guidelines would take place starting from the fifty-sixth session. That implied that follow-up reports received from the fiftieth session and onwards would be replied to in accordance with the new guidelines. Those replies would be subject to approval by the Committee through its respective country rapporteurs. That was in progress and the outcomes would be in Mr. Modvig’s report to the Committee at its fifty-seventh session in April and May 2016. The implementation of the new guidelines also implied that all concluding observations during the fifty-sixth session would be drafted in accordance with the guidelines. That meant that full implementation of the follow-up procedure would be reflected as a positive area, whereas failure to implement the follow-up recommendations would be reflected in the areas of concern. Also, the follow-up recommendation would appear in the concluding observations under a separate heading.

In the ensuing discussion, Experts expressed appreciation for the conciseness of the report. They asked what place would incomplete replies, or replies which were somehow satisfactory but in a different format and did not go to the point and did not explain what happened in practice, would have in the concluding observations. An Expert voiced concern about the ability of developing countries which had ratified the Convention to implement the Committee’s recommendations because it required money and will for implementing. Was that concern covered in the concept of the report? Experts also wondered what kind of issues and disaggregated data would the report contain, whether there would be any financial implications and whether the new guidelines would be applied retroactively.

Mr. Modvig explained that States parties would be requested to provide full information and that might be reflected in areas of concern. Substantive efforts by the State party would not have to be mentioned in areas of concern. He said that funding for the implementation of Committee’s recommendations was taken into consideration to a certain extent. The idea behind the guidelines was to increase the dialogue with States parties, he noted. The more increased the dialogue, the better a chance that poor countries could have their projects funded. The new guidelines would not be applied retroactively and no financial implications had been foreseen.

Follow-up to Individual Communications

SATYABHOOSUN GUPT DOMAH, Committee Expert and Rapporteur on follow-up to individual communications, presented his report on compliance with individual communications based on Article 22 of the Convention and which included information on nine cases from eight States: Finland, Spain, Bulgaria, Morocco (two cases), Kazakhstan, Canada, Burundi and Switzerland. In all the cases the Committee had recommended to continue the dialogue with the States parties. The problem of the identity of complainants arose in the first case from Morocco.

Reprisals

GEORGE TUGUSHI, Committee Vice-Chairperson and Co-Rapporteur on reprisals under Article 19 of the Convention, spoke about reprisals against persons who cooperated with the Committee in the context of State party reviews, noting that few cases had been duly updated. There had been one case in Thailand, and another in Bahrain. In one case charges against one of the accused persons had been dropped, whereas in another case the person had been pardoned by the King. There were no new direct cases. It was positive to know that the Committee’s efforts brought about positive changes, Mr. Tugushi concluded.

ALESSIO BRUNI, Committee Member and Co-Rapporteur on reprisals under Article 22 of the Convention, referring to reprisals against persons who cooperated with the Committee in the context of individual communications, said he would report substantively during the Committee’s private meeting. He welcomed as a positive development that the Committee on Children had appointed a focal point on reprisals.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record

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