COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HOLDS MEETING WITH STATES PARTIES
The Committee against Torture this afternoon held a meeting with States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to discuss various key issues, including the large number of non-reporting States, the backlog in consideration of State party reports and individual communications, and a lack of resources, among others.
Committee Chairperson Claudio Grossman, in opening remarks, noted that, of the 146 States that had ratified the Convention, 39 had not submitted their initial report to the Committee, which was a violation of their obligations under the Convention. Indeed, the Committee's recommendations on State party reports had frequently led to significant changes within countries, including stronger protections for vulnerable groups, a reduction in acts of torture, and better conditions for detainees. In terms of the complaints mechanism, that had provided an effective measure. So far, some 420 individual complaints had been received. Of those, the Committee had considered 228, finding violations in 48 cases. That had given rise to valuable jurisprudence in international case law.
In the interactive discussion with the Committee, States parties welcomed the new reporting procedures, but wondered if the Committee had considered applying those to the 39 States that had not yet presented their initial reports, with a view to kindling some interest in reporting. It was also asked how the new process was working in accomplishing the Committee’s goals of streamlining its procedures and clearing up its backlog of work. States also touched on the Committee's role in formulating international jurisprudence. A State expressed its interest in seeing the Committee formulate more General Comments, and asked in particular for a General Comment on Article 16. Another State expressed a different view on the value of General Comments, and was concerned to know what mechanisms would be put in place for the Committee to take on board States comments in the context of elaborating those texts.
In their responses to the States parties, Committee members said that the Committee had proactively issued reminders to late reporting States. That procedure had had limited success, having lowered the number from 39 to 33. The second option was to issue concluding observations in the absence of a report. That was not unknown in other systems, such as the inter-American system. However, that had not been done in the Committee. One reason was a lack of resources. As to the question of what the Committee would do with additional time, it would adopt more General Comments. It also needed to address its serious backlog in consideration of State party reports – with current delays something like two years between the receipt and consideration of a report. It was also facing other issues because of budgetary shortfalls, including a serious issue of lack of translations of session documents. No replies of States to Committee issues had been issued for this session. All replies were in the original language only. An Expert underscored that the Convention against Torture had the smallest membership of all the treaty bodies – with only 10 members – and yet only one Committee had considered more reports. An Expert underscored that a lack of resources had very serious consequences for some individuals whose cases were being considered under the complaint mechanism.
Present at the meeting were representatives from the following States parties: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Holy See, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Morocco, Nepal, the Netherlands, Peru, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Syria, the United States, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yemen.
When the Committee meets at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 28 April, it will start its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Cameroon (CAT/C/CMR/4).
Opening Statement
CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Committee Chairperson, in opening remarks, said they met today to strengthen dialogue with Member States with a view to obtaining the full objectives of the Convention – a world free from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The meeting's agenda had four items: developments related to the methods of work of the Committee; harmonization of working methods; traditional meeting times; and other matters. Indeed, the Committee would welcome any advice from parties on how it could improve its work.
Mr. Grossman recalled the mandates entrusted to the Committee: to consider country reports; to decide on individual complaints; to carry out confidential investigations on receipt of reliable information that indicated torture was being committed systematically within a State; and the adoption of General Comments to guide States with respect to the obligations set out in the Convention.
Here, Mr. Grossman noted that, of the 146 States that had ratified the Convention, 39 had not submitted their initial report to the Committee, which was a violation of their obligations under the Convention and made it impossible for the Committee to carry out its mandate. That was worth stressing, because in the Human Rights Council, States pledged to carry out their human rights obligations. They needed to discuss how everyone could contribute to ensuring that reports were submitted following the voluntary commitments undertaken.
Turning to the issue of concluding observations, Mr. Grossman noted that the Committee's recommendations had frequently led to significant changes within countries, including stronger protections for vulnerable groups, a reduction in acts of torture, and better conditions for detainees. In terms of the complaints mechanism, that had provided an effective measure for individuals who had suffered violations and had not found a national remedy. So far, some 420 individual complaints had been received. Of those, the Committee had considered 228, finding violations in 48 cases. That had given rise to valuable jurisprudence in international case law.
An obstacle facing the Committee, however, was the shortfall in resources. There were currently 97 cases of individual complaints pending, and barely enough time to meet. That undermined the Committee's ability to carry out its responsibilities efficiently. It could only consider seven State party reports per session. There was a similar backlog in consideration of State party reports. In 2007, with a view to streamlining the process, the Committee had adopted a system for States that had already presented their initial reports, allowing them to present replies to a list of issues drawn up by the Committee in lieu of the previous [more detailed] reporting guidelines. It also allowed for a more targeted discussion between the delegations and the Committee members.
However, the backlog remained. The conjunction of all the Committee's responsibilities – considering reports, complaints and drawing up lists of issues and others – had led to a large burden of work that the Committee could not handle within its current schedule. Indeed, Mr. Grossman observed that they were in the paradoxical situation that if all the States that were late in reporting submitted their reports, the Committee would not have the time to consider them all.
On the issue of follow-up to concluding observations, a Committee Expert highlighted that, in 2003, the Committee had begun a procedure whereby it identified a number of items in its concluding observations to State party reports for follow-up within one year. The criteria for selecting such items was that they had to be serious; protective; and "doable" in one year. Since 2003, 88 countries had been given follow-up recommendations and 75 per cent of the countries had responded more or less on time to the follow-up procedure – which for the United Nations was an enormous percentage. That was very good news for States that reported. But the Committee wanted to do even more, because the problem of torture was so serious.
Speaking on the complaints procedure, a Committee Expert noted that so far 64 States parties had accepted the individual complaints procedure. That was less than half of the States parties. It was noted that the appropriateness of the decisions often related to the speed with which they were adopted. Many of the complaints related to article three obligations (non-refoulement, or commitment not to return a non-national to a State where they were at risk for torture or ill-treatment). Other major sources of complaints were a failure to pay compensation for acts of torture. Six years ago, the Committee decided it would follow-up on how States complied with the Committee's Views, or decisions on these cases. They had now reviewed almost all of those cases, and he could report that the rate of compliance had been good. In some cases, the recommendations had not been fully complied with, but had shown a general desire by States to cooperate by finding an alternative remedy where they were unable to implement the Committee's recommendations.
Questions by States Parties
In the ensuing discussion between the Committee and States parties, Liechtenstein welcomed the new reporting procedures. However, had the Committee considered applying those to the 39 States that had not yet presented their initial reports, with a view to kindling some interest in reporting? If not, what other measures had the Committee taken or planned to take to address the issue of non-reporting States? Liechtenstein was also interested in seeing the Committee elaborate more General Comments, in particular one on article 16 (obligation to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which did not amount to torture when such acts were committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity).
Jordan asked why the Committee was insisting on a lack of combined reports, which were accepted by other Committees.
The United States said it was looking forward to reporting under the new guidelines in summer 2011, and asked members for how that process was working in accomplishing the Committee’s goals of streamlining its procedures and clearing up its backlog of work.
Response by Committee
Answering the first round of questions, Mr. Grossman said, with regard to measures to encourage States to report, the Committee had proactively issued reminders to late reporting States. That procedure had had limited success, having lowered the number from 39 to 33. The second option was to issue concluding observations in the absence of a report. That was not unknown in other systems, such as the inter-American system. However, that had not been done in the Committee. One reason was a lack of resources.
As to the question of the United States, what the Committee would do with additional time, it would adopt more General Comments. It also needed to address its serious backlog in consideration of State party reports – with current delays something like two years between the receipt and consideration of a report. The least expensive way for the Committee to make head way with its backlog was to add an additional meeting week to its regular sessions.
The Committee was also facing other issues because of budgetary shortfalls. There was a serious issue of translations of session documents. States were presenting reports without being translated and obviously not all members spoke all languages. As an example, no replies of States to Committee issues had been issued for this session. All replies were in the original language only.
An Expert underscored that the Convention against Torture had the smallest membership of all the treaty bodies – with only 10 members – and yet only one Committee had considered more reports, the Human Rights Committee. But they had almost triple the membership of this Committee. The list of issues had almost doubled the work of the Committee and in some cases had increased the work of the States parties. He suggested either adding another week to its sessions or adding a new session.
An Expert underscored that a lack of resources had very serious consequences for some individuals whose cases were being considered under the complaint mechanism.
Questions by States Parties
In a second round of questions, States parties raised further concerns and issues, including on the issuance of General Comments. The United States had already stated its position on such guidance issued by the Committee and asked for what plans there were to receive and take into account the comments of States parties in that regard.
With regard to harmonization of the treaty bodies, Liechtenstein was concerned that concluding observations issued by the various Committees did not conflict and also that they did not duplicate each other.
Response by Committee
Mr. Grossman said that the Committee worked independently and was not bound by the decisions of other Committees. What was important was that it looked at what the other treaty bodies were doing.
A Committee Expert noted here the crosscutting nature of the issue of torture, which overlapped with other focuses of treaty bodies such as Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. An Expert noted that people's lives were complicated – and torture affected not just the person tortured, but also their families, communities and societies. So when the Committee referred to the concluding observations of other Committees in its own recommendations it was not that it was saying that those of the other Committee were in some way insufficient, but to highlight the crosscutting nature of those human rights and to highlight the urgency of those issues. Another Expert noted that it was also important to look at these issues from the standpoint of the different Conventions. For example, whereas marital rape might be considered through the lens of discrimination, in this Committee it would be considered from the viewpoint of torture and ill-treatment.
Questions by States Parties
In a final round of questions and comments, Liechtenstein raised the issue of the prospect of an international convention on the rights of detainees, which had been mooted by the Special Rapporteur on torture, and wondered what the Committee's position was on that issue. There were some regional standards that had been formulated, but it could be helpful if there were United Nations standards on that issue.
Response by Committee
Mr. Grossman noted that there were United Nations minimum standards for treatment of prisoners, but they did not have binding effect. These minimum standards looked at issues of proper feeding, and protections against torture. As to the proposal by Manfred Nowak, the Special Rapporteur, the Committee had not formulated a position as yet, but would certainly take a look at that proposal. What was clear was that they needed to do something to improve the situation in prisons. Few appeared to have taken the rehabilitative path.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CAT10/004E