[prisoner-rights] UN Committee against Torture discusses follow-up to communications and concluding observations

*** Learn more about the work of the Committee against Torture in HREA's
study guide "Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment ":
http://www.hrea.org/learn/guides/torture.html


15 May 2007 -- The Committee against Torture this afternoon discussed the
issue of follow-up to individual communications and to concluding
observations, hearing an oral presentation by a representative of the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on
follow-up to communications, as well as presentations from Committee
Members on each topic.

Markus Schmidt of the petitions team unit within OHCHR, in introductory
remarks on the follow-up progress report on individual communications,
said that the report covered materials received from November up to the
present session in respect of six cases. It was worth noting that the rate
of follow-up replies from States parties had gone up. There had been no
reply in 8 cases, for over 50 cases in which a violation had been found.
For those States parties that did not provide follow-up replies or had
made unsatisfactory replies, the OHCHR had a budget available if the
Committee wished to send a mission to the State party.

Presenting the report on follow-up to individual communications, Committee
Expert Fernando Mariño Menendez said there were still eight cases
outstanding, involving Austria, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain (two
cases), and three cases involving Serbia and Montenegro. The report
detailed six cases for which there was updated information involving
complaints against Canada, Senegal, Sweden, Switzerland (two cases), and
Tunisia. Of the six cases, in three – those involving complaints
against Sweden and Switzerland (who had two cases pending) – the
States parties had complied with the Committee's requests, and there was
no further action to be taken. Of more concern was follow-up with regard
to the Canadian case (involving a request for non-refoulement), a
Senegalese case (involving a request for extradition of former President
Hissene Habré), and a Tunisian case (involving a request for an
investigation into allegations of torture and ill-treatment).

Following a discussion, it was decided, with regard to the Canadian case,
to request an update from the State party; for the case involving Senegal,
the Committee would await the State party's reply to information forwarded
to it, as the deadline had not yet expired; with respect to three Tunisian
complaints (involving a single individual), the complainants' submissions
would be sent to the State party for further comments. No further action
was to be taken on the cases involving Sweden and Switzerland.

On follow-up to conclusions and reservations, Committee Member Felice Gaer
recalled that, since the procedure for follow-up to conclusions and
reservations had been instituted, the Committee had reviewed 43 countries,
including the present session. Some 37 countries had been requested to
submit follow-up information, of which 22 had responded. Every State party
where a report was now overdue, as well as those which had not responded,
would receive a reminder.

Ms. Gaer wished to emphasize that the kind of information that was often
missing, and that the Committee requested be addressed in follow-up, was
precise information about the right to obtain access to a lawyer or a
medical examination following detention by law enforcement authorities,
which was the most common follow-up item. She recalled that follow-up
items that were targeted were ones that were protective and that could be
easily complied with within one year. Other frequently recurring issues
for follow-up were the need for States parties to have an independent body
charged with hearing complaints regarding violations of the Convention;
the need for statistics on law enforcement, including the number of
complaints, investigations and prosecutions; and guarantees for prompt and
impartial investigations of complaints.

In concluding remarks, Committee Chairperson Andreas Mavrommatis observed
that the two new follow-up mechanisms were already beginning to bear
fruit: steps to improve human rights were being taken or had been
accelerated by States parties. Next time, it might be worthwhile if the
follow-up rapporteurs would take up the issue of how the Committee could
use national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations
in the follow-up process.

When the Committee next reconvenes in public, on Wednesday, 16 May at
11.30 a.m., it will take up the issue of a General Comment on Article 2 of
the Convention, which requires States parties to take effective
legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of
torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

UNITED NATIONS Press release