COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS REPORT OF JORDAN

The Committee against Torture concluded this afternoon its consideration of the third periodic report of Jordan on its implementation of the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Presenting the report, Wasfi Abdallah Aly Ayyad, Director of the Directorate for Human Rights and Human Security at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Jordan, noted that Jordan observed all of its international commitments, including the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. Jordan’s commitment could be seen through its Constitution and its legal and judicial system. It was committed to providing all the necessary protection for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Torture ran against Jordan’s religious and civilizational values.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts commended the considerable reduction in ill-treatment in 2013 as compared to 2012. However, they noted that only a small percentage of the registered cases had gone to trial. They also raised the issues of the implementation of the Convention, definition of torture, laws to increase the penalty for torture, the statute of limitation and prosecution of cases of torture, overcrowding in detention places, independence and transparency in police investigations, laws on witness protection, provision of legal aid, and the separation of the judicial and executive branches of the Government.

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Ayyad noted that all comments and requests for clarification would be duly taken into consideration by Jordan in order to promote human rights and eliminate any form of cruel and inhumane treatment.

The delegation of Jordan included representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Labour, and the Permanent Mission of Jordan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 2 December, at 3 p.m., to discuss follow-up on Articles 19 and 22 and reprisals against persons who cooperate with the Committee.

Presentation of the Report

WASFI ABDALLAH ALY AYYAD, Director of the Directorate for Human Rights and Human Security at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Jordan, said that Jordan attached great importance to the promotion and protection of human rights. Jordan observed all of its international commitments, including the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. Jordan’s commitment could be seen through its Constitution and its legal and judicial system. It was committed to providing all the necessary protection for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Torture ran against Jordan’s religious and civilizational values.

Impunity did not exist in Jordan. The Government was dedicated to ensuring respect for human rights. Measures had been taken to bring Jordan in line with the provisions of the Convention, including strengthening the institutions and amending the Constitution. Namely, in 2011, 42 articles of the Constitution had been amended, including the addition of a new text prohibiting torture. Any type of threat or menace of torture was not acceptable; three to six months in prison was the minimum punishment for torture, and the penalty increased with the seriousness of the injuries. Penalties had also been introduced for anyone trying to obtain confessions by using torture. The Criminal Procedure Code was also being amended in line with Jordan’s international commitments. The position of the Human Rights Coordinator had been created in the Cabinet of the Prime Minister, who was, inter alia, in charge of establishing a national human rights plan. Mr. Ayyad said that the Government could preventively detain persons if public order was threatened. Guarantees vis-à-vis administrative detention had also been introduced.

Laws had been established criminalizing violence against women, and penalties had been introduced for all kinds of violence, including rape and sexual harassment. Protection was provided for the victims of domestic violence. A 2014 regulation had been adopted to ensure monitoring of recruitment officers of domestic workers. Shelters existed for the victims of trafficking until their situation was resolved. Trafficking of human beings was criminalized.

Jordan had been among the first countries to adopt a law prohibiting torture, and had hosted a conference on that matter. Victims of torture were entitled to receive compensation for inflicted damages. The Public Security Directorate was the leading institution for the implementation of torture-related legislation. Members of the Directorate’s staff were trained to recognize signs of torture. A special prosecutor had been established to follow crimes of torture, and all acts committed by State officials were investigated if they were considered to possibly involve torture. Police had a separate jurisdiction, and a police justice system had been accordingly established. A manual for the use of prosecutors had been established for cases of torture. The Ministry of Justice was always informed of any cases brought against public security officials. Civilian and military courts were experienced and independent, stressed Mr. Ayyad. Courts took decisions with the view of ensuring that justice was done. The State Security Court was responsible only for terrorism, spying, drug trafficking and counterfeiting.

Torture was a moral issue and was a violation of the dignity of human beings. Jordan paid great attention to its participation in training seminars and conferences on human rights and fundamental freedoms, which was clear evidence of the importance paid by the Kingdom to the respect of human rights and the prevention of torture and ill-treatment.

Questions by Experts

ESSADIA BELMIR, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Jordan, noted that Jordan was a country which had received numerous refugees from Palestine and Syria as well as migrant workers from around the world. It was a country with a long civilization, constantly evolving.

The legal arsenal of the State party did not establish a very clear place for the Convention. There were elements missing; for example, it was not clear which public officials were covered by Jordanian provisions. All forms of torture should be proscribed in law.

The Committee hoped that necessary changes would be made to the legislation to increase penalties for torture, which still continued to be considered as a misdemeanour rather than a felony.

The statute of limitations was an extremely important issue if torture and ill-treatment were to be combatted, said Ms. Belmir.

The public prosecutor could prohibit communication with a lawyer for up to 10 days, which could be renewed. Could the delegation explain how the detainee’s interest was defined in that regard? Did prosecutors really defend the interests of detainees? It appeared that detainees were not read their rights when arrested.

Access to a doctor was another issue raised by the Expert, who wanted to know whether there were certain cases in which that access was not provided.

The detainee was authorized to contact his family. Those who had conducted the arrest should inform family members of the time, place and legal nature of the arrest. The family had to be informed of the location where the detainee was kept if he was not in a fit state to contact them himself.

To what kind of “urgency” did the State party refer to justify questioning of a detainee without the presence of his lawyer?

Turning to the practices of administrative detention, the Expert asked that the 1954 Crime Prevention Act allowed for such detention without a legal basis. One could be released only if he signed a pledge not to commit a criminal act. Who managed it – was it the Ministry of Justice, judges or other administrators?

Ordinary judges had been integrated into police and military courts, in which problems persisted. The death of a detainee in a military holding facility under unknown circumstances was referred to. The right to fair trial and physical integrity ought to be respected.

KENING ZHANG, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Jordan, asked about specific training provided to security officers in line with the Istanbul Protocol.

There had been a considerable reduction in ill-treatment in 2013 as compared to 2012, but only a small percentage of the registered cases had gone for trial. Why was that the case?

What were serious and ordinary offences, and how were the two categories distinguished?

Almost half of persons deprived of liberty were kept in pre-trial detention. The delegation was asked to comment. Were those kept in pre-trial detention separated from convicted criminals?

An Expert requested updated data about the results of the monitoring of detention facilities, and whether there had been any sanctions for detected violations. Was it true that non-governmental organizations had been denied access to correctional facilities?

Overcrowding of places of detention seemed to be a problem. Was the State party considering alternatives to detention in order to address that problem?

Mr. Zhang said that very few complaints of torture had resulted in prosecution; that percentage in 2013 stood at only three per cent. What assurances were in place to guarantee that all cases of torture were thoroughly investigated by the authorities? The delegation was asked to elaborate on how many cases of complaints by civilians against ill-treatment by police officers had resulted in penalties.

Jordan enjoyed a great reputation in the world for its openness to refugees from both Palestine and, more recently, Syria. Had the State party stopped the practice of withdrawing nationality from some Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin? Did they have an opportunity to appeal such decisions?

Was the State party considering prohibiting the practice of corporal punishment of children at home?

Another Expert noted that Jordan still had legislation which pardoned the crime of torture. There was still a law in place providing for a statute of limitations in that regard, contrary to the Convention.

What was the current number of women held in protective custody because they were in danger of honour crimes? The delegation was asked to provide an update on the legal treatment of honour crimes and the number of those which had led to prosecution in 2013 and 2014.

How did the authorities ensure that raped women freely consented to marry their rapists and were not forced to do so?

The Expert also asked if anyone had been prosecuted as a result of the inspections of police stations and detention facilities.

The issue of having independent investigation procedures was raised by an Expert, who noted that no cases of convictions for torture had been mentioned in the report.

What were the legal guarantees established for administrative detention, he asked.

A question was asked about diplomatic assurances.

The National Human Rights Centre had the right to visit various places of detention that were run by different parts of the security apparatus. What was the outcome of the most recent visits? Were such visits to General Intelligence places of detention unannounced? Were there public reports of such visits?

Could the delegation indicate under which circumstances a detainee was prevented by the director of his detention centre from communicating with his family, doctor or lawyer?

Did Jordan plan to make a declaration under Article 22 of the Convention, which would allow for the Committee to receive individual communications?

Another Expert raised the issue of transparency, given that there was the Ministry of Transparency in Jordan. Where were the mechanisms of transparency which were credible and not a mere façade? Where was transparency if the police investigated the police? Institutions seemed to exist for the protection of each other rather than of citizens.

What was the law allowing for the creation of special courts? More information was also asked on the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.

Was the delegation aware of a widely held perception that there was a “machinery of torture” in place, he asked.

A question was asked about the existence of laws on witness protection.

An Expert wanted to know about allowing access to places to detention to non-governmental organizations. Did the National Human Rights Centre enjoy unimpeded access to all places of detention without prior notice and could it interview inmates in private?

Were there any plans to put in place specialized police units and courts for juveniles?

Updated data on the current capacity of the prison system and the prison population was sought. The Expert asked whether each prisoner was provided with his own bed.

Details were asked about the State party’s plans to ratify the Optional Protocol.

The prosecution of cases of torture was very important, stressed one Expert, who insisted that information in that regard be provided.

Did battered women have an option of not being reunified with their husbands, he asked? What happened to those women who did not wish to go back to their spouses?

Could an update be provided on protections provided to those committing honour crimes? Had such provisions in the legislation been cancelled?

Further information was asked on limits provided on access to lawyers.

Was it true that refugees could not leave camps without a sponsorship or authorisation by a Jordanian national?

Replies by the Delegation

On overcrowding of prisons, the delegation said that a draft had been approved by the Council of Ministers, dealing with alternative penalties, including electronic surveillance. That should help reduce overcrowding in prisons and detention centres. It was an innovative approach which could produce positive results, studies had shown. The project would come into force in 2016.

The article that included the definition of torture had been amended in 2013 and would continue to be examined, along with the texts on the implementation of the Criminal Code. Provisions allowed for higher officials to be prosecuted.

A legal aid office had been established to support anyone who needed that kind of support, the delegation informed.

The National Human Rights Centre had the right to visit any detention centres without prior announcement. That included General Intelligence Directorate detention facilities. The Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and others were also allowed to visit prisons.

The authorities aimed to secure that the best possible medical care was provided to inmates. Injured and sick prisoners were referred to hospitals. Screenings of inmates with possible psychological disorders also took place. Prisoners returned from hospitals to prisons once their treatment was completed.

The authorities were also working on addressing some of the flaws in the prison system, including the lack of blankets.

Administrative judges were the ones inspecting the validity of decisions on administrative decisions. There was a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Justice and the Bar Association with the view of facilitating access to lawyers.

Regarding training, a delegate said that a new version of the manual had been recently launched, which, inter alia, covered new rules on the work of forensic medical examinations.

The delegation said that some detention centres could not be closed because there were no new centres in place to take all the existing prisoners. There had been a significant increase in the number of detainees, who now numbered over 60,000. That was due to the increase of the number of residents in Jordan, caused by the huge refugee influx. Maintenance and rehabilitation activities of certain facilities were under way.

The Jordanian Constitution stipulated that nationality could be given or withdrawn just in line with the law and according to a judicial decision. The Council of Ministers also had to agree with it.

A delegate explained that it was inaccurate that refugees could not leave refugee camps without authorization by Jordanian citizens. Jordan applied the principle of non-refoulement and it treated refugees as well as its own citizens. They had the right to education, medical care and legal aid. Refugees in Jordan had the right of self-employment and did not pay exit fees.

A draft law on domestic violence had been discussed earlier this month and was now on its way to the National Assembly. A wide array of experts and religious leaders had taken part in the preparation of the draft. A new shelter had opened up in northern Jordan; no abused women there could be obliged to return to their husbands and were instead provided with all needed services. The shelter welcomed their children under four years of age, who were provided with different social care services.

A juvenile police department had been established, a delegate said, so that children were not investigated like adults. Criminal responsibility did not apply to those under the age of 12.

Charity organizations would be allowed to operate freely within the Jordanian territory, in accordance with new legislation.

The delegation noted that a great deal of attention was given to detention facilities in order to keep them in line with international standards and to improve the living standards of inmates. Different committees had been established to study detention centres and a plan of action had been prepared. Visits were jointly carried out with the National Human Rights Centre. A video recording system had been installed in order to allow for monitoring. The Public Security Directorate guaranteed personal freedoms and did not arrest anyone without appropriate grounds. Persons arrested had to clearly understand why they had been arrested. Any ill-treatment could lead to the release of the detainees from prison. Recently the Director of the Public Security Directorate had set up a prize for the humane treatment of detainees by police enforcement forces, in order to promote good behaviour.

As for special courts, Article 16 of the Convention stipulated that any act of cruel and degrading treatment had to be penalized. Any abused person had the right to refer his/her case to the Public Prosecutor. Ill-treatment and beatings were prosecuted if proven. The Public Security Directorate tried to reinforce the concept of human rights based on transparency and openness. Monitoring and supervision were used to improve conditions of detention. As for new methods of work in investigations, the State apparatus aimed to provide excellent service to citizens. Staff members were trained on all aspects of the Convention. A number of training sessions and courses had been organized in cooperation with international actors. A new Code of Conduct had been adopted for police. The law regulating detention centres stipulated that inmates were prohibited from committing violence and disobedience, causing material harm, possessing any prohibited supplies and items, failing to maintain good hygiene, endangering other inmates and falsely accusing them, dressing indecently, raising trouble, or contravening any instruction of the detention centre. They could be placed in solitary confinement for breaches of the above-listed rules. However, penalties imposed on detainees had to be justified. The Public Prosecutor sent inmates for medical examination to determine whether there had been any torture and ill-treatment.

Regarding the classification of inmates, the system was set up to take appropriate decisions in all places of detention, and to rehabilitate inmates into society. Male inmates had to be separated from female ones. Furthermore, convicts had to be separated from detainees. Visits were authorized to ensure that no detainee was held illegally. Public prosecutors and reconciliation judges could visit prisons at least once a month. Legal proceedings were to be taken if any ill-treatment was detected during those visits. Both the perpetrator and accomplice of torture would be charged and prosecuted. Investigations were duly recorded and carried out based on evidence. Police could deal with all complaints coming from the National Human Rights Centre, which was also informed about the outcome of the investigation.

Legal aid to detainees was handled by a specialized unit of the Ministry of Justice. A specialized committee of judges and lawyers had been set up to provide a legal support system, in cooperation with civil society. It was currently provided by the Bar. A lawyer was appointed to those who ran risk of hard labour. Legal support would soon become compulsory. A memorandum was concluded to deal with Article 8, while the Criminal Code bill was still in the hands of the Parliament. The sentence would be a minimum of six months and a maximum of three years in prison. The Criminal Code stipulated that the instigator and accomplice of the crime of torture were both subject to the sentence. Compensation would be given in the case of an Egyptian citizen who had been held in prolonged detention. The Government attempted to preserve individual freedoms and to build confidence across State bodies.

A national strategy in the Ministry of Justice aimed to build and strengthen the capacity among judges. The training centre for judges was responsible for human rights training. Jordan had hosted the second regional conference on torture in June 2015, and the handbook on acts of torture had been launched during the conference. Some 61 lectures and training sessions had been given in 2014, leading to a drop in the number of ill-treatment cases. The Ministry of Labour tried to train its staff in various areas and in particular in labour and health domains. An inspection plan was in place in line with international standards. Inspectors had undergone training, such as in human trafficking. Some 40 inspectors took part in training in order to recognize the crime of human trafficking. New inspectors (about 60 of them) had undertaken basic training workshops. Public security and labour inspection had been organized as well. Specialized training on child labour, occupational health and safety, and work standards had been conducted.

Special courts and tribunals were created in line with the Constitution. The Constitution stipulated the creation of such courts under Article 89. There were ordinary, special and religious (Sharia) courts. They all operated in complete independence. Any decision taken by a specialized court was like the one taken by an ordinary court. The Court of Cassation had judicial control over the decision taken by special courts. No civilian could be brought in front of a military court, except under the charges of treason, espionage, terrorism, narcotic crimes and forging of money. The Government aimed to protect citizens’ rights to life and security. They were considered the most basic and sacred rights of all human beings. The State tried to strike a balance between counter-terrorism measures and safeguarding and promoting human rights. Due process guarantees were provided.

The Anti-Terrorism Act was adopted in 2006. It was a preventive law aimed at preventing acts of terrorism and financing of terrorism. There was no consensus on the definition of terrorism. However, a regional convention adopted by the League of Arab States set out a concept of terrorism. That concept was adopted by the Jordanian lawmakers. All decisions taken to combat terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act were the remit of the Public Prosecutor, and those decisions could be appealed before the special courts. Only the Public Prosecutor could decide upon such measures. When crimes of terrorism were defined, it was necessary to determine what constituted terrorism. There was no crime and penalty unless there was a legal basis for it.

As for custody, conditions for custody were clearly defined and there was daily monitoring and oversight of individuals in custody. As for diplomatic assurances, human rights were respected in Jordan in line with international standards. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs played a key role in ensuring that Jordan respected international treaties and promoted human rights. The country was at the forefront of the protection of human rights.

A witness protection mechanism existed and investigated complaints. Protection was given to those people who reported and denounced acts of torture and ill-treatment. They were protected from all acts of retaliation and threats. They remained anonymous and, if necessary, they were provided with protection.

The ratification of the Optional Protocol of the Convention was voluntary, the delegation noted. The National Human Rights Centre could visit places of detention. Those were subjected to administrative and judicial control and oversight through the Rehabilitation Units. There were lawyers appointed by the Ministry of Justice so that they could carry out visits. Until mid-November 2015, 85 visits had been carried out. Subsequent to visits, recommendations were issued in order to improve the situation in detention centres.

There were six juvenile detention centres. No juvenile could be arrested without a warrant from the Prosecutor of Juvenile Affairs. Juveniles could not be held with adult inmates.

Further Questions by Experts

ESSADIA BELMIR, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Jordan, said that progress had been made. Torture was a serious crime; it should be a felony and not a misdemeanour, she stressed. There was no full separation of powers in Jordan. Some judicial competences were attributed to the executive branch through the figure of the governor. He could arrest people to prevent crimes. As for the slowness of the judicial system, cases took a very long time. One third of cases of ill-treatment were still pending. Since 2010, a very large number of complaints of ill-treatment and torture had been seen. Police and security officers had been accused of routinely torturing and mistreating people. A number of complaints had been lodged against them, but to no avail.

As for migrants, they faced a difficult situation. Migrant women were detained without access to a lawyer or an interpreter. They were treated inhumanely and sometimes tortured. Sometimes they were forced to carry out household chores in their places of detention. There was also the issue of forced marriage of minors and rape. The Criminal Code needed to be amended to properly punish rapists. A whole mix of issues affected women.

As for the justice system in general, Ms. Belmir advocated an overhaul. Support should be given to judges so that they could conduct their work without interference. Civilians should be brought before ordinary courts, whereas military courts should deal with cases clearly connected with military affairs. Fear of reprisals discouraged lodging complaints. The prison population lived in very difficult conditions and most of them were foreigners. Speaking of the withdrawal of nationality, she noted that lumping the issues of nationality and migration together should be avoided.

KENING ZHANG, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Jordan, welcomed the delegation’s response regarding training courses provided to all relevant stakeholders, noting that it was encouraging. As for conditions in detention centres, Mr. Zhang commended the improvements made in that respect, in particular the separation of convicts from detainees. Were public prosecutors appointed by the Committee of Public Security? How many victims of torture had received compensation? What were the functions of religious tribunals when compared to other types of courts? Under the Anti-Terrorist Act, were charges brought by the Public Prosecutor?

An Expert asked whether cases of alleged torture mentioned by official sources had been verified. There must have been a very good reason for setting up a Ministry for Transparency, another Expert noted. What was the reality on the ground? What were the details of cases when people were held incommunicado? Why were civil and military courts combined? There was a tendency to combine instead of separate judicial and executive powers. The Expert warned that not everything could be justified under the charge of terrorism. The lack of a witness protection law discouraged people from coming forward and reporting cases of ill-treatment and torture. How many persons and officials had been prosecuted for human rights violations?

Another Expert reiterated his questions about alleged violence within the family. What was the specific information on the prosecution of such cases? What was happening with the bill on family violence?

Which measures would the State party take to ensure that persons could freely lodge complaints against police without any risk of reprisal? What had happened with the alleged cases of torture mentioned in the State party’s report? As for the special rehabilitation for victims of torture, when would the first centre open? Certain detention centres could be visited only upon filing a request. What were plans to provide full monitoring in all detention centres? As for the high percentage of the pre-trial detention population, what was the reason for that? What were alternatives to imprisonment in order to reduce the overcrowding of the prison system? What was the effectiveness of investigations of cases of ill-treatment and torture? The low number of prosecutions suggested that a lot remained to be done.

Replies by the Delegation

On the withdrawal of nationality, the delegation explained that the Government would only withdraw nationality following approval by the Cabinet. The decision had to be communicated to the person concerned. Nationality could be recovered following a decision by the Minister. The relevant Directorate would carry out an investigation and inform the Cabinet on its decision. No complains had been received in 2014 in that respect. When Palestinians were affected by the withdrawal of nationality, they were able to recover it. Some of them preferred to receive Palestinian nationality.

As for the separation of powers, it was enshrined in the Jordanian Constitution. It was one of the basic precepts of the Constitution. Powers were complimentary and they did not interfere in the competence of others. Regarding the slowness of judicial decisions, they needed to take some time because deadlines and procedures had to be respected. A committee was created to re-examine the Criminal Code and it met daily to discuss the articles that needed to be reviewed. There was also a project to bring about a general reform of the justice system. The Ministry of Justice was the competent ministry in that respect. Religious tribunals in Jordan were the only ones empowered to hand down justice in faith-based issues, such as civil status and endowments.

Regarding overcrowding in prisons and alternatives to imprisonment, the delegation stated that Jordan had adopted a cabinet-level project to set up electronic monitoring of persons who had not been brought to trial. It was concluded that the electronic monitoring could be an alternative solution to imprisonment.

As for the bill on protection against family violence, it would be passed to the National Council and needed further discussion before adoption. Combatting violence against women was a priority for Jordan. A handbook had been issued in line with the Convention on the Elimination of Violence against Women and it explained all the legal issues pertaining to violence against women and violence within the family.

The competence for appointing public prosecutors was determined in light of public security. The Director of the Public Security Directorate could appoint public prosecutors. As for complaint lodging, the Office for Transparency and Human Rights was in contact with all relevant bodies where complaints could be sent. If they were of a criminal nature, then public prosecutors would consider the complaints.

The Public Security Directorate had invested huge efforts to combat drug trafficking and new units had been created. More resources and equipment had been devoted to that effort. The Public Security Directorate had organized a number of programmes to help the fight against drug trafficking.

On investigation and intelligence, those measures were fully in line with international norms and standards in order to ensure that anybody who was detained was treated humanely. Visits to detention centres were allowed broadly. Individuals could complain about the conditions of detention in front of the public prosecutor. Such complaints did not go through the executive. In addition, they could challenge the charges in specialized courts. They could also challenge them in the Supreme Court. The National Human Rights Centre could monitor all cases of detention.

Concerning female domestic workers, the Ministry of the Interior had looked at the possibility of them leaving the country. Each case was individually scrutinized. Domestic workers could leave the country without paying a fine, or they could work for another employer.

Concluding Remarks

WASFI ABDALLAH ALY AYYAD, Director of the Directorate for Human Rights and Human Security at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Jordan, thanked Committee Experts for their comments. The delegation had attentively listened to all the questions. All comments and requests for clarification would be duly taken into consideration by Jordan in order to promote human rights and eliminate any form of cruel and inhumane treatment.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT15/032E