COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE OPENS FIFTY-SIXTH SESSION, HEARS FROM THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

The Committee against Torture this morning opened its fifty-sixth session, hearing a statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and adopting its agenda for the session.

In an opening statement, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that the work of the Committee against Torture was essential in today’s turbulent world, with protracted conflicts in several parts of the world and the unprecedented tide of refugees. An overwhelming number of the views on individual complaints delivered by the Committee related to the protection from refoulement. The High Commissioner said that his frustration and anger resulted from a series of field visits and meetings with families of victims of torture. His feeling was that it was simply not enough, even though the work accomplished by the Committee was outstanding. The High Commissioner wondered if Burundi was moving back to the days of dictatorship and what was being made of all the warnings and reports being produced. There were many troubling reactions by many vis-à-vis the issue of migration. The very real question for the Committee was whether enough was being done and, if not, what else should be done. How could it be that the human rights system was in such a difficult financial condition and that there were so many regressions in so many different parts of the world? It was difficult to list all the countries in the world where civil society was under pressure. The High Commissioner wondered if and how peace could be brought back to those affected by torture; its effect was generational and left a long mark and often planted seeds for future violence. Burundi need not have been in the crisis in which it was today. Notwithstanding all the warnings, the country had still moved to a grave situation. Much more needed to be done there and elsewhere, but it was not clear how best to proceed, with the seeming breakdown of ethical behaviour around the world.

The regular budget for human rights had been pegged to three per cent of the overall United Nations budget, the High Commissioner said. He then provided an overview of voluntary contributions provided to the Office by different regional groups over the past several years. The overall contribution to human rights by some of the world’s leading economies was not where it should be, which could be deliberate. The high quality of the work done by the Committee and other parts of the human rights system ought to be sustained despite the challenges, concluded the High Commissioner.

Claudio Grossman, Chairperson of the Committee, said that the Committee valued that States had created a human rights system which allowed citizens to raise issues and criticize various misbehaviour. Resources needed to be allocated for the work of the human rights machinery; the work of the human rights system, somebody had noticed, cost as much as only three war planes. The Committee’s work had saved some lives, but not all the lives it could have saved. The Committee had helped create space and legitimacy for a number of human rights defenders and positive practices. There were very few countries ready to announce publicly that they would improve or increase the capacity of jails. Was there less torture now than when the Convention had been adopted? That was not clear; certain things had been achieved, but there were still some obscure, unclear areas. The question remained on how more could be done with less resources. Institutions like the Committee helped keep the moral compass and point out at things which were not acceptable. Some practices and acts could not and should not be accepted. The Committee appreciated the High Commissioner’s presence and invitation to think creatively.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts noted that indignation was always a strong human rights driver. The treaty body strengthening process had allowed the Committee to identify methods which would help it improve and make its work ever more efficient. Accountability ought to be sought for human rights wrongs; the High Commissioner and the Committee approached issues through different means. The Committee reviewed countries, issued statements and recommendations, but lacked legal tools to deal with the proportion of today’s crises; its focus was more on early warning, preventative treatment. The High Commissioner had to continue being the voice against cynicism and bring the world’s attention to critical issues. Voluntary contributions fluctuated as they depended on a number of factors, but some programmes of the human rights system, including the work of the treaty bodies, could not be terminated. Could a way be found to put the entire work of the treaty body system and other regular work of the Office completely within the regular budget, one Expert wondered. Experts wanted to know to which degree that issue had been brought up to the attention of the General Assembly. Worrisome practices, such as extrajudicial killings, seemed to be occurring more and more frequently; the house was on fire and the human rights system had to act. An Expert noted that too many institutions and universities were full of managerial practices, while what was needed was true leadership.

The High Commissioner responded that one always wanted to be optimistic, because if there was no faith that the human condition could improve, why would one even try? It was the scale of the current challenge which was dumbfounding. He recalled a conversation with an attorney-general who noted that there was good torture and bad torture, which was totally unacceptable. The outrage by the international community was still often largely lacking on so many files. Somehow Member States needed to be activated and encouraged to do more; they had to recognize that nothing could be taken for granted. The Committee together with other treaty bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner needed to be more vocal than ever; they could not and should not be a silent service.

The Committee then proceeded to adopt the agenda of the fifty-sixth session.

The Committee will next meet in public this afternoon at 3 p.m. to start its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Liechtenstein (CAT/C/LIE.4).

During the session, the Committee will consider the reports of Liechtenstein, Azerbaijan, Austria, Denmark, China, including the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, and Jordan. The session will conclude on Wednesday, 9 December 2015. A detailed programme of work, along with the links to the related documentation, is available in the background press release.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT15/026E