CAT/C/50/2
United Nations / CAT/C/50/2/ Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment / Distr.: General
23 April 2013
Original: English
Committee against Torture
Fiftieth session
6–31 May 2013
Item 3 of the provisional agenda
Organizational and other matters
Sixth annual report of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment[*]
Contents
Paragraphs Page
I. Introduction 1–3 3
II. The year in review 4–39 3
A. Participation in the Optional Protocol system 4–6 3
B. Organizational and membership issues 7–13 4
C. Visits conducted during the reporting period 14–17 5
D. Dialogue arising from visits, including publication of the Subcommittee’s
reports by States parties and national preventive mechanisms 18–23 5
E. Developments concerning the establishment of national preventive
mechanisms 24–33 6
F. The Special Fund under article 26 of the Optional Protocol 34–39 9
III. Engagement with other bodies in the field of torture prevention 40–48 10
A. International cooperation 40–46 10
B. Regional cooperation 47 11
C. Civil society 48 12
IV. Issues of note arising from the work of the Subcommittee during the period
under review 49–68 12
A. Development of the Subcommittee’s working practices 49–59 12
B. Establishment of ad hoc working groups 60–65 14
C. Issues arising from the work of the Subcommittee 66–68 15
V. Substantive issues 69–94 16
A. The role of judicial review and due process in the prevention of torture in
prisons 70–80 16
B. Indigenous justice and the prevention of torture 81–94 18
VI. Looking forward 95–103 21
A. Plan of work for 2013 96–100 21
B. Laying the foundations for future growth and development 101–103 22
I. Introduction
1. This sixth annual report, submitted pursuant to article 16, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol, marks the end of what might be called the “foundational period” of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Subcommittee). As will be touched on below, five of its founder members stepped down from the Subcommittee at the end of 2012, and as a result the cycle of biannual turnover within its membership has commenced. During the reporting period (January to December 2012) the Subcommittee sought to prepare for this by capitalizing on the wealth of experience currently at its disposal, reflecting on what has worked well and seeking to encapsulate this in its working practices. At the same time, it has continued to allow its methods to evolve, reflecting the changing patterns of expectations concerning its visiting programme, work with national preventive mechanisms (NPMs), States parties and broader engagement within the United Nations and with other international organizations and regional systems. Details of this are set out in the present report, but more can be found on the website of the Subcommittee (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/opcat/index.htm).
2. Although the basic pattern of its work is now established, the Subcommittee will continue to evolve. As the present report highlights, key developments this year have included an increase in the number of visits undertaken, the inauguration of NPM advisory visits, the first grants being made from the Special Fund and the greater use of working groups and regional NPM task forces to drive the work of the Subcommittee. Less visible, but equally significant, has been the rise in the number of replies to visit reports received from States parties, triggering further responses from the Subcommittee in the spirit of ongoing dialogue.
3. The Subcommittee intends to continue to expand its work in fulfilment of its mandate as best it can, convinced that the Optional Protocol offers unparalleled opportunities for the effective prevention of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. However, this ever increasing workload means that members need to be continually engaging in Subcommittee-related activities and that the Subcommittee secretariat is working under unreasonable yet constantly rising levels of pressure. While fully appreciative of the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to support the work of the Subcommittee to the maximum of available resources, the Subcommittee is increasingly concerned that it is unable to make the most of the opportunities for torture prevention which the Optional Protocol creates as a result of the practical constraints under which it works.
II. The year in review
A. Participation in the Optional Protocol system
4. As at 31 December 2012, 65 States are party to the Optional Protocol.[1] In 2012, four States ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol: Hungary (12 January), the Philippines (17 April), Mauritania (3 October) and Austria (4 December).
5. As a result, the pattern of regional participation is now as follows:
States parties by region
Africa 12
Asia 7
Eastern Europe 18
Group of Latin American and Caribbean States 14
Group of Western European and other States 14
6. The regional breakdown of signatory States which are yet to ratify the Optional Protocol is now as follows:
States that have signed but not ratified the Optional Protocol, by region (total25)
Africa 9
Asia 2
Eastern Europe 1
Group of Latin American and Caribbean States 2
Group of Western European and Other States 11
B. Organizational and membership issues
7. During the reporting period (1 January to 31 December 2012), the Subcommittee held three one-week sessions at the United Nations Office at Geneva, from 20 to 24 February, from 18 to 22 June and from 12 to 16 November 2012.
8. The Subcommittee membership remained unchanged during 2012.[2] However, on 25 October 2012, at the fourth Meeting of States parties to the Optional Protocol, 12 members were elected to fill the vacancies arising in respect of members whose terms of office would expire on 31 December 2012. The terms of office of all the newly elected members commenced on 1 January 2013 and will be for a period of four years, expiring on 31 December 2016. In conformity with the Subcommittee’s rules of procedure, all new members of the Subcommittee made a solemn declaration at the opening of the February 2013 session before assuming their duties.
9. The Bureau, which was elected for the period February 2011–February 2013, comprised Malcolm Evans as Chairperson and four Vice-Chairpersons, each of whom exercised primary responsibility (under the overall leadership of the Chairperson and in cooperation with each other) for aspects of the Subcommittee’s work as provided for in the Optional Protocol. The four Vice-Chairpersons and their areas of primary responsibility were as follows: Mario Coriolano, National Preventive Mechanisms; Zdeněk Hájek, Visits; Suzanne Jabbour, External Relations; and Aisha Muhammad, Jurisprudence and Subcommittee Rapporteur. On 1 October 2012, Mr. Coriolano resigned, following election as a member of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee.
10. In its fifth annual report (CAT/C/48/3, para. 10), the Subcommittee set out details of the system of regional focal points and regional task forces on NPMs which has been established. The role of the focal points is to undertake liaison activities and facilitate the coordination of the Subcommittee’s engagement within the regions they serve and to lead the work of the regional NPM task forces. The regional focal points are as follows: Africa, Fortuné Zongo; Asia and the Pacific, Lowell Goddard; Europe, Mari Amos; Latin America, Víctor Rodríguez Rescia. During the reporting period, the regional task forces have been developed to form a primary building block of the Subcommittee’s work. The task forces meet in parallel during plenary sessions to consider developments relating to NPMs within their region. They then report back to the plenary with recommendations regarding plans for further and future engagement. Based on their regional knowledge and experience, the task forces also make recommendations to the plenary regarding the visiting programme for the forthcoming year, ensuring that the programme of universal visiting is generated in a reasoned and participative manner in accordance with strategic operational criteria, impartially applied.
11. The Subcommittee’s working groups on security matters and on medical issues met during the reporting period. The former concluded a protocol on field security during Subcommittee visits. At the seventeenth session of the Subcommittee, the working group on medical issues convened a training workshop on mental health in places of detention, with the participation of eight national experts, and with the generous financial support of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the assistance of the Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT).
12. At its seventeenth session (June 2012), the Subcommittee decided to establish a number of ad hoc working groups, further information on which is provided in chapter IV, sections A and B, below.
13. All the above-mentioned developments reflect the Subcommittee’s preference to maximize the potential of its plenary sessions by meeting in subgroups and working groups which facilitate engagement with a broader range of issues, with more depth and focus and in a more inclusive fashion than would otherwise be possible.
C. Visits conducted during the reporting period
14. The Subcommittee carried out five visits in 2012 in fulfilment of its mandate.
15. Two of the visits followed the established pattern of visiting under article 11 (a) of the Optional Protocol. From 18 to 27 April 2012, the Subcommittee visited Argentina, the sixth country visited by the Subcommittee in Latin America. From 19 to 28 September 2012, it visited Kyrgyzstan, the fourth country visited by the Subcommittee in Asia. The Subcommittee had announced its intention to undertake a third visit, to Gabon, during the course of 2012 but this visit has been delayed for operational reasons.
16. In accordance with its mandate under articles 11 (b) and 12 of the Optional Protocol, in 2012 the Subcommittee undertook for the first time short advisory visits on the establishment and functioning of national preventive mechanisms (NPM advisory visits), in Honduras (April-May), Republic of Moldova (October) and Senegal (December). Further information on this development is provided in chapter IV, section A, below.
17. Further summary information on all these visits, including lists of places visited, may be found in the press releases issued following each visit, which are available on the Subcommittee website.
D. Dialogue arising from visits, including publication of the Subcommittee’s reports by States parties and national preventive mechanisms
18. The substantive aspects of the dialogue process arising from visits are governed by the rule of confidentiality and are only made public with the consent of the State party in question. At the end of the reporting period the Subcommittee had transmitted a total of 15 visit reports to States parties (3 within the reporting period, to Argentina, Brazil and Mali), one follow-up visit report, two reports arising from an NPM advisory visit to an NPM and two reports arising from an NPM advisory visit to a State party (both within the reporting period, to Honduras and the Republic of Moldova). A total of seven Subcommittee visit reports have been made public following a request from the State party under article 16, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, one of which was within the reporting period, that of Brazil. One visit report arising from the NPM advisory visit to Honduras was made public following a request from the NPM of Honduras.
19. In conformity with established practice, States parties are requested to provide a reply to a visit report within six months of its transmission to the State party, giving a full account of action taken to implement the recommendations which it contains. At the end of this reporting period, the Subcommittee had received nine replies from State parties, four of which were received within the reporting period (Brazil, Lebanon, Mexico and Ukraine). The Subcommittee considers the replies from the following States parties to be currently overdue: Cambodia, Honduras, Liberia and Maldives. Reminder letters have been sent to those States parties. The replies from Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Lebanon, Mauritius and Ukraine remain confidential, while those from Benin, Brazil, Mexico, Paraguay and Sweden have been made public at the request of those States parties.
20. During the reporting period, the Subcommittee provided its own responses and/or recommendations to the replies of Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Lebanon and Ukraine; such responses had also been transmitted to Mauritius and Sweden previous to this period. All of these currently remain confidential.
21. The Subcommittee has so far conducted one follow-up visit, to Paraguay, with a follow-up visit report transmitted to the State party, to which a reply has been received. Both the follow-up visit report and the follow-up reply have been made public at the request of the State party.
22. The Subcommittee has transmitted reports to the NPM and State party arising from its NPM advisory visits to Honduras and the Republic of Moldova; the reports are still confidential, and the replies thereto are not yet due.
23. An innovation in follow-up dialogue occurred at the seventeenth session of the Subcommittee, when the Subcommittee held a private meeting with the Mexican authorities on the State party’s reply to the Subcommittee visit report. In the context of this fruitful meeting with a large Mexican delegation, the State party presented a supplementary reply which formed the basis of a beneficial discussion. At its request, the Subcommittee allowed the participation of the Mexican NPM at this meeting, enabling it to provide oral comments on the Subcommittee visit report, which had previously been made available to it in accordance with the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.
E. Developments concerning the establishment of national preventive mechanisms
24. Of the 65 States parties, 43 have officially notified the Subcommittee of the designation of their NPMs, information concerning which is listed on the Subcommittee website.
25. Twelve official notifications of designation were transmitted to the Subcommittee in 2012: Argentina, Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Ecuador, Hungary, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Togo, Ukraine and Uruguay.
26. Twenty-two States parties have therefore not yet notified the Subcommittee of the designation of their NPMs. The one-year deadline for the establishment of an NPM provided for under article 17 of the Optional Protocol has not yet expired for one State party (Philippines). Furthermore, two States parties (Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kazakhstan) have made declarations under article 24 of the Optional Protocol permitting them to delay designation for up to an additional two years. On 9 July 2012, Romania made a request to extend the time frame for its obligation to establish an NPM under article 24, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol for a further two-year period. At its forty-ninth session (November 2012), after due representations made by the State party and after consultation with the Subcommittee, the Committee against Torture acceded to this.