Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback United Nations Committee Against Torture - Concluding Observations

United Nations General Assembly - Report of the Committee against Torture, Twenty-Seventh Session (12 - 23 November 2001) and Twenty-Sixth (29 April - 17 May 2002) [2002] UNCATCO 8; Supplement No. 44 (A/57/44) (17 October 2002)

A/57/44

United Nations

Report of the Committee

against Torture

Twentyseventh session

(1223 November 2001)

Twentyeighth session

(29 April17 May 2002)

General Assembly

Official Records

Fiftyseventh session

Supplement No. 44 (A/57/44)

General Assembly

Official Records

Fiftyseventh session

Supplement No. 44 (A/57/44)

Report of the Committee against Torture

Twentyseventh session

(1223 November 2001)

Twentyeighth session

(29 April17 May 2002)

United Nations ● New York, 2002

Note:

Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.

ISSN 1020170X

CONTENTS

Paragraphs Page

I. ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS 1 19 8

A. States parties to the Convention 1 3 8

B. Sessions of the Committee 4 8

C. Elections, membership and attendance at sessions 5 6 8

D. Solemn declaration by the newly elected member 7 9

E. Election of officers 8 9

F. Agendas 9 10 9

G. Working group 11 12 10

H. Cooperation between the Committee and the

Special Rapporteur on torture of the Commission

on Human Rights 13 10

I. Participation of Committee members in other meetings 14 11

J. Amendments to the rules of procedure and methods

of work 15 16 11

K. Statement of the Committee in connection with the

events of 11 September 2001 17 18 12

L. Joint declaration on the occasion of the United Nations

International Day in Support of Victims of Torture,

26 June 2002 19 13

II. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES

UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION 20 23 13

III. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES

PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION 24 116 18

Benin 30 35 19

Indonesia 36 46 22

Israel 47 53 27

Ukraine 54 58 31

Zambia 59 67 34

CONTENTS (continued)

Paragraphs Page

Denmark 68 74 37

Luxembourg 75 80 39

Norway 81 86 40

Russian Federation 87 96 42

Saudi Arabia 97 101 48

Sweden 102 110 51

Uzbekistan 111 116 54

IV. ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 20

OF THE CONVENTION 117 195 58

A. General information 117 122 58

B. Summary account of the results of the proceedings

concerning the inquiry on Sri Lanka 123 195 59

V. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 22

OF THE CONVENTION 196 214 71

A. New methods of work 203 73

B. Interim measures of protection 204 205 73

C. Progress of work 206 214 73

VI. OPINION OF THE UNITED NATIONS LEGAL COUNSEL

CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE

CONVENTION IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN

TERRITORY 215 75

VII. DISCUSSION ON THE SITUATION IN THE OCCUPIED

PALESTINIAN TERRITORY IN THE LIGHT OF THE

CONVENTION 216 75

VIII. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE 217 75

CONTENTS (continued)

Page

Annexes

I. States which have signed, ratified or acceded to the Convention

against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment, as at 17 May 2002 76

II. States parties that have declared, at the time of ratification or

accession, that they do not recognize the competence of the

Committee provided for by article 20 of the Convention, as at

17 May 2002 81

III. States parties that have made the declarations provided for in

articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, as at 17 May 2002 82

IV. Membership of the Committee against Torture in 2002 84

V. Status of submission of reports by States parties under article 19

of the Convention, as at 17 May 2002 85

VI. Country rapporteurs and alternate rapporteurs for the reports of

States parties considered by the Committee at its twentyseventh

and twentyeighth sessions. 104

VII. Decisions of the Committee against Torture under article 22

of the Convention 105

A. Decisions on merits

Complaint No. 111/1998: R.S. v. Austria 105

Complaint No. 138/1999: M.P.S. v. Australia 111

Complaint No. 146/1999: E.T.B. v. Denmark 117

Communication No. 154/2000: M.S. v. Australia 124

Communication No. 156/2000: M.S. v. Switzerland 130

Communication No. 162/2000: Y.H.A. v. Australia 137

Complaint No. 164/2002: L.M.T.D. v. Sweden 147

Communication No. 166/2000: B.S. v. Canada 153

Communication No. 175/2000: S.T. v. The Netherlands 159

Complaint No. 177/2001: H.M.H.I. v. Australia 166

CONTENTS (continued)

Page

Communication No. 178/2001: H.O. v. Sweden 174

Complaint No. 179/2001: B.M. v. Sweden 182

Complaint No. 180/2001: F.F.Z. v. Denmark 190

Complaint No. 185/2001: Chedli Ben Ahmed Karoui v. Sweden 198

B. Decisions on inadmissibility

Communication No. 170/2000: A.R. v. Sweden 206

Complaint No. 176/2000: Marcos Roitman Rosenman v. Spain 210

VIII. Terms of reference of the Rapporteur on new complaints and

interim measures 219

IX. Terms of reference of the Rapporteur on followup of decisions on

complaints submitted under article 22 220

X. Amended rules of procedure 221

XI. List of documents for general distribution issued for the

Committee during the reporting period 233

I. ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS

A. States parties to the Convention

1. As at 17 May 2002, the closing date of the twentyeighth session of the Committee against Torture, there were 139 States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 and entered into force on 26 June 1987.

2. Since the last report Ireland, Lesotho, Mongolia, Nigeria and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines have become parties to the Convention. Furthermore, Belarus withdrew its reservation regarding article 20 of the Convention. Azerbaijan, Mexico and Seychelles made the declaration under article 22, Uganda made the declaration under article 21 and Costa Rica, Germany and Ireland did so under articles 21 and 22. The list of States which have signed, ratified or acceded to the Convention is contained in annex I to the present report. The States parties that have declared that they do not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for by article 20 of the Convention are listed in annex II. The States parties that have made declarations provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention are listed in annex III.

3. The text of the declarations, reservations or objections made by States parties with respect to the Convention, are reproduced in document CAT/C/2/Rev.5. Updated information in that regard may be found in the United Nations Human Rights web site (www.un.org Sample access Site index treaties).

B. Sessions of the Committee

4. The Committee against Torture has held two sessions since the adoption of its last annual report. The twentyseventh session (485th to 502nd meetings) was held at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 12 to 23 November 2001, and the twentyeighth session (503rd to 528th) was held from 29 April to 17 May 2002. An account of the deliberations of the Committee at these two sessions is contained in the relevant summary records (CAT/C/SR.485528).

C. Elections, membership and attendance at sessions

5. In accordance with article 17 of the Convention, the Eighth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention was held at the United Nations Office at Geneva on 28 November 2001. The following four members of the Committee were reelected for a term of four years beginning on 1 January 2002: Mr. Sayed Kassem El Masry (Egypt), Mr. Ole Vedel Rasmussen (Denmark), Mr. Alexander M. Yakovlev (Russian Federation) and Mr. Yu Mengjia (China). Mr. Fernando Mariño Menéndez (Spain) was elected for the same term.

6. All the members attended the twentyseventh session except Mr. Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar, whose term expired on 31 December 2001. All the members attended the twentyeighth session. Mr. Camara did not attend the meetings of the presessional working group of the twentyeighth session.

D. Solemn declaration by the newly elected member

7. At the 503rd meeting, on 29 April 2002, Mr. Mariño Menéndez, newly elected member of the Committee, made the solemn declaration upon assuming his duties, in accordance with rule 14 of the rules of procedure.

E. Election of officers

8. At the 503rd meeting, on 29 April 2002, the Committee reelected the following officers for a term of two years, in accordance with article 18, paragraph 1, of the Convention and rules 15 and 16 of the rules of procedure:

Chairman: Mr. Peter Burns

ViceChairmen: Mr. Guibril Camara

Mr. Alejandro González Poblete

Mr. Yu Mengjia

Rapporteur: Mr. Sayed Kassem El Masry

F. Agendas

9. At its 485th meeting, on 12 November 2002, the Committee adopted the following items listed in the provisional agenda submitted by the SecretaryGeneral (CAT/C/63) as the agenda of its twentyseventh session:

1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. Organizational and other matters.

3. Submission of reports by States parties under article 19 of the Convention.

4. Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the

Convention.

5. Consideration of information received under article 20 of the Convention.

6. Consideration of communications under article 22 of the Convention.

10. At its 503rd meeting, on 29 April 2002, the Committee amended the provisional agenda submitted by the SecretaryGeneral (CAT/C/68) and decided to include the following items in the agenda of its twentyeighth session:

1. Opening of the session by the representative of the SecretaryGeneral.

2. Solemn declaration by the newly elected member of the Committee.

3. Election of the officers of the Committee.

4. Adoption of the agenda.

5. Organizational and other matters.

6. Submission of reports by States parties under article 19 of the Convention.

7. Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the

Convention.

8. Consideration of information under article 20 of the Convention.

9. Consideration of communications under article 22 of the Convention.

10. Action by the General Assembly at its fiftysixth session and the Commission

on Human Rights at its fiftyeighth session.

11. Annual report of the Committee on its activities.

12. The situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) in the light of the

Convention.

G. Working group

11. At its twentyfifth session in November 2000, the Committee decided, in accordance with rules 61 and 106 of its rules of procedure, to establish, starting with the 20022003 biennium, a working group composed of four of its members that would meet for a fiveday session during the week preceding each Committee session. The General Assembly, by resolution 56/143 of 19 December 2001 entitled “Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, approved that request.

12. Prior to the twentyeighth session, the working group met from 22 to 26 April 2002

in order to consider communications under article 22 of the Convention and make recommendations to the Committee. The working group was composed of Mr. Burns, Mr. Camara, Mr. González Poblete and Mr. Yakovlev.

H. Cooperation between the Committee and the Special Rapporteur
on torture of the Commission on Human Rights

13. A meeting was held on 15 May 2002 between the Committee and the newly appointed Special Rapporteur on torture of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Theodor van Boven. The Committee and the Special Rapporteur exchanged views on their respective mandates and activities. They agreed to continue exchanging information and to enhance their cooperation and coordination, especially with respect to: (a) countries visited by the Special Rapporteur or under

the inquiry procedure of the Committee (article 20 of the Convention); and (b) individual cases that may in principle be dealt with both by the Committee and the Special Rapporteur under their respective mandates.

I. Participation of Committee members in other meetings

14. A number of members informed the Committee about their participation in various meetings during the period under consideration. Thus, Mr. Rasmussen briefed the Committee about his participation in the meeting organized by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Application of Human Rights to Reproductive and Sexual Health from 25 to 27 June 2001 and in the public hearing on Instruments and Measures to Combat Torture organized by the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of the German Parliament on 17 October 2001. Mr. Burns provided information on the outcome of the thirteenth meeting of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies, held at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 18 to 22 June 2001. Mr. Burns, Ms. Gaer and Mr. Mavrommatis informed the Committee about their participation at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, from 31 August to 7 September 2001. Mr. Mavrommatis reported on his participation at the tenth session of the openended working group of the Commission on Human Rights on a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, held from 14 to 25 January 2002.

J. Amendments to the rules of procedure and methods of work

15. During its twenty-eighth session the Committee revised its rules of procedure. Amendments were made to rules 12 (beginning of term of office for Committee members), 16 (term of office for officers), 61 (establishment of subsidiary bodies), 64 (submission of reports), 65 (nonsubmission of reports), 66 (attendance by States parties at examination of reports) and 68 (conclusions and recommendations by the Committee). Amendments were also made regarding the procedure for the consideration of complaints received under article 22 of the Convention (rules 96 to 115), as specified in chapter V of the present report. The text of the amended rules is contained in annex X.

16. As a result of the amendments, the Committee decided, inter alia, to establish a mechanism to deal with non-reporting States and States that report but fail to send representatives to the Committee’s meetings. Furthermore, the amendment to rule 68 concerned the appointment of rapporteurs for follow-up to conclusions and recommendations on State party reports. The Committee decided that these rapporteurs would seek information as to a State party’s implementation of and compliance with the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations upon the former’s initial, periodic or other reports, and/or would urge the State party to take appropriate measures to that end. The rapporteurs would report to the Committee on the activities they have undertaken pursuant to this mandate. Ms. Gaer and Mr. González Poblete (alternate) were subsequently designated as rapporteurs on follow-up on conclusions and recommendations on State party reports.

K. Statement of the Committee in connection with the events of 11 September 2001

17. At its 501st meeting, on 22 November 2001, the Committee adopted the following statement:

“By letter dated 11 October 2001, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights solicited the views of the Committee against Torture on the matter of ensuring that the human rights covered by its mandate are maintained with a high visibility in the light of various State responses to the events of 11 September 2001.

“It is in the spirit of this request that the Committee against Torture decided to communicate directly to the States parties to the Convention against Torture the following statement:

‘The Committee against Torture condemns utterly the terrorist attacks of 11 September and expresses its profound condolences to the victims, who were nationals of some 80 countries, including many States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Committee is mindful of the terrible threat to international peace and security posed by these acts of international terrorism, as affirmed in Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001. The Committee also notes that the Security Council in resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001 identified the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the threats caused by terrorist acts.

‘The Committee against Torture reminds States parties to the Convention of the non-derogable nature of most of the obligations undertaken by them in ratifying the Convention.

‘The obligations contained in articles 2 (whereby “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever ... may be invoked as a justification of torture”), 15 (prohibiting confessions extorted by torture being admitted in evidence, except against the torturer), and 16 (prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) are three such provisions and must be observed in all circumstances.

‘The Committee against Torture is confident that whatever responses to the threat of international terrorism are adopted by States parties, such responses will be in conformity with the obligations undertaken by them in ratifying the Convention against Torture.’”

18. A copy of this statement was sent to each State party to the Convention.

L. Joint declaration on the occasion of the United Nations International Day
in Support of Victims of Torture, 26 June 2002

19. In view of the importance attached by the Committee to the adoption of an optional protocol to the Convention establishing an international system of preventive visits to places of detention, the Committee decided to sign a joint declaration, in the context of the International Day, that would focus on that issue. The text of the declaration is as follows:

“The Committee against Torture, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of torture, the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights welcome the decision of the Commission on Human Rights at its fiftyeighth session to adopt, and recommend to the Economic and Social Council, the text of the optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That decision was the result of a decade-long process of consultation and negotiation.

“The optional protocol is designed to assist States parties in implementing their obligation under the Convention to prevent torture by providing for the establishment of effective international and national mechanisms for visiting places where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty. Visits to such places by independent multidisciplinary teams of experts have proved to be a very effective way to prevent treatment of detainees that violates international standards. Both the protective and preventive roles of such mechanisms should be stressed.

“On the occasion of the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, we call upon the States Members of the United Nations at the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly to give the matter of an effective protocol to the Convention their earnest and immediate attention, and to move towards the final adoption of this instrument.

“We also pay tribute to and continue to support those States and organizations of civil society that are committed to ending the practice of torture and are engaged in activities aimed at preventing it and securing redress for its victims.”

II. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES UNDER
ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION

20. During the period covered by the present report, initial or periodic reports were submitted to the Secretary-General. Initial reports were submitted by Estonia (CAT/C/16/Add.9), Belgium (CAT/C/52/Add.2) and The Republic of Moldova (CAT/C/32/Add.4). Second reports were submitted by Slovenia (CAT/C/43/Add.4), Azerbaijan (CAT/C/59/Add.1), Iceland (CAT/C/59/Add.2) and Turkey (CAT/C/20/Add.8). Third reports were received from Cyprus (CAT/C/54/Add.2), Croatia (CAT/C/54/Add.3), Colombia (CAT/C/39/Add.4), New Zealand (CAT/C/49/Add.3), the Czech Republic (CAT/C/60/Add.1) and Chile (CAT/C/39/Add.5). Greece submitted its fourth report (CAT/C/61/Add.1).

21. In addition, the Committee at its twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth sessions was informed by the secretariat about the situation of overdue reports. As at 17 May 2002, the situation was as follows:

22. The Committee expressed concern at the number of States parties which did not comply with their reporting obligations. With regard in particular to States parties whose reports were more than four years overdue, the Committee deplored the continued failure of those States parties to comply with the obligations they had freely assumed under the Convention. The Committee stressed that it had the duty to monitor the implementation of the Convention and that the non-compliance of a State party with its reporting obligations constituted an infringement of the provisions of the Convention. As a result it decided to request two of its members, Mr. Mariño and Mr. Rasmussen, to make proposals at the twenty-ninth session of the Committee on ways and means to facilitate the submission of overdue reports by States parties.

23. The status of submission of reports as at 17 May 2002, the closing date of the twentyeighth session of the Committee, appears in annex V to the present report.

III. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES
UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION

24. At its twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth sessions, the Committee considered reports submitted by 12 States parties, under article 19, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The following reports were before the Committee at its twenty-seventh session:

25. The following reports were before the Committee at its twenty-eighth session:

26. In accordance with rule 66 of the rules of procedure of the Committee, representatives of all the reporting States were invited to attend the meetings of the Committee when their reports were examined. All of the States parties whose reports were considered sent representatives to participate in the examination of their respective reports. The report of Saudi Arabia, which had initially been scheduled for consideration at the twenty-seventh session, was postponed at the request of the State party, which was unable to send a delegation to that session. Similarly, the report of Venezuela, which had been scheduled for consideration at the twenty-eighth session, was postponed to the twenty-ninth session at the request of the State party which was unable to send a delegation to the twenty-eighth session.

27. In accordance with the decision taken by the Committee at its fourth session,[*] country rapporteurs and alternate rapporteurs were designated for each of the reports considered. The list appears in annex VI to the present report.

28. In connection with its consideration of reports, the Committee also had before it the following documents:

(a) General guidelines regarding the form and contents of initial reports to be submitted by States parties under article 19, paragraph 1, of the Convention (CAT/C/4/Rev.2);

(b) General guidelines regarding the form and contents of periodic reports to be submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention (CAT/C/14/Rev.1).

29. In accordance with the decision taken by the Committee at its eleventh session,[**] the following sections, arranged on a country-by-country basis according to the sequence followed by the Committee in its consideration of the reports, contain references to the reports submitted by the States parties and to the summary records of the meetings of the Committee at which the reports were considered, as well as the text of conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee with respect to the States parties’ reports considered at its twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth sessions.

Benin

30. The Committee considered the initial report of Benin (CAT/C/21/Add.3) at its 489th and 492nd meetings (CAT/C/SR.489 and 492), held on 15 and 16 November 2001, and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

31. The Committee welcomes the initial report of Benin, although it notes that the report, due on 10 April 1993, was submitted seven years late. The report was prepared in accordance with the guidelines regarding the form and contents of initial reports of States parties. The Committee nevertheless notes that it does not contain specific examples of the implementation of the Convention. However, the Committee notes, as the head of the delegation explained, that the report refers only to the so-called “revolutionary” period and a short period following the promulgation of the 1990 Constitution, thus preventing the Committee from evaluating the current situation with regard to the implementation of the Convention.

32. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the delegation of Benin and the frank, honest and constructive dialogue which took place.

B. Positive aspects

33. The Committee takes note with satisfaction of the following elements:

(a) The standing of the international treaties ratified by Benin under the Beninese Constitution, which ranks them higher than domestic law;

(b) The strict prohibition of the practice of torture provided for in article 18 of the Constitution;

(c) The ratification by the State party of a set of international treaties relating to the protection of human rights. The Committee takes note in particular of the signing on 24 September 1999 of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court;

(d) The State party’s commitment to put an end to the large-scale violations of human rights which took place during the so-called “revolutionary” period and to provide better protection for human rights through the adoption of legislation and regulations;

(e) Article 558 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which appears to be in conformity with the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention on universal jurisdiction;

(f) The establishment of the Benin Human Rights Commission and of the Human Rights Department in the Ministry of Justice and Legislation, by Decree No. 97/30 of 29 January 1997;

(g) The compensation of some persons who were subjected to torture during the socalled “revolutionary” period, based on the recommendations of the Interministerial Commission set up by Degree No. 91-95 of 27 May 1991;

(h) The improvement of physical conditions in prisons inter alia through the construction of a new prison with a capacity of 1,000 prisoners.

C. Subjects of concern

34. The Committee is concerned about the following:

(a) The absence of a definition of torture strictly in keeping with article 1 of the Convention, and the lack of specific penalties for the crime of torture, thus creating a gap that does not allow for the full implementation of the Convention;

(b) Citizens’ apparent mistrust of the police and justice system and the resulting recurring problem of mob justice;

(c) Overcrowding and deplorable physical conditions in prisons, particularly the lack of hygiene, adequate food or appropriate medical care, despite efforts by the State party and assistance from non-governmental organizations;

(d) The lack of attention paid to human rights, especially to the prohibition of torture, in training programmes for civilian and military law enforcement personnel and medical personnel, despite positive initiatives by the Benin Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights League.

(e) The possibility, under article 18 of the Constitution, of extending police custody for up to eight days in exceptional cases;

(f) The existence in Beninese legislation of legal provisions (arts. 327 and 328 of the Criminal Code) exonerating anyone found guilty of offences or crimes when such acts were ordered in accordance with the law or by a legitimate authority or were committed in selfdefence, which is contrary to the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention with regard to torture;

(g) The lack of medical and psychological rehabilitation programmes for torture victims;

(h) The possibility of keeping female detainees incommunicado for three months;

(i) The danger that the Amnesty Law, adopted prior to the adoption of the Convention against Torture, might give rise to a situation of impunity.

D. Recommendations

35. The Committee makes the following recommendations:

(a) In order genuinely to fulfil its treaty obligations, the State party must adopt a definition of torture that is fully in keeping with article 1 of the Convention and must provide for appropriate penalties;

(b) Measures must be taken to establish regulations on the right of torture victims to fair and adequate compensation from the State and to set up programmes for victims’ physical and psychological rehabilitation;

(c) The State party should adopt the necessary legislative measures to bring the provisions of the Criminal Code into line with article 2 of the Convention;

(d) The State party should strengthen human rights education and promotion activities, particularly on the prohibition of torture, for law enforcement officials and medical personnel;

(e) The State party should take measures to eradicate the practice of mob justice;

(f) The Committee reminds the State party of its obligation to conduct immediate and impartial investigations and to prosecute persons suspected of human rights violations, particularly torture;

(g) The State party should continue to take steps to improve physical conditions in prisons and substantially to reduce the duration of incommunicado detention;

(h) The Committee encourages the State party to make the declarations provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, in order to give better effect to its good intentions to ensure respect for human rights in general and the prohibition of torture in particular;

(i) The State party should widely disseminate the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations concerning Benin;

(j) The State party should submit its second periodic report, which should have been submitted in April 1997, as soon as possible, in order to comply with the reporting frequency stipulated in article 19 of the Convention.

Indonesia

36. The Committee considered the initial report of Indonesia (CAT/C/47/Add.3) at its 492nd and 495th meetings, held on 16 and 19 November 2001 (CAT/C/SR.492 and 495), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

37. The Committee welcomes the initial report of Indonesia, although it notes that the report, due in November 1999, was submitted with more than one year’s delay. It notes that the report mainly addresses legal provisions and lacks detailed information on the implementation of the Convention against Torture in practice. However, the Committee wishes to express its appreciation for the efforts of the State party to provide added information as it engaged in a constructive dialogue with the Committee.

38. The Committee welcomes the clarification made by the State party confirming that it recognized the competence of the Committee as provided for in article 20 of the Convention.

39. The Committee notes that Indonesia has not made the declarations provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.

B. Positive aspects

40. The Committee takes note of the following positive aspects:

(a) The ongoing efforts of the State party to reform the legal system and revise its Constitution and legislation in order to safeguard universal human rights, including the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;

(b) The adoption of Act No. 26/2000 on the establishment of human rights courts, which have jurisdiction over gross violations of human rights, including torture, and the State’s assurances that the human rights courts will be operational by early December 2001;

(c) The plans outlined by the representatives of the State party for the imminent finalization of new laws on the protection of victims and witnesses, and on the establishment of a Commission of Truth and Reconciliation to re-examine past cases of human rights violations which have had a significant impact on the nation;

(d) The formal separation of the police from the military in 1999, as a vital aspect of the effort to ensure an independent civilian authority responsible for maintaining law and order;

(e) The recognition by the State party that eradication of torture is linked to overcoming a culture of violence within the army and the police, and the assurances that efforts to continue to work towards this goal are a high priority of the Government;

(f) The acknowledgement of the pressing need to introduce a centralized register of detainees for the whole country, and assurances that the State party is currently studying the implementation of such a system;

(g) The interest expressed by the State party in the possibility of the Government’s cooperating with national nongovernmental organizations in monitoring prisons and places of detention;

(h) The statement made by the representative of the State party relating to a possible visit next year of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

C. Factors and difficulties impeding the implementation
of the Convention

41. The Committee is aware of the difficulty faced by the State party in view of the armed secessionist conflicts in several parts of the territory of the State party, and in view of the geographical characteristics of the Indonesian archipelago. In addition, the Committee also recognizes the difficulties in the political transition towards a democratic system of government.

D. Subjects of concern

42. The Committee is concerned about:

(a) The large number of allegations of acts of torture and ill-treatment committed by members of the police forces, especially the mobile police units (“Brimob”), the army (TNI), and paramilitary groups reportedly linked to authorities, and in areas of armed conflict (Aceh, Papua, Maluku, etc.);

(b) Allegations of excessive use of force employed against demonstrators or for purposes of investigation;

(c) Allegations that paramilitary groups, reported to be perpetrators of torture and illtreatment in Indonesia, are supported by some parts of the military, and sometimes reportedly are joined by military personnel;

(d) Allegations of numerous attacks directed against human rights defenders, sometimes leading to death;

(e) Allegations that human rights abuses related to the Convention are sometimes committed by military personnel employed by businesses in Indonesia to protect their premises and to avoid labour disputes;

(f) Allegations of inadequate protection against rape and other forms of sexual violence, which are frequently alleged to be used as forms of torture and ill-treatment;

(g) The high number of persons reported to be suffering from the after-effects of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.

43. The Committee is also concerned about:

(a) A climate of impunity, promoted in part by the fact that there has been little progress in bringing to trial members of the military, the police or other State officials, particularly those holding senior positions, who are alleged to have planned, commanded and/or perpetrated acts of torture and ill-treatment;

(b) The failure of the State party to provide in every instance prompt, impartial and full investigations into the numerous allegations of torture reported to the authorities, as well as to prosecute alleged offenders, as required in articles 12 and 13 of the Convention;

(c) The insufficient level of guarantees of the independence and impartiality of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas-HAM) which hinders it in fully carrying out its mandate, which includes sole responsibility under Law 2000/26 for conducting initial investigations relating to gross violations of human rights, including torture, prior to forwarding cases to the Attorney-General for prosecution. Because only the Attorney-General has the authority to decide whether to initiate criminal proceedings, the Committee is further concerned that all the reports of Komnas-HAM on preliminary investigations are not published, and that Komnas-HAM does not have the right to challenge a decision by the Attorney-General not to prosecute a case.

44. The Committee further expresses its concern about the following:

(a) The country’s penal legislation does not adequately define the offence of torture in terms consistent with article 1 of the Convention; as a result, torture is not punishable by appropriate penalties in the criminal code of the State party, as required in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes, in this regard, that the definition of torture in Law 2000/26 is not fully consistent with article 1 of the Convention;

(b) The geographical and time limitations on the mandate of the proposed ad hoc human rights court on East Timor;

(c) The inadequacy of measures to ensure that the second amendment to the 1945 Constitution, relating to the right not to be prosecuted based on retroactive law, will not apply to offences such as torture and crimes against humanity which under international law are already criminalized;

(d) The lack of adequate protection of witnesses and victims of torture, who can be subject to intimidation and abuse by officials;

(e) The length and terms of police custody, and the lack of adequate guarantees of the rights of persons deprived of liberty, including to notify a close relative or third party and to have access to medical assistance and counsel of their choice;

(f) In spite of the formal separation of the police and the military, the latter continues to be associated with allegations of torture and ill-treatment. The Committee is particularly concerned over the absence of habeas corpus for the military;

(g) Insufficient legal protection ensuring, as set out in article 3 of the Convention, that no person can be expelled, returned or extradited to another State where he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture;

(h) The lack of response to communications sent by the Special Rapporteur on torture, as well as the fact that he has not been invited to visit by the State party, despite requests dating back to 1993;

(i) The inadequate cooperation with the Serious Crimes Unit of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET);

(j) The absence of statistics and other information regarding torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, disaggregated by gender, ethnic group, geographical region, and type and location of detention.

E. Recommendations

45. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a) Amend the penal legislation so that torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are offences strictly prohibited under criminal law, in terms fully consistent with the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention. Adequate penalties, reflecting the seriousness of the crime, should be adopted;

(b) Establish an effective, reliable and independent complaint system to undertake prompt, impartial and effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment and torture by police and other officials and, where the findings so warrant, to prosecute and punish perpetrators, including senior officials;

(c) Ensure that all persons, including senior officials, who have sponsored, planned, incited, financed or participated in paramilitary operations using torture will be appropriately prosecuted;

(d) Take immediate measures to strengthen the independence, objectivity, effectiveness and public accountability of the National Commission on Human Rights (KomnasHAM), and ensure that all its reports to the Attorney-General are published in a timely fashion;

(e) Ensure that the proposed ad hoc human rights court for East Timor will have the capacity to consider the many human rights abuses which were alleged to have occurred there during the period between 1 January and 25 October 1999;

(f) Ensure that crimes under international law such as torture and crimes against humanity committed in the past are investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted in Indonesian courts;

(g) Continue measures of police reform to strengthen the independence of the police from the military, as an independent civilian law enforcement agency;

(h) Reduce the length of pre-trial detention, ensure adequate protection for witnesses and victims of torture and exclude any statement made under torture from consideration in any legal proceedings, except against the torturer;

(i) Ensure that no person can be expelled, returned, or extradited to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that that person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, in accordance with article 3;

(j) Ensure that human rights defenders are protected from harassment, threats and other attacks;

(k) Reinforce human rights education to provide guidelines and training, regarding in particular the prohibition of torture, for law enforcement officials, judges, and medical personnel;

(l) Invite the Special Rapporteur on torture to visit its territories;

(m) Fully cooperate with UNTAET, in particular by providing assistance in investigations or court proceedings in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed in April 2000, including affording the members of the Serious Crimes Unit full access to relevant files, authorizing visits to Indonesia and East Timor, and transferring suspects for trials in East Timor;

(n) Take immediate steps to address the urgent need for rehabilitation of the large number of victims of torture and ill-treatment in the country;

(o) Make the declarations provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention;

(p) Include, in its next periodic report, statistical data regarding torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, disaggregated by, inter alia, gender, ethnic group, geographical region, and type and location of detention. In addition, information should be provided regarding complaints and cases heard by domestic bodies, including the results of investigations made and the consequence for the victims in terms of redress and compensation;

(q) Widely disseminate the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations throughout the country, in all appropriate languages.

Comments by the Government of Indonesia

46. The Committee considered the note verbale dated 7 December 2001 from the Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the United Nations Office at Geneva containing comments and additional information on the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee. The Committee thanks the Government of Indonesia for the note and welcomes the significant number of legal and institutional reforms which are currently under way in Indonesia. The contents of the note verbale will be reproduced in document CAT/C/GC/2001/1.

Israel

47. The Committee considered the third periodic report of Israel (CAT/C/54/Add.1) at its 495th and 498th meetings, on 20 and 21 November 2001 (CAT/C/SR.495 and 498), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

48. The Committee welcomes the third periodic report of Israel, due on 1 November 2000 and received on 15 March 2001. The report is in full conformity with the guidelines of the Committee on the preparation of State party periodic reports.

49. The Committee compliments the State party for ensuring the submission of its periodic reports in a timely fashion and welcomes the continuation of a constructive dialogue with Israel.

B. Positive aspects

50. The Committee welcomes the following:

(a) The September 1999 Supreme Court judgement in the case of Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. The State of Israel which held that the use of certain interrogation methods by the Israel Security Agency (ISA) involving the use of “moderate physical pressure” was illegal as it violated constitutional protection of the individual’s right to dignity;

(b) The issuance by authorities of the ISA of a directive to all personnel that the decision of the Court should be strictly adhered to in all investigations conducted by the ISA;

(c) The decision by the Government of Israel not to initiate legislation that would authorize the use of physical means in interrogations conducted by the police or the ISA;

(d) The Israeli Supreme Court decision of April 2000 according to which the continued detention of Lebanese detainees held in Israel who did not constitute a threat to national security could not be authorized and the subsequent release of many Lebanese detainees;

(e) Israel’s regular contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture;

(f) The provision of prompt judicial review of persons under detention upon their petition to the Supreme Court;

(g) The transfer, in 1994, of the responsibility for investigation of complaints against the ISA to the Ministry of Justice;

(h) The creation of a judicial commission of inquiry into the events of October 2000, which resulted in the death of 14 persons.

C. Factors and difficulties impeding the application of the Convention

51. The Committee is fully aware of the difficult situation of unrest faced by Israel, particularly in the Occupied Territories, and understands its security concerns. While recognizing the right of Israel to protect its citizens from violence, it reiterates that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked as justification of torture (art. 2, para. 2, of the Convention).

D. Subjects of concern

52. The Committee expresses concern about the following matters:

(a) While acknowledging the importance of the September 1999 Supreme Court decision, the Committee regrets certain of its consequences:

(i) The ruling does not contain a definite prohibition of torture;

(ii) The Court prohibits the use of sleep deprivation for the purpose of breaking the detainee, but stated that if it was merely incidental to interrogation, it was not unlawful. In practice, in cases of prolonged interrogation it is impossible to distinguish between the two conditions;

(iii) The Court indicated that ISA interrogators who use physical pressure in extreme circumstances (“ticking bomb cases”) might not be criminally liable as they may be able to rely on the “defence of necessity”;

(b) Despite the Israeli argument that all acts of torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, are criminal offences under Israeli law, the Committee remains unconvinced and reiterates its concern that torture as defined by the Convention has not yet been incorporated into domestic legislation;

(c) Allegations continue to be received concerning the use of interrogation methods by the ISA against Palestinian detainees that were prohibited by the September 1999 ruling of the Supreme Court;

(d) Torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian minors is alleged, in particular of those detained in the Gush Etzion police station. The difference in the definition of a child in Israel and in the Occupied Territories is also a matter of concern. While under Israeli law majority is attained at the age of 18, military order No. 132 defines a minor as someone under the age of 16. (In Israel, including the Occupied Territories, no minors under the age of 12 years can be held criminally responsible);

(e) While noting a substantial decrease since the examination of its previous report in the number of persons held in administrative detention, the Committee continues to be concerned that administrative detention does not conform with article 16 of the Convention;

(f) The continued use of incommunicado detention, even in the case of children, is a matter of grave concern to the Committee;

(g) Despite the numerous allegations of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials received by the Committee, very few prosecutions have been initiated against alleged perpetrators;

(h) While noting that according to the delegation any allegation of physical violence against a detainee is always treated and investigated as a criminal offence, the Committee is concerned that the Department for the Investigation of Police Misconduct (DIPM) may decide that a police officer or ISA investigator should only be subject to disciplinary action, in lieu of criminal proceedings. This may amount to a violation of article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

(i) Israeli policies on closure may, in certain instances, amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 16 of the Convention);

(j) Israeli policies on house demolitions may, in certain instances, amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 16 of the Convention);

(k) The judicial practice of admitting objective evidence derived from an inadmissible confession is of concern to the Committee;

(l) The Committee is also concerned at instances of “extrajudicial killings” drawn to its attention.

E. Recommendations

53. The Committee makes the following recommendations:

(a) The provisions of the Convention should be incorporated by legislation into the domestic law of Israel; in particular, a crime of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention should be enacted;

(b) The practice of administrative detention in the Occupied Territories should be reviewed in order to ensure its conformity with article 16;

(c) The State party should review its laws and policies so as to ensure that all detainees, without exception, are brought promptly before a judge and are ensured prompt access to a lawyer;

(d) The State party should ensure that interrogation methods prohibited by the Convention are not utilized by either the police or the ISA in any circumstances;

(e) In view of the numerous allegations of torture and other ill-treatment by law enforcement personnel, the State party should take all necessary effective steps to prevent the crime of torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and institute effective complaint, investigative and prosecution mechanisms relating thereto;

(f) All victims of torture and ill-treatment should be granted effective access to appropriate rehabilitation and compensation measures;

(g) The State party should desist from the policies of closure and house demolition where they offend article 16 of the Convention;

(h) The State party should intensify human rights education and training activities, in particular concerning the Convention, for the ISA, the Israel Defence Forces, police and medical doctors;

(i) Necessity as a possible justification for the crime of torture should be removed from the domestic law;

(j) Such legislative measures as are necessary should be taken to ensure the exclusion of not merely a confession extorted by torture, but also any evidence derived from such confession;

(k) Israel should consider withdrawing its reservation to article 20 and declaring in favour of articles 21 and 22.

Ukraine

54. The Committee considered the fourth periodic report of Ukraine (CAT/C/55/Add.1) at its 488th, 491st and 499th meetings (CAT/C/SR.488, 491 and 499), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

55. The Committee welcomes the punctual submission of the fourth periodic report of Ukraine. It notes that the report was not in total conformity with the Committee’s guidelines for the preparation of periodic reports. The Committee also notes that the report mainly addresses legal provisions and lacks detailed information with respect to some articles of the Convention as well as information on the follow-up to the recommendations it made after the examination of the third periodic report. However, the Committee wishes to express its appreciation for the extensive and informative oral answers given by the delegation of the State party during the consideration of the report.

B. Positive aspects

56. The Committee notes with appreciation:

(a) The ongoing efforts by the State party to reform its legislation, including the adoption of a new Criminal Code, which contains an article qualifying torture as a specific crime, the establishment of a new Constitutional Court, the enactment of new legislation relating to the protection of human rights and the adoption of a new Law on Immigration;

(b) That although Ukraine is not a party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, nor to its 1967 Protocol, it has adopted a new Law on Refugees in June 2001 that adheres, inter alia, to that Convention’s definition of “refugee”. The Committee also welcomes the adoption of a new Citizenship Law in January 2001, which enables formerly deported persons to return to Ukraine and obtain Ukrainian citizenship;

(c) The removal from the State Secret Act of offences concerning breaches of human rights;

(d) The abolition of the death penalty;

(e) The information included in the report that, by Act of 5 November 1998, Ukraine acknowledged the Committee’s jurisdiction, as provided for by articles 21 and 22 of the Convention;

(f) The establishment of the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman), charged with the protection of human rights in Ukraine, and that the Ombudsman can visit and have full access to all places where persons are deprived of liberty;

(g) The assurances given by the head of delegation that the reports of the three visits of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, which took place in 1998, 1999 and 2000, will be published.

C. Subjects of concern

57. The Committee expresses its concern about the following:

(a) The numerous instances indicating that torture is still being regularly practised in the State party and that, according to the Commissioner for Human Rights, 30 per cent of prisoners are victims of torture;

(b) The forced deportation of four Uzbek nationals, members of the Uzbek opposition, who were at high risk of being subjected to torture and whose case was the subject of an urgent appeal by the Special Rapporteur on torture;

(c) The fact that judges sit on the newly formed “coordination committees on crime fighting” together with representatives of the Ministry of the Interior, a situation which is contrary to the principle of the separation of powers and may affect the independence of the judiciary;

(d) The numerous convictions based on confessions and the criteria for the promotion of investigators which are said to include the number of solved crimes, which can lead to torture and ill-treatment of detainees or suspects to force them to “confess”;

(e) Failure on the part of the authorities to carry out prompt, impartial and thorough investigations into allegations of such acts and to prosecute and punish those responsible;

(f) The information received by the Committee that relatives and lawyers are informed about the detention only after the arrested person has been transferred from police custody to a pre-trial detention facility, a process that usually takes not less than two weeks. The Committee is also concerned about the lack of clear legal provisions about the exact time when a detained person can exercise his right to a defence counsel, a medical examination, and to inform a family member of his detention;

(g) The duration of pre-trial detention, which can last for up to 18 months according to the law but which in practice can be extended for up to three years, of administrative detention for up to 15 days, and of detention of “vagrants” for up to 30 days;

(h) Long-term prison sentences for the non-violent expression of ideas and information;

(i) Reported threats and harassment, including ill-treatment, of independent journalists and others who have raised allegations of abuses by officials;

(j) Overcrowding and lack of access to basic hygienic facilities and adequate medical care, as well as the high incidence of tuberculosis, in prisons and pre-trial detention centres;

(k) The lack of adequate training of police and prison personnel in their duties under the law and on the rights of detainees;

(l) Despite certain progress, the practise of bullying and hazing (dedovshchina) of young conscript soldiers is still widely practised in the armed forces.

D. Recommendations

58. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a) Take effective measures to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment in its territory, in view of the persistent reports that torture is still regularly practised;

(b) Deposit with the Secretary-General its declaration accepting the Committee’s competence with respect to articles 21 and 22 of the Convention and the removal of its reservation in regard to article 20;

(c) Ensure that its competent authorities strictly observe the principle enshrined in article 3 of the Convention not to expel, return or extradite a person to a State where he/she might be subject to torture;

(d) Establish its jurisdiction over offences of torture even if the offender is not a national of the State party, but is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and, where it does not exercise jurisdiction that it extradite the offender;

(e) Clarify and reconcile the sometimes contradictory provisions pertaining to the time at which a detained person has the right to a defence counsel and to ensure that this right is exercised from the moment of arrest;

(f) Ensure that there is a legal prohibition against carrying out interrogations of detainees without the presence of a defence counsel of his/her choice;

(g) Take appropriate measures to ensure the independence of the judiciary and counsel for defence, as well as the objectivity of the Procuracy, in the performance of their duties, in conformity with international standards;

(h) Ensure in practice absolute respect for the principle of the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through torture;

(i) Take effective steps to establish a fully independent complaints mechanism to ensure prompt, independent and full investigations into allegations of torture, including numerous detailed allegations received from various non-governmental organizations, both national and international;

(j) Take effective measures to improve conditions in prisons and pre-trial detention centres, including those relating to space, various facilities and sanitation, and establish a system of inspection of prisons and detention centres by independent monitors, whose findings should be published;

(k) Shorten the current 72-hour pre-trial detention period during which detainees may be held in isolation cells prior to being brought before a judge;

(l) Expedite the process of training of law enforcement and medical personnel as to their duty to respect the rights and dignity of persons deprived of liberty;

(m) Take effective measures to prevent and punish trafficking of women and other forms of violence against women;

(n) Adopt a more effective system to end the practise of bullying and hazing (dedovshchina) in the armed forces, through training and education, and prosecute and punish offenders;

(o) Establish a procedure for providing redress for victims of torture, including fair and adequate compensation;

(p) Continue the programme against tuberculosis in prisons and pre-trial detention centres;

(q) Widely disseminate the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, in all appropriate languages, in the country.

Zambia

59. The Committee considered the initial report of Zambia (CAT/C/47/Add.2) at its 494th and 497th meetings, held on 19 and 20 November 2001 (CAT/C/SR.494 and 497) and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

60. The Committee welcomes the report of Zambia and expresses appreciation for its frank and thorough approach. The Committee also welcomes the candid and comprehensive responses, of the high-level delegation to the questions raised during the dialogue.

B. Positive aspects

61. The Committee notes with satisfaction the following elements:

(a) The State party’s withdrawal of its reservation made with respect to article 20 of the Convention;

(b) The State party’s commitment to:

(i) Introduce a crime of torture in accordance with article 4 of the Convention;

(ii) Proceed urgently with appropriate legislation and other measures to ensure the incorporation of the Convention into domestic law;

(iii) Ensure the exclusion of confessions obtained by torture and to look into the issue of derivative evidence;

(iv) Make a declaration with respect to articles 21 and 22 of the Convention; and

(v) Remove the function of prosecution from the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP);

(c) The enactment of the Zambia Police (Amendment) Act (No. 14 of 1999) which provides measures to protect and monitor persons in police custody;

(d) The implementation of a Juvenile Justice Administration Transformation Scheme, which aims to improve the handling of juveniles within the criminal justice system;

(e) The legal prohibition of corporal punishment; and

(f) The creation of the Human Rights Commission.

C. Factors and difficulties impeding the application of the Convention

62. The Committee recognizes the difficulties that the State party has experienced in the political transition towards a democratic system of governance. It is similarly aware of the significant financial and technical constraints that the State party faces.

D. Subjects of concern

63. The Committee expresses concern about the continued allegations of widespread use of torture together with the apparent impunity enjoyed by its perpetrators.

64. The Committee notes with concern that the State party has neither incorporated the Convention into its legislation nor introduced corresponding provisions in respect of several articles, in particular:

(a) The definition of torture (art. 1);

(b) The criminalization of torture (art. 4);

(c) The prohibition of cruel punishment in the penal system (art. 16);

(d) Recognition of torture as an extraditable offence (art. 8);

(e) Systematic review of interrogation rules (art. 11); and

(f) Jurisdiction over acts of torture, including those committed abroad (art. 5).

65. Concern is also expressed regarding:

(a) The delay in investigating allegations of torture and in bringing suspects to timely trial;

(b) Poor prison conditions that affect the health of both inmates and wardens, in particular the lack of health care staff and medicines as well as serious overcrowding;

(c) The incidence of violence against women in society, which is illustrated by reported incidents of violence in prisons and domestic violence.

E. Recommendations

66. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a) Incorporate the Convention into its legal system;

(b) Adopt a definition of torture which is fully in keeping with article 1 of the Convention and provides for appropriate penalties;

(c) Take appropriate measures to ensure jurisdiction over crimes of torture, wherever they may occur;

(d) Undertake legal and other measures to address impunity and ensure that acts of torture are prosecuted to the full extent of the law and that complainants have access to legal advice as necessary;

(e) Undertake legal and other measures to ensure the systematic review of interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices;

(f) Strengthen training and educational programmes for law enforcement personnel on the prohibition of torture;

(g) Establish rehabilitation centres for victims of torture;

(h) Establish programmes to prevent and combat violence against women, including domestic violence; and

(i) Ensure the early and effective operation of the Police Public Complaints Authority.

67. While welcoming the Prisons (Amendment) Act which provides for the establishment of open air prisons, the Committee urges the State party to enhance initiatives to reduce overcrowding, increase the use of non-custodial sentences and generally improve detention facilities, especially because of the adverse effects on the health of inmates and prison staff.

Denmark

68. The Committee considered the fourth periodic report of Denmark (CAT/C/55/Add.2) at its 508th, 510th and 518th meetings, on 2, 3 and 10 May 2002 (CAT/C/SR.508, 510 and 518), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

69. The Committee welcomes the fourth periodic report of Denmark, which was submitted on time and in full conformity with the Committee’s guidelines for the preparation of periodic reports. In particular, the Committee welcomes the way the State party has addressed the Committee’s previous recommendations in a separate part of the report. The Committee also welcomes the fruitful and open dialogue between the representatives of the State party and itself.

B. Positive aspects

70. The Committee commends the State party for maintaining a high level of respect for human rights in general and for its obligations under the Convention in particular, as well as for the active role it plays internationally in the fight against torture.

71. The Committee welcomes the recommendation made by the Committee set up by the Ministry of Justice to incorporate three main United Nations human rights treaties, including the Convention, into Danish domestic law.

72. It also notes with satisfaction:

(a) The adoption of the Amendment to the Act on the Administration of Justice, which has greatly tightened the controls over the use of solitary confinement, decreasing its use as well as providing for judicial control over solitary confinement while in remand;

(b) The circulars of the National Commissioner of Police prescribing, inter alia, earlier access by family to detainees, mandatory medical examination of all persons placed in a detention cell, and access to a lawyer and an interpreter without delay;

(c) The adoption of legislation granting a more protective status to asylum seekers;

(d) The efforts made in educational programmes for the police;

(e) The multidisciplinary treatment of persons living in Denmark who have been victims of torture;

(f) The increase in the State party’s contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the continued support to national rehabilitation centres for torture victims.

C. Subjects of concern

73. The Committee is concerned about the following:

(a) The lack of a definition of torture, as provided in article 1 of the Convention, in the penal legislation of the State party and the lack of a specific offence of torture punishable by appropriate penalties, as required by article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

(b) The lack of effective recourse procedures against decisions imposing solitary confinement upon persons servicing sentences;

(c) The proposed amendment to the Alien’s Act, which may imply that aliens who have been refused a residence permit must leave the country immediately after the rejection of their application. If strictly applied, this will frustrate the effectiveness of article 22 of the Convention.

D. Recommendations

74. The Committee recommends that:

(a) The State party ensure the speedy implementation of the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee with regard to incorporating the Convention into Danish domestic law;

(b) Denmark establish adequate penal provisions to make torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention a punishable offence in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

(c) The State party continue to monitor the effects of solitary confinement on detainees and the effects of the new bill, which has reduced the number of grounds that can give rise to solitary confinement and its length;

(d) The law governing solitary confinement for convicted prisoners should establish adequate review mechanisms relating to its determination and duration;

(e) The State party ensure that the proposed amendment to the Aliens Act does not frustrate effective recourse by aliens to the Committee as provided in article 22 of the Convention;

(f) The State party widely disseminate the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, in all appropriate languages, in the country.

Luxembourg

75. The Committee considered the combined third and fourth periodic reports of Luxembourg (CAT/C/34/Add.14) at its 514th, 517th and 525th meetings, held on 7, 8 and 15 May 2002 (CAT/C/SR.514, 517 and 525), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

76. The Committee welcomes the third and fourth periodic reports of Luxembourg, which were combined in a single document following the Committee’s recommendation. The report was submitted on time and is in full conformity with the guidelines of the Committee for the preparation of State party periodic reports. The Committee compliments the State party for the excellent quality of its report and welcomes the fruitful and constructive dialogue with the highlevel delegation of the State party during its consideration.

B. Positive aspects

77. The Committee commends the State party for maintaining a high level of respect for human rights in general and for its obligations under the Convention in particular.

78. The Committee notes the following positive developments:

(a) That all matters of concern as well as previous recommendations of the Committee have been positively addressed in detail;

(b) That by the Act of 24 April 2000 torture has been incorporated into the Penal Code as a specific crime and an aggravating circumstance of a crime or offence against the person. Furthermore, the definition of torture is broadly based on the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention, and relates both to physical and psychological torture;

(c) The establishment of the Advisory Commission on Human Rights on 26 May 2000;

(d) The Act of 31 May 1999 establishing the Grand Ducal police force and the General Police Inspection Department, whose main objective is the merger of the Police and the Gendarmerie. The Act also criminalizes, inter alia, trafficking in persons;

(e) The Act of 14 May 2000 by which Luxembourg ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

C. Subjects of concern

79. The Committee expresses concern about the following:

(a) That minors ordered to be placed in disciplinary centres are put in adult prisons;

(b) The institution of solitary confinement, particularly as a preventive measure during pre-trial detention.

D. Recommendations

80. The Committee recommends that:

(a) The State party refrain from placing minors in adult prisons for disciplinary purposes;

(b) Solitary confinement be strictly and specifically regulated by law and that judicial supervision be strengthened, so that this punishment is applied only in severe circumstances, with a view to its abolition, particularly during pre-trial detention;

(c) The State party consider making provision for appropriate compensation specifically for victims of torture;

(d) The Committee’s conclusions and recommendations be widely disseminated in the State party in all appropriate languages.

Norway

81. The Committee considered the fourth periodic report of Norway (CAT/C/55/Add.4) at its 511th, 514th and 519th meetings, on 6, 7 and 10 May 2002 (CAT/C/SR.511, 514 and 519), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

82. The Committee welcomes the fourth periodic report of Norway, which was submitted on time and is in full conformity with the guidelines of the Committee for the preparation of State party periodic reports. The Committee compliments the State party for ensuring periodicity of reports in a timely manner and welcomes the fruitful and constructive dialogue with the State party.

B. Positive aspects

83. The Committee commends the State party for maintaining a high level of respect for human rights in general and for the positive record in the implementation of the provisions of the Convention.

84. The Committee notes with satisfaction:

(a) The adoption of a Plan of Action for Human Rights for the period 2000-2004, as part of the follow-up to the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, indicating, inter alia, measures aiming at the further implementation of the Convention in Norwegian legislation;

(b) The issuance of guidelines on the notification of arrest to relatives and lawyers, as well as concerning the right to access to health care for persons in police custody;

(c) The proposal to incorporate a new provision into the Penal Code that will prohibit and penalize torture, in conformity with article 1 of the Convention;

(d) The proposals made for an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act to reduce the overall use of solitary confinement and to strengthen its judicial supervision by means of legal regulation and limitation;

(e) The research undertaken to evaluate the quality of investigations carried out by the Special Investigative Bodies;

(f) The regularity and generosity of donations made by the State party to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture;

(g) The high percentage of women among members of the judiciary, police force and prison staff.

C. Subjects of concern

85. The Committee continues to be concerned about the use of pre-trial solitary confinement.

D. Recommendations

86. The Committee recommends that:

(a) Appropriate legislation introducing the offence of torture into the Norwegian penal system in conformity with article 1 of the Convention be enacted, in accordance with the above-mentioned proposal. It requests that information in this regard be included in the next periodic report of Norway;

(b) Information on steps taken to respond to the Committee’s ongoing concern about the use of pre-trial solitary confinement be included in the State party’s next periodic report;

(c) Information on the outcome of the proposals for amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act on the issue of solitary confinement be included in the State party’s next periodic report;

(d) Information on the proposed amendments to the Alien Act on the basis of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) on international cooperation to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts also be included in Norway’s next periodic report;

(e) The Committee’s conclusions and recommendations be widely disseminated in the country in all appropriate languages.

Russian Federation

87. The Committee considered the third periodic report of the Russian Federation (CAT/C/34/Add.15) at its 520th, 523rd and 526th meetings, held on 13, 14 and 16 May 2002 (CAT/C/SR.520, 523 and 526), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

88. The Committee welcomes the third periodic report of the Russian Federation, which was submitted with a delay. The report responds directly to some of the concerns and recommendations expressed by the Committee in its conclusions adopted in 1996. The Committee regrets that despite the State party’s assurances that it would promptly provide the Committee with additional information requested in the review, such materials have not been received. The Committee appreciates the updated and detailed information as well as the extensive responses provided by the representatives of the State party in the oral update and reply. The Committee notes, however, that, because of a lack of time, many of the questions asked by the Committee in the review of the third periodic report remained unanswered.

B. Positive aspects

89. The Committee notes the following positive developments:

(a) The ratification of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

(b) The introduction of a new Criminal Code and a new Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the State party’s assurances that all of the latter Code will enter into force on 1 July 2002. The Committee welcomes the introduction in the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, jury trials, stricter limits on detention and interrogation, provisions for exclusion of evidence obtained in the absence of a defence lawyer, and the conferral authority of a judge rather than a procurator to order an arrest.

(c) Transfer of the penal correction system from the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the authority of the Ministry of Justice;

(d) Measures introduced to improve conditions of detention in prisons and to reduce overcrowding;

(e) Assurances by the representative of the State party that alternative service, and a “voluntary military on a contract basis” would be introduced to replace mandatory conscription into the armed forces;

(f) The Procurator General’s Order No. 46, which requires the presence of representatives of the Prosecutor’s Office during “special operations” carried out in Chechnya, and Order No. 80 of the Commander of the Federal Forces of the North Caucasus, requiring troops to identify themselves, record detentions, notify relatives, and take other measures to safeguard civilians from abuse;

(g) The setting up of a special working group within the Ministry of Internal Affairs with a mandate to bring national legislation into conformity with international refugee law.

C. Factors and difficulties

90. The Committee appreciates the frank explanations provided by the delegation regarding the difficulties still faced by the State party in overcoming the inheritance of a system characterized by “arbitrariness and impunity” and in building and strengthening democratic institutions and the rule of law. It notes that these challenges are compounded by “acts of terrorism” and threats to security. Nonetheless, the Committee reiterates that, in accordance with article 2 of the Convention, “no exceptional circumstance whatsoever ... may be invoked as a justification of torture”.

D. Subjects of concern

91. The Committee is deeply concerned over the following:

(a) Numerous and consistent allegations of widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees committed by law enforcement personnel, commonly with a view to obtaining confessions;

(b) Continuing reports, despite the State party’s considerable efforts to initiate dialogue and preventive safeguards such as a “hotline” for victims, of widespread “hazing” (dedovshchina) in the military, as well as torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the armed forces, conducted by or with the consent or approval of officers, resulting in severe physical and mental harm to the victims;

(c) A persistent pattern of impunity for torture and other ill-treatment benefiting both civil and military officials, a lack of reported decisions by judges to dismiss or return a case for further investigation citing the use of torture to obtain a confession, and the very small number of persons convicted of violations of the Convention.

92. The Committee also expresses its concern about the following:

(a) The failure to define torture in domestic law in conformity with article 1 of the Convention. The designation of torture as an aggravating circumstance for some enumerated crimes does not satisfy the requirements of articles 1 and 4 of the Convention;

(b) The numerous cases of convictions based on confessions and the law enforcement promotion system based on the percentage of crimes solved, which, taken together, reportedly create conditions that promote the use of torture and ill-treatment to force detainees to “confess”;

(c) The lack of adequate access for persons deprived of liberty, immediately after they are apprehended, to counsel, doctor and family members, an all-important safeguard against torture;

(d) The de facto refusal of judges to take account of evidence of torture and illtreatment provided by the accused, resulting in the common to either investigate or prosecute such cases;

(e) The explanation by the State party that, despite numerous allegations of violence against women in custody, no formal complaint has been received on this issue. Despite the State party’s efforts to release prisoners and reduce their number in general, the population of women in custody has doubled in the past decade;

(f) The lack of practical training about obligations under the Convention for doctors, law enforcement personnel and judges, and the military;

(g) Distressing conditions of pre-trial detention, including the prevalence of tuberculosis and other diseases, as well as the poor and unsupervised conditions of detention in IVS (temporary police detention), and SIZOs (pre-trial establishment) facilities, including the practice of placing metal shutters in front of cell windows, preventing natural light and ventilation in the cells, reportedly because, by law, inmates are prohibited from communicating with one another;

(h) The insufficient level of independence and effectiveness of the Procuracy, due, as recognized by the State party, to the problems posed by the dual responsibility of the Procuracy for prosecution and oversight of the proper conduct of investigations;

(i) Reports of conditions amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment, of children in institutions or places of detention;

(j) A lack of safeguards to ensure that persons are not returned to countries where they face a real risk of torture (non-refoulement).

93. The Committee is particularly concerned over the following: in connection with the events in Chechnya:

(a) Numerous, ongoing reports of severe violations of human rights and the Convention, including arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, including forced confessions, extrajudicial killings, and forced disappearances, particularly during “special operations” or “sweeps”, and the creation of illegal temporary detention centres, including “filtration camps”. Allegations of brutal sexual violence are unusually common. Additionally, armed units which are reported to be very brutal towards civilians have been sent again into the conflict area;

(b) Numerous armed units and forces operating under the authority of various departments and services in Chechnya, which hinder the identification of the personnel responsible for the reported abusive actions cited above;

(c) A lack of effective implementation of Orders Nos. 46 and 80, as referred to above among the positive aspects;

(d) The dual system of jurisdiction in Chechnya involving both military and civilian prosecutors and courts, which leads to long and unacceptable delays in registering cases, resulting in a cyclical process whereby case information and the responsibility for opening investigations continue to be passed from one official to another and back, without resulting in the initiation of prosecutions. The Committee notes with concern that it is impossible for the civil prosecutor to question military personnel and carry out investigations at military sites in order to collect the evidence required to oblige the military prosecutor’s office to take up the case. Also of concern is the insufficient independence of military courts, prosecutors and judges, with the result that few cases are registered to prosecute officials alleged to be responsible for the abuses.

E. Recommendations

94. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a) Promptly incorporate into domestic law the definition of torture as contained in article 1 of the Convention and characterize torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as specific crimes with appropriate penalties in domestic law;

(b) Adopt measures to permit detainees access to a lawyer, doctor, and family members from the time they are taken into custody; inform suspects and witnesses of their rights at the beginning of detention; and ensure that legal assistance and a doctor will be provided at the request of detained persons rather than solely when permitted by officials. Urgent consideration should be given to making a medical examination compulsory for persons when they enter IVS and SIZOs, and to the establishment of a health service independent from the Ministries of Internal Affairs and Justice to conduct such examinations;

(c) Ensure in practice absolute respect for the principle of the inadmissibility of evidence obtained by torture and review cases of convictions based solely on confessions, recognizing that many of them may have been obtained through torture or ill-treatment, and, as appropriate, provide compensation to and release persons presenting credible evidence of having been tortured or ill-treated;

(d) Improve conditions in prisons and pre-trial detention centres so that they are in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The State party should ensure, in particular, that the prohibition of communication between inmates in pre-trial detention is not imposed on all inmates without distinction, but limited to identified inmates, when necessary and on the basis of a court decision setting a time limit for such conditions of detention;

(e) Establish a programme of unannounced inspections of pre-trial detention centres and other places of confinement, by credible impartial investigators, whose findings should be made public;

(f) Consider the creation of an independent body to inspect prisons, monitor all forms of violence in custody, including sexual violence against both men and women, and all forms of inter-prisoner violence, including proxy violence with the acquiescence of officials. The participation of public defenders in the investigation stage following detention would offer a safeguard for detainees;

(g) Ensure training about obligations under the Convention for (i) doctors to detect signs of torture or ill-treatment of persons who have been or are in custody, (ii) law enforcement personnel and judges to initiate prompt and impartial investigations, and (iii) military personnel to be aware of the prohibition of torture and that an order from a superior officer may not be invoked as a justification of torture;

(h) Request the Supreme Court to analyse the existing practices of the admissibility of cases of torture in the courts, in light of the definition of torture provided in article 1 of the Convention, and consider issuing guidelines on this matter;

(i) Ensure prompt, impartial and full investigations into the many allegations of torture reported to the authorities and the prosecution and punishment, as appropriate, of perpetrators, as well as the protection of persons who complain of torture and their witnesses from retaliation;

(j) Distribute and ensure implementation of appropriate instructions to all relevant officials on the prohibition of ill-treatment and acts of torture against children in institutions and prisons under the jurisdiction of the State;

(k) Ensure that no person is expelled, returned or extradited to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

95. With regard to the situation in Chechnya, the Committee also recommends that the State party:

(a) Clarify the jurisdiction over the events in Chechnya, which currently have an uncertain status, as there is no state of exception and there is also a non-international armed conflict in progress. Such clarification could provide individuals with an effective means of seeking redress for any violations committed, so they will not be caught in a vicious circle of various military and civilian departments and agencies with differing degrees of responsibility;

(b) While a number of mechanisms have been put in place in Chechnya in connection with allegations of human rights violations, none has possessed the attributes associated with an independent impartial investigating body. Accordingly, the Committee reiterates its 1996 conclusion calling upon the Government of the State party to establish a credible impartial and “independent committee to investigate allegations of breaches of the Convention by the military forces of the Russian Federation and Chechen separatists, with a view to bringing to justice those against whom there is evidence that establishes their involvement or complicity in such acts” (A/52/44, para. 43 (h));

(c) Ensure the effective implementation of Orders Nos. 46 and 80 and elaborate comprehensive guidelines on the conduct of sweep operations;

(d) Strengthen the powers of the Special Representative of the President for human and civil rights and freedoms in Chechnya to conduct investigations and make recommendations to the prosecutor as to possible criminal cases;

(e) Take steps to ensure civilian control over the army and ensure, in practice, that hazing, torture and ill-treatment are prohibited in the military, among conscripts and officers;

(f) Consider the formation of a joint investigative group of both military and civilian procuracy officials until specific responsibility can be identified and jurisdiction can be established.

96. The Committee further recommends that the State party:

(a) Provide requested data to the Committee, including information disaggregated, inter alia, by age, gender, ethnicity and geography, on civil, military and other places of detention as well as on juvenile detention centres and other relevant institutions; and provide information in the next periodic report regarding the number, types and results of cases of punishment of police and other law enforcement personnel for torture and related offences, including those rejected by the court;

(b) Widely disseminate the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee and the summary records of the review, in appropriate languages, in the country; and consider consulting with independent human rights, civil liberties and legal aid organizations and public defenders groups in the preparation of the next report.

Saudi Arabia

97. The Committee considered the initial periodic report of Saudi Arabia (CAT/C/42/Add.2) at its 516th, 519th, 521st and 524th meetings, on 8, 10, 13 and 15 May 2002 (CAT/C/SR.516, 519, 521 and 524), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

98. The Committee welcomes the submission of the initial report, although it regrets the delay in submission and the paucity of information on the practical enjoyment in Saudi Arabia of the rights conferred by the Convention. It generally conforms to the Committee’s reporting guidelines. The Committee also welcomes the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with a large delegation covering many matters arising under the Convention, which was enhanced by the extensive oral report.

B. Positive aspects

99. The Committee welcomes the following:

(a) The State party’s accession to the Convention against Torture on 23 September 1997, as well as its accession to several other core human rights treaties and its expressed intention to ratify the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. The Committee also welcomes the State party’s declaration that its domestic law, including its components based upon Shariah, is capable of giving full recognition to the rights and obligations contained in the Convention;

(b) Legal developments designed to enhance the rule of law and the proper administration of justice that have occurred since the preparation of the report, such as aspects of the newly promulgated Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure and Code of Practice for Lawyers. The Committee welcomes, in particular, that the Code of Criminal Procedure guarantees every accused person the right to avail himself or herself of the services of a lawyer at all stages of an investigation and trial;

(c) The State party’s expression that its domestic law provides that no exceptional circumstances, including superior orders, may be invoked as a defence to a charge of torture, the reassurance that statements obtained by torture are inadmissible in proceedings, and the oral assurance that confessions are revocable at any point of proceedings. The State party’s reassurance that corporal punishments are not imposed upon minors was noted;

(d) The competence of the Board of Grievances to hear allegations of violations of human rights, and that certain medical facilities possess appropriate forensic medical expertise for examination of alleged victims of torture. The Committee welcomes the establishment of a standing commission to investigate accusations concerning the subjection of any person to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment during the arrest, detention and investigation of suspects;

(e) The State party’s invitation to the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the independence of judges and lawyers to examine its law, policy and practice in this field.

C. Subjects of concern

100. The Committee is concerned about the following:

(a) While noting the State party’s indication that Shariah expressly prohibits torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, the State party’s domestic law itself does not explicitly reflect this prohibition, nor does it impose criminal sanctions. The Committee considers that express incorporation in the State party’s domestic law of the crime of torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, is necessary to signal the cardinal importance of this prohibition;

(b) The sentencing to, and imposition of, corporal punishments by judicial and administrative authorities, including, in particular, flogging and amputation of limbs, that are not in conformity with the Convention;

(c) The different regimes applicable, in law and in practice, to nationals and foreigners in relation to their legal rights to be free from, and their ability to complain of, conduct in violation of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the Convention and its protections are applicable to all acts in violation of the Convention that occur within its jurisdiction, from which it follows that all persons are entitled, in equal measure and without discrimination, to the rights contained therein;

(d) Allegations of prolonged pre-trial detention of some individuals beyond the statutory limits prescribed by law, which heightens the risk of, and may on occasion of itself constitute, conduct in violation of the Convention. In this connection, the Committee expresses its concern at instances of denial, at times for extended periods, of consular access to detained foreigners. Moreover, the Committee is concerned at the limited degree of judicial supervision of pre-trial detention;

(e) Reports of incommunicado detention of detained persons, at times for extended periods, particularly during pre-trial investigations. The lack of access to external legal advice and medical assistance, as well as to family members, increases the likelihood that conduct violating the Convention will not be appropriately pursued and punished;

(f) The requirement of article 100 of the statute of the Directorate of Public Security for an investigating officer to endeavour “by judicious means” to ascertain the reasons for an individual’s silence. While the article in question formally proscribes resort to torture or coercion, such a requirement unjustifiably heightens the risk of conduct violating the Convention;

(g) Cases of deportation of foreigners that have been drawn to the Committee’s attention that seem to have been in breach of the obligations imposed by article 3 of the Convention;

(h) The jurisdiction of the Mutawe’en officials to pursue, inter alia, violations of the moral code and to proscribe conduct they identify as not conducive to public morality and safety. The Committee is concerned that the powers of these officials are vaguely defined by law, and that their activities may violate the Convention;

(i) The apparent failure of the State party to provide effective mechanisms to investigate complaints of breaches of the Convention;

(j) While noting the State party’s institution of mechanisms for the purpose of providing compensation for conduct in violation of the Convention, as a practical matter, compensation appears to be rarely obtained, and accordingly full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the Convention is consequently limited.

D. Recommendations

101. The Committee recommends, in particular, that the State party:

(a) Expressly incorporate within its domestic law a crime of torture in terms that are consistent with article 1 of the Convention;

(b) Re-examine its imposition of corporal punishments, which are in breach of the Convention;

(c) Ensure that its laws are in practice applied to all persons, regardless of nationality, gender, religious affiliation or other distinction, insofar as issues arising under the Convention are concerned;

(d) Ensure that all places of detention or imprisonment conform to standards sufficient to guarantee that no person is thereby subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

(e) Ensure that its law and practice reflect the obligations imposed by article 3 of the Convention;

(f) Ensure that all persons who have been victims of a violation of their rights under the Convention have access, in law as well as in practice, to the means of obtaining full redress, including compensation, and that the persons who may be responsible for such violations are promptly and impartially investigated, and thereupon punished;

(g) Ensure that its Mutawe’en officials exercise a clear and precise jurisdiction, in conformity with the Convention and other applicable rules of non-discrimination, in a manner regulated by law and subject to review by ordinary judicial authority;

(h) Ensure, in practice, that persons detained in custody are able to exercise prompt access to legal and medical expertise of choice, to family members and, in the case of foreign nationals, to consular personnel;

(i) Ensure that the composition of the judiciary fully conforms to the standards imposed by the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary;

(j) Ensure that its training of law enforcement personnel includes education and information on the recognition of the physical consequences of torture consistent with that provided to a number of its medical personnel, in accordance with article 10 of the Convention;

(k) Adopt adequate measures to permit the creation of independent non-governmental organizations and the development of their activities in the area of the defence of human rights;

(l) Provide data in the next periodic report disaggregated, inter alia, by age, gender, ethnicity, nationality, geography and other status, on persons who are deprived of their liberty in prisons or elsewhere, or who are otherwise sanctioned where they may be vulnerable to acts in breach of the Convention, and the results of any cases of prosecution or sanction of police or other officials for acts prohibited by the Convention;

(m) Consider making the declaration under article 22 of the Convention; and

(n) Widely disseminate the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, in all appropriate languages, in the country.

Sweden

102. The Committee considered the fourth periodic report of Sweden (CAT/C/55/Add.3) at its 504th and 507th meetings, held on 30 April and 1 May 2002 (CAT/C/SR.504 and 507), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

103. The Committee welcomes with satisfaction the fourth periodic report of Sweden, which was submitted to the Committee before the target date, and was drawn up in keeping with the Committee’s guidelines for drafting of reports.

104. The Committee welcomes the additional information supplied by the delegation of Sweden, both orally and in writing, demonstrating the State party’s willingness to continue a frank and open dialogue with the Committee. The Committee also underlines the efforts made by the delegation to reply to its questions in an exhaustive manner.

B. Positive aspects

105. The Committee emphasizes with satisfaction the strong and steadfast commitment to human rights manifested by Sweden and the positive responses to the Committee’s earlier recommendations. It welcomes in particular the following:

(a) The adoption of a national action plan for human rights for the years 20022004, as part of the follow-up to the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, featuring as a priority topic the issue of international protection against persecution and torture. The Committee welcomes with satisfaction the plan of the Swedish authorities to translate the conclusions and recommendations of the six United Nations treaty monitoring bodies and to distribute them in municipalities;

(b) The setting up, in December 2000, of a special commission to study the manner in which the criminal investigation into the 1995 death in detention of Osmo Vallo was carried out. The Committee notes in particular that the “Osmo Vallo Commission” published its conclusions and recommendations in April 2002, and that they have been submitted to the Ministry of Justice;

(c) The establishment, in December 2000, of an official parliamentary committee to determine whether the existing framework for handling allegations of criminal actions by the police is satisfactory;

(d) The establishment of an official committee entrusted with the task of investigating the actions of the police during the events in Göteborg, and determining what steps the police should take on the occasion of public demonstrations to protect public order as well as the fundamental right to demonstrate;

(e) The setting up of a special commission to review legislation and case law relating to the application of decisions concerning expulsion from Swedish territory, especially in relation to allegations that individuals have been expelled to countries with which they have no significant ties;

(f) The many studies and projects under way aimed at enhancing the domestic legal system for the protection of human rights, in particular the jurisdiction of Swedish courts regarding international offences committed abroad, and the improvement of the procedure relating to requests for asylum;

(g) The assurance given by the Swedish authorities that they have acted in accordance with the Committee’s observations concerning individual complaints and the State party’s obligation not to send certain persons back to countries where there is a risk that they might be tortured. The Committee also welcomes the fact that the Alien Act contains a provision which will enable the Swedish immigration authorities to base their decisions directly on observations made by international bodies.

C. Subjects of concern

106. While the specific arrangements for giving effect to the Convention in the domestic legal system are left to the discretion of each State party, the means used must be appropriate, that is, they should produce results which indicate that the State party has fully discharged its obligations. Sweden has opted for the dualistic system as regards incorporation of international treaties into domestic law, and should therefore adopt appropriate legislation for the incorporation of the Convention against Torture. The Committee notes that Swedish domestic law does not contain a definition of torture in keeping with article 1 of the Convention. Above all, neither torture nor cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are identified as specific crimes and offences in domestic criminal law.

107. The Committee also records its concern at the following:

(a) The allegation that some foreigners have been expelled or sent back to a country with which they have no significant ties, on the basis, inter alia, of linguistic criteria which are sometimes unsystematic, unreliable, and could lead to a breach of article 3 of the Convention;

(b) The Special Control of Foreigners Act, known as the anti-terrorism law, allows foreigners suspected of terrorism to be expelled under a procedure which might not be in keeping with the Convention, because there is no provision for appeal;

(c) Several cases of the excessive use of force by police personnel and prison guards, leading to the death of the persons concerned, have occurred in recent years in Sweden. In addition, the year 2001 was marked by the Göteborg riots, following which many complaints of ill-treatment were made;

(d) Allegations of imprecise, often subjective and inadequate guidelines and lack of training given to police personnel and prison guards regarding the use of force;

(e) Although the periodic report claims that statements obtained under duress cannot be used as evidence in proceedings, there seems to be no legislative rule which clearly spells out such a prohibition.

D. Recommendations

108. The Committee recommends that the State party should:

(a) Incorporate in its domestic law the definition of torture set out in article 1 of the Convention, and should characterize acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as specific crimes, punishable by appropriate sanctions;

(b) Ensure that if foreigners are sent back, they are expelled to a country of their choice, or a country with which they have real ties and where there is no substantial ground for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture;

(c) Bring the Special Control of Foreigners Act into line with the Convention;

(d) Strengthen the machinery for following up the guarantees of proper treatment offered by States to which foreigners are expelled;

(e) Undertake more comprehensive and detailed investigations into the human rights situation in the countries of origin of asylum-seekers;

(f) Ensure that all allegations of violations committed by police personnel and prison guards, and in particular any death in detention, are investigated promptly and impartially. Due attention should be paid to the conclusions and recommendations of the “Osmo Vallo Commission”;

(g) Strengthen the human rights education programmes intended for police personnel, prison guards and other law enforcement officers, as well as training programmes relating to the application of the Handbook of Police Procedures and Actions of Self-Defence;

(h) Ensure that the prohibition on the use of statements obtained by torture as evidence in proceedings is clearly formulated in domestic law.

109. The Committee recommends that the State party include in its fifth periodic report a summary of the conclusions and recommendations drawn up by the above-mentioned national commissions and committees, and indicate how they have been followed up.

110. The Committee also recommends that the State party disseminate widely the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, in all appropriate languages, in the country.

Uzbekistan

111. The Committee considered the second periodic report of Uzbekistan (CAT/C/53/Add.1) at its 506th, 509th and 518th meetings, held on 1, 2 and 8 May 2002 (CAT/C/SR.506, 509 and 518), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

112. The Committee welcomes the second report of Uzbekistan, which was submitted on time and in accordance with the Committee’s previous request. It appreciates the substantial information on the many reforms aimed at bringing domestic legislation into harmony with the State party’s obligations under the Convention. While noting that there was little information in the report on the implementation of the Convention in practice, the Committee wishes to express its appreciation for the informative oral update given by the representatives of the State party during the consideration of the report, and the State party’s willingness to provide further information and relevant statistics in writing.

B. Positive aspects

113. The Committee notes the following positive developments:

(a) The ratification of several significant human rights treaties and the enactment of many laws aimed at bringing the legislation into conformity with the obligations in those treaties;

(b) Educational initiatives taken by the State party to familiarize various sectors with international human rights standards, and the extensive efforts made to cooperate with international organizations to promote understanding of human rights, including by inviting technical cooperation from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights;

(c) The State party’s reports of its efforts to draw up a new definition of torture that is consistent with the definition in article 1 of the Convention, and the introduction of a draft law in the parliament to allow citizen’s complaints in matters of torture;

(d) Assurances from the representative of the State party that the State is determined to establish an independent judiciary;

(e) The report by the representative of the State party of the establishment of an appeals system for court sentences and the introduction of alternatives to prison sentences, releasing detainees on bail;

(f) The information conveyed by the State party’s representative that responses were being developed to the findings of an official study into complaints filed with the Ombudsman’s Office that had revealed a number of questionable judicial convictions, incidents of torture or illtreatment by law enforcement officials, and inadequate supervision of the application of human rights norms by law enforcement agencies;

(g) The prosecution and sentencing in January 2002 of four police officials to prison terms for torture, and the statement by the State party’s representative that this was a turning point signalling the State party’s commitment to enforce the prohibition against torture in practice.

C. Factors and difficulties impeding the application of the Convention

114. The Committee is aware of the difficulty of overcoming the inheritance of a totalitarian system in the transition towards a democratic form of governance, and that this is compounded by instability in the region. Nonetheless, the Committee stresses that such circumstances cannot be invoked as a justification of torture.

D. Subjects of concern

115. The Committee expresses concern about the following:

(a) The particularly numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations of particularly brutal acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment committed by law enforcement personnel;

(b) The lack of adequate access for persons deprived of liberty, immediately after they are apprehended, to independent counsel, a doctor or medical examiner and family members, an important safeguard against torture;

(c) The insufficient level of independence and effectiveness of the procuracy, in particular as the Procurator has the competence to exercise oversight on the appropriateness of the duration of pre-trial detention, which can be extended up to 12 months;

(d) A lack of practical training for (i) doctors in the detection of signs of torture or illtreatment of persons who have been or are in custody, and (ii) law enforcement personnel and judges in initiating prompt and impartial investigations;

(e) The insufficient independence of the judiciary;

(f) The de facto refusal of judges to take account of evidence of torture and illtreatment provided by the accused, so that there are neither investigations nor prosecutions;

(g) The fact that the definition of torture in the Criminal Code of the State party is incomplete and, therefore, not in full conformity with article 1 of the Convention;

(h) The numerous cases of convictions based on confessions, and the continued use of the criterion of “solved crimes” as the basis for promotion of law enforcement personnel, which, taken together, create conditions that promote the use of torture and ill-treatment to force detainees to “confess”;

(i) The absence of transparency in the criminal justice system and the lack of publicly available statistics on detainees, complaints about torture, and the number and results of investigations into such complaints; moreover, the State party has not provided the information requested in connection with the initial report reviewed in November 1999 regarding the number of persons detained and the number executed after being sentenced to death;

(j) The extradition or expulsion of individuals, including those seeking asylum in Uzbekistan, to countries where they may be exposed to the risk of torture.

E. Recommendations

116. The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a) Proceed promptly with plans to review the proposals to amend its domestic penal law to include the crime of torture fully consistent with the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention and supported by an adequate penalty;

(b) Take urgent and effective steps: (i) to establish a fully independent complaints mechanism, outside the procuracy, for persons who are held in official custody; and (ii) to ensure prompt, impartial and full investigations into the many allegations of torture reported to the authorities, and the prosecution and punishment, as appropriate, of perpetrators;

(c) Ensure that those who complain of torture and their witnesses are protected from retaliation;

(d) Ensure in practice absolute respect for the principle of the inadmissibility of evidence obtained by torture;

(e) Take measures to establish and ensure the independence of the judiciary in the performance of their duties in conformity with international standards, notably the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary;

(f) Adopt measures to permit detainees access to a lawyer, a doctor and family members from the time they are taken into custody and ensure that doctors will be provided at the request of detained persons without the need to obtain the permission of prison officials; and maintain a register with the names of all detainees, the times at which such notifications of lawyers, doctors and family members have taken place and the results of medical examinations; this register should be accessible to the lawyers and others as appropriate;

(g) Improve conditions in prisons and pre-trial detention centres, and establish a system allowing for unannounced inspections of those places by credible impartial investigators, whose findings should be made public. The State party should also take steps to shorten the current pre-trial detention period and provide independent judicial oversight of the period and conditions of pre-trial detention. Furthermore, the order for an arrest should be made only by a court;

(h) Ensure that law enforcement, judicial, medical and other personnel who are involved in custody, interrogation, treatment or who otherwise come into contact with detainees are trained with regard to the prohibition of torture and that the requalification procedure (“reattestation”) of those personnel include both verification of an awareness of the Convention’s requirements and a review of their records in treating detainees;

(i) Consider further steps to transfer the prison system from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice, thereby advancing the conditions of the penitentiary system in accordance with the Convention;

(j) Review cases of convictions based solely on confessions in the period since Uzbekistan became a party to the Convention, recognizing that many of these may have been based upon evidence obtained through torture or ill-treatment, and, as appropriate, provide prompt and impartial investigations and take appropriate remedial measures;

(k) Ensure in the legislation and in practice that no one will be expelled, returned or extradited to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture;

(l) Consider making the declarations under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention;

(m) Provide data in the next periodic report, disaggregated, inter alia, by age, gender, ethnicity and geography, on civil and military places of detention as well as on juvenile detention centres and other institutions where individuals may be vulnerable to torture or ill-treatment under the Convention; provide information in the next periodic report regarding the number, types and results of cases, both disciplinary and criminal, of police and other law enforcement personnel accused of torture and related offences;

(n) Widely disseminate the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations and the summary records of the review of the State party’s reports, including to law enforcement officials, in the public media and through popularization efforts by non-governmental organizations;

(o) Consider consulting directly with independent non-governmental human rights organizations in the preparation of the next periodic report.

IV. ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 20
OF THE CONVENTION

A. General information

117. In accordance with article 20, paragraph 1, of the Convention, if the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State party, the Committee shall invite that State party to cooperate in the examination of the information and, to this end, to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.

118. In accordance with rule 69 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the Secretary-General shall bring to the attention of the Committee information which is, or appears to be, submitted for the Committee’s consideration under article 20, paragraph 1, of the Convention. No information shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State party which, in accordance with article 28, paragraph 1, of the Convention, declared at the time of ratification of or accession to the Convention that it did not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20, unless that State party has subsequently withdrawn its reservation in accordance with article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

119. The Committee’s work under article 20 of the Convention continued during the period under review.

120. In accordance with the provisions of article 20 and rules 72 and 73 of the rules of procedure, all documents and proceedings of the Committee relating to its functions under article 20 of the Convention are confidential and all the meetings concerning its proceedings under that article are closed.

121. However, in accordance with article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Committee may, after consultations with the State party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report to the States parties and to the General Assembly.

122. Such a summary account is herewith provided in connection with Sri Lanka.

B. Summary account of the results of the proceedings concerning the
inquiry on Sri Lanka

1. Introduction

123. Sri Lanka acceded to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 3 January 1994. At the time of accession it did not declare that it did not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20 of the Convention. The possibility of making such a declaration is provided for in article 28, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The procedure under article 20 is therefore applicable to Sri Lanka.

124. The confidential inquiry provided for in article 20 began in April 1999 and ended in May 2002. In accordance with article 20, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Committee, after holding consultations with the State party concerned decided, at its twenty-eighth session, to include in its annual report to the General Assembly in 2002 the following summary of the results of the inquiry on Sri Lanka.

2. Development of the procedure

125. On 21 July 1998, five non-governmental organizations based in London, namely, the British Refugee Council, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the Refugee Legal Centre, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Refugee Legal Group, submitted information on alleged systematic practice of torture in Sri Lanka to the Committee.

126. The Committee examined the information received at its twenty-first session in November 1998. It concluded that the information was reliable and that it contained wellfounded indications that torture was being systematically practised in the territory of Sri Lanka. In accordance with article 20, paragraph 1, of the Convention and rule 76 of its rules of procedure, the Committee decided to invite Sri Lanka to cooperate in its examination of the information and to submit observations in that regard by 1 February 1999. The Government of Sri Lanka submitted its observations on the date set by the Committee.

127. At its twenty-second session, from 26 April to 14 May 1999, the Committee, after having examined the observations made by the State party, reaffirmed that the information available to it provided well-founded indications that torture was being systematically practised in Sri Lanka. Accordingly, it decided to undertake an inquiry and to designate for that purpose Mr. Mavrommatis and Mr. Yu Mengjia. In communicating its decision, the Committee also requested the Government of Sri Lanka to agree to a visit of the two Committee members designated for the inquiry by January 2000.

128. The Government confirmed its acceptance of the visit but requested a postponement due to the heavy schedule of work of the political and military authorities caused by the aggravation of the internal conflict opposing the Sri Lankan armed forces and the members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in the northern and eastern parts of the country.

129. The visit finally took place from 19 August to 1 September 2000. The members of the Committee concentrated their activities in Colombo, but also travelled to Kandy, Matale, Dambulla, Panadura and Kalutara in order to visit detention places. However, for security reasons they were not able to visit the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka where the armed conflict raged and where many allegations of torture had been reported. During the visit, Mr. Mavrommatis and Mr. Yu Mengjia held 12 meetings with government officials and visited 16 places of detention. The Government gave full support to the visit and was cooperative at all times.

130. Very useful meetings were held with locally based senior officials of the United Nations system who assisted the Committee in understanding the context and background within which allegations of torture could be examined. The two Committee members also held numerous meetings with non-governmental organizations, lawyers and medical doctors dealing with cases of torture. Interviews with alleged torture victims were also conducted.

131. Initial observations and recommendations were made by the Committee members at the wrap-up meeting held with government officials on 31 August 2000. On 6 November 2000 the State party provided a reply concerning the implementation of the initial recommendations.

132. The two members reported on their visit to the Committee at its twenty-fifth session (1324 November 2000). The Committee unanimously expressed satisfaction with the manner in which Sri Lanka had so far cooperated in the inquiry and endorsed the suggestions made by the members conducting the inquiry that: (a) it would be premature to make a final assessment and to transmit the conclusions of the inquiry at that stage; and (b) it would be more productive to continue the cooperation between the Committee and the Government of Sri Lanka within the framework of the inquiry so as to encourage the Government to take concrete measures to achieve full respect of its obligations under the Convention.

133. In this context, by letter dated 24 November 2000 the preliminary recommendations that the Committee addressed to the Government to assist it in its efforts to improve the implementation of the Convention were transmitted, and the Government was requested to inform the Committee of the action undertaken with regard to those recommendations. The Government provided detailed information concerning the implementation of the preliminary recommendations by communications dated 28 March 2001, 27 April 2001 and 8 November 2001.

134. On 7 September 2001, non-governmental organizations transmitted updated information to the Committee concerning cases of torture, ill-treatment, sexual harassment, rape and deaths in custody in Sri Lanka.

135. During its twenty-seventh session (12-23 November 2001), the Committee decided to transmit the findings of the inquiry to the Government and invite it to inform the Committee by February 2002 of the measures taken with regard to those findings. On 11 March 2002 the Government of Sri Lanka provided its comments on the findings of the Committee.

3. Preliminary recommendations made by the Committee

136. The Committee made the following preliminary recommendations to the Government: the State party should undertake to:

(a) Adopt precise instructions to be addressed to its agents to avoid the lack of practical effectiveness of legal, administrative and other measures adopted to combat torture;

(b) Reduce and eventually suppress the many overlapping jurisdictions between agencies investigating offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Regulations, and establish clear spheres of competence, conducive to enhancing efficiency in preventing torture in all its forms;

(c) Introduce, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Regulations, a provision requiring suspects to be produced before a judge within a short time;

(d) Abolish the power of the Secretary of Defence to order preventive detention for a period of up to a year without judicial review;

(e) Develop a central register for detainees in all parts of the country;

(f) Establish an effective mechanism for the criminal prosecution of public officials who commit acts of torture;

(g) Guarantee the access of counsel to detainees in police custody;

(h) Establish a legal assistance scheme free of charge to the beneficiaries;

(i) Establish a mechanism for regular monitoring visits to detention places to be made by magistrates;

(j) Put an end to the illegal detention of suspects by para-military groups assisting the Sri Lankan armed forces in the war against the LTTE and bring groups such as PLOTE and TELO under the strict control of the State, or disband them;

(k) Initiate prompt and independent investigations of every instance of alleged torture;

(l) Grant the Attorney-General authority to initiate investigations into such allegations;

(m) Establish an effective methodology for ensuring that directives relating to the prevention of torture are strictly complied with;

(n) Establish a roster of or select officers qualified to act as officers in charge of all police stations and/or prison facilities, and conduct regular on-the-job awareness courses;

(o) Improve detention conditions in keeping with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules and Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners;

(p) Conduct the evaluations and studies referred to in the Government’s note of 6 November 2000 in a timely manner and report to the Committee on the results.

4. Information received from the Government of Sri Lanka
after the conclusion of the visit

137. As mentioned above, by communications dated 8 November, 27 April and 28 March 2001, the Government of Sri Lanka provided detailed information to the Committee concerning its findings and recommendations.

138. The Government informed the Committee that on 20 November 2000 a Permanent InterMinisterial Standing Committee on Human Rights Issues was established to consider issues and incidents relating to human rights, in particular the prohibition against torture, and to take policy decisions in this regard. An Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Human Rights Issues was later established to monitor the implementation of decisions taken by the Permanent InterMinisterial Standing Committee and to take action on urgent issues. The Working Group took up for consideration the 16 preliminary recommendations transmitted by the Committee against Torture on 24 November to the Government of Sri Lanka. According to the communications received from the Government, multiple positive actions have been taken with a view to prohibiting torture.

Recommendation (a)

139. The Government indicated that in January 2001 the Inspector General of Police convened a special meeting of all Deputy Inspectors General of Police and sensitized them as to the prevailing allegations of torture. Reference was made to the Committee’s inquiry mission and to its initial observations. It was emphasized that all Deputy Inspectors General of Police would have to ensure that under no circumstances would torture take place within their respective jurisdictions. Further, they should take prompt and impartial action whenever a complaint or information is received alleging perpetration of torture.

140. On 14 January 2001 the Inspector General of Police sent an official circular to all officers in charge of Police Divisions and Specialized Divisions reiterating that under no circumstances should torture be perpetrated or permitted. According to the Government, by the end of February 2001, all police officers attached to the Sri Lanka Police Department had received specific instructions on the need to desist totally from any form of torture.

141. The Government of Sri Lanka further informed the Committee that according to the policy of the Ministry of Defence only authorized personnel of the police and the security forces should participate in the arrest, detention and interview of suspects. No other persons or members of groups should under any circumstances be involved in the conduct of such law enforcement activity. The Ministry of Defence closely monitors the directive proscribing the participation of members of ex-militant groups in de facto law enforcement efforts. Members of ex-militant groups have been totally debarred from effecting any arrests or detention of persons.

Recommendation (b)

142. According to the Government, all police officers are legally entitled and empowered to conduct criminal investigations into offences recognized in the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Regulations. Given the prevailing situation, it would be contrary to the interests of the country and its security to confer the powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Regulations solely upon a particular specialized agency of the police. The possible overlapping of jurisdictions has been acknowledged by the Government.

143. The Government reply provides an explanation with regard to the arrest and detention of suspects under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Regulations.

144. Any duly authorized police officer may, in accordance with the law, effect the arrest of a suspect under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act or the Emergency Regulations. Detention shall be at the police station to which the police officer in question is attached. If the suspect is arrested in the area of his domicile, he would be detained at the police station of that area. However, since the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) has jurisdiction to conduct anti-terrorism investigations in any part of the country, if the arrest is effected by a police officer attached to the TID the suspect shall be detained at the detention facilities of the TID in Colombo.

145. Following an arrest by a police officer, if the officer in charge of the police station concludes that an investigation needs to be conducted and continued detention is required, he/she shall bring such matter to the attention of the officer in charge of the relevant police division and cause the transfer of investigation or detention to the TID or the CounterSubversive Unit (CSU). Except for exceptional circumstances, a suspect arrested and detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act or the Emergency Regulations shall not be detained at a police station for more than 72 hours.

146. If the suspect has been arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act or the Emergency Regulations by a police officer attached to the CSU, unless transferred to the TID the suspect shall be detained until produced before a magistrate at the relevant CSU.

147. In cases where the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is authorized to commence and conduct a particular investigation relating to an offence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act or Emergency Regulations, the suspect shall be detained in the detention facilities of the CID until produced before a magistrate.

148. All suspects arrested by police officers attached to the TID shall be detained at the detention facilities of that Division.

Recommendation (c)

149. In its initial communication, dated 28 March 2001, the Government explained to the Committee that the Emergency Regulations require the relevant law enforcement authority to produce persons arrested under that law before a magistrate within 30 days from the arrest. According to the Government, following discussions at the Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Human Rights Issues it was decided to amend the relevant regulation and to require suspects to be produced before magistrates within 14 days.

150. By communication dated 27 April 2001, the Government further informed the Committee that by order dated 6 April 2001, the President, acting under section 5 of the Public Security Ordinance, decreed “where any person has been arrested and detained under the provisions of regulation 18 of [the Emergency] Regulations, such person shall be produced before a magistrate within a reasonable time, having regard to the circumstances of each case, and in any event, not later than 14 days from the date of such arrest”.

151. According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, upon the arrest of a suspect under the Act, unless the suspect is detained upon the authority of a detention order issued under section 9 (1) of the Act, such suspect shall be produced before a magistrate within 72 hours. If, however, the suspect is detained under the authority of a detention order issued under section 9 (1) of the Act, such suspect shall be produced before a magistrate as soon as the investigation against the relevant suspect is concluded (a maximum period of 18 months).

Recommendation (d)

152. According to the Government, the authority conferred on the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to authorize preventive detention is subject to judicial review during the entire period of detention. However, due to the current situation in Sri Lanka, the Government does not deem it suitable to repeal the relevant regulation.

Recommendation (e)

153. The Government informed the Committee that the Police Department has established a computerized Central Police Registry. This registry contains accurate and up-to-date information relating to the arrest and detention of persons under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Emergency Regulations that may be proclaimed by the President of Sri Lanka. Police officers effecting the arrest of suspects under the provisions of those laws are required to inform the Registry no later than six hours from the time of arrest. The Registry became operational on 1 November 2001. The general public has been informed of the establishment of the Central Police Registry and may make inquiries and obtain information in any of the three official languages (Sinhala, Tamil or English). Family members of persons believed to have been arrested may, by contacting the Registry, obtain information regarding whether in fact such a person has been arrested, the identity of the arresting authority and the place of detention.

Recommendations (f), (g) and (h)

154. According to the Government, various sources of information can give rise to the conduct of criminal investigations and domestic inquiries, such as direct complaints of torture made by victims or communications received from United Nations mechanisms. If such information is received by a State agency other than the Attorney-General’s Department, such information should initially be forwarded to the Prosecution of Torture Perpetrators Unit of the Department which will register the case.

155. Investigations are conducted by a special team of police officers attached to the CID. However, if an allegation is made against officers of the CID, provision has been made for the investigation to be conducted by a team of police officers attached to Police Headquarters. Following the completion of investigations, Notes of Investigation are forwarded to the Prosecution of Torture Perpetrators Unit, which decides whether to institute criminal proceedings under the provisions of the Convention against Torture Act of 1994. In the event of a decision to institute criminal proceedings, an Indictment is issued against the accused to the relevant high court. Parallel to the institution of criminal proceedings, advice is forwarded by the Attorney-General to the relevant disciplinary authority, inviting it to consider the institution of disciplinary proceedings. The Unit maintains a computerized database of all actions it has taken, including regarding allegations of torture.

Recommendation (i)

156. According to the information provided by the Government, the Police Department has no objection to counsel representing suspects detained at police stations, or interviewing/advising them prior to their being produced before a magistrate. However, due to the need to ensure that police investigators are able to conduct the initial investigation and interview suspects in an unhindered manner, such interviews shall not take place prior to the recording of the statement of the suspect. Nevertheless, the suspect or his/her attorney can make a complaint of assault by police to the magistrate at the time of the initial appearance before the magistrate. Attorneys at law representing arrested suspects have the right to interview the officer in charge of the relevant police station any time after the arrest.

Recommendation (j)

157. It was indicated that there are two Government-sponsored legal aid schemes implemented by the Prisoners Welfare Association and the Community Based Legal Services Project, aimed at providing free legal aid to suspects. In addition, there are several other legal aid schemes implemented by NGOs. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has identified 34 nongovernmental organizations offering such legal aid.

Recommendation (k)

158. In its initial communication dated 28 March 2001 the Government of Sri Lanka informed the Committee that all magistrates are legally empowered to visit and inspect remand prisons where suspects being held on remand (on judicial orders made by magistrates) are being detained. The Committee was further informed that following discussions at the InterMinisterial Working Group on Human Rights, it was decided to amend the existing provisions of the Emergency Regulations empowering magistrates to visit (without prior notice) and inspect all places wherein suspects are being detained under the provisions of the Emergency Regulations.

159. By communication dated 27 April 2001, the Government further informed the Committee that by order dated 6 April 2001 the President, acting under section 5 of the Public Security Ordinance, decreed that “the officer in charge of any place authorized by the Inspector General of Police as a place authorized for detention for the purpose of regulation 17 or 18, shall furnish, to the magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such place of detention is located, once in every 14 days, a list containing the names of all persons detained at such place. The magistrate shall cause such list to be displayed on the notice board of the Court. The magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such authorized place of detention is situated, shall visit such place of detention at least once in every month. It shall be the duty of the officer in charge of that place to secure that every person detained therein, otherwise than by an order of a magistrate, be produced before such visiting magistrate”.

160. Following the lapse of the Emergency Regulations, the regulatory power conferred on magistrates on 6 April 2001 to conduct unannounced visits to places of detention under the Emergency Regulations ceased. However, following a recommendation by the Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Human Rights on the need to empower magistrates to visit and inspect all places of detention and interview suspects, the Ministry of Justice is considering incorporating a new provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that would enable magistrates to perform this function in relation to all suspects arrested under the various applicable laws.

Recommendation (l)

161. According to the Government, all ex-militant groups have been warned of the need to adhere to the law and desist from arresting or detaining any person. In the event of such action being taken, it would be deemed in violations of the penal law and action would be taken in accordance with the law.

Recommendation (m)

162. By an initial communication dated 28 March 2001 the Government of Sri Lanka explained that a Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police has been assigned the task of coordinating all efforts relating to the protection and promotion of human rights and the enforcement of the domestic laws relating to alleged violations of human rights. It is the duty of the Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police to ensure that directives relating to the prevention of torture are strictly complied with.

163. In addition, the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army has appointed a brigadier to coordinate all matters relating to human rights. It is the duty of the brigadier to ensure strict compliance with directives issued to the Sri Lanka Army. Similarly, the Sri Lanka Navy has appointed a commodore to perform such functions.

164. By communication dated 27 April 2001, the Government further informed the Committee that the Deputy Inspector General of Police has recently undertaken an initiative to, inter alia, review the implementation of the State policy and in particular to examine whether persons detained at police stations are treated in accordance with internationally accepted norms and standards and whether they are subjected to any form of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

165. The Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police in charge of human rights issues continues personally to monitor compliance with directives issued by the Inspector General of Police and Police Headquarters. These directives are aimed at ensuring the protection of the human rights of suspects arrested and detained in police custody. In order to ensure compliance with such directives, the said officer conducts unannounced visits to police stations.

Recommendation (n)

166. All officers in charge of police stations receive training at the time of their selection and periodically thereafter. The Secretary to the Ministry of Defence invited the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute to undertake a comprehensive study of all training syllabuses of the police and security forces relating to human rights with a view to redesigning the course content and process with the primary objective of bringing about, in addition to an increase in knowledge, a change in attitudes that would contribute towards a change in behaviour. The Sri Lanka Foundation Institute has already commenced a new training programme on human rights for police officers.

Recommendation (o)

167. The process of improving detention centres requires considerable resources and vast improvement in infrastructure. The development and improvement of detention conditions will be a gradual and time-consuming process.

Recommendation (p)

168. The Permanent Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee and the Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Human Rights Issues will continue to monitor the situation relating to torture. The Working Group will take all steps necessary for the prevention of torture and enforcement of the due process of law with regard to all allegations of torture.

169. In addition to providing specific replies to the recommendations made by the Committee in its communication dated 28 March 2001, the Government provided information on additional activities undertaken: video recording of confessions made by suspects to assistant superintendents of police, recorded under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Regulations; creation of additional detention facilities at the TID with a view to easing the overcrowding of the existing detention facilities on the sixth floor of the new secretariat building; and identification and formulation of legal methods of criminal investigation aimed at eliciting selfincriminatory material.

170. In its communication dated 27 April 2001, the Government of Sri Lanka informed the Committee that a process had been initiated by the Ministry of Defence to invite the attention of the relevant disciplinary authorities to consider taking disciplinary action against police officers and security forces personnel alleged to have perpetrated torture. Consideration of disciplinary action in relation to cases determined by the Supreme Court and cases brought to the attention of the Government of Sri Lanka by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture is continuing.

171. In addition, the Government also provided statistics indicating the number of persons arrested by law enforcement authorities under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Emergency Regulations and the normal laws. This information was submitted because the Government believes that the Committee should consider that torture is practised systematically in the territory of a State party only if incidents of torture consistently occur in the process commencing with arrest and ending upon the termination of detention or completion of the penal sanctions as enforced by the administration of justice system or other similar de jure or de facto process.

5. Findings and conclusions of the Committee against Torture

172. In November 2001, the Committee transmitted the following findings and conclusions to the Government of Sri Lanka. The findings of the Committee, which are based mostly on what the members conducting the inquiry observed during their visit to Sri Lanka, are as follows.

173. The most serious problem faced by Sri Lanka is the internal conflict that has been going on for years and which creates a climate of violence, in particular in the northern and eastern part of the country, and is aggravated by terrorist acts perpetrated in urban areas by the LTTE.

174. The Government has taken and continues to take draconian measures to put an end to the internal conflict. These measures include resorting to emergency regulations which go far beyond the ordinary emergency legislation.

175. The Government employs not only the police and its armed forces in combating terrorism but also paramilitary groups, some of which include Tamil defectors. These groups are not fully under the control of civilian or military authorities.

176. Torture is frequently resorted to in the following cases:

(a) By the police, especially during the first days following arrest and detention of suspects;

(b) By the army in respect of captured suspected terrorists, in order to “facilitate” follow-up operations and before handing them over to the civilian authorities; and

(c) By paramilitaries, who apparently are not a regular force fully responsible to the military command.

177. Even though the number of instances of torture is rather high, the majority of suspects are not tortured; some may be treated roughly.

178. The Government does not condone torture and is employing various means to prevent it. It appears that instructions to that effect are not always obeyed, and there was no appropriate follow-up to ensure compliance.

179. Investigation by the Sri Lankan police of alleged instances of torture is not satisfactory, as it has been often inordinately delayed. Prosecution or disciplinary proceedings have until recently been rare.

180. Noteworthy remedial action is that taken by the High Court in respect of fundamental rights petitions. Mention may also be made of the work of the Human Rights Commission. The work, though recently improved, still leaves a lot to be desired, particularly in ensuring compliance with instructions to prevent torture and dealing with the possible effect of new emergency legislation on human rights.

181. On the basis of the above, the Committee has reached the conclusion that, although a disturbing number of cases of torture and ill-treatment as defined by articles 1 and 16 of the Convention are taking place, mainly in connection with the internal conflict, its practice is not systematic.

182. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee has taken into account its views with regard to the meaning of “systematic practice of torture” expressed at the end of its first inquiry under article 20 of the Convention in 1993 and endorsed in subsequent inquiries (A/48/44/Add.1, para. 39; A/51/44, para. 214; and A/56/44, para. 163).¹ These describe the ordinary meaning to be ascribed to the term “systematic” in the context of its use in article 20 of the Convention as required by article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.

183. The Committee also took into consideration the fact that the Government and the government security forces began implementing most of the recommendations addressed to the State party by the Committee.

¹ “The Committee considers that torture is practised systematically when it is apparent that the torture cases reported have not occurred fortuitously in a particular place or at a particular time, but are seen to be habitual, widespread and deliberate in at least a considerable part of the territory of the country in question. Torture may in fact be of a systematic character without resulting from the direct intention of a Government. It may be the consequence of factors which the Government has difficulty in controlling, and its existence may indicate a discrepancy between policy as determined by the central Government and its implementation by the local administration. Inadequate legislation which in practice allows room for the use of torture may also add to the systematic nature of this practice.”

184. Needless to say, it is the duty of the Government to put an end to any act of torture or illtreatment, to examine independently all allegations of torture and violations of article 16, to prosecute suspects and compensate the victims, and to comply fully with all the recommendations made by the Committee. In particular, the Committee welcomes the measures taken by the Government to bring the paramilitary groups under control, as they are reported to be responsible for many torture cases. It is the view of the Committee that these groups should be disbanded as a measure to prevent any possible systematic occurrence of torture.

185. The Committee, whilst welcoming the setting up of the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee and the Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Human Rights Issues as a very important step in the right direction, calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure their continued effectiveness.

6. Further information provided by the Government of Sri Lanka

186. By communication dated 11 March 2002, the Government of Sri Lanka provided a reply to the findings and conclusions of the Committee. Some of the information provided has been reflected above, as it refers to further developments related to the recommendations made by the Committee.

187. According to the reply, the Government, through the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, the Police Higher Training Institute and the several training institutions of the Sri Lanka Army, continues to ensure that police officers and security forces personnel are trained to comply with and respect standards and norms pertaining to human rights and humanitarian law. Aspects of human rights and humanitarian law are now included in the normal syllabuses of police and security forces training.

188. The Government also informed the Committee that upon an in-depth analysis of the need to ensure that the Police Department and its personnel function only as a law enforcement entity and not as a supplementary force to the three security forces, it has established a new ministry, called the Ministry of the Interior, for the main purpose of effectively delinking the police from the security forces and the Ministry of Defence.

189. In addition, Directorates of Human Rights have been established in the Sri Lanka Navy and the Sri Lanka Air Force. The mandate of the Directorate of Human Rights of the Sri Lanka Army includes advising the Army Commander on all matters concerning international humanitarian law with regard to conflict situation; conducting training programmes among members of the Army; and closely coordinating with the office of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Colombo and the National Human Rights Commission to address human rights and humanitarian concerns.

190. The Government also informed the Committee that as a result of initial negotiations facilitated by the Government of Norway, on 23 February 2002, the Government of Sri Lanka was able to enter into a ceasefire agreement with the LTTE. According to the Government, the agreement contains a series of provisions to foster a conducive environment for enhanced peaceful coexistence amongst the different communities living in Sri Lanka and seeks to promote and protect their human rights.

191. In the light of the Committee’s conclusion that torture and other forms of ill-treatment mainly take place in connection with the internal conflict, the recent developments, particularly the entry into force of the ceasefire agreement on 23 February 2002 monitored by an international monitoring mission, effectively removes the conditions which have been identified by the Committee as a major cause for the prevalence of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.

192. In terms of paragraph 2.1 of the agreement, the Government has undertaken to refrain from cordon and search operations or effecting any arrests or detentions of suspects under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In the event of a need arising to arrest a suspect alleged to have been involved in the commission of a terrorist act, such arrest would be made under the provisions of the normal law (Code of Criminal Procedure Act). The ceasefire agreement provides for a moratorium on the enforcement of the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Government informed the Committee that Emergency Regulations are not in force and that it is willing to examine and review the existing provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

193. In terms of paragraph 1.8 of the agreement, all Tamil paramilitary groups shall be disarmed within one month of the date on which the agreement came into force.

194. In addition, the Government informed the Committee that following the establishment of the Prosecution of Torture Perpetrators Unit in the Attorney-General’s Department and the Torture Investigations Unit in the Criminal Investigations Department, all allegations of torture are impartially, promptly and comprehensively investigated and, where warranted, the perpetrators prosecuted.

7. Final remarks

195. The Committee welcomes the many significant efforts undertaken by the Government of Sri Lanka to fight and prevent acts of torture. It welcomes the ceasefire agreement and expresses appreciation for the measures taken to implement nearly all the recommendations made by the Committee. The Committee points out, however, that the fight against torture is an ongoing process which requires the vigilance of the State party.

V. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 22
OF THE CONVENTION

196. Under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, individuals who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention may submit a complaint to the Committee against Torture for consideration, subject to the conditions laid down in that article. Forty-nine out of 129 States that have acceded to or ratified the Convention have declared that they recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and consider complaints under article 22 of the Convention. The list of those States is contained in annex III. No complaint may be considered by the Committee if it concerns a State party to the Convention that has not recognized the Committee’s competence under article 22.

197. Consideration of complaints under article 22 of the Convention takes place in closed meetings (art. 22, para. 6). All documents pertaining to the work of the Committee under article 22, i.e. submissions from the parties and other working documents of the Committee, are confidential.

198. At its twenty-eighth session, the Committee adopted revised rules of procedure to facilitate and expedite the examination of complaints (annex IX).

199. Pursuant to revised rule 107 of the rules of procedure, with a view to reaching a decision on the admissibility of a complaint, the Committee, its Working Group, or a rapporteur designated under rules 98 or 106, paragraph 3, shall ascertain: that the individual claims to be a victim of a violation by the State party concerned of the provisions of the Convention; that the complaint is not an abuse of the Committee’s process or manifestly unfounded; that it is not incompatible with the provisions of the Convention; that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies and that the time elapsed since the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not unreasonably prolonged as to render consideration of the claims unduly difficult for the Committee or the State party.

200. Pursuant to revised rule 109 of the rules of procedure, as soon as possible after a complaint has been registered, it shall be transmitted to the State party requesting a written reply within six months. Unless the Committee, the Working Group or a rapporteur decides, because of the exceptional nature of the case, to request a reply that relates only to the question of admissibility, the State party shall include in its reply explanations or statements that shall relate both to the admissibility and the merits of the complaint as well as to any remedy that may have been provided. A State party may apply, within two months, for the complaint to be rejected as inadmissible. The Committee, or the Rapporteur for new complaints and interim measures, may or may not agree to split the examination of admissibility from that of the merits. Following a separate decision on admissibility, the Committee shall fix the deadline for submissions on a case-by-case basis. The Committee, its Working Group or rapporteur(s) may request the State party concerned or the complainant to submit additional written information, clarifications or observations, and shall indicate a time limit for their submission. Within such time limits as indicated by the Committee, its Working Group or rapporteur(s), the State party or the complainant may be afforded an opportunity to comment on any submission received from the other party. Non-receipt of submissions or comments should not generally delay the consideration of the complaint, and the Committee or its Working Group may decide to consider the admissibility and/or merits in the light of available information.

201. The Committee concludes examination of a complaint by formulating a decision thereon in the light of all information made available to it by the complainant and the State party. The findings of the Committee are communicated to the parties (article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention and rule 112 of the rules of procedure) and are made available to the general public. The text of the Committee’s decisions declaring complaints inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention is also made public without disclosing the identity of the complainant, but identifying the State party concerned.

202. Pursuant to new rule 115, paragraph 1, of its revised rules of procedure, the Committee may decide to include in its annual report a summary of the communications examined. The Committee shall also include in its annual report the text of its decisions under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention.

A. New methods of work

203. At its twenty-seventh session, the Committee appointed one of its members, Mr. Mavrommatis, as Rapporteur for interim measures and confirmed him in this function at its twenty-eighth session as Rapporteur for new complaints and interim measures (rule 98). Also at its twenty-seventh session, the Committee decided to establish a pre-sessional working group of three to five members to assist the plenary in its work under article 22, and designated four of its members to participate in the first working group, Mr. Burns, Mr. Camara, Mr. González Poblete and Mr. Yakovlev. At the twenty-eighth session, the working group submitted recommendations to the Committee regarding the fulfilment of the conditions of admissibility as well as on the merits of complaints. Also at the twenty-eighth session, the Committee established the function of Rapporteur for follow-up and designated Mr. González Poblete and Ms. Gaer (alternate) as Rapporteurs (rule 114). The terms of reference of the Rapporteur for new complaints and interim measures are reproduced in annex VIII, and the text of the terms of reference of the Rapporteurs for follow-up are reproduced in annex IX.

B. Interim measures of protection

204. Complainants frequently request preventive protection, particularly in cases concerning imminent expulsion or extradition, and invoke in this connection article 3 of the Convention. Pursuant to revised rule 108, at any time after the receipt of a complaint, the Committee, its Working Group, or the Rapporteur for new complaints and interim measures may transmit to the State party concerned a request that it take such interim measures as the Committee considers necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the victim or victims of the alleged violations. The State party shall be informed that such a request does not imply a determination of the admissibility or the merits of the complaint. The Rapporteur for new complaints and interim measures shall monitor compliance with the Committee’s requests for interim measures. The State party may inform the Committee that the reasons for the interim measures have lapsed or present arguments why the interim measures should be lifted. The Rapporteur, the Committee or its Working Group may withdraw the request for interim measures.

205. During the period under review, the Rapporteur for new complaints and interim Measures requested States parties to defer expulsion in a number of cases so as to allow the Committee to consider the complaints under the Committee’s procedure. All States parties so requested acceded to the Committee’s requests for deferral.

C. Progress of work

206. At the time of adoption of the present report the Committee had registered 209 complaints with respect to 21 countries. Of them, 55 complaints had been discontinued

and 38 had been declared inadmissible. The Committee had adopted final decisions on the merits with respect to 50 complaints and found violations of the Convention in 21 of them. Finally, 46 complaints remained outstanding.

207. At its twenty-seventh session, the Committee decided to discontinue consideration of three communications and declared one complaint admissible, to be considered on the merits. In addition, the Committee, while recalling that the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires the complainant to use remedies that are directly related to the risk of torture under article 3 of the Convention, declared inadmissible communication No. 170/2000 (A.R. v. Sweden) under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. The text of this decision is reproduced in annex VII, section B, to the present report.

208. At its twenty-seventh session, the Committee adopted views in respect of communications Nos. 154/2000 (M.S. v. Australia), 156/2000 (M.S. v. Switzerland), 162/2000 (H.A. v. Australia), 166/2000 (B.S. v. Canada), 175/2000 (S.T. v. The Netherlands) and 178/2001 (H.O. v. Sweden). The text of the Committee’s decisions is reproduced in annex VII, Section A, to the present report.

209. In its decisions on the above-mentioned cases, the Committee considered that the complainants had not substantiated their claims that they would risk being subjected to torture upon return to their countries of origin. The Committee therefore concluded in each case that the removal of the complainants to those countries would not breach article 3 of the Convention.

210. At its twenty-eighth session, the Committee declared inadmissible complaint 176/2000 (Roitman v. Spain), primarily because the complainant was not a victim within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The text of the decision is reproduced in annex VII, section B, to the present report.

211. Also at its twenty-eighth session, the Committee adopted decisions in respect of complaints Nos. 111/1998 (R.S. v. Austria), 138/1999 (M.P.S. v. Australia), 146/1999 (E.T.B. v. Denmark), 164/2000 (L.M.T. v. Sweden), 177/2001 (H.I. v. Australia), 179/2001 (B.A.M. v. Sweden), 180/2001 (F.Z. v. Denmark) and 185/2001 (Karoui v. Sweden). The text of the Committee’s decisions is reproduced in annex VII, section A, to the present report.

212. In its decision on complaint No. 111/1998 (R.S. v. Austria), the Committee considered that the Austrian authorities had not breached their obligation under article 13 of the Convention to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation.

213. In its decision on complaint No. 185/2001 (C.B.A.K. v. Sweden), the Committee found that the author had submitted substantive information, including medical reports showing that he had been subjected to torture in the past, a support letter from Amnesty International, and a statement from the chairman of the organization of which he was a member, which gave reason to believe that he would face a real risk of being subjected to torture if he were returned to Tunisia.

214. In its decision on complaints Nos. 138/1999 (M.P.S. v. Australia), 146/1999 (E.T.B. v. Denmark), 164/2000 (L.M.T. v. Sweden), 177/2001 (H.I. v. Australia), 179/2001 (B.A.M. v. Sweden) and 180/2001 (F.Z. v. Denmark), the Committee considered that the authors of the communications had not substantiated their claim that they would risk being subjected to torture upon return to their countries of origin. The Committee therefore concluded in each case that the removal of the complainants to those countries would not breach article 3 of the Convention.

VI. OPINION OF THE UNITED NATIONS LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONVENTION IN THE OCCUPIED
PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

215. At its twenty-sixth session the Committee decided to seek the advice of the United Nations Legal Counsel concerning the applicability of the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. By a letter dated 22 June 2001 the Chairman of the Committee asked the Legal Counsel to provide the Committee with such opinion. In his reply of 19 September 2001 the Legal Counsel stated that, “the Convention is binding upon Israel, as the occupying Power in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. He added that, “the Committee against Torture appears already to have proceeded upon this supposition”.

VII. DISCUSSION ON THE SITUATION IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN
TERRITORY IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONVENTION

216. At its twenty-eighth session the Committee decided, at the request of one of its members, to hold a discussion on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the light of the Convention. Such discussion took place at the 522nd meeting, on 14 May 2002. As a result, the Committee decided, by a vote of 9 in favour and 1 against, that in the exercise of his/her mandate, the Rapporteur on follow-up to conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee with respect to reports submitted by States parties should take into consideration the discussion held at the above-mentioned meeting.

VIII. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

217. In accordance with article 24 of the Convention, the Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities to the States parties and to the General Assembly. Since the Committee holds its second regular session of each calendar year in late November, which coincides with the regular sessions of the General Assembly, it adopts its annual report at the end of its spring session, for appropriate transmission to the General Assembly during the same calendar year. Accordingly, at its 528th meeting, held on 17 May 2002, the Committee considered and unanimously adopted the report on its activities at the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth sessions.

Annex I

States that have signed, ratified or acceded to the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as at 17 May 2002

^a Accession.

^b Succession.

Annex II

States parties that have declared, at the time of ratification or accession,
that they do not recognize the competence of the Committee provided
for by article 20 of the Convention, as at 17 May 2002^a

Afghanistan

China

Israel

Kuwait

Morocco

Saudi Arabia

Ukraine

^a Total of seven States parties.

Annex III

States parties that have made the declarations provided for in
articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, as at 17 May 2002^a

^a Total of 46 States parties.

^b A total of 49 States parties have made the declaration under article 22.

Annex IV

Membership of the Committee against Torture in 2002

Annex V

Status of submission of reports by States parties under article 19 of the Convention, as at 17 May 2002

A. Initial reports

Initial reports due in 1988 (27)

Initial reports due in 1989 (10)

Initial reports due in 1990 (11)

Initial reports due in 1991 (7)

Initial reports due in 1992 (10)

Initial reports due in 1993 (8)

Initial reports due in 1994 (8)

Initial reports due in 1995 (7)

Initial reports due in 1996 (6)

Initial reports due in 1997 (8)

Initial reports due in 1998 (4)

Initial reports due in 1999 (6)

Initial reports due in 2000 (8)

Initial reports due in 2001 (5)

Initial reports due in 2002 (4)

B. Second periodic reports

Second periodic reports due in 1992 (26)

Second periodic reports due in 1993 (9)

Second periodic reports due in 1994 (11)

Second periodic reports due in 1995 (7)

Second periodic reports due in 1996 (10)

Second periodic reports due in 1997 (8)

Second periodic reports due in 1998 (8)

Second periodic reports due in 1999 (7)

Second periodic reports due in 2000 (6)

Second periodic reports due in 2001 (8)

Second periodic reports due in 2002 (4)

C. Third periodic reports

Third periodic reports due in 1996 (26)

Third periodic reports due in 1997 (9)

Third periodic reports due in 1998 (11)

Third periodic reports due in 1999 (7)

Third periodic reports due in 2000 (10)

Third periodic reports due in 2001 (8)

Third periodic reports due in 2002 (8)

D. Fourth periodic reports
Fourth periodic reports due in 2000 (26)

Fourth periodic reports due in 2001 (9)