COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE DECIDES IN FAVOUR OF SPAIN CONCERNING TORTURE ALLEGATION
Press Release
HR/4290
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE DECIDES IN FAVOUR OF SPAIN CONCERNING TORTURE ALLEGATION
19960207 Individual Complaints against Switzerland, Tunisia and Canada Fail to Meet Criteria for ExaminationGENEVA, 5 February (UN Information Service) -- The Committee against Torture has ruled that three complaints of torture it had received against Switzerland, Tunisia and Canada did not meet established criteria for consideration. Meeting during its fourteenth session last year, the experts also found that Spain had not violated anti-torture provisions as alleged by a Basque separatist prisoner.
In the communications concerning Switzerland and Canada, the Committee found that the authors had not exhausted all available domestic remedies, a condition for the examination of complaints. In the complaint against Tunisia, the experts judged that the author had not established his authority to act on behalf of the alleged victim.
Unlike in the other three cases, the Committee had previously found the complaint against Spain admissible under rules laid out by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment because it raised issues with regard to the possible lack of investigation by Spanish authorities of allegations of torture made by a Basque separatist prisoner. However, the experts ultimately found no grounds for the prisoner or the author of the communication to challenge the procedure followed by Spain in the case.
Under the Convention, the Committee's 10 experts may examine, in closed session, communications from or on behalf of individuals alleging that their rights protected by the treaty have been violated by a State party. Only communications concerning States parties having recognized the competence of the Committee in this respect may be considered.
The Committee is scheduled to hold its next session from 29 April to 10 May at Geneva.
Communication on Spain
The author of the communication concerning Spain submitted it on behalf of her brother, Henri Unai Parot. Mr. Parot is a member of the Basque separatist organization ETA and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Spain. Ms. Parot claimed her brother was a victim of a violation by Spain, without specifying the provisions of the Convention alleged to have been violated. She claimed that following his arrest in April 1990, her brother had been subjected to beatings and other mistreatment by members of Spain's Guardia Civil and by prison guards. She maintained that the State party had never considered her brother's complaints.
Spain denied that any ill-treatment had taken place. It stated that Mr. Parot had received numerous visits from medical doctors during his imprisonment and the medical reports contained no reference to ill-treatment or torture. The investigating judge who had seen Mr. Parot after his arrest had not found sufficient reason to order an inquiry into his allegations of torture, taking the medical information into account and seeing that Mr. Parot did not show any signs of ill-treatment. Furthermore, Mr. Parot had filed numerous complaints about alleged deficiencies in prison services, but he had never submitted a complaint about torture or ill-treatment.
The Committee judged the complaint admissible in April 1994 as it raised the question of possible responsibility of the State party under article 13 of the Convention, which provides that each State party shall ensure that any individual who alleges having been subjected to torture under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have the case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. It was the Committee's view that Spain had considered and rejected the allegation of torture made by Mr. Parot on the basis of five medical examinations carried out at the time of the alleged torture and statements made by Mr. Parot himself. There were, therefore, no grounds for Mr. Parot or the author of the communication to challenge the procedure followed by the State party, since not only had he had the benefit of full assistance by counsel, but he had also made frequent exercise of his right to make other charges and complaints. The Committee found no violation of the Convention.
Communications Found Inadmissible
In one of the three communications found inadmissible, the author alleged that Faisal Barakat, a university student in Tunisia, had been arrested on 8 October 1991 by members of the National Guard. He had been beaten and subsequently died. His father had been made to sign a statement recognizing that his son had died in a car accident. His other son had allegedly been detained by the police as a hostage to prevent his father from denouncing Faisal's death.
- 3 - Press Release HR/4290 7 February 1996
The State party denied the author's allegations and claimed that the communication was inadmissible. It invoked the Committee's rules of procedure and argued that communications must be presented by victims or their representatives, properly designated and authorized.
In reaching its decision, the Committee recalled that rule 107 provided that "the communication should be submitted by the individual himself or by his relatives or designated representatives or by others on behalf of an alleged victim when it appears that the victim is unable to submit the communication himself, and the author of the communication justifies his acting on the victim's behalf". The panel declared the communication inadmissible, having found that at this stage the author had not submitted sufficient proof to establish his authority to act on behalf of the victim.
The author of another communication, an Iranian citizen in detention in Canada after losing his right to stay in the country, claimed that Canada had violated article 3 of the Convention, which provides that no State party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The author is in the process of challenging the decision of the authorities before Canada's Constitutional Court.
The Committee recalled that the Convention precludes it from considering any communication from an individual unless that individual has exhausted all domestic remedies. The rule does not apply if it is established that the application of domestic remedies has been or would be unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to bring effective relief. The author of this communication had invoked this exception, but the Committee considered that he had not shown the existence of special circumstances which should have absolved him from exhausting domestic remedies. The Communication was therefore found to be inadmissible.
The author of the third communication found inadmissible is a Nigerian citizen who had been ordered to leave Switzerland after having been refused refugee status. He claimed that his return to Nigeria would make him a victim of a violation of article 3 of the Convention by Switzerland. In December 1994, he requested a review of the decision of the authorities on the basis of new documentary evidence, but declined to pursue the remedy because he found the costs too high and doubted he would be successful.
The Committee found that the State party should have an opportunity to evaluate the new evidence before the communication was submitted for examination. Moreover, on the basis of the information available, the Committee could not conclude that the fee required prevented the author from exhausting the remedy or that the review would be a priori ineffective. It therefore found the communication inadmissible.
- 4 - Press Release HR/4290 7 February 1996
Background on Convention
The General Assembly unanimously adopted the Convention in 1984; it entered into force on 26 June 1987. States parties to the Convention are required to outlaw torture and are explicitly prohibited from using "higher orders" or "exceptional circumstances" as excuses for acts of torture. The Convention also introduced two significant new elements to the United Nations fight against torture. First, it specifies that alleged torturers may be tried in any State party, or they may be extradited to face trial in the State party where their crimes were committed. Second, the Convention provides for international investigation of reliable reports of torture, including visits to the State party concerned, with its agreement. The Convention also provided for the establishment of the Committee against Torture to monitor its implementation.
Under article 22 of the treaty, a State party may at any time declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from, or on behalf of, individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention.
So far, of the 91 States parties to the Convention, 36 have made this declaration. They are Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay and Venezuela, Yugoslavia.
* *** *