COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF QATAR

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Qatar to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on Tuesday, 9 May, the delegation, which was led by Seif Mokadem Al-Boainain, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, said that, regarding Article 3 protections, the Constitution and the laws of Qatar provided equal protections for citizens and foreigners within the State. Foreigners could be deported or expelled by court order, which decision could be appealed. The Minister of the Interior could also decide to expel or deport any foreigner who posed a security or economic threat to the State, who posed a threat to public health, or who infringed standards of public decency.

Regarding the question of camel jockeys, Qatar was one of the first countries to prohibit children from being employed either in training or as jockeys in camel racing. The Qatari Charity Organization, through bilateral agreements with the competent authorities of the States to which those children belonged, had made provisions for compensation and rehabilitation for those children.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Qatar towards the end of the session on Friday, 19 May 2006.

As one of the 141 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Qatar is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 11 May, it is scheduled to take up the second periodic report of the Republic of Korea (CAT/C/53/Add.2).

Response of Qatar

SEIF MOKADEM AL-BOAINAIN, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee Experts on Tuesday, 9 May, said that he welcomed the opportunity for this dialogue with the Committee and he was sure that it would ultimately lead to the better implementation of the provisions of the Convention. He then turned the floor over to other members of the delegation to respond to the questions posed by the Committee.

In response to the Committee's concerns about Qatar's reservations and the extent to which those affected the State's compliance with the Convention, the delegation said that the reservations made at the time of accession did not affect the compliance of Qatar with the various provisions of the Convention.

With regard to Article 1, concerning the definition of torture, the delegation said that despite the absence of one single definition of the crime of torture in one single law, the definition in Article 1 outlined separate elements of torture: the infliction of severe pain; the intention to coerce; and the commission of the act by a State official. The laws of Qatar did contain, albeit scattered in various different provisions, all those elements of the crime, in addition to that of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 36 of the Constitution also specifically addressed torture. Moreover, constitutional protections under Article 36 had been strengthened by the enactment of other laws that criminalized torture.

Selection and appointment of judges was done by the Supreme Council of Justice, the delegation said. The Emir endorsed those appointments by decree. Foreigners, just like citizens, had to comply with the laws of the country, with regard to the fulfilment of contracts. Judges were appointed in such a way as not to infringe on the independence of the judiciary, as mandated in the Constitution. No one had the right to interfere with that process.

The Code of Criminal Procedure guaranteed the right to contact a lawyer for any detainee from the moment of arrest. The Code also provided for the right of the lawyer to be present during the entire process. The Public Prosecutor's Office could not interrogate the accused, or confront him with other accused persons, without the presence of the accused's lawyer.

Detainees were guaranteed the right to contact their families under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Procedures for arrest were very detailed. There were different time limits for detentions depending on the seriousness of the crimes alleged. Detainees for certain crimes could only be held for 24 hours; after that period they had to be brought before a judge or released. Regarding the crimes of breaking and entry or attempted murder, the judge had to consider the case within 48 hours. For crimes carrying a penalty of 6 months or more, the police could detain suspects for 4 days, which could be extended to a period of 8 days under certain circumstances, and, the delegation said, a second eight-day extension could also be granted. In other cases, suspects could be detained for up to 45 days.

According to the law on the organization of prisons, any complaints by prisoners had to be recorded and transferred to the Director of Prisons.

It was the responsibility of the National Human Rights Commission to visit prisons to ensure that there were no violations of human rights there. Periodic reports on the situation in prisons were transmitted to the Minister of the Interior. To date, three such visits had been carried out. The delegation said that it was now possible for prisoners to lodge their complaints directly to the Human Rights Department, and so far there had been 209 complaints of which 121 were still under investigation, 70 were closed, and 18 had been resolved.

With regard to the query about International Committee of the Red Cross visits to prisons and other places of detention and arrest in Qatar, the delegation confirmed that the ICRC had carried out visits in May and October 1999, as well as it in January 2001.

There were currently 457 male prisoners and 109 female prisoners in penal facilities in Qatar. There had only been one case of a death in prison, and that had been a natural death. The deceased prisoner had been a cardiac patient, the delegation said.

Concerning those who had been sentenced in respect of the failed coup d'état, those trials had been carried out on the basis of correct and sound evidence, with full respect for due process. The sentences were based on the confessions of the accused, which were given fully and freely, before judges in the court. The delegation said that the accused had been tried by regular courts, not military or special courts, and that those judgments were thus not subject to appeal. It was up to the Emir to grant amnesty or not.

There were no cases of solitary confinement in Qatar, the delegation said. The rights to receive medical care and physical exercise were also guaranteed under law.

Regarding due obedience, it was not absolute that a subordinate had to obey all orders. Rather orders had to be legitimate, in other words, they could not be contrary to customary, positive or divine law. If orders were contrary to those laws, the subordinate would be held legally responsible for carrying them out, the delegation said.

Concerning Article 3 protections, the Constitution and the laws of Qatar provided equal protections for citizens and foreigners within the State. Foreigners could be deported or expelled by court order, which decision could be appealed. The Minister of the Interior could also decide to expel or deport any foreigner who posed a security or economic threat to the State, who posed a threat to public health, or who infringed standards of public decency.

The delegation said that the penalties of stoning and flogging were practically not applied at all. Moreover, there was a draft law to abolish flogging. Only crimes such as theft, adultery, apostasy and brigandage carried the punishment of flogging. Thus the scope of application of that punishment was small. The penalties of stoning and amputation were also only applicable to a restrained number of crimes.

Extradition was possible on the basis of bilateral agreements signed by Qatar. Moreover, acts of torture were covered under the rubric of crimes for which extradition could be carried out in the absence of a treaty with the requesting State, the delegation said.

Regarding the question of camel jockeys, Qatar was one of the first countries to prohibit children from being employed either in training or as jockeys in camel racing. The Qatari Charity Organization, through bilateral agreements with the competent authorities of the States to which those children belonged, had made provisions for compensation and rehabilitation for those children.

The delegation said that a national shelter had also been set up to protect victims of human trafficking, including women and children, a hotline had been established, and a mechanism had been set up for reporting and investigating such complaints.

Capital punishment was one of the basic punishments that could be applied to criminal offences in Qatar. That sentence had to be endorsed by the Emir, the delegation said. Statistics on the implementation of those sentences would be provided to the Committee.

The Centre for Legal and Judicial Studies had organized various training courses for all members of the Ministry of the Interior. A basic training course on human rights was held in December 2005, in which 9 trainees participated. In 2006 a training course was organized for 6 participants. A series of symposia and lectures had also been undertaken. A seminar was held in 2005 on human rights and the Convention against Torture for law enforcement agents.

The use of confessions obtained under torture by the courts was expressly prohibited under the Penal Code.

Questions and Comments by Committee Experts

FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Qatar, thanked the delegation for the very full and detailed responses. She was especially grateful for the delegation's demonstration of the political will to make the reforms necessary to fulfil Qatar’s commitments under the Convention.

She understood that under the Constitution Qatari citizens had rights and others had rights, but that there were two separate articles that spelled that out and she was not sure they were the same. When it came to rights, did non-citizens have the access to the same rights as citizens, in particular rights to make legal complaints, she asked.

She welcomed the statistics on prisoners, but she wondered at the ratio of male to female prisoners. With 457 men and 109 women, that meant that there was practically one quarter as many women as men. In many countries the ratio was much, much lower, with something like one twentieth of the amount of female prisoners to male prisoners. Could the delegation comment on that?

The sanctity of privacy was held inviolable in the Constitution of Qatar. But, Ms. Gaer said, that they had seen that in a variety of contexts laws protecting privacy were meant to keep out intrusion into domestic affairs. They were also intended to prevent against abusive searches, for example in the case of individuals who were alleged to be homosexuals. She wanted to know how those laws were applied in Qatar.

With regard to the penalties of flogging, stoning and amputation, she wanted to be sure she correctly understood that, although those penalties still existed in Qatari law, they had not been applied in a long time.

XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Qatar, wanted to know whether a decision to prolong detention under anti-terrorist law could be appealed before a court. He also hoped that the delegation would clarify the issue of extradition. Had they said that the Minister of the Interior could deport foreigners who posed a threat to the sovereignty, security, health and decency of the State? He felt that that covered a rather wide range.

Another Committee Expert noted that the lengths of detentions for various crimes were allowed from anywhere from 24 hours to 45 days. That was not detention, the Expert stated; that was arrest. In some cases detainees were liable to be held for several days for financial crimes. Would that include bouncing a check?

Other Experts then made further comments, on issues including child labour, gender issues training for prison staff, domestic violence, and the nature of the penalty of retaliation, which existed in Qatari law.


Response by Delegation


Responding briefly, the delegation said that under Article 1 of the Criminal Code flogging was not to be applied as a punishment from a legal standpoint. Moreover, the draft law on prisons aimed to abrogate flogging. Shariah was applicable to various offences, in cases in which both members were Muslims, in the case of the crimes of apostasy, insult, banditism, and crimes of violence. Flogging would only be applied in practice to that very restricted domain when that religious element was present. Stoning was similarly restricted in its application and was extremely rarely practised.

The delegation said that the appointment of judges and magistrates was done by the Supreme Council of the Judiciary according to standard international practices. The appointment of the judges was not done in any way that would interfere with their independence, the delegation affirmed, whether the judges were citizens of Qatar or not.