Human Rights Committee

Eighty-ninth Session

2438^th & 2439^th Meetings* (AM & PM)

DEATH PENALTY, CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, POLICE BRUTALITY AMONG CHIEF CONCERNS RAISED

BY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE AS IT EXAMINES REPORT OF BARBADOS

 

The delegation of Barbados faced a flurry of questions from experts of the Human Rights Committee on its legal stance on the death penalty, corporal punishment, the criminalization of homosexuality and police brutality in the island nation, as it presented its third periodic report on progress in implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Experts critiqued everything from the scarcity of statistics on police brutality and prevention methods to the accepted practice of flogging children in public schools, as well as the lack of a national human rights commission.  Several experts urged the delegation to ban the death penalty on humanitarian grounds. One expert noted a strong “founding fathers” approach on law of treaties in Barbados and the tendency to allow public opinion to dictate human rights policy, regardless of whether it was just. 

Louis Tull, who headed the delegation, said Barbados had a long-standing and consistent tradition of resolute commitment to promote, protect and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Noting that some of the Committee members had said at Barbados’ oral hearing on 24 March 2005 that “Barbados has nothing to hide,” he urged the Committee not to adopt a “punitive approach” in its deliberations, nor to distort Barbados’ record by focusing solely on certain laws –- notably the death penalty law - which were prohibited by the Covenant but reflected the cultural and societal mores of the Barbadian people. 

He said that although the Covenant had not been incorporated into domestic law, the country’s Constitution had a Bill of Rights which embodied its principles as well as a plethora of ordinary laws that guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms.  Barbadian legislators were updating legislation carried over from colonial times according to current legal and political needs, he said. 

On the issue of policy brutality, a major concern of the Committee, he said the Barbadian police force had a “zero tolerance” policy. The Government had set up an independent authority to investigate allegations of police misconduct, but the problem was not acute and the authority had received few complaints thus far.  He also shed light on Barbados’ track record on forming institutions to address discrimination, particularly of vulnerable groups, and noted the close working relationship of the National Commission on HIV/AIDS, the Constitution Review Commission and the Committee for National Reconciliation in that regard.

During the morning session, the Committee continued discussion of its working methods, particularly as they concerned recommendations for strengthening of follow-up activities, as contained in document CCRP/C/88/CRP.1.  Experts discussed follow-up to the Committee’s concluding views under the Optional Protocol and observations under article 40 of the Covenant.  They agreed on the importance of informing the press of the proceedings of the Committee’s sessions and of engaging non-governmental organizations in the follow-up process, but differed on whether to extend the deadline for States parties to respond with follow-up measures beyond the current 90-day mark.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 22 March, to continue its consideration of the third periodic report of Barbados.

Background

The Human Rights Committee met this morning to continue its consideration of its working methods, for which it had before it a document on recommendations for strengthening follow-up activities (CCRP/C/88/CRP.1).

This afternoon, the Committee was expected to consider the third periodic report of Barbados, although the document before it contains the country’s third to sixth periodic reports (document CCPR/C/BRB/3).  The report is divided into two main sections.  The first gives information about Barbados, its population, political structure and the legal framework within which human rights are protected.  The second section takes a brief but comprehensive look at Barbados’ efforts to implement the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the legislative and administrative policies, judicial decisions and practical initiatives relevant to the protection of those rights.

Barbados is the most easterly of the Caribbean islands, the report notes.  The recreational and economic value of the country’s long stretches of sandy beaches and the marine reserves have made tourism one of the island’s chief income-generating services.  The tourism sector grew 6.9 per cent in 2004 and contributed some 12.4 per cent to the gross domestic product (GDP) that year.

According to the report, Barbadians generally enjoy a relatively high quality of life; the country was ranked first among developing countries and 30th globally in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Report for 2005.   Barbados has one of the highest per capita incomes in the Caribbean, which was estimated at BBD$16,900(US$8,450) for 2004.  In 2005, the rate of inflation was 2.4 per cent.  Unemployment fell to 9.8 per cent in 2004 as compared to 11 per cent in 2003; the average unemployment rate was 8.6 per cent for males and 11.3 per cent for females.

Nevertheless, Barbados is a small island developing State, with a fragile natural resource base and an open economy with a narrow range of exports and a heavy dependence on imported goods, the report explains.  Its main foreign currency earners are the tourism industry, manufacturing, banking, the financial services sector, the sugar industry and other agricultural activities.  During the early 1990s, the country was faced with serious domestic and external economic imbalances which necessitated the introduction of a stabilization fund programme, with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  This programme included contractile fiscal and monetary measures which resulted in a reduction of the public service and generally high rates of unemployment.  The stabilization measures were successful in reducing these imbalances.

Then, from 1993 to 2000, Barbados experienced an unprecedented eight years of positive annual economic growth.  However, in the first nine months of 2001, real gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by approximately 1.5 per cent, in contrast to the recorded annual growth rate of 3 per cent for the previous eight years.  The reduction in economic activity reflected the slowdown in the global economy, as well as adjustments in some sectors to compensate for increasing trade liberalization.  This situation was further exacerbated by the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the impact of which was felt keenly in the tourism sector.  Tourist arrivals plummeted by some 12.9 per cent during the last quarter of 2001, leading to an overall decline of 5.9 per cent in arrivals for that year.

In terms of the political history, the report explains that the colony of Barbados was founded by a British expedition in 1627.  The island never changed hands during the colonial wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and it remained a British colony until it gained independence on November 30, 1966.  Since then it has remained a member of the Commonwealth.  Constitutionally, the British Monarch continues to be the Head of State and is represented on the island by a Governor General who is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. 

The report finds that the years since independence have been marked by a steady increase in the standard of living; a succession of free and fair elections and changes of government; universal, free and compulsory primary and secondary education and free tertiary education; and a diversification of revenue sources to include tourism, light manufacturing, financial services and informatics.  Barbados has a long tradition of parliamentary procedure, dating back to 1639 when the first Parliament was established.  Also, since independence, both major political parties – the Barbados Labour Party and the Democratic Labour Party - have won the regularly scheduled general elections.

The Constitution recognizes a form of government based on universal adult suffrage and characterized by regularly held free and fair elections, the report says.  The electoral system is patterned after the British Westminster system.  The Constitutionis the Supreme Law of Barbados.  If any other law is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail and the other law will be declared void to the extent of the inconsistency.  Chapter III of the Constitution deals with the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals in Barbados and in this regard, the fundamental human rights and freedoms are guaranteed.  In addition, every individual has the constitutional right to seek redress of any violation by the State of human rights before the High Court.

However, international human rights instruments cannot generally be invoked directly before the Court, the report goes on to say.  The constitutional system requires domestic legislation to be enacted by the Parliament of Barbados in order to incorporate international conventions/instruments into the national legal system.  The “Bill of Rights” included in Chapter III of the Constitution is patterned on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and provides safeguards for the protection of human rights.  The legal structure in Barbados provides for three levels of adjudication: the Magistrate’s Court, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal hears cases from the Magistrate’s Court and the Supreme Court.  There is a Family Division of the Supreme Court which deals with family matters. 

The report explains that, if an individual believes that his rights have been violated, there is redress in the legal system.  The Constitution confers authority on the Supreme Court to enforce protection under the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms.  If any person alleges that a fundamental right or freedom “has been, is being, or is likely to be contravened” by the State, that person may apply to the High Court for redress.  There are also social and therapeutic systems in place to facilitate the rehabilitation of the victim.

The Constitution also confers wide discretionary power on the High Court to grant remedies to an individual who alleges that any of his rights have been, are being, or are likely to be infringed.  This may include compensation.  Legal aid is provided to persons bringing constitutional motions in the High Court if they are unable to afford the costs of retaining an attorney. 

Also according to the report, Barbados is party to several of the major regional and international human rights instruments, including: International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (1972); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (and its First Optional Protocol) (1973); International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1979); Convention on the Nationality of Married Women (1979); Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages (1979); Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1980); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1980); American Convention on Human Rights (1982); and Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990).

An ombudsman act of 1981 established the office of Ombudsman, whose function is to investigate and report on allegations of improper, unreasonable or inadequate administrative conduct, the report says.  There also exists in Barbados a “thriving” non-governmental organization “fraternity”, which plays an important role in both the stimulation of debate on human rights as well as the specialized concerns of the various organizations.  These organizations range from grass-roots community groups to local arms of international organizations and have played an integral role in developing a Barbadian society built on sound democratic principles.  The Barbadian non-governmental organizations community has actively encouraged public participation and interest in the governance process and has fostered human and social development initiatives.

Discussion of Working Methods

Committee Secretary PATRICE GILLIBERT introduced the document on follow-up to the Committee’s concluding views under the Optional Protocol and observations under article 40 of the Covenant and how to implement them.  The document noted that satisfactory follow-up to concluding views provided redress to the authors and gave rise to amendments in domestic legislation.  Satisfactory follow-up to concluding observations should encourage States parties to take steps to implement the Committee’s recommendations in order to redress legislation, situations or practices deemed contrary to the Covenant.

Vice-Chairperson IVAN SHEARER of Australia referred to heading “E” of the document on recommendations common to follow-up to both views and concluding observations.  He said more time could be devoted to consideration of follow-up reports.  It was very important that those reports be considered in a public meeting, not a private one.  Written press releases on the Committee’s sessions could become part of the press conference that the Committee usually held after each session.  Consultations with States parties on follow-up were indeed practical and could be held jointly.  Meetings with States parties should definitely be considered as should the setting aside of an annual budget for follow-up missions to States parties.

In terms of heading “F”, he agreed with the point that 90 days was inadequate for States parties to respond with follow-up measures, and that the deadline for responses should be extended to six months.  On the next point about bringing to the Committee’s attention cases in which States parties’ responses had not been categorized, he said the blunt categorization into satisfactory and unsatisfactory could be too simplistic.

Turning to heading “G”, he noted the point that the report of the Special Rapporteur could be more detailed and could contain a succinct summary of priority issues identified by the Committee and replies, or the absence of replies, by the States parties.  On the point that non-governmental organizations could be encouraged to provide regular follow-up to the Committee and Special Rapporteur through correspondence and oral briefings during the session, he said he was not sure if that meant that such organizations be actively engaged.  He called for further attention to that point.

Having served as Rapporteur for the working group, Committee Chairman RAFAEL RIVAS POSADA, expert from Colombia, said that the provision of information, with respect to the concluding observations in the Committee’s report, had formerly taken the form of a table and severely constrained the ability to provide much information.  He also felt there should be some attempt to qualify the report of the State party in qualitative terms to gauge whether or not it satisfied the Committee’s call for additional responses. 

Lastly, he said, in aspiring to ensure that non-governmental organizations supplied the Committee with information on States parties’ compliance, that should not be institutionalized, but rather should serve as an incentive to such organizations to supplement the information received from the State on those aspects the Committee felt were important.  Those contributions should be extended to concluding observations as well.  Most important was to assess the degree of acceptance of the Committee’s recommendations, many of which tended to be implemented gradually.  Also, deadlines for implementation should not be imposed evenly across the board. 

Regarding press releases, MICHAEL O’FLAHERTY, expert from Ireland, stressed the need to engage with the media, saying that the way in which the Committee’s messages were transmitted was crucial to the Committee’s success.  The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), on the Committee’s behalf, should focus more on strategic ways to engage the media.

On consultations with States parties and the possible role of the country Rapporteur and task force members, he said that any of those stakeholders who wished to attend those consultations should be encouraged to do so as they knew the country better than anyone in the Committee.  Regarding country visits, the country rapporteur and other task force members might be included in those, and the visits should be at the invitation of the State party.

It was absolutely critical for the Committee to do a qualitative analysis on the extent to which a reply on a priority issue represented satisfactory or unsatisfactory compliance with the Committee’s recommendations, he said.  A very welcome initiative had been the organization by the High Commissioner of follow-up meetings at the regional and national levels on concluding observations, but those should involve the Committee.

Finally, he said, the Committee’s discussion of follow-up must take account of the way the Human Rights Council would follow up the Committee’s observations.  Conversely, the Committee must provide some guidance to the Council.  To facilitate follow-up, he asked if Committee members could receive copies of both the concluding observations and the annual report as a matter of course. 

NIGEL RODLEY, expert from United Kingdom, said he had agreed with many of Mr. O’Flaherty’s comments, especially the need for a serious media strategy, and not just from the High Commissioner’s Office, but through the Department of Public Information and possibly the Director of Communications for the Secretary-General as well.  He was also convinced of the desirability of involving the country rapporteur at follow-up meetings with States parties.

JOSE LUIS PEREZ SANCHEZ-CERRO, expert from Peru, warned against extending the Committee’s 90-day deadline to six months for States parties to respond with follow-up measures.  He stressed the importance of stating the urgency to comply with decisions.  The 90-day deadline could be extended for another 90 days at the request of States parties.  But extending it to six months would translate into a loss of urgency.  Regarding interaction with non-governmental organizations, he said the Committee should consider them allies in the follow-up process. 

RUTH WEDGWOOD, expert from the United States, reiterated the importance of “podcasting” meetings so that the public, particularly youth, could see the process of active questioning.  That process was even more important than the written product.  Many people had academic or civil society listservs so there was no limit to how many people could receive the broadcasted material.  Pricking the public with what was new from the Committee was a good idea, she said, stressing the usefulness and importance of press releases and media outreach. 

RAJSOOMER LALLAH, expert from Mauritius, said he was very sensitive to heading “E” on extending the time for States parties to respond with follow-up measures.  He wondered about the practicality of the fourth bullet under heading “E” on States parties.  He supported greater interaction with and capitalizing on the good offices of certain non-governmental organizations, particularly concerning training.  He also supported externalizing the Committee’s work through visual media and other communications.  The public needed to be alerted to the issues raised by the Committee; issues which Governments tended to hide. 

MARKUS SCHMIDT, Chief of the Petition’s Team of the Treaties and Council Branch of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, responded to the comments of the Committee members.  Among other things, he mentioned work undertaken regarding a media strategy by the Office’s communications section.

MR. O’FLAHERTY said he was disturbed by some elements of Mr. Schmidt’s response.  He had been appalled to learn that a strategy was in development without prior consultation with the Committee.  If the strategy was already well advanced, then the Office of the High Commissioner had been “remiss in engaging a key constituent”.  Regarding the podcast, that was not necessarily a visual web cast.  It could be audio, and it need not be live, but could be uploaded two weeks afterwards.  Its flexibility should obviate some of Mr. Schmidt’s concerns.

With regard to the role of the human rights field presence and concluding observations, he said he was not convinced about the issue of sensitivity.  Follow-up of the concluding observations was in the realm of capacity building, and even if issues of delicacy arose, that did not preclude the High Commissioner from seeking to ensure that follow-up of the concluding observations was in the scope of the mandates of the field presences.  Unless that was already the case, the High Commissioner, as a matter of policy, should seek to ensure that follow-up of all observations of all treaty bodies was “at the heart of its work”, he stressed.

MR. RODLEY agreed that the treaty bodies should be involved in elaborating a media strategy.  If press releases were issued on the communications between the Committee and States parties, they should be sent to Committee members.  Also helpful would be to see the kind of coverage done in the international press. 

On another point, he stressed the need for a rule of procedure to make clear how many sessions were allocated to a State party so the Committee would never again have the same problem it had had with the United States when that country had refused to attend more than two sessions.

Ms. WEDGWOOD made a number of suggestions about how the Committee’s work could reach the media, including through list serves.  Also, the Committee members should be able to shape their own function to the press to some degree.  It should consult the High Commissioner, but not “wait in line with the begging bowl to see what we’re given”.

YUJI IWASAWA, expert from Japan, noted that he was on the listserv used by the Office of the High Commissioner, but did not receive the end-of-session press releases of the Department of Public Information (DPI), which highlighted the concluding observations, as well as some extremely important views.  He wanted those distributed at the end of the session through the listserv.

Mr. SCHMIDT, regretting that his remarks had disturbed Mr. O’Flaherty, said that the communications section was new; it had come into existence in the latter half of 2006 and was setting up its own terms of reference.  It was aware of the importance of treaty bodies and would ensure that they were properly factored into the media strategy.  It had not so far had an opportunity to engage with treaty bodies in direct dialogue, but it should use the next opportunity in Geneva to do so.  He was not prepared to discuss in an open session whether field presences should engage in active follow-up to concluding observations, a topic on which a “renegotiation is under way”.  He agreed, however, that concluding observations should be sent to all Committee members as soon as they are adopted.  He also hoped that all new members would receive the DVD on treaty bodies’ activities, which was released in 2006.  It explained the work in a very accessible way.

In closing, the Chairman said today’s discussion had not been about reaching a final decision, but those who had participated might wish to formulate specific recommendations, with the aim of making some headway towards the adoption of certain steps with respect to concluding observations and the optional protocol. 

A few experts suggested that the paper before the Committee be derestricted and put in the public domain. 

MR. SHEARER, thanking members, said he thought it would be possible to issue a revised version of the paper in the form of a public document, perhaps citing the points on which there was substantial agreement.  There had been many valuable suggestions, and much attention had been devoted to relations with the “outside world”, particularly with the media.  That had gone beyond the scope of the paper and was worthy of a document in its own right.  Thus, perhaps a separate paper could be dedicated to that topic, especially in the light of the new unit that had been set up and the separate upcoming discussion in July. 

Consideration of Country Report

The members of the delegation from Barbados are:  Louis Tull, Head of the Delegation; Christopher Hackett, Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Eli Edwards, Principal Crown Counsel, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Gayle Francis-Vaughan, Minister Counsellor, Deputy Permanent Representative; Selwin Hart, First Secretary; Kendra Holdip, Foreign Service Officer II, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade; and Aleeza Moseley, Foreign Service Officer II, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade.

Introducing Barbados’ third periodic report on implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Mr. TULL said that his country’s inability, due to a lack of adequate resources, to have completed the third periodic report had been a source of deep concern.  He was pleased to have been able to overcome that temporary lapse with the submission of a consolidated report outlining the status of Barbados’ implementation through March 2006.  The report had been the subject of extensive inter-ministerial deliberations, and consultations had also been undertaken with civil society.

He said his country had a long-standing and consistent tradition of resolute commitment to the promotion, protection and respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  Its firm adherence to the basic canons of human decency outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was evident in both its domestic policy and, by extension, the positions it articulated in the international arena.  Barbados’ commitment to the rule of law, good governance, social justice and equality had guided and informed the development of a substantive network of national legislation, guaranteeing and preserving the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals in Barbados. 

The Constitution, which was the country’s supreme law, contained a Bill of Rights patterned on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he said.  Thus, several basic freedoms and inalienable rights, including the principles of the Covenant, were enshrined in and guaranteed by the Constitution.  Barbados’ domestic legislation implemented the principles enshrined in the Constitution, constantly updating and expanding those laws.  Some of that legislation had been reproduced for the Committee in the form of two bound volumes.

He noted that Barbados was a small island developing State with a stable and multi-racial democracy, a high rating on the UNDP human development index, and a tradition of good governance and sound financial management.  Consistent with those core values and characteristics, Barbados had become a party to a large and ever expanding body of regional and international human rights instruments.  It had also lent its full support to efforts aimed at strengthening human rights organizations, most recently, the establishment of the Human Rights Council.

Barbados had sought to achieve a standard of excellence in the promotion and protection of human rights, he continued.  As some of the Committee members had said at Barbados’ oral hearing on 24 March 2005, “ Barbados has nothing to hide”.  He, therefore, urged the Committee not to adopt a “punitive approach” in its deliberations, nor to distort Barbados’ record by focusing uniquely on certain laws that it retained, which were prohibited by the Covenant and which reflected the cultural and societal mores of Barbados as determined by the democratic will of its population. 

Country Response to Experts’ Written Comments

Mr. TULL then responded to the Committee’s questions 1 through 12.  As to why the Covenant had not been incorporated into domestic legislation and if any cases had been tried because of the Covenant, he said his Constitution had a Bill of Rights which embodied the principles of the Covenant.  The Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms.  There were no cases arising because the Covenant had not been incorporated into domestic law. 

In terms of procedures for appeal of human rights cases, he said the Court of Appeals had three judges.  The Caribbean Court of Justice – which had jurisdiction throughout the Caribbean region and had 11 signatory nations – was the second tier of appeal.  An appeal could then be made to a local privy council for discretion of that council to soften penalties.  Barbados also allowed for appeals before the United Nations Human Rights Committee.  There was no case in Barbados where a person had been executed without being allowed access first to all the above-mentioned courts.

Although Barbados still had the death penalty, he continued, no one had been executed since 1983.  Under the 2002 Constitutional Amendment Act, the Governor General of Barbados set parameters so that penalties were brought to conclusion within a reasonable period of time and after all remedies had been exhausted.  It was not in the interest of the person sentenced to death, the State or society to protract things.  Barbados prohibited torture.  It had a tort law.  A legislative act protected against all offences against liberty, and penalties for those convicted of such offences ranged from 10 years to life in prison.  The courts and people of Barbados had not found difficulty with that system.

Regarding improving conditions of detention facilities, the report highlighted the rebuilding of the country’s sole prison, which had burnt to the ground in March 2005.  The new prison –- to be ready by August 2007 –- would house 1,200 inmates and include a self-contained female prison and several modern facilities.  No prisoners had escaped since the old prison burned down.  In terms of observing minimum standards for prisoners, he said prisoners had adequate access to health services, recreational facilities and skills training. 

Turning to the responsibility of States parties to ensure that domestic legislation prohibited all forms of discrimination, he said Barbados had created a Ministry of Social Transformation, which addressed discrimination, particularly against vulnerable groups.  Other bodies had worked closely in the past 15 years to address discrimination, including the National Commission on HIV/AIDS, the Constitution Review Commission and the Committee for National Reconciliation.

Regarding trafficking, he said Barbados did not have reliable statistics on child trafficking as it was a new phenomenon.  However, it was taking the issue seriously.  Prostitution laws did exist.

As to the absence of a national human rights commission, he said Barbados had the competence, constitutional laws, and governmental and non-governmental agencies to deal with human rights concerns.  Anyone could go before the independent Immigration Review Commission to have their case reviewed.  Under the Police Complaint Authority Act, people could bring cases of alleged police abuse to the independent Police Competence Commission.  In addition, the High Court of Barbados addressed human rights abuses. 

The Vagrancy Act -- which was more than 100 years old and had some very unsavoury aspects -- was repealed in 1998 and replaced by the Minor Offence Act.  While it was not possible to burn all statutes dating back to Barbados’ colonial period, lawmakers were in fact reviewing the country’s laws as the need arose, and according to current legal and political requirements.

Regarding the death penalty, he said article 6 of the Covenant permitted States that already imposed the death penalty to continue to do so.  There was no expressed provision to prohibit mandatory death sentences.  Capital punishment in Barbados was legal.  While aware that some in the international community wanted that to change, he said more than 90 per cent of the people of Barbados were in favour of the law based on certain religious, moral and cultural traditions.  The will of the people would bear heavily on whatever legislative and regulatory decisions were made.  The death penalty law had been in effect for a long time.

Continuing, he said the Government did not see how the constitutional amendment of 2002 allowing the Governor General to set time constraints was in any way incompatible with the Covenant or the Optional Protocol on the abolition of the death penalty.

On persons with disabilities, he said that issue was “near and dear” to both the Government and people of Barbados, and the country had done much to develop and enhance policies and programmes to protect people with disabilities.  The Government was also fully supportive of the new international Convention on that issue, and it had passed legislation to promote the equalization of opportunities. 

On enhancing women’s participation in public life, there were absolutely no laws in Barbados that discriminated against women, who had equal access with men to education, health care and employment, he said.  Political parties considered it an asset to be able to field a high proportion of women candidates.  Women’s participation in the public sphere had improved dramatically in recent years.  Of the 18 cabinet members, five were women, including at the most senior levels.

In terms of abuse by police, he said that the police force itself had a “zero tolerance” level regarding the use of excessive force.  Some accused persons before the courts alleged improper police conduct, but that was a form of defence.  The Government had nevertheless set up an independent authority to investigate allegations of excessive use of force or misconduct by police, and it had very little to work on because the number of complaints had been “few and far between”.  He was at a loss, therefore, to understand why that was a “big issue”. 

On the question of torture, he had been asked to provide information on the treatment of prisoners and detainees, and on whether there had been any investigations or compensation granted to the victims.  He said there was a prisons act, as well as prison rules setting out in great specificity how a prison officer must treat an inmate, and if there was a breach, there were ways of dealing with that.  A prison officer who assaulted an inmate must face the courts like anyone else facing criminal charges.  A number of inmates some years ago had alleged that they had been beaten up by prison officers.  After an investigation, the officers had been charged and prosecuted.  He did not think those cases were concluded yet.  He added that there had been a few deaths in prison in the past 10 years, but those had been due to asthma attacks, heart attacks, AIDS and so forth. 

Corporal punishment was not outlawed in schools, but it was subject to guidelines, namely, that it must not be used excessively or inhumanely, he said.  The Government and people of Barbados did not view corporal punishment as torture, or inhumane or degrading in itself, but its improper use could result in inhumane or degrading treatment.  Thus, it was permitted in schools only under strict regulation and only by a principal or senior teacher.  In terms of the flogging of children in reform schools, the law allowed for flogging difficult or intransigent children in those schools in certain circumstances. 

As for whether the Government intended to review the corporal punishment law, he said that it was not at present reviewing it because it did not feel there was a need for it.

Experts’ Reaction

MR. SHEARER, expert from Australia, commended the report for being both comprehensive and detailed.  He wanted to know more about the country’s Bill of Rights, and the progress of the Constitutional Commission, specifically when its recommendations might be put before the Parliament and the people for a constitutional amendment.

He also asked about a definition for torture, noting that the head of the delegation had asked why it was necessary to say more than what was already covered in the laws of Barbados.  Mr. Shearer explained that the experts were getting at the question of whether torture was defined in the laws of Barbados in a way that was compatible with the definition in the Convention on Torture, which gave an expanded definition that the Committee had, in fact, adopted.  Did the State party have any intention of amending the legislation to take account of the most up-to-date definition of torture?

Noting the delegate’s assertion that there was no discriminatory legislation, he asked about racial discrimination.  He also asked why there was a need in Barbados for a committee on national reconciliation.

ELISABETH PALM, expert from Sweden, noting that the delegate had asked what function a national human rights commission might have, said that the value of such a body was as an independent watchdog for human rights issues.  It should issue criticism of a Government’s actions when it came to protecting human rights.  Usually, such a body was established by statute, and that made it stronger than non-governmental organizations.  In effect, it played a very important role in human rights promotion, and she wanted to know whether the Government would consider its establishment in the future. 

Concerning women’s participation, she noted the tables in the report, but said that many of the most important positions were predominantly occupied by men.  The delegate had also said that women’s election could not be guaranteed, but that possibility could be improved through training and education, among other things.  What was the Government of Barbados doing in that regard?

Noting that the delegate had also stated that there were hardly any reports of police brutality in the country, she said that was not the case in most countries, and even though there was a “zero tolerance” policy in Barbados, “all the same, it happened”.  She wanted to know more about the investigations of any allegations and whether police officers had been prosecuted as a result.

Regarding the instance of brutality in prison to which the delegate referred, she wanted to know whether there was a trial, a conviction and a sentence. 

As for flogging a child as a means of discipline, the delegate had said there was no need to change that, she noted.  However, flogging children might not just be against a child’s dignity, but that could amount to torture or, at least, degrading treatment.  Such a practice could contravene article 24 of the Covenant which provides protection for children against mistreatment.  She had been saddened to hear that there was no review intended of the corporal punishment laws in schools.

MAURICE GLELE-AHANHANZO, expert from Benin, said the report stated that while the population was overwhelmingly black -- 92 per cent -– higher education was more common among the minority population of whites and other races.  How did Barbados explain those differences?  What was being done to reduce those gaps?  What was the purpose of the National Reconciliation Commission?  Were there any events that led to its creation?  What was its make up?  What was being done to reduce disparities?

He noted Barbados’ rather rigid position on the mandatory death penalty and the statement that 92 per cent of Barbadians wanted to maintain the death penalty.  Did Barbados envisage making it a lesser penalty?  

Mr. O’FLAHERTY, expert from Ireland, expressed concern over the rights of persons with disabilities.  He asked for statistics on the body set up to address those rights.  What was its mandate and achievements?  If it had not in fact been established, what was being done to help persons with disabilities?  The Barbados Council for the Disabled had expressed concern over the general sense of exclusion among disabled people regarding services and society and the negative attitude of medical professionals who tended to see disabled people as asexual.  Disabled people said their needs were not being adequately addressed and that they were not sufficiently involved in policymaking.  There was a great need for disability awareness training.

Regarding criminalization of same-sex acts in Barbados, he said the State had a responsibility to protect those minorities.  The homosexual community was highly at risk for exposure to HIV/AIDS and social marginalization.  Without social and legal protection, homosexuals tended to hide their lifestyles.  He asked the delegation to comment on that.

Mr. RODLEY, expert from the United Kingdom, said he detected a strong “founding fathers” approach on law of treaties in Barbados and a tendency to form human rights policy based on public opinion.  However, human rights were not a matter of public opinion; it was sometimes a protection against public opinion.  Public opinion could be in favour of torture, but that could not prevail over law. 

Concerning the mandatory death sentence, he asked what the country’s laws stated regarding the time limit before which execution may take place.  Was Barbados satisfied with the state of law and if not, what were its plans to address it?  What provisions of Barbadian law protected against torture and could ensure criminal punishment of such treatment?  How had it disposed of the caseload of police assault complaints?  A total of 950 people, out of a population of 275,000, were in prison.  That was high for a small, friendly, tolerant society.

Regarding corporal punishment, he asked to what extent Barbadian law allowed the judiciary to impose sentences of corporal punishment against any category of individual –- children and otherwise.

Mr. LALLAH, expert from Mauritius, asked a series of questions about the powers of the Supreme Court.  He had read in the Constitution that the Supreme Court was the supreme law in the country.  Also, since the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Appeal, was there a greater opportunity for people to exercise their right of appeal? Were there more appeals now than there were before the Judicial Council in London, which had been quite expensive? Was there a trend in terms of better access to remedies? he asked.

Sex is a ground on which discrimination was prohibited, and the delegate had said that there was no discriminatory legislation in that regard.  But there seemed to be laws with respect to marriage, adoption, property in the case of divorce and so forth, which did not protect women.  He asked for more detail. 

* *** *

__________

*     The 2435^th, 2436^th and 2437^th Meetings were closed.

For information media • not an official record