Committee against Torture Adopts Reports on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations, Individual Communications and Reprisals
The Committee against Torture today heard presentations of reports on follow-up to concluding observations, individual communications and reprisals submitted under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, before adopting the reports.
Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations under article 19 of the Convention, presenting his report, said that during the period under review, the Committee had received follow-up reports from Denmark, Slovenia and Costa Rica. The willingness of the States parties to provide information regarding measures they had taken to implement their obligations under the Convention was welcomed and appreciated.
Mr. Tuzmukhamedov said several States had not yet supplied follow-up information that had fallen due: Bangladesh, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Chad, Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Guinea, Holy See, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Romania, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates.
During the period under review, the Committee received alternative follow-up reports from non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders in relation to the follow-up replies submitted by Egypt, New Zealand and Denmark.
The Rapporteur said he also communicated with concerned States parties regarding pending issues once their reports on the implementation of the concluding observations were received and assessed. Since November 2024, such communications were sent to Colombia, Australia, Slovakia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Brazil, Somalia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Slovenia and Luxembourg. In addition, the follow-up replies submitted by Egypt were currently under consideration.
Mr. Tuzmukhamedov said that while no A grades (“recommendations largely implemented”) were awarded during the period under review, substantive steps had been taken towards the implementation of eight recommendations (grade B1) and initial steps regarding 21 other recommendations (grade B2). For four recommendations, the follow-up reports did not contain sufficient information to enable the Rapporteur to assess implementation (grade D). In eight other instances, the State party had taken no action to implement the Committee’s recommendation or the action taken had not addressed the situation (grade C).
States parties were encouraged to provide to the Committee, along with the report on the implementation of the recommendations identified for follow-up, a voluntary plan for the implementation of all or some of the remaining recommendations included in the concluding observations. During the period under review, three of the States parties’ follow-up reports submitted included additional information on the implementation of some of the other recommendations that had not been identified for follow-up by the Committee.
Mr. Tuzmukhamedov concluded by encouraging all stakeholders to make use of the dedicated web page for the follow-up procedure, which presented recommendations identified for follow-up by the Committee, the information submitted by States parties, and the public reports submitted by national human rights institutes, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders.
Committee Expert Liu Huawen, Rapporteur on follow-up to communications presented under article 22, the individual complaints procedure, said that since the last session, the Committee had adopted decisions on four cases concerning Georgia, Serbia, Sweden and Morocco.
For the case concerning Georgia, Mr. Liu said, the State party had reported that it had obtained relevant documents and interviewed witnesses, including police officers and cellmates, who had reported that the concerned party had not reported mistreatment or shown signs of physical injury. The investigation remained ongoing. The complainant had argued that the police officers should have been interviewed as accused persons rather than as witnesses, and that some of the cellmates interviewed were not actually the cellmates of the complainant. They said that the complainant had yet to receive medical rehabilitation. The Committee found partial implementation of its recommendations and decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing.
For the case concerning Serbia, the State party had reported that criminal proceedings for the case in question had been closed due to the elapse of the statute of limitations. Regarding measures to prevent repetition, the State party reported that it had conducted training for prison officers and constructed 63 detention facilities. It also reported that the Committee’s decision on the case had been published on Government websites. Conversely, the complainant’s counsel had reported that they had not been interviewed by the State concerning the case and contested the way that the statute of limitations was applied.
Mr. Liu said follow-up comments demonstrated partial implementation of the Committee’s decisions. The Committee welcomed that its decision had been published by the State party, but was concerned that the State party had yet to implement an investigation of the torture and death of the complainant, file appropriate charges against accused persons, or review legislation on investigations into torture cases. The Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing.
For the case concerning Sweden, the State party reported that it had initiated an investigation of the complainant’s asylum application. If the application were to be granted, the complainant would not be expelled from the State party. The State party had also published the Committee’s decision online. The State party had demonstrated its efforts to implement the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee would keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing while the asylum application was being processed.
For the case concerning Morocco, Mr. Liu reported, the Committee had previously called on the State party to release the complainant. It welcomed the State party’s report that the complainant had been released on 12 February 2025 and transferred to a safe country. It decided to close the follow-up dialogue with a note of satisfactory completion.
In closing, Mr. Liu called on the other concerned States parties to implement the Committee’s decisions on individual communications.
More information on individual communications assessed by the Committee can be found here.
The Rapporteur on follow-up to reprisals, Committee Expert Ana Racu, said that focal points of different treaty bodies had held an informal meeting on preventing and responding to reprisals in March 2025. The event served as a platform for an exchange of views and cooperation on addressing reprisals.
Since the last session, Ms. Racu reported, the Committee had received allegations of reprisals concerning two individual complaints. She said that she was continuing to thoroughly examine these allegations and monitor developments. Also, in the context of country reviews, several allegations of reprisals had been brought to the Committee’s attention concerning threats and intimidation directed at non-governmental organizations that had engaged with the Committee.
The Committee was vigilant about reprisals and was committed to protecting all entities that cooperated with it, Ms. Racu said. To prevent the risk of reprisal for all persons who participated in country reviews, the Committee decided to make a brief, standard statement regarding its zero-tolerance stance on reprisals before each dialogue with States parties. The Committee called on other human rights treaty bodies to take this approach, which would foster greater synergy and mitigate the risk of reprisals.
Ms. Racu also said that she was supporting capacity-building activities within the treaty body system on responding to reprisals, particularly for newly elected treaty body members.
Documents relating to the Committee’s work are 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 is scheduled to next meet in public on Friday, 2 May at 10 a.m. to adopt its annual report and conclude its eighty-second session.
__________
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.
CAT.008E