禁止酷刑委员会讨论了对结论性意见和报复问题的跟进情况（部分翻译）

日内瓦（2016年8月10日）——禁止酷刑委员会今天上午讨论了对结论性意见和报复问题的跟进情况。

 

委员会专家兼报告员阿布德尔瓦哈布·哈尼（Abdelwahab Hani）呈报了对第19条相关结论性意见的跟进情况报告，并称只有大约10%回复者表示完全满意。对建议有效而彻底的执行情况总体上较为薄弱；经常见到的情况是部分落实建议（在60%的情况下），而在大约30%的情况中，完全没有执行委员会的建议。在随后的讨论中，跟进周期的持续时间问题也接受了讨论，此外还涉及增进与民间社会和学术界合作、加强国家机制落实建议等问题。 

 

委员会成员兼报复后续问题报告员阿莱西奥·布鲁尼（Alessio Bruni）表示，委员会已获悉布隆迪检察长向律师协会发送的函件，其要求将参与起草提交给委员会的非正式报告的四名律师解职。据说，其中一些律师参与了被指违反道德规范的行为。这似乎是明显的报复行为案例。委员会随后讨论了如果没有从布隆迪政府收到回复，将如何继续处理这一案件，以及总体上可以采取哪些措施，加强保护人权维护者和与委员会合作的人士。

委员会接下来将在8月12日（周五）上午10点举行公开会议，结束第五十八届会议。

Follow-up to Concluding Observations

ABDELWAHAB HANI, Committee Member and Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations, stated that the Committee was not satisfied with only having States parties’ reports, but also invested significant efforts into evaluating them and going into substance. Between 2003 and 2016, out of 167 reports that were due, the Committee had received 119 reports, or 71 per cent. The Committee had a one-year deadline for receiving reports. After May 2015, eight reports had been outstanding, five of which had now been received. After August 2015, two out of the three outstanding reports had been received. The Committee had transparent procedures, with all official and alternative reports posted on its webpage. There were guidelines in place for States and other stakeholders.

An assessment grid had been developed by the previous Rapporteur to help oversee the level of implementation. Only about 10 per cent were completely satisfactory. The effective and total implementation was quite weak overall; what was often found was partial implementation of the recommendations (in 60 per cent of cases), while in some 30 per cent of cases there was no implementation whatsoever of the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee could meet with the Inter-Parliamentary Union to discuss how the Parliaments could be best involved.

In the ensuing discussion, the issue of the duration of the follow-up period was discussed. If urgent measures were needed for follow-up, six months could be given to States parties, and for others, the 12-month framework could be maintained. A reasonable time frame ought to be left for States parties to take measures. How could the implementation of follow-up recommendations be strengthened, and could civil society help in that regard? National structures for preparing reports could be in charge of the implementation of recommendations; databases with recommendations were a good idea. Academia and civil society organizations could be encouraged to follow and become involved in what the Committee was doing, but the challenge sometimes was on how to identify the right partners. Holding seminars with stakeholders under the Chatham House rules would be a good idea to consider, so that information provided would not leak out and participants could speak completely freely. Such discussions could be very useful to address the issue of implementation. Experts could try identifying relevant academic and civil society actors.

Regarding translation, it was noted that the Committee accepted reports in six official languages, but most were submitted in English. There were many countries which did not use English as a working language, which prevented certain civil society groups from submitting contributions. An Expert noted that often times the implementation mechanisms did not have a decision-making power. Contact needed to be promoted between the Committee and States parties when it came to monitoring.

Follow-up to Reprisals

ALESSIO BRUNI, Committee Member and Rapporteur on follow-up to reprisals, said that Burundi had submitted a special report and a date for a dialogue had been set. The dialogue had begun, and the Experts had asked numerous relevant questions; however, the delegation had not returned for its second part, when it was supposed to provide answers. The delegation of Burundi had thus set a precedent – it was the first time that a State party had interrupted the dialogue in the middle. The Committee had also been informed about the letter sent by Burundi’s General Prosecutor to the Bar Association, requesting the removal of the four lawyers who had taken part in the drafting of the alternative report. It was said that some of the lawyers had participated in alleged acts in violation of the code of ethics. The Committee had discussed the case, which seemed like an example of reprisal. Subsequently, the Committee had sent a letter to the Government of Burundi, drawing to its attention three points: out of the four lawyers, three had been present in the room during the first half of the dialogue and those lawyers were now accused of the breach of their ethical duties; the President of the Bar Association was asked to directly remove the four lawyers, without prior analysis of the situation; in 2014, the Government had provided the Committee with general assurances that there would be no more reprisals against those who cooperated with the Committee.

The Experts discussed what the Committee could do to protect those who worked with it from reprisals. Prevention was somewhat of a challenge for treaty bodies, but if there was information on who was doing what in civil society, and the Committee was communicating with them, it was already a first step of prevention. Individual communications were more difficult, as publicity could not be used; in such cases, having a quick contact with the authorities was the best approach. A question was also asked on whether there was an overall declining climate of protection of human rights defenders. There was no assessment on whether having actual anti-reprisal mechanisms in place prevented them. In today’s age, information needed to be privileged over secrecy, which was easier to do with the modern information technologies. An Expert commented that the four lawyers ordered to be removed were no longer exercising their legal professions anyway. The Committee was now awaiting the reply of the Government. The details of the lawyers’ whereabouts also needed to be established. If the lawyers were in exile, it was a matter of double reprisal as they had already left the country and now they were ejected from the Bar Association. If the Committee did not receive a reply by 12 August, the Committee would announce so in a press conference. All relevant and involved institutions should also be informed of the lack of a reply.