Experts of the Committee against Torture Commend Côte d’Ivoire on the Creation of an Inter-Ministerial Committee to Coordinate with Treaty Bodies, Ask about the Admissibility of Evidence Obtained through Torture and Prison Overcrowding
The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Côte d’Ivoire, with Committee Experts commending the State on the creation of an inter-ministerial committee to coordinate with treaty bodies, while asking questions about the admissibility of evidence obtained through torture and overcrowding in prisons.
Abderrazak Rouwane, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, congratulated Côte d’Ivoire on the initiative of the inter-ministerial committee. The Human Rights Council had adopted a resolution which encouraged States to create mechanisms to facilitate coordination for all the treaty bodies and ensure proper monitoring and follow-up. This position ensured that the State could be properly informed regarding all issues of human rights.
Mr. Rouwane asked if it was up to judges to assess if a statement obtained by torture might be admissible in proceedings, as there was still no provision in Ivorian law that provided for admissibility in any proceedings? The Committee had been made aware that confessions obtained under torture had been used to press charges against six people, who were allegedly forced to sign a document without reading it.
Todd Buchwald, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said there were widespread reports of severe overcrowding in prisons which resulted in unsanitary conditions, as well as a lack of health care and staff. Could more information be provided on the provisions taken to reduce overcrowding in prisons? According to the report, up to 2019, there were 26,089 detainees in a system with a capacity of 9,139, nearly three times more than capacity. Could statistics be provided from 2019 to 2024 on the numbers of detainees in prison?
The delegation said it was up to the judge to determine whether statements obtained in a case as a result of torture were admissible or not. If it were not up to a judge to ascertain whether statements were obtained by torture, then who could? Testimonies were contained in the records, and it could be seen straight away if they were obtained under torture. A judge could dismiss police records if they established that the testimonies were obtained under torture.
Responding to further questions, the delegation said the total number of detainees was more than 27,000 whereas the State only had capacity for around 10,000. The occupation rate was more than 200 per cent above where it should be. Côte d’Ivoire was taking robust measures to rectify this situation as soon as possible. This situation was alarming, but it was important to look at measures to tackle this by the Government, which included building new prisons and a new women’s prison. The State hoped to bring down the very high occupation rate.
Alternatives to detention were effectively implemented, the delegation continued. Around 1,356 decisions had been taken for suspended sentences and more than 3,000 individuals had benefitted from probation. Presidential pardons allowed for the release of more than 11,000 detainees between 2000 and 2023.
Introducing the report, Zirignon Constant Delbe, Director of Human Rights at the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of Côte d'Ivoire, said Côte d'Ivoire had been a party to the Convention since December 1995 and despite a long delay in the submission of its initial report, the State was ready to lay the foundations for more sustained cooperation with the treaty bodies through regular report submissions.
The State’s Penal Code had been amended to provide torture with a criminal penalty of 10 to 20 years' imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 to 5,000,000 CFA francs. The penalty was life imprisonment when the perpetrator of the crime was a public official. The Ivorian legal system had also been enriched with new legal instruments, including the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on the abolition of the death penalty, ratified on 3 May 2024; the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, ratified on 6 June 2024; and several other laws.
In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chair, thanked the delegation for the frank and open dialogue. The Committee was aware of the efforts the State was making in their legislation and the challenges the State faced in the area of human rights. Mr. Heller hoped this was the first step in a long journey of cooperation with Côte d’Ivoire and the Committee.
Lambert Allou Yao, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of Côte d'Ivoire to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, in concluding remarks, thanked the Committee for the opportunity for Côte d’Ivoire to submit its initial report. The two days had allowed for a meaningful exchange and enabled the State to share its experience and benefit from the Committee’s experience.
The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights and the Permanent Mission of Côte d’Ivoire to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Côte d’Ivoire at the end of its eightieth session on 26 July. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 18 July at 10 a.m. to conclude its review of the fifth periodic report of Türkiye (CAT/C/TUR/5).
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Côte d’Ivoire (CAT/C/CIV/1).
Opening Remarks by the Chair of the Committee
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chairperson, said today was an important landmark, as Côte d'Ivoire was submitting its initial report, which should have been submitted in 1997. The State party had been able to engage in capacity building with the United Nations to help draft the report presented today.
Presentation of Report
LAMBERT ALLOU YAO, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of Côte d'Ivoire to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, introduced the delegation of Côte d'Ivoire.
ZIRIGNON CONSTANT DELBE, Director of Human Rights at the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of Côte d'Ivoire, conveyed the apologies of the Minister of Justice who was unable to be in Geneva for the presentation of the report. It was an honour to present the country's initial report under the Convention. Côte d'Ivoire had been a party to the Convention since December 1995 and despite a long delay in the submission of its initial report, the State was ready to lay the foundations for more sustained cooperation with the treaty bodies through regular report submissions.
The State’s Penal Code had been amended to provide torture with a criminal penalty of 10 to 20 years' imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 to 5,000,000 CFA francs. The penalty was life imprisonment when the perpetrator of the crime was a public official. Law no. 2024-359 of 11 June 2024 provided that the period of police custody of a minor may not exceed 48 hours and may not be extended by more than 24 hours, except in criminal matters and with the authorisation of the Public Prosecutor.
The law on extradition stipulated that extradition should not be granted when the requested person had been or would be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Côte d'Ivoire had also adopted the law on refugee status, which provided that a refugee or asylum seeker should not be turned back at the border when his life, physical integrity or freedom would be threatened.
The Bingerville juvenile observation centre was now fully operational. Furthermore, on 10 July 2024, the Government adopted a decree on the creation, attribution, composition and functioning of the anti-terrorism section of the Court of First Instance of Abidjan. This anti-terrorist section included an investigation and prosecution unit, an investigative unit, and a trial chamber to effectively prevent and combat terrorism throughout the national territory. The Ivorian legal system had also been enriched with new legal instruments, including the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on the abolition of the death penalty, ratified on 3 May 2024; the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, ratified on 6 June 2024; and several laws, including on the suppression of terrorism, the fight against money laundering and financing of terrorism, regulating prisons, and setting out the procedures for the detention of persons, among others.
Despite the efforts made, Côte d'Ivoire continued to face many challenges which the State intended to tackle. These included strengthening cooperation with international and regional human rights protection systems for the submission of all reports due to the treaty bodies; strengthening the operational capacities of the judicial system; and improving the management of prisons and prison infrastructure, among others. Côte d'Ivoire was committed to complying with its international commitments under the Convention and appealed to the international community to help the State deal with these challenges.
Questions by Committee Experts
ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said Côte d'Ivoire had ratified the Convention in December 1995 and had been required to submit its initial report two years later, in 1997; 18 years later, in 2015, Côte d'Ivoire accepted the simplified procedure of the Committee but did not submit its report under this procedure until 19 February 2024. The Committee expressed great regret at this considerable delay of 28 years and hoped today would begin a better interaction and start a greater consistency of report submissions.
In recent years, there had been several developments at the constitutional, legislative and institutional levels aimed at the criminalisation of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. These included the adoption of a law on 26 June 2019 on the Penal Code, the law on the Code of Criminal Procedure of December 2018, and the law of 7 June 2023 on the status of refugees. Also, institutional reforms had been carried out such as the creation of new penitentiary establishments and a new national institution for the promotion and protection of human rights. During the period under consideration, the country had faced several political crises that had seen the perpetration of serious and systematic violations, including torture and ill treatment, which would be addressed during the dialogue.
The prohibition of torture and ill treatment was introduced in the Ivorian Constitution in 2000, but it was not until 2019 that the law was adopted to define and integrate torture and ill treatment as a separate offence. However, the definition was not fully in line with the provisions of the Convention, including in language relating to the perpetrator of offence. Could it be concluded that the provisions of the Criminal Code did not clearly address the issue on non-intervention by the authorities, which reinforced the risk of harm to others?
The Penal Code provided that any person who committed an act of torture should be punished by imprisonment for five to 10 years and a fine of 500,000 to 5,000,000 CFA francs. On the other hand, the same Code qualified any offence punishable by a custodial sentence of less than or equal to 10 years' misdemeanour, also covering acts of torture. Therefore, it could be said that the Ivorian Penal Code criminalised two forms of torture: those that constituted an offence and others as a crime, whereas the same penalties should be prescribed for all perpetrators.
Could the delegation explain to the Committee the legal consequences emanating from article 399 of the Penal Code, which stated that the order to commit an act of torture was unlawful? There also seemed to be an absence from the obligation under the Convention to prescribe a statute of limitations. Was it up to judges to assess if a statement obtained by torture might be admissible in proceedings, as there was still no provision in Ivorian law that provided for admissibility in any proceedings? The Committee had been made aware that confessions obtained under torture had been used to press charges against six people, who were allegedly forced to sign a document without reading it. Could the delegation inform the Committee about any developments regarding cases where the Convention was applied in court? Could more information on the murder of Luc Valen Bomahé be provided?
The Committee noted that the period of police custody was set at 48 hours, renewable once by a decision of the Public Prosecutor. While people could have access to a lawyer, it was reported this right was rarely used because of the ignorance of procedures and lack of financial resources of persons deprived of their liberty. Regarding pre-trial detention, was it correct that once the investigation of a case by the judge ended, leading to a criminal prosecution, the investigating chamber, which had the obligation to carry out a second investigation, was exempt from the time limit? Would this result in an extension of the pre-trial detention period, which meant the principle of the presumption of innocence would be violated under the Criminal Code?
The Committee stressed that the renewal of police custody for those accused of terrorism needed to be limited to duly justified exceptional circumstances. Mr. Rouwane drew attention to the preventive detention of the persons arrested in connection with the terrorist attack in Grand-Bassam in 2016, who were tried six years after their detention.
The principle of non-refoulment was defined in the Ivorian Constitution, but the provisions of the law were not fully in line with the Convention, as they limited grounds for non-refoulement to the threat of life or physical integrity of liberty of the person, rather than concern they would likely be subjected to torture. The Committee considered that States parties must expressly include in their legislation torture as a basis for non-refoulement, when there were substantial grounds for believing that the threat of torture existed.
The Committee noted that Côte d'Ivoire had ratified a significant number of international and regional instruments in the field of the protection of refugees and stateless persons. The Committee also noted the efforts made to accommodate a large number of refugees in the north of the country, and prepare the conditions for their well-being, in particular by building decent housing. The Committee understood the concern about the arrival of a large number of refugees, but wished to express its concern about information received that indicated a desire by Côte d'Ivoire to restrict the reception of refugees. The Committee encouraged the Government to continue, with the assistance of the international community and international organizations, to keep borders open to persons seeking international protection.
Article 11 of the Convention obliged States parties to exercise systematic supervision concerning the custody and treatment of detained persons. What measures did the State plan to take to fulfil this obligation? Various sources confirmed numerous allegations of acts of torture and ill treatment committed by police and security forces that were not investigated and remained unpunished, including crimes committed during the Ivorian crisis. Was this due in part to the lack of an independent and effective mechanism to receive and investigate allegations of torture by the police and security forces? Had there been any developments on this issue since the submission of the report?
The Committee noted the 2012-2015 Sectoral Policy Orientation Document and the second Sectoral Policy Action Plan 2016-2020 that were adopted by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. Had there been an evaluation of these plans? Could more information be provided on the achievements made in their implementation in relation to strengthening the independence of the judiciary and promoting access to justice for individuals? Could the delegation’s answers address the challenges in the country, including the costly access to justice, the non-effectiveness of legal aid, the lack of knowledge of a large part of the population on their rights, judicial delays, and the concern about the lack of independence of the judiciary in the country, among other factors?
Côte d'Ivoire had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture on 1 March 2023, under which a national preventive mechanism should be established within one year. But to date, this mechanism had not been designated. What was the process to set up the mechanism and where did it stand today? The report stated that non-governmental organizations had the possibility to visit prisons, provided they obtained prior authorisation from the Prison Service, while paragraph 215 said that national and international non-governmental organizations had the possibility to carry out visits without prior authorisation to places of detention. Could this be explained? Could information on visits by representatives of non-governmental organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, to places of detention be provided? Could information be provided on visits made by the Public Prosecutor in this regard? Was the National Human Rights Council able to carry out visits to all places of deprivation of liberty? How were complaints concerning torture and ill treatment received, examined or investigated by the Council and the follow-up given to them?
Could the delegation explain to the Committee how the provisions contained in the new laws adopted as part of the reforms in the country, namely the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowed victims of torture to receive reparation?
TODD BUCHWALD, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the report had been prepared with great care and professionalism and provided a strong basis for a constructive dialogue. There were widespread reports of severe overcrowding in prisons which resulted in unsanitary conditions, as well as a lack of health care and staff. Could more information be provided on the provisions taken to reduce overcrowding in prisons? According to the report, up to 2019, there were 26,089 detainees in a system with a capacity of 9,139; nearly three times more than capacity. Could statistics be provided from 2019 to 2024 on the numbers of detainees in prison? How frequently was the law which allowed for community service in lieu of custodial sentences, enacted? How had this contributed to reducing overcrowding? Were there practical steps which could encourage judges to utilise alternatives to detention?
It was reported that over one third of the prison population was made up of persons in preventative detention. Could data be provided to help the Committee understand how this was contributing to the issue of overcrowding? Could statistics of people in preventive detention year on year be provided? What was the nature of the charges against them? Were there any mechanisms to compensate people held in preventative detention for a significant length of time? What could be done to bring down the rate of preventive detention and the time people were being held?
What was the extent of infectious disease in the prison population, compared to the general population at large? How were infectious diseases screened within the incarceration system? A standing order in place since 2015 stated every detainee had the right to receive good quality food, amounting to at least 2,400 kilocalories per day. However, there were reports these calorie amounts were not met. Thirteen deaths had been reported, with 12 of them being because of beriberi, due to malnutrition. Could the delegation comment on these concerns? What steps were being taken to deal with these issues?
There were reports that diseases in prisons often went untreated and prisons were severely under supplied in terms of medicine and medical staff. What plans were underway to ensure an increased number of health staff in prisons? What would be done to rehabilitate old and dilapidated prisons?
The report acknowledged that untried persons were not separated from the convicted, and children were only sometimes separated from adults. Were there plans to allocate the required resources to address these issues? How were minors in detention monitored? Were specific provisions for minors in prison in place? What kinds of complaints mechanisms were available for minors? What was being done to drastically reduce the number of children in pretrial detention? How were the needs of women met? How many female staff were in prisons? How were the needs of women with young children accommodated? How were the needs of persons with disabilities in prisons being met?
There were reports that cases of inter-prisoner violence were frequent. What measures were being taken to deal with this problem? How were prison personnel trained on de-escalation techniques? Could prison by prison statistics on deaths in custody be provided? Regarding prisoners who died of natural causes, what were the natural causes of death according to prison physicians? Did prisons have their own regulations to govern disciplinary activities? Were these public and available to detainees so they were aware of their rights?
Had thought been given to limit the duration of solitary confinement to 15 days, in line with the Nelson Mandela rules? How often were shackles used and in what circumstances? What were the legal rules for the use of physical force against prisoners? What sanctions had been taken when there were violations? What were the protocols in place if medical professionals documented evidence that a prisoner had been subjected to acts of torture? Did rules of access also apply to police stations where people were being held? Did they apply to all prisoners, including those involved in politically sensitive cases? The Committee had heard allegations of threats and violence against journalists looking into violence in prisons. Could the delegation comment on this?
The Committee had heard specific reports that the Hotel Subroko had been used as a base to torture detainees in connection with the 2020 elections. Could the delegation comment on this? What was the legislative basis for the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire to detain persons? How many detained persons had the National Human Rights Council visited at Direction de la Surveillance du Territore facilities? Could the Prosecutor freely choose what part of the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire facility to visit? How many visits had the Prosecutor made and how many people had he met with?
Could information on training to prison staff be provided? Were all law enforcement and prison staff required to take the training? What portion of staff had actually taken the training? How many complaints had prisoners submitted, by year and by facility? How many prosecutions and convictions had there been as a result of these complaints? How many penalties had been imposed?
The report outlined many commitments to fighting impunity, in light of the post-election violence of 2010 and 2011. These included a fund to compensate, a national solidarity fund, the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, and the national investigative mechanism, among other accountability mechanisms. Was the Government committed to accountability? Had the Government decided to forgo the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for international crimes? Did this include those who had committed acts of torture? Was there a list of soldiers and armed groups excluded from the amnesty? Was the list publicly available? If not, why not? Were there any other exclusions from the amnesty, including perpetrators of sexual violence? Was there a law which allowed the President to bestow such an amnesty? Did the law contain restrictions to ensure it was not used to provide amnesty to international crimes?
The law to protect human rights defenders was an important step, followed by decrees and the Protection Committee which had been in operation since 2022. These were positive developments which should be highlighted. There were some criticisms of the mechanisms; could the delegation comment on these?
Another Committee Expert thanked the State for all the measures and efforts taken to implement the Convention. What was the country’s position on the acceptance of the individual complaints procedure? What was being done to combat domestic violence and harmful practices? How were victims and survivors provided with care? The Committee was aware of positive achievements in this area, including the establishment of the national committee to combat violence against women and children. Could more precise information, including disaggregated statistics of victims, investigations and prosecutions be provided? What effective measures were being taken to ensure victims could exercise their right to file complaints? How was the State party dealing with cases of underreporting of gender-based violence?
It was commendable that the Constitution prohibited female genital mutilation, as did the Penal Code. However, in practice, this was common. Reports indicated that almost 70 per cent of women and girls in the north of the country were victims of such practices. Could an update on prosecutions of these practices be provided? What had the Government done to combat such practices?
What was the situation in psychiatric hospitals and social care centres? Could information be provided on the use of chemical and physical restraints, complaints mechanisms, and the material conditions in such institutions? What measures had the State taken to develop the professional capacity of psychiatric specialists and increase the number of specialists in the country?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the State equally regretted the delay taken to submit the report. An act of torture was defined in the Criminal Code as “inflicting voluntary acute pain or mental and physical pain to obtain information or confessions from a third-party person”. The definition was a broader scope than that which was under the Convention. This legislation ensured better protection and did not trivialise torture. Acts committed by State officials fell within the law. Acts committed by officers and officials fell within the legislation, and they could be judged and convicted on this basis. Côte d'Ivoire believed the definition of torture under the Convention was quite restrictive, and the State was proposing a broader definition which included acts by public servants.
According to article 100 of the Ivorian Criminal Code, the person issuing an order was responsible for the act, and could be punished if the act was illegal. There was a penalty of five to 10 years and a fine for anyone who committed an act of torture. This was aggravated when committed by a public official, when the victim lived with the perpetrator, or when the act resulted in a permanent injury or death. Côte d'Ivoire had reformed its criminal legislation, which was an act which should be welcomed, given that torture was currently punished with a criminal sentence. Since the report had been submitted, initiatives had been taken to ensure legislation was in line with the provisions of the Convention.
There was a simple penalty when torture was committed by an individual and a heavier penalty when it was committed by officials or on their instigation. There was equal punishment under Ivorian legislation for an accomplice to torture. The Criminal Code stated that the attempt of torture was considered to be torture itself, and therefore attempts of torture were fully punishable under criminal legislation. Torture was expressly prohibited under the Ivorian Constitution and had been recognised as a separate criminal offence. No local provision could justify the act of torture. In Ivorian law, the definition of torture was valid under all circumstances, including under a state of emergency.
According to the Committee, there should be no statute of limitations as this denied victims compensation and reparations. The State believed a statute of limitations was not an obstacle to ensure reparations for the victim. When an act of torture was committed, a prosecution could be launched immediately, and once the person was sentenced, they could also be sentenced to provide reparations.
The law on refugees stated that refugees or asylum seekers could not be sent back or expelled, compelling them to return to a territory where their liberty or life may be threatened, due to their race, nationality or gender. The State agreed with the Committee that this provision was restrictive, as it was limited to refugees and asylum seekers. The principle of non-refoulment was fully covered in Ivorian legislation. Côte d'Ivoire had abolished the death penalty in 2000, which was recognised in the 2016 Constitution. The State had acceded to the Second Optional Protocol relating to the abolition of the death penalty. The death penalty was grounds for non-refoulment under Ivorian legislation or if the person may be at risk of torture. The law of 2024 provided that extradition was not granted where Côte d'Ivoire was deferring to national jurisdiction.
It was up to the judge to determine whether statements obtained in a case as a result of torture were admissible or not. If it were not up to a judge to ascertain whether statements were obtained by torture, then who could? Testimonies were contained in the records and it could be seen straight away if they were obtained under torture. In Côte d'Ivoire, international treaties which had been ratified took precedence over domestic law. A judge could dismiss police records if they established that the testimonies were obtained under torture.
The unavailability of legal statistics on torture or ill treatment could not be interpreted as a lack of punishment for these acts. This was due to the fact that the collection of statistics was rather recent. The State was committed to tackling this challenge tirelessly. Regarding the murder of young teacher Luc Valen Bohamé, three persons had been arrested and indicted for acts of torture by the court. The State had made the definition of torture broader, so as not to be restricted to officials. If this had been the case, the State would have been unable to prosecute the perpetrators of this crime for torture and inhumane treatment.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the role of civil society should not be limited to denouncing abuses during the submission of the report, but they must also contribute to improving things day to day. This could be improved with increased interaction with the Government. The article in the law on the suppression of terrorism stated that if necessary, the judicial police may take custody measures, however, the Public Prosecutor must be informed from the start of detention. It was only possible to renew the custody period with approval from the Public Prosecutor. The investigative judge had the obligation to inform the person of their right to choose a lawyer. The investigative division must ensure the proper functioning of proceedings. Judges were required to draw up reports of cases in their divisions on a quarterly basis, making special mention of those detained longer than six months.
Côte d’Ivoire took its international obligations very seriously and had executed the decision from the Court of Justice by amending the Criminal Procedural Code, providing for the immediate release of an accused person when a release decision was issued. Côte d’Ivoire had fully implemented this decision and had a new judicial mechanism in line with its obligations. The State worked with non-governmental organizations and had not heard of alleged threats.
The need for those entering Côte d’Ivoire to do so in an official manner could not be interpreted as a wish to close the State’s borders. Regulations on interrogation were subject to effective oversight, including by the Public Prosecutor and the Ministry of Interior. The leadership of the Judicial Police and the Gendarmerie played an important role in this regard, ensuring there were effective investigations into allegations against police units. Penalties were regularly handed down in cases of abuse. The national preventive mechanism also played an important role in this regard. The courts in Côte d’Ivoire were independent and followed up duly on complaints of torture. The final observations of the Human Rights Committee that stated that justice was not independent in Côte d’Ivoire did not reflect the reality.
Detention conditions had been improved, including through the improvement of existing infrastructure, creating new infrastructure, and increasing the daily food rations for prisoners. Courts of appeals in two cities had now been completed, with another court under construction. New penitentiary infrastructure had been built, including the correctional centres of San Pedro and Giglo. Daily food rations had been increased in prisons. Contrary to what was stated, legal aid was effective in Côte d’Ivoire. Legal aid offices were open and fully operational. Awareness raising sessions were organised on judicial procedure, particularly for women and girls and vulnerable members of society. There were more than 700 people who had been able to access legal aid from 2019 to 2024. There was a growing recruitment of magistrates. The State was continuing the process of opening new courts to bring justice to the people. For several years, Côte d’Ivoire had published a number of judicial decisions which were directly accessible, with a view to ensuring predictability for those in the justice system.
Following Côte d’Ivoire’s accession to the Optional Protocol, the process for setting up the national preventive mechanism was ongoing. To ensure a fully participatory process, a workshop had been convened which brought together several entities in May 2023. Magistrates visited penitentiary institutions under their mandate at least once per month. Visits were carried out by the human rights division each year, with reports prepared following each visit. Members of parliament and members of the national human rights institute could visit penitentiary institutions in line with their mandate. The child and youth protection service also visited minors in detention. Visits by non-governmental organizations needed prior organization.
The National Human Rights Council was entrusted to carry out visits to places of detention to prevent the committal of acts of torture. After the visit, the Council would make recommendations for follow-up which mandated the full attention of authorities. Côte d’Ivoire had a decree which established modalities of appointing the members of the Human Rights Council. These included members of non-governmental organizations who were nominated and elected by their peers. This was an independent process which meant the Council had been able to benefit from A status.
The Civil Code stated that anyone who caused somebody else harm or damage had to provide reparation for that. In carrying out its tasks, the inter-ministerial committee would involve the National Human Rights Council and non-governmental organizations in its activities.
Alternatives to detention were effectively implemented. Around 1,356 decisions had been taken for suspended sentences and more than 3,000 individuals had benefitted from probation. Presidential pardons allowed for the release of more than 11,000 detainees between 2000 and 2023. Measures were ongoing to ensure the alternatives to detention were taken. The total number of detainees was more than 27,000 whereas the State only had capacity for around 10,000. The occupation rate was more than 200 per cent above where it should be. The State did not intend to hide these figures in any way. Côte d’Ivoire was taking robust measures to rectify this situation as soon as possible. This situation was alarming, but it was important to look at measures to tackle this by the Government, which included building new prisons and a new women’s prison. The State hoped to bring down the very high occupancy rate.
The Ministry of Justice and Human Rights had been implementing the national policy to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis in the prison environment. When detainees arrived at prisons, there was a medical checkup during which they were screened for tuberculosis, and with their consent were screened for HIV/AIDS. If found positive, they were provided with confidential treatment for HIV/AIDS. Those with tuberculosis were transferred to a separate facility to be appropriately looked after. Awareness raising sessions on HIV/AIDS were conducted to encourage screening and avoid risky behaviour.
Food supplements could be used to remedy certain deficiencies in detainees. Five correctional facilities had a doctor. If a facility did not have a doctor, they would have State registered nurses. The centre for juveniles had a nurse, and a doctor visited once a week. The real priority was to ensure all prisons had doctors. In all penitentiary facilities, men were separated from women. Sometimes those in pretrial and those who were convicted had to share the same cell. Children living with their mother were no longer admitted within the prisons; there were no children or babies in prisons in Côte d’Ivoire. A woman who was detained and was pregnant was transferred to the maternity hospital, and when her health permitted, she would return to prison. The child was entrusted to a relative or a public institution. When it was noted that a convicted woman was pregnant, the enforcement of the sentence against her could only happen six months after the birth of the child. Restraints could only be used as a last resort and the Public Prosecutor was required to be informed. There was a formal ban on members of the penitentiary administration to carry out acts of violence against detainees.
Places of deprivation of liberty were defined as police stations, detention centres, juvenile detention centres, border police posts, transit zones in border regions, ports and airports, and psychiatric institutions, among others. No place of detention would escape the competence of the national preventive mechanism which was currently being established. This would be set up swiftly. The Public Prosecutor enjoyed the right to carry out visits to security chambers. Did the Committee have examples from other countries where non-governmental organizations had the opportunity to carry out unannounced visits to a national security unit? These examples would be helpful for the State. Detainees were able to complain in cases of use of force against them.
Placement in solitary confinement was not applicable for minors due to their vulnerability. The amnesty order explicitly excluded members of armed groups. Those who had committed serious violations of human rights law would always be held responsible for this. The amnesty order should not be perceived as encouraging impunity in any way. Crimes against humanity and war crimes could not enjoy any amnesty. Côte d’Ivoire was a party to the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court. It was fully legal for the President of Côte d’Ivoire to adopt an order on amnesty. Mechanisms to protect human rights defenders were fully operational. The decree creating the Human Rights Defenders Committee allowed for the work to be opened up to civil society representatives and the Committee had not prevented non-governmental organizations from taking part.
Côte d’Ivoire was the first country in Africa to adopt a law on the promotion of human rights. Fears of reprisals against human rights defenders were unjustified. The State had a law in place to protect them and therefore would not have a law in place against them. The law against terrorism in no way targeted human rights defenders. The only law concerning them was on their protection.
Côte d’Ivoire had not ruled out the possibility of accepting the individual complaints mechanism, however, the State wished to take the time to reflect on this important decision. In 2022, there were more than 10,000 gender-based violence cases recorded in Côte d’Ivoire, more than 1,000 rapes, six female genital mutilation cases, more than 800 physical assaults, and 182 forced marriages. Since 2014, Côte d’Ivoire had drawn up a national strategy to combat gender-based violence, allowing the State to mobilise stakeholders throughout the sector. Information was provided in the report on how the State dealt with cases of domestic violence. The document set out shelter centres available to women who were victims of gender-based violence.
Questions by Committee Experts
ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, congratulated the delegation on the immense capacity to answer such an onslaught of questions. The Committee was aware of the progress Côte d’Ivoire had made over the past few years and supported the State in the process. Each State party had the obligation under the Convention to provide reparations for torture and ill treatment in all institutions. States parties were duty bound to adopt effective measures to prevent public agents from committing acts of torture. The dialogue had been framed in such a way to ensure that the State was fully in line with article one in the Convention, as other commitments flowed from that.
It was the role of the judges and magistrates to prove if evidence was obtained under torture. There were means available, including forensic medicine, to prove torture had been perpetrated. The Committee had developed jurisprudence to ensure fundamental legal guarantees, which included an examination. If a detainee alleged that they were tortured, they could be examined by a doctor. Torture was part of the rare series of violations of human rights which were non-derogable.
If the State produced statistics, this would allow the State to analyse facts linked to torture and envisage steps to prevent such acts. Mr. Rouwane congratulated Côte d’Ivoire on the initiative of the inter-ministerial committee. The Human Rights Council had adopted a resolution which encouraged States to create mechanisms to facilitate coordination with all the treaty bodies and ensure proper monitoring and follow-up. This position meant the State would be able to be properly informed regarding all issues of human rights. Did the State intend to further bolster this inter-ministerial committee with further resources and a greater budget? Could members of the inter-ministerial committee visit the premises of the Direction de la Surveillance du Territorie? Could the National Human Rights Council carry out unannounced visits to places of deprivation of liberty?
TODD BUCHWALD, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said it was encouraging that so many of the issues the Committee was asking about were things that the State was already addressing. It would be an extremely positive step when the national preventive mechanism was set up. Could more clarification be provided around decisions of the amnesty order? What was the legal situation on discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons in Côte d’Ivoire. The Committee had received reports of homophobic violence in the country with victims unsure of reporting their claims and if the police would take them seriously. Could information on prosecuting perpetrators of such violence be provided? What was the State doing to ensure the protection of people with albinism? Would Côte d’Ivoire consider extending an open invitation to the Special Procedures?
The Committee had read some reports about corruption in certain prisons. Could the delegation provide comments on this? One report alleged corruption involving the formal administration, including reports where prisoners were prevented from gaining their freedom unless they made a payment.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the State’s definition of torture was not specific to State officials, but they were still included within the definition. The law was applicable to all persons who committed acts of torture. In its legislation, Côte d’Ivoire criminalised the act of torture by a State official. Judges in Côte d’Ivoire were able to determine whether statements were well founded or when torture was effectively committed. They could exclude police records which they suspected were obtained due to torture. There had been a situation where a detainee appeared before the court of appeals and denied outright all the statements made on police record. He had explained that he had been savagely beaten when the police records had been made. He lifted his clothing showing his back which had signs of beatings. The court of appeals ended proceedings there and then. That was the role a judge could play.
Côte d’Ivoire dealt with the issue of refugees and asylum seekers who could not be returned to a State where they may be subject to torture. Under current Ivorian legislation, all aspects of the principle of non-refoulment had been taken into account. The Experts had stressed the importance of statistics and the State fully agreed with this. There was a directorate for planning and statistics and judicial statistics were available, but the State was missing the opportunity to enrich these statistics with new additions. Conversations would be had with the Côte d’Ivoire Legal Association to ensure legal aid was effective. The State was doing all it could to ensure access to justice was a reality, including through ensuring proper geographic coverage. For this reason, the State had created jurisdictions where there previously were not.
The State intended to strengthen the inter-ministerial committee and ensure all international commitments were respected. This involved a monitoring committee that was dynamic and effective. There were opportunities for Government Ministries to visit the premises of the Direction de la Surveillance du Territorie which meant there was oversight in these units. The national preventive mechanism was being implemented and all necessary provisions were being taken to ensure everything went as it should with this mechanism. Offences which were crimes against humanity or war crimes were not bound by the statute of limitations. Under Côte d’Ivoire’s legislation, those offences could not be the subject of an amnesty. Those individuals who had committed such crimes would face the full force of the law.
All individuals in Côte d’Ivoire, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, were protected from discrimination. Nobody would prevent these people from going to school or receiving health care because of their sexual orientation. Albinos had been able to benefit from protection under Ivorian law. It did not reflect reality to say that these people were attacked and murdered and did not enjoy political protection. Crimes against albinos were not tolerated in Côte d’Ivoire.
Côte d’Ivoire’s laws stipulated that military leaders were responsible for crimes committed under their command. The State had ratified the Rome Statute and done all it could to ensure legislation was in line with this. Côte d’Ivoire systematically responded favourably to United Nations Experts visits and had recently welcomed visits by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery and by the Working Group on mercenaries. The Government had done all it could to facilitate their missions and the visits had gone smoothly. Côte d’Ivoire was always open to visits by Special Procedures. Measures were being taken to ensure that corruption did not occur in prisons. Detainees who seemed to enjoy a parallel authority in prisons went against all regulations of prisons. Measures were taken to ensure that prison establishments were purely under the control of the prison administration.
Closing Remarks
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the frank and open dialogue. This had been a realistic exchange of views. Côte d’Ivoire was submitting its report after a period full of political crises and violations of human rights. The Committee was aware of the efforts the State was making in its legislation and the challenges the State faced in the area of human rights. Mr. Heller hoped this was the first step in a long journey of cooperation between Côte d’Ivoire and the Committee.
LAMBERT ALLOU YAO, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of Côte d'Ivoire to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the opportunity for Côte d’Ivoire to submit its initial report. The two days had allowed for a meaningful exchange and enabled the State to share its experience and benefit from the Committee’s experience. It was hoped the submission of reports would be upheld as rights in the future.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CAT24.013E