COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE DISCUSSES THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE

The Committee against Torture this afternoon discussed the eleventh annual report of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture with the Subcommittee’s Chair Malcolm Evans.

Mr. Evans highlighted the key aspects of the annual report, and reminded that about half of the States parties to the Convention against Torture were now also parties to the Optional Protocol. Turning to the introduction of the article 17 list, a compilation of States substantially not in compliance with establishing their national preventive mechanism, Mr. Evans reminded that there were 14 countries on that list. The list had already proven to be a useful reminder for States on the need to establish their national preventive mechanisms.

Another key area was the Subcommittee’s visiting programme; 2017 was a particularly busy year with 10 visits. The Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture was also catching up on the adoption of reports and had sent 17 reports to States parties during the reporting period. In terms of follow-up to visits, the Subcommittee invited States to provide written comments in response to visits. The Subcommittee had discovered that the best way of pursuing preventive objectives was engaging in oral discussions with States when possible.

As for the less positive aspects of the annual report, Mr. Evans said that the Subcommittee would be able to undertake only eight visits in 2018 due to resource constraints. The Subcommittee had to have the capacity to visit States on a routine basis, which was not possible at the moment. Another problem concerned meeting time. Regretfully, the Subcommittee could not take advantage of additional meeting time due to restrained resources. Mr. Evans stressed the importance of continuing to work with national preventive mechanisms after they had been established. It was necessary to maintain contact with them when they underwent change. At the moment, the Subcommittee could only do that on an ad hoc basis. Furthermore, Mr. Evans regretted that not all States parties respected that mandate.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts inquired about the definition of considerable delay in meeting requirements for the establishment of the national preventive mechanisms under article 17, about ways to address the constraints on undertaking country visits, visits to region and territories that were de facto States, capacity-building activities for national preventive mechanisms, organization of visits, and the Committee’s role in following up on the Subcommittee’s discussions with States.


The Committee against Torture will next meet in public on Tuesday, 15 May, at 3 p.m. to discuss follow-up to articles 19 and 22, and reprisals.


Presentation of the Annual Report of the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture

MALCOLM EVANS, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, said that the eleventh annual report was fairly shorter than previous ones due to a variety of practical and logistical reasons. Concerning participation in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, Mr. Evans reminded of the recent ratification by Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Australia and the State of Palestine, which meant that about half of the States parties to the Convention against Torture were now also parties to the Optional Protocol. The Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture looked forward to working with those States on establishing national preventive mechanisms, Mr. Evans noted. He further reminded of the introduction of the article 17 list, which was a compilation of States substantially not in compliance with establishing their national preventive mechanism. There were 14 countries on that list. The list had already proven to be a useful reminder for States on the need to establish their national preventive mechanisms. Establishing national preventive mechanisms was hugely important, but it was equally important that they were able to work in line with the Optional Protocol criteria and over a long time.

Another key area was the Subcommittee’s visiting programme; 2017 was a particularly busy year with 10 visits. The Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture was also catching up in the adoption of reports and had sent 17 reports to States parties during the reporting period. The visit to Rwanda had been suspended half way through the visit, but the Subcommittee would revisit that question during its next session. In terms of follow-up to visits, the Subcommittee invited States to provide written comments in response to visits. The Subcommittee had discovered that the best way of pursuing preventive objectives was engaging in oral discussions with States when possible. Mr. Evans then turned to less positive aspects of the report, namely the fact that the Subcommittee would be able to undertake only eight visits in 2018, due to resource constraints. The Subcommittee had to have the capacity to visit States on a routine basis, which was not possible at the moment. Another problem concerned meeting time. Regretfully, the Subcommittee could not take advantage of additional meeting time due to restrained resources. Mr. Evans stressed the importance of continuing to work with national preventive mechanisms after they had been established. It was necessary to maintain contact with them when they underwent change. At the moment, the Subcommittee could only do that on an ad hoc basis.

Furthermore, Mr. Evans drew attention to States parties respecting the Subcommittee’s visiting mandate. Regretfully, not all States parties respected that mandate and the Subcommittee was increasingly spending more and more time simply explaining its mandate to States. Accordingly, Mr. Evans thanked the Committee against Torture for having reminded States about the nature of the Subcommittee’s mandate.

Questions by Committee Experts

Experts inquired about the definition of considerable delay in meeting requirements for the establishment of the national preventive mechanisms under article 17. Were there any ways to address the constraints on undertaking country visits? Was it a conscious decision to merge working groups to allow more time for plenary sessions?

Experts further raised the question of visits to regions and territories that were de facto States, such as Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Were there any positive elements that could bring hope that the Subcommittee could conduct monitoring visits there?

Turning to capacity-building activities for national preventive mechanisms, Experts inquired about the development of new guidelines and training materials. Would the Subcommittee consider undertaking advisory visits to national preventive mechanisms, and to which countries?

What was the usual size of a visiting group? How often was a proposed member of the Subcommittee rejected? How often and on what grounds could the proposed visiting site reject the visit? Did the Subcommittee enjoy the required freedom of movement to complete the visits? Was there a deadline for the Subcommittee to come up with medical check lists?

JENS MODVIG, Committee Chair, reminded that the Committee routinely asked States parties questions about national preventive mechanisms. What were the results of the Subcommittee’s meetings with States that had not established national preventive mechanisms and how could the Committee follow up?

Answers by the Subcommittee’s Chairperson

MALCOLM EVANS, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, explained that the considerable delay for the purposes of article 17 contained a very clear set of criteria. Under that article, all States should establish national preventive mechanisms within a year of the ratification of the Optional Protocol. If they had not done so four years after the ratification, then States were substantially delayed in their obligation. The Subcommittee then officially reminded States that they were included in the article 17 list. The Subcommittee revised the list carefully at each session. Mr. Evans said that meetings with States helped them take a look at steps to remedy the situation. States parties could approach the Subcommittee at any time regarding that question.

The Subcommittee did not have enough money to carry out visits. It aspired to conduct eight visits in 2018. It was simply the question of having the necessary funding and human resources to get the job done. It would be self-defeating to try to do more symbolically. As for merging into working groups, Mr. Evans explained that it was partly a pragmatic decision. Discussions in plenary sessions were more desirable due to the availability of language interpretation.

As for visits to de facto States, the Subcommittee would not restrict itself. It would make reasoned decisions on a case-by-case basis. The preventive work needed to extend to all regions and territories. With respect to the new training guides, the Subcommittee was very pleased with the work done. It continued to look at different tools and guidelines, but at the same time it tried not to swamp national preventive mechanisms with new training materials. The Subcommittee supported peer-to-peer networks among national preventive mechanisms. Many national preventive mechanisms approached the Subcommittee for help.

With respect to the organization of visits, the Subcommittee had to have a minimum of two members and the typical visit had four members to be able to split up and travel to different parts of the country. It was not possible under the Convention for States to object to the visit of specific members of the Subcommittee. Occasionally, the Subcommittee had problems obtaining access, but in the majority of cases it had been able to obtain swift access. It would be helpful if the Committee could routinely mention countries on the article 17 list, Mr. Evans noted. It would be also helpful if the Committee could suggest country visits to the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee first developed medical check lists for national preventive mechanisms internally, and then made them public.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT18.008E