COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE DISCUSSES REPRISALS AND FOLLOW-UP TO RECOMMENDATIONS AND INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee against Torture this afternoon considered the issue of follow-up to concluding observations and recommendations and to individual communications, and the issue of reprisals, hearing from Committee members Jens Modvig, Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations, Satyabhoosun Gupt Domah, Rapporteur on follow-up to individual communications, George Tugushi, Co-Rapporteur on reprisals, and Alessio Bruni, Co-Rapporteur on reprisals.

Presenting the report on follow-up to Article 19 on concluding observations, Mr. Modvig said that the overall compliance since the adoption of the procedure was 72 per cent. For the fiftieth session, six out of eight States parties submitted a report (75 per cent). For the fifty-first session, six out of nine countries had reported (67 per cent). The fifty-second session yielded six out of eight reports, amounting to 75 per cent. The implementation of the new guidelines for the follow-up procedure would take place starting from the fifty-sixth session. That implied that follow-up reports received from the fiftieth session and onwards would be replied to in accordance with the new guidelines.

Mr. Domah presented his report on compliance with individual communications based on Article 22 and briefed the Committee on nine individual cases from eight States: Finland, Spain, Bulgaria, Morocco (two cases), Kazakhstan, Canada, Burundi and Switzerland. In all the cases the Committee had recommended to continue the dialogue with the States parties.

Concerning reprisals, Mr. Tugushi, Committee Vice-Chairperson and Co-Rapporteur on reprisals under Article 19 of the Convention, said that one case in Thailand, and another in Bahrain had been resolved positively. In one case charges against one of the accused persons had been dropped, whereas in another case the person had been pardoned by the King. There were no new direct cases.

Mr. Bruni, Committee Member and Co-Rapporteur on reprisals under Article 22 of the Convention, referring to reprisals against persons who cooperated with the Committee in the context of individual communications, said he would report substantively during the Committee’s private meeting. He welcomed as a positive development that the Committee on the Rights of the Child had appointed a focal point on reprisals.

The Committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 9 December, at 10 a.m., to adopt a programme of work for future sessions and to close the fifty-sixth session.

Follow-up to Concluding Observations

JENS MODVIG, Committee Expert and Rapporteur on follow-up to concluding observations, explained that the aim of the follow-up procedure on the periodic State party reporting according to Article 19 in the Convention was to obtain information about the measures that the State party might have taken to implement selected recommendations following the consideration of the State party report. He noted that the compliance rate varied greatly among sessions. The overall compliance since the adoption of the procedure was 72 per cent. For the fiftieth session, six out of eight States parties submitted a report (75 per cent). For the fifty-first session, six out of nine countries had reported (67 per cent). The fifty-second session yielded six out of eight reports, amounting to 75 per cent. Thus, the overall reporting compliance, including sessions fifty to fifty-second, was 72 per cent, corresponding to the overall compliance.

At its fifty-fifth session the Committee had adopted guidelines for the follow-up procedure, with the purpose of strengthening the procedure and aligning with the follow-up procedures for other treaty bodies. The new guidelines included: the use of an assessment system for the Committee’s analysis of the States parties follow-up reports; a reply letter to all States parties which had submitted a follow-up report, including the assessment of the implementation of each follow-up recommendation; an invitation to States parties to provide a plan for the implementation of all or some of the recommendations in the concluding observations; introducing the possibility of meetings between Committee members and States parties on follow-up issues; highlighting the follow-up recommendations in the concluding observations as well as in the lists of issues or lists of issues prior to reporting; making the recommendations clearer and easier to implement; consolidating the role of civil society organizations and national human rights institutions in monitoring of and supporting the implementation; and a strengthened reminder procedure in cases of non-compliance with the follow-up reporting.

The implementation of the new guidelines would take place starting from the fifty-sixth session. That implied that follow-up reports received from the fiftieth session and onwards would be replied to in accordance with the new guidelines. Those replies would be subject to approval by the Committee through its respective country rapporteurs. That was in progress and the outcomes would be in Mr. Modvig’s report to the Committee at its fifty-seventh session in April and May 2016. The implementation of the new guidelines also implied that all concluding observations during the fifty-sixth session would be drafted in accordance with the guidelines. That meant that full implementation of the follow-up procedure would be reflected as a positive area, whereas failure to implement the follow-up recommendations would be reflected in the areas of concern. Also, the follow-up recommendation would appear in the concluding observations under a separate heading.

In the ensuing discussion, Experts expressed appreciation for the conciseness of the report. They asked what place would incomplete replies, or replies which were somehow satisfactory but in a different format and did not go to the point and did not explain what happened in practice, would have in the concluding observations. An Expert voiced concern about the ability of developing countries which had ratified the Convention to implement the Committee’s recommendations because it required money and will for implementing. Was that concern covered in the concept of the report? Experts also wondered what kind of issues and disaggregated data would the report contain, whether there would be any financial implications and whether the new guidelines would be applied retroactively.

Mr. Modvig explained that States parties would be requested to provide full information and that might be reflected in areas of concern. Substantive efforts by the State party would not have to be mentioned in areas of concern. He said that funding for the implementation of Committee’s recommendations was taken into consideration to a certain extent. The idea behind the guidelines was to increase the dialogue with States parties, he noted. The more increased the dialogue, the better a chance that poor countries could have their projects funded. The new guidelines would not be applied retroactively and no financial implications had been foreseen.

Follow-up to Individual Communications

SATYABHOOSUN GUPT DOMAH, Committee Expert and Rapporteur on follow-up to individual communications, presented his report on compliance with individual communications based on Article 22 of the Convention and which included information on nine cases from eight States: Finland, Spain, Bulgaria, Morocco (two cases), Kazakhstan, Canada, Burundi and Switzerland. In all the cases the Committee had recommended to continue the dialogue with the States parties. The problem of the identity of complainants arose in the first case from Morocco.


Reprisals

GEORGE TUGUSHI, Committee Vice-Chairperson and Co-Rapporteur on reprisals under Article 19 of the Convention, spoke about reprisals against persons who cooperated with the Committee in the context of State party reviews, noting that few cases had been duly updated. There had been one case in Thailand, and another in Bahrain. In one case charges against one of the accused persons had been dropped, whereas in another case the person had been pardoned by the King. There were no new direct cases. It was positive to know that the Committee’s efforts brought about positive changes, Mr. Tugushi concluded.

ALESSIO BRUNI, Committee Member and Co-Rapporteur on reprisals under Article 22 of the Convention, referring to reprisals against persons who cooperated with the Committee in the context of individual communications, said he would report substantively during the Committee’s private meeting. He welcomed as a positive development that the Committee on Children had appointed a focal point on reprisals.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT15/034E