COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF QATAR

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the initial report of Qatar on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Seif Mokadem, Al-Boainain, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, introduced the report, saying that the legislative framework for prohibiting and criminalizing torture in Qatar had been reinforced by a procedural framework through the laws of the judiciary, public prosecution, police, prisons and the National Human Rights Committee. Several guarantees were insured including: judicial supervision over detention and arrest procedures; the right of the detainee to have access to a legal counsel the moment he was arrested, as well as the legal counsel's right to attend all stages of the investigation; inspection and monitoring of prisons and other places of detention; and reception and investigation of detainees' complaints. Temporary obstacles and challenges facing the State were posed by the fact that legislation and institutional development in the State were relatively new, and the relationship of the State with the monitoring mechanisms had only been recently established. Also, in spite of the availability of financial capabilities, the technical capacities of the human cadres were still fledgling. However, the State was exerting strenuous efforts to establish a robust culture of human rights and to put in place the rule of law and institutions.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Qatar was Committee Expert Felice Gaer, who said that when Qatar acceded to the Convention in 2000, it had made a reservation to the Convention. The concern of members was that that reservation had made a general reference to national law, so that the extent to which Qatar had accepted the terms of the Convention, and its commitment to uphold its provisions, remained in question. While the establishment of the National Human Rights Committee in 2002 was a good step forward, she would appreciate if the delegation would provide information on how members were selected for that body, and, since so many of its members were ministers and members of the government, she would appreciate information on how that body's independence was insured.

Xuexian Wang, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report, said that he was pleased to see that the country was engaged in widespread reform and the many steps it had taken in legislation to address its obligations under the Convention. He had heard that a workshop on training was to take place soon for officials. The eradication of torture started in the mind of law enforcement officials, so he would like to have some more information about that training programme.

Other Committee Experts raised questions on issues pertaining to, among other things, the law of Shariah; Article 3 obligations; secret prisons; the practice of holding prisoners in isolation or incommunicado; how domestic violence was treated; and the practice of flogging.

Also representing the delegation of Qatar were Nasser Bin Rashed Al-Nuaimi, Permanent Representative of Qatar to the United Nations Office at Geneva, and Sheikh Khaled Bin Jassim Al-Thani, Director of the Bureau of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as other officials from Qatar and from the Permanent Mission of Qatar to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 10 May, to provide its response to the questions raised this morning.

Qatar is among the 141 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.

When the Committee reconvenes in public at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, it will take up the initial report of Togo.

Report of Qatar

The initial report of Qatar (CAT/C/58/Add.1) says that the use of torture as a policy or instrument of State power is totally prohibited. No State official, be they a civilian or a member of the military, has a licence to commit, or to order others to commit, any act of torture. Anyone who commits such an act shall be subject to the criminal penalties prescribed, inter alia, in the Penal Code and other criminal laws. The Constitution of Qatar had explicit provisions prohibiting and criminalizing torture.

Since acts of torture are normally committed in places where investigations are carried out, and since ill-treatment mostly occurs during the early stages of a person’s arrest, detention and imprisonment, Act No. 10 of 2002 stipulates that the Department of Public Prosecutions has the authority to inspect, in coordination and cooperation with the competent authorities, juvenile homes, prisons and other places of incarceration through scheduled and unannounced visits, the examination of logbooks, arrest warrants and detention orders, the receiving of complaints and taking of whatever action it deems appropriate. This authority serves as a form of guarantee against the use of torture and ill-treatment in detention centres, prisons and correctional facilities. The competent authorities of the State are looking into whether article 3 of the Convention – requiring that no State party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial ground for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture – can be incorporated into domestic law. The State is also considering holding a workshop and training courses for law enforcement personnel, medical personnel and other persons who may be involved in the custody or interrogation of any individual subjected to any form of detention.


Presentation of Report

SEIF MOKADEM AL-BOAINAIN, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, said that he would like to affirm the great and increasing importance attached by Qatar to the issue of the promotion and protection of human rights, including the right to be free from torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Qatar, under the leadership of His Highness the Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, had been adopting the policy of comprehensive reform: constitutionally, politically, socially and culturally.

The importance attached to the issue of promotion and protection of human rights had been reflected in the new Constitution, which was endorsed by a popular referendum carried out in 2003 and which entered into effect on 9 June 2005. The new Constitution reinforced and accentuated the principles of the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the protection of basic rights and freedoms, the Deputy Minister said. The basic rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution had further been consolidated and enhanced by adopting a number of other legislation and laws, such as Qatar's Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedures, and the Labour Law and Law on Private Associations and Institutions.

The importance attached by the State to human rights had also been reflected by the establishment within the State’s Ministries of several departments for the promotion and protection of human rights, in their comprehensive denotation, at the governmental and non-governmental levels, such as the Human Rights Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Human Rights Department at the Ministry of the Interior. Moreover, at the non-governmental level, there was the establishment of the National Human Rights Committee. In addition, several civil society human rights and development organizations had been established, the Deputy Minister noted.

Recognizing that the promotion of human rights depended on many factors, including, inter alia, law enforcement, the existence of political will, availability of resources, effectiveness of civil society and the implementation of administrative and educational policies, Qatar had been keen to give considerable attention to human rights education and culture-oriented programmes that were based on dialogue and tolerance. In that connection, it was worth mentioning that Qatar had recently hosted the "Workshop on Human Rights Preparatory to the Forum for the Future", the "Meeting of the High-Level Group on Alliance of Civilizations, and the "Doha Inter-faith Dialogue Conference", among others.

Article 36 of the Constitution stated that personal freedom was guaranteed and that no person could be arrested, detained, searched, nor could his freedom of residence or mobility be restricted, save under the provisions of the law; no person could be subjected to torture or degrading treatment; and torture was considered a crime punishable by law. Thus Article 36 provided a constitutional safeguard to the right to be free from torture and degrading treatment in a manner that could not be impaired, revoked or suspended and it criminalized torture in express terms. That constitutional safeguard had further been reinforced and strengthened by detailed provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedures and the Penal Code, which prohibited and criminalized torture. Moreover, the Code of Criminal Procedure stated explicitly that any confessions, which were proved to have been made as a result of torture, could not be admitted in any proceedings.

Qatar's Penal Code imposed a penalty of up to five years imprisonment on any public official who used torture or force or threat against a witness or expert, or ordered the use of torture or threat in order to induce a confession to a crime or statement or information thereon, or to conceal such matters. In addition, if the acts of a public official caused a permanent disability, that official faced up to 10 years' imprisonment. That penalty was increased to death or life imprisonment for the actions of public officials that resulted in the death of the victim. It was thus crystal clear, the Deputy Minister said, that the Penal Code eliminated unequivocally the possibility of using immunity as a pretext to commit acts of torture with impunity.

As the Convention against Torture had been published in the official gazette, the provisions of the Convention were enforced in Qatar and had the power of law.

The legislative framework for prohibiting and criminalizing torture had been reinforced by a procedural framework through the laws of the judiciary, public prosecution, police, prisons and the National Human Rights Committee, the Deputy Minister said. Several guarantees were insured including: judicial supervision over detention and arrest procedures; the right of the detainee to have access to a legal counsel the moment he was arrested, as well as the legal counsel's right to attend all stages of the investigation; inspection and monitoring of prisons and other places of detention; and reception and investigation of detainees' complaints.

There were certainly temporary obstacles and challenges facing the State in its attempt to achieve an optimal implementation of the provisions of the Convention, the Deputy Minister said. Such difficulties were posed by the fact that legislation and institutional development in the State was relatively new, and the relationship of the State with the monitoring mechanisms had only been recently established. Also, in spite of the availability of financial capabilities, the technical capacities of the human cadres were still fledgling. They were still undergoing the phase of building and development, the Deputy Minister said. However, the State was exerting strenuous efforts to establish a robust culture of human rights and to put in place the rule of law and institutions.

Questions by Experts

FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Qatar, said that when Qatar acceded to the Convention in 2000, it had made a reservation to the Convention. The concern of Committee members was that that reservation had made a general reference to national law, so that the extent to which Qatar had accepted the terms of the Convention, and its commitment to uphold its provisions, remained in question.

The establishment of the National Human Rights Committee in 2002 was a good step forward, Ms. Gaer noted. She would appreciate if the delegation would provide information on how members were selected for that body, and, since so many of its members were ministers and members of the government, she would appreciate information on how that body's independence was insured.

Ms. Gaer welcomed the new legislation that addressed torture, including in the Constitution, the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Torture was mentioned in the Penal Code, she noted, but it was not defined. She would appreciate it if she could see that the definition in Article 1 of the Convention was incorporated in the Penal Code. She was concerned that torture, as it appeared in the legislation of Qatar, only addressed, in her view, the first purpose of the Convention, but did not contain any reference to intention or motive, such as the coercion of a confession.

Moreover, the legislation that addressed torture appeared only to cover such acts occurring in prisons, or in detention facilities. What about pre-arrest situations, and persons en route to such facilities -- did the Penal Code recognize that torture could also occur in those contexts, she wondered.

Ms. Gaer said she would appreciate it if the delegation could define how Qatar used both the term "cruelty" and the term "harm" in its legislation.

It was her understanding that a large number of judges that were appointed in Qatar were not citizens of that State. What sort of training was provided to them? Did they have permanent residence in the country? Was there any legal pressure on them owing to the fact that they were not citizens? Ms. Gaer said that she would also appreciate statistics on how many judges were women.

What access did a detainee have to a lawyer or to his family? How long was the period of detention under the law and what other regulations applied to it? She noted that the majority of inhabitants of Qatar were not citizens, and in that regard, she wondered why there was not a specific provision for detainees to be allowed to contact their consulates upon being arrested.

Ms. Gaer said that she would also appreciate statistics on prisons: how many women were imprisoned or detained; how many prisoners had died in custody; were juveniles and adults separated in detention facilities and jails; and what was the frequency of the inspection visits that were made to prisons?

There had been some information from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that no international bodies representatives had inspected prisons this year. Was that because there had been no requests, or was there some other reason? When those bodies did visit, were they able to speak with detainees in private, and did they issue reports that were subsequently made public, Ms. Gaer wondered.

Ms. Gaer asked how many cases were there of individuals found guilty of torture since the Convention was ratified. She would appreciate information on such cases, and their disposition. She would also appreciate information on the status of prisoners currently held on death row.

Was sexual violence in prisons monitored, were there statistics that could be provided, and what were the mechanisms for ensuring confidentiality of such claims?

Ms. Gaer said that she had received reports that persons suspected of homosexuality were subjected to invasive rectal exams in detention and that such persons were deported. Could the delegation comment on that?

A Dr. Qaradawi had made allegations that an eminent personality from Qatar had been seen frequenting a reputedly gay nightclub in London. Dr. Qaradawi had reportedly said that that individual should be stoned. Did that practice of stoning exist? Did accusations of this sort create an atmosphere of intimidation, Ms. Gaer wondered. She had heard that that statement had been held by some to be a fatwah, and not a threat. Was there a death penalty for homosexuality in Qatar and what was the Government's responsibility to counter such threats, which created a sense of fear and intimidation among persons in the country?

She also asked about the status of individuals detained under anti-terrorism legislation. Were there any plans for reviewing the laws for such detentions, in view of the fact that some due process rights were curtailed in those circumstances.

She noted that the report stated that Qatar was considering abolishing the practices of flogging or hard labour. Prisoners currently were liable to receive a penalty of 20 lashes of the whip. She would appreciate an update from the delegation both on the status of that law and statistics on how, why and on whom that penalty was inflicted. She would also appreciate knowing if amputation was a penalty under Qatari law.


Ms. Gaer was concerned to know how the victims of the prior practice of using very young children, often trafficked for the purpose, as camel jockeys -- a practice she understood had been since abolished -- were cared for. Were they returned to their families? Did they receive compensation for their treatment?, Ms. Gaer asked.

XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Qatar, said that he was pleased to see that the country was engaged in widespread reform and the many steps it had taken in its legislation to address obligations under the Convention.

Noting that the Country Rapporteur had asked a comprehensive set of questions, he said he had heard that a workshop on training was to take place soon for officials. The eradication of torture started in the mind of law enforcement officials, Mr. Wang said, so he would like to have some more information about that training programme.

Mr. Wang said he was also concerned that, under the laws regarding detention of terrorism suspects that allowed for the extension of such detentions for 10 months, were those detainees able to have access to their families and what was the oversight mechanism for those detentions?

Other Committee Experts also raised a series of questions. An Expert asked if the law of Shariah was incorporated in the Constitution. Did Islamic law apply to all of Qatar’s citizens and those who found themselves on the territory of the country, Muslims and non-Muslims alike? The Expert was concerned that that situation might pose a problem of compatibility with the provisions of the Convention. Given that Article 3 provisions had not been fully incorporated into the domestic provisions of Qatar, what measures were there in place to ensure those obligations?

Other issues raised included secret prisons; the practice of holding prisoners in isolation or incommunicado; how domestic violence was treated; and the practice of flogging.

In conclusion, the Chairperson said that it was particularly important that the State party have legislation in place that reflected Article 3 concerns. It was only in that way that the provisions of the Convention could be implemented everywhere. The same applied with regard to Article 1 provisions that defined the crime of torture, which needed to be incorporated in their entirety in the law of Qatar.

Preventive detention was another concern. Was there legal aid available for detainees, the Chairperson asked?

For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT06012E