禁止酷刑委员会讨论关于结论性意见和个人来文的后续行动（部分翻译）

禁止酷刑委员会

2016年5月10日

禁止酷刑委员会今天下午讨论了结论性意见和建议以及个人来文的后续行动，其听取了身为委员会成员的结论性意见后续行动报告员延斯•莫德维（Jens Modvig）和个人来文后续行动报告员萨帕那•普拉德汉-马拉（Sapana Pradhan-Malla）的报告。

委员会主席莫德维先生呈递了对有关结论性意见的第十九条的后续行动报告，并提起后续行动程序的新准则已在委员会第五十五届会议时通过，旨在与其他条约机构、尤其是人权事务委员会的后续行动程序保持一致。新准则已在第五十届至第五十三届会议的后续行动中得到落实，在此期间共对33个缔约国进行了审议。该准则令委员会能系统评估收到的22份后续报告，其中包含84项建议，并发现绝大部分建议都没有全面或实质地落实：在所有情况中，仅有6%全面落实了建议，25%采取了实质性举措，33%仅采取了初步措施。

对于以《公约》第二十二条为基础的个人来文合规性问题，普拉德汉-马拉女士向委员会成员简要报告了来自瑞士、荷兰、墨西哥、哈萨克斯坦和丹麦这五个国家的八起案件。瑞士和荷兰的案件得到了圆满的解决，缔约国同意为申诉人提供永久住所。根据委员会的建议，丹麦同意重审案件，并再次审议驱逐程序。墨西哥的案件和哈萨克斯坦的三起案件都有了新的进展。

委员会将于5月13日（周五）上午10点公开举行下一次会议，通过其对今后会议的工作方案，并结束第五十七届会议。

Follow-up to Concluding Observations

JENS MODVIG, Committee Chairperson and Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations, recalled that at its fifty-fifth session, the Committee had adopted new guidelines for the follow-up procedure, with the purpose of aligning it with the follow-up procedures of other treaty bodies, notably the Human Rights Committee. They included, inter alia, the use of an assessment system for the Committee’s analysis of the States parties follow-up reports, an invitation to States parties to provide a voluntary plan for the implementation of all or some of the recommendations in the concluding observations, how to make recommendations clearer and easier implementable, and the consolidation of the role of civil society organizations and national human rights institutions in monitoring and supporting implementation. The guidelines had also strengthened the reminder procedure in cases of non-compliance with the follow-up reporting and introduced the possibility of meetings between Committee members and States parties on follow-up. The new guidelines had been implemented for the four sessions available for follow-up, the fiftieth to fifty-third session, during which the Committee had reviewed 33 States parties, and had received follow-up reports from 23 of them, thus setting the reporting compliance at 65 per cent. Mr. Modvig stressed that the new guidelines made the lack of reporting compliance visible in the concluding observations, which would hopefully contribute to increasing this compliance. The Committee had received 22 alternative reports for follow-up, 12 of which related to the follow-up of the United States.

The Committee had assessed 84 recommendations from the 22 received reports, finding that the majority of those (53 per cent) provided thorough and extensive information related to the recommendations, in 37 per cent of the cases the information addressed the recommendations to some degree, while information provided in 10 per cent of the cases failed to relate to the recommendations. For the first time, the submitted follow-up reports had been assessed as to the degree to which the single follow-up recommendations had been implemented: the full implementation had been found in six per cent of the cases, substantive steps had been taken in 25 of the cases, initial implementation steps had been taken in 33 per cent of the cases, while in 27 per cent of the recommendations no implementation had been assessed. In eight per cent of the recommendations, the information had not allowed for an assessment.

In the discussion that followed, Committee Experts asked for details about the geographical distribution of countries which had submitted follow-up reports, topics covered by the Committee during the follow-up, performance in this procedure by specific countries and regions, whether the procedure had increased the quality of reporting, and about contacts with States parties.

Responding, Mr. Modvig said that the presented assessment did not contain all the analysis that the Committee Experts requested, notably on regional and geographical distribution, but he agreed that in principle, the States that were more compliant with their periodic reporting obligations were also more compliant with the follow-up reporting. With regard to specific topics, Mr. Modvig said that the Committee’s most frequent topic for follow-up recommendation was the implementation of safeguards; according to available data, a surprising number of States parties had problems with the implementation with this obligation. Mr. Modvig felt that the procedure gave energy to the implementation and focused on implementation, all the while recognizing the sovereign rights of States to focus on other recommendations as well.

Follow-up to Individual Complaints

SAPANA PRADHAN-MALLA, Committee Expert and Rapporteur on follow-up to individual complaints, presented her report on compliance with individual communications based on Article 22 of the Convention and which included information on eight cases from five States: Switzerland, the Netherlands, Mexico, Kazakhstan and Denmark. Two of the cases – with Switzerland and the Netherlands - had satisfactory resolution, with the States parties agreeing to grant permanent residence to the complainants. There was an update on the Mexico case, and on three cases from Kazakhstan. Accepting the Committee’s recommendation, Denmark had agreed to reopen the case and re-examine the expulsion procedure. In one case, the State party had rejected the Committee’s recommendation mentioning that domestic remedies were appropriate and not exhausted yet and it had accused that the Committee’s recommendation jeopardised the national interest of the State.

During the discussion, Committee Experts took note of the criticism that the follow-up was carried out by the same Committee that had reached determination and asked whether any other body could carry out this task, for example the Special Rapporteur on torture, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, or some political bodies. The case of Denmark was a very complex one, they agreed, noting that it carried a risk of conflict between the two procedures - the follow-up procedure and individual complaints. It was up to the Committee to find a procedural resolution to this issue. Experts inquired about the recommendation to keep the dialogue with Mexico open and about statistics on older cases in order to better understand the impact of their recommendations.

Ms. Pradhan-Malla said that collaborating and communicating with the Special Rapporteur or the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture might be beneficial and agreed that introducing this new practice should be discussed. The challenge right now was that the Committee did not have a system in place to manage data – reports, communications sent and received, etc. – and the priority should be to put in place a system and a framework which would enable at least basic analysis.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record

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