The Committee against Torture this morning held a high-level event to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
In opening remarks, Claude Heller, Chairperson of the Committee against Torture, welcomed the commitment made by the States parties to the Convention to protect human dignity and eradicate torture, and recognised the work of individuals and institutions dedicated to ensuring the effective implementation of the Convention, and access to justice for victims. Currently, 174 States were parties to the Convention, making it one of the most widely supported international human rights treaties. Mr. Heller called on all Member States that had not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention to do so, as well as to ratify the Optional Protocol.
Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the adoption of the Convention against Torture 40 years ago was a seminal moment in the history of human rights. It represented a powerful, collective commitment by States to prevent and punish one of the most despicable acts perpetrated by humanity. Today, the Convention, and the dedication and commitment it demanded, were more urgently needed than ever. Torture was never legal and never permitted, under any circumstances. Yet it was harrowing to see the extent to which torture was mentioned in the reports of the Office; this was unacceptable. States bore the primary responsibility, and they must lead the way.
Opening statements were also delivered by Claudia Fuentes Julio, Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Suzanne Jabbour, Chair of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture; Alice Jill Edwards, United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and Ambika Satkunanathan, Member of the Board of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture
The second segment of the event was a panel discussion which launched the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ . It was moderated by Nosy Ramamonjisoa, Treaty Bodies Capacity Building Programme, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The panellists were Patricia Ann Hermanns, Permanent Representative of the Bahamas to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Gayethri Pillay, Head of Secretariat, Convention against Torture Initiative; Gerald Staberock, Secretary-General, World Organization against Torture; and Ana Racu, Member of the Committee against Torture.
The final segment was a live podcast recording on good practices on prosecution to ensure accountability, including through the use of universal jurisdiction. It was moderated by Kaylois Henry, Head of Editorial Unit, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Speakers were Alice Jill Edwards, United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Kristina Hon, Senior Legal Advisor, Civitas Maxima; and Kolbassia Haoussou, Head of Survivors Speak OUT.
The Committee’s eighty-first session is being held from 28 October to 22 November. Documents relating to the Committee’s work for the session, including reports submitted by States parties, are available on the session’s . Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found , and webcasts of the public meetings can be found .
The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 14 November at 3 p.m. to conclude its consideration of the sixth periodic report of Cameroon
Opening Statements
CLAUDE HELLER, Chair of the Committee against Torture, welcomed the participants to this high-level event which commemorated the fortieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This year, the United Nations mechanisms specialised in the fight against torture, led by the Committee against Torture, launched a public campaign to highlight the achievements made since the adoption of the Convention. He welcomed the commitment made by the States parties to the Convention to protect human dignity and eradicate torture, and recognised the work of individuals and institutions dedicated to ensuring the effective implementation of the Convention, and access to justice for victims.
The adoption of the Convention had led to the establishment of an internationally accepted definition of torture, including respect for the principle of non-refoulement in the context of expulsions, refoulements or extraditions, and established universal criminal jurisdiction to prevent impunity for all alleged torturers. Currently, 174 States were parties to the Convention, making it one of the most widely supported international human rights treaties. Mr. Heller called on all Member States that had not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention to do so, as well as to ratify the Optional Protocol. He also invited States to consider contributing to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. The Committee against Torture played an essential role in upholding the absolute prohibition of torture.
Mr. Heller expressed appreciation for the work of Felice Gaer, who was part of the Committee for almost 20 years and unfortunately passed away a few days ago.
VOLKER TÜRK, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the adoption of the Convention against Torture 40 years ago was a seminal moment in the history of human rights. It represented a powerful, collective commitment by States to prevent and punish one of the most despicable acts perpetrated by humanity. Forty years after its adoption, the Convention against Torture had overwhelming support from Member States; it had been ratified by 174 out of 193 Member States of the United Nations. Today, the Convention, and the dedication and commitment it demanded, were more urgently needed than ever.
Over 120 conflicts raged globally, and hate speech and discrimination were increasingly prevalent. Torture was never legal and never permitted, under any circumstances. Yet it was harrowing to see the extent to which torture was mentioned in the reports of the Office of the High Commissioner; this was unacceptable. States bore the primary responsibility, and they must lead the way. States should take advantage of the existing anti-torture machinery, which offered support at the international level, and through regional and national bodies that could support States in identifying gaps in their laws and policies, helping to prevent torture and ill treatment, holding perpetrators accountable, and providing redress and rehabilitation to victims. The international community must reassert that there was zero-tolerance for torture and ill treatment.
CLAUDIA FUENTES JULIO, Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said Chile had been subjected to a brutal civic-military dictatorship between 1973 and 1990. During these almost 17 years, more than 3,000 people were killed or disappeared; more than 35,000 people were subjected to political imprisonment and torture; and nearly 800 torture centres were established throughout the country. In the period following a multidimensional crisis, the impulse arose to make the concessions that were necessary to achieve peace and focus on the reconstruction of the country, leaving aside crimes and massive and systematic violations of human rights. This could be reflected in the case of Chile.
In the first year of democracy, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established, a fundamental milestone in clarifying human rights crimes. But torture was an almost taboo subject for many years. It was not until 2004, when the first Valech Report was published, that the victims of political imprisonment and torture in Chile during the dictatorship were named and faced. In 2004, Chile took a transcendental step to confront the darkest truths of national history, which would not have been possible without the Convention. Chile was convinced that today more than ever the Convention, its Committee, its Optional Protocol and its Subcommittee, fulfilled the role of protecting the dignity of individuals and bringing light to the darkest and most painful places of human existence. Today, Chile renewed its unwavering commitment to the fight against torture.
SUZANNE JABBOUR, Chair of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, said this commemoration served as a sombre reminder of the difficult realities the world was facing. In conflict zones around the world, one child under the age of five died every four minutes. At this very moment, somebody was being tortured, somebody was silent about it, somebody was allowing torture to happen, and somebody was not accountable for having committed the abhorrent, inhuman, and useless crime of torture. When torture happened, a whole society was tortured, a country was tortured, humanity was tortured. Had the aspirations of those who pioneered this cause four decades ago been realised?
There was undeniable hope today that the spirit of the Convention endured. Since its adoption, the Convention and the movement to end torture had achieved widely recognised milestones, including one of its most significant: the creation of the Optional Protocol. The establishment of the Optional Protocol, which brought about the creation of the Subcommittee on the Protection of Torture, and subsequently national preventive mechanisms, extended the Convention’s impact, strengthening the ability to confront torture wherever it persisted. Both the Committee and Subcommittee faced obstacles that impacted the fulfilment of their mandates, and demanded bold action. This anniversary should be a milestone, not only for what had been achieved, but a pledge for what must yet be done.
ALICE JILL EDWARDS, United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, described a testimony she had heard from victims and survivors, of a bloody and brutalised body, tossed from a police vehicle at night, found by children near their primary school. Each testimony was as heartbreaking as the next, leaving long-term wounds on individuals, their families and society as a whole. Torture was the ultimate betrayal of a State’s pact with its citizens. It was the antithesis of human rights, democracy and good governance, and peaceful relations between States and peoples.
Today marked the adoption of the Convention against Torture, a near perfect blueprint setting out what States needed to do to eradicate this gruesome crime.
The Convention defined torture, a definition which was now so widely accepted, it should be considered a customary norm. The Convention reinforced the rights of survivors to justice, rehabilitation and compensation. States that had not yet ratified the Convention were urged to do so swiftly. Ms. Edwards commended the countries in the room that were making changes and progress, and taking a stand against torture. However, too many States continued to deny torture, deny access to independent observers, and deny citizens the rights to live in peace, security and dignity. All States and public authorities could and must do better, with the Convention against Torture as the Guide, and its full implementation as the goal. Ms. Edwards paid tribute to formidable former Committee member Felice Gaer.
AMBIKA SATKUNANATHAN, Member of the Board of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, said the Fund was doing critical work by supporting organizations that were providing life-restoring services and assistance to victims of torture. However, it had a 48 per cent funding gap. During the 40 years since the Convention was adopted, there had been a greater formal acceptance of the Convention in the form of ratifications and the enactment of national laws by States to give effect to their ratification. At the same time, greater contempt for and increased flouting of the Convention with impunity had also been recorded. An egregious example of this was the failure by States to adhere to the International Court of Justice’s interim order in January this year in the case of the application of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip.
A driver of torture was counter-terrorism law, which was often broad, contained vague definitions, and bestowed abusive powers upon law enforcement and the military. Also of grave concern was the fact that the United Nations counter-terrorism architecture enabled the infringement of international human rights law through the process of norm creation, which was increasingly based on ‘soft law’; this did not create enforceable rights and obligations but still produced certain legal effects. Related to this was the seamless merger of the war on terror and the war on drugs in many countries, which was exacerbating factors that enabled torture. All acts of torture deserved attention, outrage and meaningful action. States should donate to the Trust Fund, but also address the root causes of torture.
Panel Discussion on the Launch of the Training Guide on Reporting under the Convention against Torture
NOSY RAMAMONJISOA, Treaty Bodies Capacity Building Programme, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and moderator of the panel, said the manual unpacked articles enshrined in the Convention, and the measures States were required to take. The discussed how the Convention was applied in practice and had a dedicated chapter on specific and cross-cutting issues, including the death penalty, enforced disappearances, and gender-based violence, among others. The publication was designed for anyone who would deliver trainings on the Convention.
PATRICIA ANN HERMANNS, Permanent Representative of the Bahamas to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said technical assistance and capacity building were vital for small island developing States. Data collection and a lack of resources presented challenges. A tracking database would allow for monitoring across human rights mechanisms. Opportunities for workshops and seminars to discuss best practices with other States were useful in supporting the implementation of the Convention. The simplified reporting procedure was helpful for streamlining reports, and it was welcomed that this procedure had been adopted. It was hoped the training guide would become a valuable source of information.
GAYETHRI PILLAY, Head of the Secretariat, Convention against Torture Initiative, said often it was not that States were unwilling to report, it was that there was an inability to report, rooted in a lack of resources, funding and in-house expertise. Support for reporting was often at the top of a State’s list of requests. There was a need to shift the perspective of reporting from onerous and “box-ticking” to something that was directly beneficial for States. The reporting process allowed a key opportunity for States to undergo stock-taking. It was also an opportunity for States to highlight what they were doing well to implement the Convention. It was important to have adequate training and capacity building programmes for States, and to foster platforms for experience sharing among States.
GERALD STABEROCK, Secretary General of the World Organization against Torture, said civil society was crucial for reporting and for the implementation of the Convention. These people worked locally on the ground with victims and survivors. Their voices needed to be brought to the treaty reporting system to give a sense of reality. It was vital to ensure that the voices of civil society and survivors were heard during these processes. Coalition building and mobilisation were also very important. Treaty reporting was not a goal in itself; it was continuous. Civil society should be able to bring issues to the attention of the Committee to trigger needs or demands, which could be taken up domestically to trigger change. There needed to be more attention to the treaty body system overall.
ANA RACU, Member of the Committee against Torture, said reporting to the Committee was a constructive process, which gave an excellent opportunity to look at data on complaints, death in custody, sentencing, and issues relating to migration, training and capacity building activities, among others. Visits by the Subcommittee presented an opportunity to have United Nations experts on the ground. It also provided a report and various recommendations to States parties. These visits to different places of detention brought to the surface new issues of violations of human rights. To improve situations of detention, it was not enough just to know the reality, but it was crucial to come with best practices for punishing perpetrators and providing redress to victims and their families. As long as there was impunity, there would be torture. Today it was important to celebrate how far States had come, while committing to the journey which lay ahead. Those deprived of liberty were the most vulnerable in society, and had limited ability to defend their rights. The guide was practical and gave relevant information to a variety of stakeholders.
Live Podcast: Good Practices on Prosecution to Ensure Accountability, Including Through the Use of Universal Jurisdiction
ALICE JILL EDWARDS, United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said too many torturers were getting away with it. This was true of historic cases, but also new cases. Impunity reigned. There had been some progress due to legislative developments and forensics. However, too many cases were not being investigated and prosecuted. Around 108 States had adopted an explicit crime of torture in their Criminal Code. However, some States still retained laws which were inherently torturous, including corporal punishment laws, laws which permitted solitary confinement beyond 15 days, and laws which allowed police to use torturous equipment.
³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ implementation was vital; it was about healing for survivors and devastated communities and holding offices to account. A lot more could be done at the national level, and it was States that had those primary responsibilities. They needed to be aware that torture could occur in many forms and at many levels. Universal jurisdiction could not replace the obligations of the authorities; it was not a substitute for national investigations and prosecutions which needed to take place.
Responding to questions, Ms. Edwards said many of the United Nations Special Procedures positions were voluntary. It was a challenge to respond in a timely manner to all the requests which came into the office for the Special Rapporteur. There was an enormous backlog. Around 90 per cent of these cases were unattended.
KRISTINA HON, Senior Legal Advisor, Civitas Maxima, said reports that non-governmental organizations put out were crucial when it came to torture. She had used these for filings before courts in the United States in cases of torture. It was vital for civil society to develop strong relationships with national authorities. In Switzerland, non-governmental organizations were not allowed to formally participate in proceedings; the rules changed depending on each country. It was important for non-governmental organizations to push the boundaries a bit, as typically they were left to do work.
The future of universal jurisdiction was bright; but it was as a result of the limitations of national institutions. With this surge came the need for certain types of reforms and awareness about domestic issues. This included translation and interpretation which went to the heart of a fair trial, which was typically a key issue in universal jurisdiction cases. This could be an opportunity to create a roster of vetted interpreters who were deployed when required.
Responding to questions, Ms. Hon said Civitas Maxima was trying to be creative in the methods in which they pursued accountability, particularly in holding corporate entities to account for their role in fuelling conflict.
KOLBASSIA HAOUSSOU, Torture Survivor and Head of Survivors Speak OUT, said survivors of torture were often not considered an important part of decision-making procedures. There needed to be a survivor-centred approach when it came to finding solutions. It was also important to have a survivor-centred approach through the International Criminal Court. A policy had been developed which outlined how survivors could be centralised and involved in participation. Virtual reality tools were another important tool being developed, which enabled survivors to participate in court, without facing their perpetrator. So many important decisions were being made without the input of survivors.
Mr. Haoussou said he used the Convention against Torture as a tool to exert some degree of rights. Any participation where personal trauma was used would always rekindle some memory. Reparation meant something different to each individual. There needed to be mechanisms in place to ensure that if there was a degree of re-traumatisation, there would be a support system in place for survivors. When these were put in place, survivors could participate safely.
Responding to questions, Mr. Haoussou said that as a survivor, he had to look at how he wanted the experience to shape him in the future. Would he allow himself to be a victim, or use it for something greater, to be a positive impact for survivors. Part of his decision was because he did not want what happened to him to happen to anyone else. If he could inspire other survivors to speak out, he would have gained something positive from his experience.
