COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF CAMEROON

The Committee against Torture this morning heard the response of Cameroon to questions raised by Committee Experts on the fourth 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 Wednesday, 28 April, the delegation, which was led by Anatole Fabien Marie Nkou, Permanent Representative of Cameroon to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms, which followed the Paris Principles, undertook inspections of prisons and reported back to the competent Government or judicial authority with recommendations. There was also a prison inspection mechanism, which included, in addition to timely and unannounced inspections of prisons, quarterly visits to places of pre-trial detention, which resulted in a report that was submitted to the Director of Prisons. Non-governmental organizations that were duly accredited were able to undertake visits as well. Between 2000 and 2010, the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms had visited eight prisons in Cameroon in different regions of the country. There were 74 prisons in Cameroon, with 73 up and running and the seventy-fourth would be ready by the end of the year. The conditions for detainees were constantly being improved. In the 2007 budget, funds had been supplied for the renovation and rehabilitation of prisons. In addition to addressing the issues of overpopulation, under the European Union Programme for the Improvement of Detention Conditions and the Respect for Human Rights, 10 of Cameroon's central prisons benefited from a specific programme that sought to improve prison food, health care, infrastructure and reinsertion of detainees into society. As for the solution of transferring prisoners as a solution to overcrowding, that solution also presented problems as it often resulted in depriving the prisoner of contact with members of their families. For that reason, the Government preferred to focus on the solution of building new facilities.

Regarding violence against women, there was no specific law prohibiting female genital mutilation today in Cameroon, but it was being considered in the context of Cameroon's criminal law reform. What they needed to decide was whether a specific new law was needed or if the situation was already covered by the laws in force. Concerning forced marriages and women victims of rape, the delegation noted that the law allowed rape victims to marry their rapists. However, the law did not require persons to inform the authorities of their reasoning for entering into marriage. Therefore there were no statistics on the number of marriages that had taken place following rapes, or how many raped women had refused to marry their rapists.

The Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Cameroon, Nora Sveaass, encouraged the Government to fight impunity for rape and to undertaken efforts so that rapists could not marry their victims against their will. Moreover, despite the delegation's answers, she still had concerns regarding information that journalists were harassed and tortured, and asked what the National Human Rights Commission had done to investigate those cases.

Abdoulaye Gaye, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report, remained concerned that administrative authorities were able to detain persons for two months, which appeared excessive to him. All were aware that long periods of custody rendered detainees vulnerable to torture or ill-treatment. Therefore procedural guarantees for such persons had to be spelled out clearly. Further concerns included guarantees for the independence of the monitoring mechanism for the police and other public security personnel and light sentences for those who had committed acts of torture, inter alia, because they had been convicted on lesser charges.

Owing to travel difficulties following the volcanic ash incident, members of the delegation coming from Cameroon had been unable to attend the meeting on 28 April. Today, those members were present, including representatives from the Office of the President, the Commission of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Ministry of Foreign Relations and the Ministry of Justice of Cameroon.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Cameroon towards the end of the session on Friday, 14 May.

As one of the 146 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Cameroon is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will discuss follow-up to articles 19 and 22 of the Convention (reporting obligations of States parties to the Committee, and individual communications, respectively).

Response of Cameroon

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Wednesday, 28 April, the delegation of Cameroon, addressing first issues related to the national and international framework for the prevention and prohibition of torture in Cameroon, confirmed that ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture was under consideration by the Government. As soon as the Optional Protocol was truly ratified, the Government would undertake the necessary measures to ensure the independence of the national preventive mechanism required by the Protocol.

There was no specific law prohibiting female genital mutilation today in Cameroon, but it was being considered in the context of Cameroon's criminal law reform. What they needed to decide was whether a specific new law was needed or if the situation was already covered by the laws in force.

Recently, a law on legal assistance had been passed, strengthening the access of the most vulnerable in society to the justice system. Awareness-raising campaigns were also being undertaken among the public, targeting women in particular, so that they were informed about the rights that they had. The Government had the obligation to make people aware of the laws and to foster such knowledge; information sessions were held to make those laws known, in particular new laws and amendments, the delegation said.

All detainees had the right to contact their family, to have a lawyer, to consult a doctor and to receive medical care, as well as the right to possibility to obtain bail. The Criminal Investigation Department had to report directly to the Public Prosecutor and had to inform suspects of their rights at the first moment of arrest, or else the case could be thrown out. A person could be held in custody by the Criminal Investigation Department for 24 hours if he refused to divulge his identity, or if the suspect gave a false identity.

As to the law on the inadmissibility of confessions obtained under torture, there were no statistics available on how many times there had been judgements rendered under that provision. That was owing to the lack of a computerized information database for case law, and efforts to do that were still in an embryonic stage, the delegation confirmed.

Concerning the law on the status of refugees, since July 2005, Cameroon had adopted a law on the protection of refugees which was in advance in its field, as it granted to refugees almost identical rights to those enjoyed by Cameroonian citizens. The Government was also undertaking efforts to improve the situation of the refugee population, including sending teachers to schools in refugee camps. The delegation added that the High Commissioner for Refugees had recently visited Cameroon and held up its treatment of refugees in the country as an example for other African countries to follow.

Turning to the area of prison administration, the delegation said that the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms, which followed the Paris Principles, undertook inspections of prisons and reported back to the competent Government or judicial authority with recommendations. The National Commission also followed up on whether its recommendations had been implemented, although admitting that it had no power to obligate the authorities to do so. However, it had been witnessed that a number of recommendations were being taken seriously, and the Government was working on a programme to improve prison conditions.

There was a prison inspection mechanism, which included, in addition to timely and unannounced inspections of prisons, quarterly visits to places of pre-trial detention which resulted in a report that was submitted to the Director of Prisons. Non-governmental organizations that were duly accredited were able to undertake visits as well. Between 2000 and 2010, the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms had visited eight prisons in Cameroon in different regions of the country.

A registration system existed for each place of detention. In 2008, 10 million CFA had been allocated to the Prison Administration Office to purchase new materials for registration purposes.

Preventive detention in Cameroon was governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, which established that the length of such custody was set by the relevant magistrate and could not exceed six months, although if necessary, following a review it could be extended for a further 12 months for criminal cases or for an additional six months in the case of a misdemeanour.

As of December 2009, there were 23,196 persons in custody in Cameroon, including those in pre-trial detention and convicted persons. The high number of pre-trial detentions was owing to a number of reasons, including an explosive population growth, increasing urban crime, and a lack of judicial personnel and resources.

Regarding the holding of prisoners in chains, that was owing to the fact that there were no facilities for keeping more dangerous criminals separate from the rest of the prison population, the delegation explained. The chains were necessary to protect the other prisoners. The Government was aware of the problem and it would be factored into the new prison building plans. A high security unit would be constructed that would allow such persons to be segregated from the other populations.

Owing to overcrowding, a low number of juvenile detainees and the architectural particularities of existing detention facilities, there were lingering problems regarding separation of juveniles from adults. In two prisons in the country, they had not been able to separate the juveniles from adults to the degree that the Government would like. However, the authorities were aware of the problem and actions were being taken to address that issue, including the building of a juvenile facility.

There were 74 prisons in Cameroon, with 73 up and running and the seventy-fourth would be ready by the end of the year. The conditions for detainees were constantly being improved. In the 2007 budget, funds had been supplied for the renovation and rehabilitation of prisons. In addition to addressing the issues of overpopulation, under the European Union Programme for the Improvement of Detention Conditions and the Respect for Human Rights, 10 of Cameroon's central prisons benefited from a specific programme that sought to improve prison food, health care, infrastructure and reinsertion of detainees into society.

Regarding the drop in the number of deaths in prisons, the delegation noted that that decrease followed a general decrease in the number of prisoners. A medical report was submitted for each prisoner’s death, but investigations were not undertaken into such deaths unless they were the result of other than natural causes or there were strong reasons to believe there had been a medical error. Almost none of the deaths fell into those two categories.

As for the solution of transferring prisoners as a solution to overcrowding, the delegation noted that that solution also presented problems as it often resulted in depriving the prisoner of contact with members of their families. For that reason, the Government preferred to focus on the solution of building new facilities.

Turning to torture complaints, the delegation said that, for those who had died as a result of violence while in custody in Cameroon, once that information was received an investigation was opened. Details were then provided on a number of specific cases that had been asked about. One was under investigation. In another, the charges of torture had been thrown out, but the officers had been convicted of breach of authority and complicity and the two officers involved had received sentences, respectively, of 16 months of military detention and 15 months of detention with suspension for three years.

There was no specific crime of " inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" in Cameroon, but if such acts were committed, if they fell under other criminal provisions, they would be prosecuted.

The independence of the "Police of the Police" or the General Inspection Service, responsible for investigations of government ministries, was guaranteed as a result of the integrity of the individuals working for it as well as its mandate and the resources it received.

Statistics on the number of persons in custody were not available, the delegation said, as the Government had not yet completed its information technology upgrade for police authorities.

Concerning the Istanbul Protocol, the delegation said that Government officials, in particular those of the medical staff, as well as prison administration staff, had been trained in detecting physical or psychological signs of torture. Capacity-building activities had been undertaken in this area, including through sending staff for special studies in foreign universities and the provision of the relevant materials.

As to the situation of journalists, the Government totally rejected allegations that journalists were harassed in Cameroon. While press violations remained criminal acts in Cameroon, to protect its citizens, there were a number of journalists in Cameroonian jails for regular crimes such as blackmail, extortion, swindling and the like. Cameroon asked for international support to provide capacity-building for its journalists and to ensure that they respected the code of conduct for that profession.

As for the particular case of Mr. Ngota, who had claimed to be a journalist and who had died in prison, the delegation said that there was no foundation for his claim to be a journalist and that it would be hard to find a single citizen who had ever seen his publications. He had been in jail for counterfeiting. He had HIV/AIDS and suffered from hypertension. In the prison hospital he had had his condition stabilized. However, in 2010 his health had been failing again and he had again been hospitalized. He had been hospitalized a number of times and finally died following an opportunistic infection linked to his HIV status. An investigation had been ordered into his death. His family and journalists had been asked to come, but they did not respond. Mr. Ngota had died of natural causes; he had never been tortured; and he had not been indicted as a journalist but as a fraud.

The events of February 2008, which had led to the arrest of 1,168 persons, had been investigated and a report presented in 2009. The report had found that there had been no cases of torture with regard to those detained. Wounds and injuries suffered by those arrested had occurred during the clashes between demonstrators and the forces of order, which had been acting in self-defence. All of those arrested had been brought to prison and had then received a presidential pardon. Only two cases, the Lambo Pierre or Lapiro case and the case of the mayor of Njombe Penja were still pending.

Concerning forced marriages and women victims of rape, the delegation noted that the law allowed rape victims to marry their rapists. However, the law did not require persons to inform the authorities of their reasoning for entering into marriage. Therefore there were no statistics on the number of marriages that had taken place following rapes, or in how many raped women had refused to marry their rapists.

Questions by Committee Experts

NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Cameroon, encouraged the Government to fight impunity for rape and to undertake efforts so that rapists could not marry their victims against their will.

Regarding a lack of statistics, Ms. Sveaass asked about the number of habeas corpus petitions that had been brought by detainees and how many had been granted.

The Committee was still concerned about information regarding journalists, including information provided by Reporters without Borders, and asked what the National Human Rights Commission had done to investigate those cases.

Ms. Sveaass was further concerned by low penalties mentioned for officers convicted following a torture case and also asked for further clarification of the actual crime for which they had been convicted.

ABDOULAYE GAYE, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Cameroon, remained concerned that administrative authorities were able to detain persons for two months, which appeared excessive to him. All were aware that long periods of custody rendered detainees vulnerable to torture or ill-treatment. Therefore procedural guarantees for such persons had to be spelled out clearly.

As to the police commandant who had committed an extrajudicial murder, killing someone following torture, and been convicted on a lesser charge, Mr. Gaye asked what the actual penalties under law would be for such an act.

Further concerns included guarantees for the independence of the monitoring mechanism for the police and other public security personnel; the need to follow up on the situation with regard to the powers of the Traditional Chiefs; and the fact that the Public Prosecutor had to issue an order for a habeas corpus judgement to be carried out, whereas it should be self-executing.

Other Committee Experts then made additional comments, including a continuing concern about the holding of prisoners in chains, which was a form of degrading and inhuman treatment that ran counter to human dignity.

Response by Delegation

Responding to some of the additional questions raised, the delegation of Cameroon said that the real problem with rape was that victims did not report. It was a sensitive issue and it was not really possible to know if a woman was marrying her rapist or not. Female genital mutilation was a very limited problem in the country and really only affected the refugee populations. Nevertheless, measures were being taken to address that issue.

The 2008 events in Cameroon did not just affect Cameroon. Many countries had to raise the price of basic foodstuffs owing to the economic and financial crisis. Some non-governmental organizations had taken advantage of the resulting disturbance to politicize the resulting protests. A truth and reconciliation commission did not appear to a solution in that context.

The delegation underscored that Cameroon did not harass journalists. What the Committee heard were accounts of politicized non-governmental organizations.

A number of Special Rapporteurs had received an invitation from the Government to visit, but they had not taken up that invitation, the delegation noted.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT10/018E