Human Rights Committee

Ninety-second Session

2511^th & 2512^th Meetings (AM & PM)

tunisia’s justice minister describes ‘tremendous progress’ in consolidating

 

freedoms, as human rights committee considers country’s fifth report

Tunisia had made tremendous progress in the continuous consolidation of rights and freedoms and the promotion of a human rights culture, but challenges facing the country included a confrontation of religions and cultures that had created anger, extremism and terrorism, Justice and Human Rights Minister Béchir Tekkari told the Committee on Human Rights today, as it started its ninety-second session.

Presenting Tunisia’s fifth periodic report on the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Mr. Tekkari said that among the most important measures implemented in Tunisia were the decision to welcome Special Rapporteurs, both from the United Nations Human Rights Council and its African equivalent; the withdrawal of reservations regarding the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the decision to implement the de facto abolition of the death penalty; and the country’s increased cooperation with human rights organizations, including its invitation to Human Rights Watch.  Tunisia had been strengthening its democratic processes for the past two decades.

What had been achieved must be consolidated within a context full of challenges, he continued.  At the end of 2006, terrorists from abroad had attempted to destabilize the State by attacking consular offices in peaceful neighbourhoods, and two Austrian tourists had been kidnapped.  Such extremism was a threat to modern democracy.  There was a need to continue along the path of protection and promotion of human rights while confronting difficulties at the same time.  A balance between the two was sometimes difficult to reach, and in seeking such a balance, Tunisia would always strive to favour human rights.

The Human Rights Committee, consisting of 18 independent experts, monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by examining periodic country reports and considering confidential communications from individuals under the Covenant’s Optional Protocols.  The Covenant entered into force in 1976.

Following presentation of the report, members of the 13-strong Tunisian delegation gave oral responses to written questions submitted by the Committee.  They provided information on such matters as the death penalty, gender equality, child custody, torture and arbitrary detention, enforcement of judgement and independence of the judiciary.

The ensuing round of questions by Committee experts will continue tomorrow, after which the Tunisian delegations will respond.

Ngonlardje Mbaidjol, Representative of the Secretary-General, made opening remarks at the beginning of this morning’s meeting.

Committee Vice-Chairman Ivan Shearer, expert from Australia and Chairman of the working group on communications, gave a brief overview of that panel’s work during its weeklong meeting from 10 to 14 March.

Under “other matters”, the Committee adopted its agenda.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 18 March, to continue its consideration of Tunisia’s implementation of the Covenant.

Background

The Human Rights Committee, which monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, holds the first two meetings of its ninety-second session today.  (For more information, see Press Release HR/CT/692 of 14 March.)

Opening Remarks

NGONLARDJE MBAIDJOL, Representative of the Secretary-General, gave an update on the work of the Human Rights Council since October 2007, saying it had resumed its sixth session in December and continued to review, rationalize and improve mandates.  The Group of Experts on Darfur had been discontinued and its mandate had been assumed by Sima Samar, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan.  During the Council’s seventh session in March, the former working group on contemporary forms of slavery would be replaced by a Special Rapporteur, while a new expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples would replace the former working group on indigenous populations.

Also during its seventh session, the Council would review the scope of 14 country and thematic mandates, he said.  The country mandates were those of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Somalia and the Sudan.  The thematic mandates included those relating to human rights defenders, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, freedom of opinion and expression, and violence against women, its causes and consequences.

Five mandate holders would be appointed during the eighth session, in June, and the Council would overhaul more than half of its 38 mandates in September, he said.  At their annual meeting from 23 to 27 June, mandate holders would be expected to focus in particular on strengthening the effectiveness of special procedures, including their cooperation with other human rights mechanisms, opening new perspectives for interaction between the Committee and special-procedure mandate holders.

He said the first session of the Universal Periodic Review would be held from 7 to 18 April 2008, adding that a group of three rapporteurs (troika) would be formed to facilitate each review under that mechanism.  The outcome of the Review discussions would be instructive for the Committee in the endeavour to rationalize its relationship with the Council and develop procedures and guidelines for enhanced cooperation with special-procedure mandate holders. Regarding reform of the human rights treaty body system, an organizational session of the Inter-Committee Meeting was being planned to highlight areas requiring harmonization.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women had now been transferred to Geneva, he said, adding that, during its fortieth session there in January, it had adopted revised reporting guidelines for documents related specifically to that body.  The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was also well advanced in revising its treaty-specific guidelines.  The report prepared by Michael O’Flaherty, Rapporteur of the Human Rights Committee, on the revision of the treaty-specific guidelines was an important step forward.

Since the last session, in October 2007, Samoa had acceded to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, he said.  The Republic of Moldova had ratified its first Optional Protocol and the Philippines had ratified its Second Optional Protocol.  Vanuatu and Cuba had both signed the Covenant.  Croatia had submitted its second periodic report, Argentina and the Netherlands Antilles had submitted their fourth periodic reports, while Ecuador and New Zealand had submitted their fifth periodic report and the Russian Federation, its sixth periodic report.

He said that apart from considering periodic reports from Tunisia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Botswana and Panama, as well as a large number of communications, the Committee would begin its consideration of a draft general comment, prepared by Ivan Shearer, Special Rapporteur for Follow-up on Views, on the challenging issue of States parties’ obligations under the Optional Protocol.  The Committee would also consider progress reports submitted by Nigel Rodley, Special Rapporteur for Follow-up on Concluding Observations, and Mr. Shearer.

Working Group on Communications

Committee Vice-Chairman IVAN SHEARER, expert from Australia and Chairman of the working group on communications, gave a brief overview of that panel’s work during its weeklong meeting from 10 to 14 March.  Comprising 10 of the Committee’s members, the working group had considered 32 cases, three of which were admissible to the Committee.  The case against Greece would be transmitted to the plenary due to the importance of the subject matter.

On matters for consideration by the wider Committee, he said the working group was concerned about cases that the Special Rapporteur on Communications had not transmitted to the Committee because that special procedure considered that they had “no prospects for success”.  The working group wondered if such non-transmittal breached the articles of the Covenant’s Optional Protocol.

ABDELFATTAH AMOR, expert from Tunisia and Committee Rapporteur, said the working group’s efforts deserved encouragement because it had considered so many communications during the intersessional period.  At the same time, that could be a cause for concern since it appeared that the Committee might be falling behind in its work and could soon face a backlog.

IULIA ANTOANELLA MOTOC, expert from Romania, expressed the hope that when the Committee held its plenary session on working methods, members would examine some of the innovative methods proposed in the working group, which could speed the consideration of dossiers.  It was also to be hoped that the Committee would discuss the matter of the media and how the expert body might raise the profile of its communications and concluding observations.

Tunisia’s Report

The country’s fifth periodic report (document CCPR/C/TUN/5/), drafted in December 2006, sets forth the steps that the Government had taken to comply with the Covenant’s 27 substantive articles during the period 1993-2005.  It also takes into account the issues raised by the Committee in its concluding remarks following its consideration of Tunisia’s fourth periodic report in October 1994.

According to the report, the President of Tunisia, drawing on the country’s reformist heritage to enhance the rights of individuals, as well the definition of those rights, and promote fundamental freedoms, has consistently advanced the country’s national approach, which emphasizes the links connecting human rights, democracy and the rule of law.  That approach, which aims to give positive and realistic content to human rights, is based not on abstract rules but on objective standards and concrete results.

The report says that the driving force behind Tunisia’s “steady and progressive” approach to the protection and promotion of human rights is the Government’s political conviction that fundamental reforms in that area require relaying the foundation of an advanced system that offers different political actors, stakeholders and civil society greater opportunities for participation.  Tunisia’s push towards political pluralism has always been accompanied by efforts to create optimum conditions for the activities of Tunisian, foreign, regional and international non-governmental organizations based on its territory.  All such organizations legally established inside Tunisia can carry out their activities without hindrance.

According to the report, further progress towards democratic pluralism and openness during the period 1993-2005 came during the respective presidential, legislative and municipal elections in the representation of political opposition parties in regional development councils; the participation of all national organizations in the meetings of those councils; and in the opening up of the media.

Finally, the report says that even as Tunisia has rejected pre-established political models, it has pursued efforts to allow its citizens the full exercise of civil and political rights under the Covenant.  To that end, a series of legal instruments have been formulated and a number of mechanisms and practical measures introduced since 1993, with a view towards strengthening the rule of law and political institutions, reinforcing political and intellectual pluralism, and protecting and promoting human rights.

Consideration of Report

The Tunisian delegation, headed by Béchir Tekkari, Minister for Justice and Human Rights, also included Habib Mansour, Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Samir Labidi, Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva; Ridha Khemakhem, Coordinator for Human Rights at the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights; Taher Fellous, General Director of International Cooperation, Ministry of the Interior and Local Development; Oussama Romdhani, General Director of l’Agence Tunisienne de la Communication Extérieure (ATCE); Mohamed Chagraoui; Head of the Human Rights Unit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Nebiha Gueddana, General Director of the National Office of Family and Population; Nejib Ayed, General Director of the Centre National d’Innovation Pédagogique et de Recherche en Education (CNIPRE), Ministry of Education and Formation; Joseph Roger Bismuth, Senator; Mongia Souayhi, Senator; Abdallah Al-Ahmadi, a lawyer; and Monia Ammar, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.

BÉCHIR TEKKARI, Minister for Justice and Human Rights, said the current report covered a 10-year period and included references based on national reformist ideals.  Before the Covenant, Tunisia had already proclaimed public and individual basic freedoms in its 1959 Constitution.  Many reforms had been introduced regarding the consolidation of rights and freedoms and the promotion of a human rights culture.  Tunisia had made tremendous progress in that continuous work but much remained to be done.

He said that among the most important measures implemented were the decision to welcome Special Rapporteurs, both from the United Nations Human Rights Council and its African equivalent; the decision to present eight reports to United Nations bodies; the withdrawal of reservations regarding the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the decision to be a de facto abolitionist country regarding the death penalty; and the country’s increased cooperation with human rights organizations, including an invitation to Human Rights Watch.  The General Coordinator of Human Rights had been asked to propose a body that would follow up on the Committee’s recommendations.

For two decades Tunisia had been strengthening its democratic processes, he said, noting that local-level opposition parties were guaranteed 25 per cent participation in representative bodies.  The country had also demonstrated the political will, and taken action, towards enabling women to participate in all aspects of political, economic and social life.  The protection of children and families had been given particular attention through amendments of the Family Code and the establishment of a Code on the Protection of Children.

What had been achieved must be consolidated within a context full of challenges, he continued.  A confrontation of religions and cultures had created anger, extremism and terrorism.  At the end of 2006, terrorists from abroad had attempted to destabilize the State by attacking consular offices in peaceful neighbourhoods, and two Austrian tourists had been kidnapped.  Such extremism was a threat to modern democracy.  Television channels from abroad had tried to indoctrinate the population.  The global economy could affect the achievements made in respect of economic and social rights.

In conclusion, he said all human rights, including social and economic rights were interdependent and interlaced.  There was a need to continue along the path of protection and promotion of human rights while confronting difficulties at the same time.  A balance between the two was sometimes difficult to reach, and in seeking such a balance, Tunisia would always strive to favour human rights.

Replies to Expert’s Questions

To a question as to whether the provisions of the Covenant had been invoked directly before Tunisian courts and administrative bodies, a member of the delegation replied that it was important not only to accede to a Convention but also to implement it in every-day life.  A constitutional article placed treaties in the hierarchy of legal norms from the time of their entry into force.  Tunisian courts at all levels had to take such treaties into account.

The idea of integrating international conventions -- especially those to which the State was not a party -- into national jurisprudence had been cause for some discussion in Tunisia, he said.  Still, some litigants in the country had been able to raise the tenets of all international covenants and treaties.  There had also been several instances in which courts had held in favour of litigants by citing international human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  In one such case, which had involved establishing a child’s paternity after DNA tests, the court of first instance had found that “filiation is a child’s right” -- a first in Tunisia -- and stressed that filiation, as defined in the Personal Status Code, must be interpreted broadly, in accordance with the relevant articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects against all forms of discrimination or penalty based on the status of a child’s parents.  Tunisia had already started a debate on accession to the Covenant’s first Optional Protocol.

In response to a question as to whether Tunisia’s High Committee on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was in conformity with the Paris Principles [which call on Governments to create national institutions that can take up any human rights matter, at the suggestion of a Government or at the request of “any petitioner”], another delegation member said that on 7 March, a bill had been prepared with the aim of bringing the High Committee into conformity with the Paris Principles.  It would stipulate that the High Committee, as a public and legal entity that was financially independent, would follow the provisions of the Paris Principles.  The High Committee would have the power to accept and consider complaints dealing with human rights.  Recommendations of the United Nations were being implemented and the President of the High Committee had the right to visit any detention centre unannounced.  The High Committee’s composition reflected equal representation of different schools of thought and all segments of civil society.  The High Committee published an annual report.

Regarding the enforcement of judgements, Mr. TEKKARI said that of the 345 cases examined, 66 per cent, or 236 cases, had been resolved.  The Tribunal could cancel laws and address the question of indemnity.  If a law was cancelled, a new one had to go through the process.  A judgement had a retroactive aspect.  A second difficulty dealt with indemnities.  Each expense must be recorded annually on the budget.  Sometimes, if an indemnity exceeded the budget, it should wait for the next year.  That explained some of the delays.

As for measures taken to ensure judicial independence, he said that question illustrated an evolution in Tunisian law, stressing that the independence of the judiciary was guaranteed by the Constitution.  A law passed recently had changed the composition and competence of the High Council of the Judiciary, reducing the number of Council members from 35 to 18, eight of whom were elected.  The Head of State was President of the Council.  As a temporary positive measure, two of the members had to be women.  The Council had a decisive competence, rather than an optional or consultative one.  All Council decisions were prepared by a committee consisting of the elected members.  The presence of the Head of State was an honorary one, as decisions were taken before being endorsed in a solemn meeting led by the Head of State.  The Council also decided on the appointment, promotion and transfer of judges on the basis of predetermined criteria.

On measures to combat terrorism and respect for the rights guaranteed under the Covenant, Mr. Tekkari said his country had been -- and continued to be -- a victim of terrorist attacks.  The Government had, therefore, put in place a counter-terrorism law in 2003, which particularly concerned “support for international terrorism and suppression of money-laundering”.  The Government was also aware that some had criticized that law, as well as Tunisia’s definition of “terrorism”.  At the same time, the relevant Tunisian law defined terrorist crime in a manner quite similar to the 1999 United Nations Convention.  However, its application was not automatic, as was the case in some countries.  It was applied only when a judiciary decision had been made concerning the existence of “imminent danger”.

Stressing that his country was always willing to consider taking a second look at any of its laws, he said strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights was the main concern.  Tunisia had not established a special court to hear cases involving terrorist offences, which remained within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

As the Committee turned to non-discrimination and equal rights between men and women, another member of the delegation highlighted the Government’s efforts to tackle domestic violence and violence against women, saying that the Constitution consecrated the principle of the emancipation of women.  The relevant laws attempted to eliminate all forms of discrimination in both the public and private spheres by, among other things, combating negative attitudes that led to, or instilled, such bias.

The Personal Status Code guaranteed to women the full capacity to resort to legal means in the struggle against violence, she said.  That Code had formerly required a wife to “obey her husband and perform her conjugal duties in accordance with usage and custom”.  Revamped in 1993, it now stipulated that “each spouse shall be considerate of, maintain good relations with and avoid causing injury to the other”.  To that end, it instituted a new kind of married relationship, based on complementarity and independence.  The wife was no longer treated as her husband’s chattel but acquired a legal personality in her own right, with the same rights and duties as her spouse.

She went on to say that marital rape was a crime under Tunisian law and no immunity was provided to the aggressor.  Unfortunately, the delegation had no information on complaints of marital rape, but such information would be provided during the presentation of Tunisia’s next report.

Another delegation member said violence against women was the subject of “important debate” in Tunisia.  A national commission, comprising representatives of various ministries, public health bodies, and civil society, had fought tirelessly against gender-based violence, including marital violence.  Aware of the dearth of statistics on the issue, the Commission had recommended that a national survey be undertaken in 2008 to assess instances of violence against women.  Further, the Commission always kept in mind the situation of children in such instances of violence.  Regarding adultery, Tunisia, unlike other countries with similar cultural sensitivities, placed adultery by women and men on an absolutely equal footing.

As for the compatibility of article 48 of the Personal Status Code, concerning the right to custody of children, with articles 3 and 26 of the Covenant, he said the article dealt with conditions for child custody.  There were general and special conditions.  General conditions applied to both sexes while a special condition applied only to men.  A man requesting custody of a child should have a woman able to care for that child, which was a reasonable condition as young children needed the care of a woman.  When, as in cases of divorce, a woman requested custody, certain conditions must be met, including that the woman be single.  Those conditions were not incompatible with gender equality as they were based on the philosophy that the interests of the child supersede all else.  That philosophy had made it possible for custody to be granted to a foreign non-Muslim mother living outside the country.

Answering a question regarding the death sentence, a delegation member said Tunisia favoured its de facto abolition, recalling that the Head of State had confirmed recently that he would never give the order to execute a death sentence.  That was a permanent position applying to all death sentences.  The Government was reviewing the possibility of commuting death sentences by law.  There was an ongoing debate within society about capital punishment and some parliamentarians had submitted a bill calling for the abolition of the death penalty.

Responding to questions about the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to liberty and security, as well as the treatment of prisoners, a delegation member said Tunisia had been one of the first States to ratify, without reservations, the Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment.  Some non-governmental organizations had accused Tunisia of arbitrarily arresting human rights defenders, but human rights advocates were considered just like all other citizens.  They could bring complaints with a view to prosecution and, if there were sufficient grounds to initiate an inquiry, such an inquiry would take place.  However, if the prosecution believed there was insufficient evidence, prosecution would not occur.

He said his country ensured that every citizen enjoyed freedom and integrity.  Prosecutors had the right to go to detention centres to investigate complaints.  The Committee on Arbitrary Detentions had decided that some legal counsel might have been subjected to arbitrary detention.  There were grounds to disagree with that decision because the human rights defender might have used violence and wounded another person.  If human rights advocates committed acts that were considered crimes, should they enjoy immunity?  It was also well known that, when the Committee took up a country report, very often complaints were created artificially.  All citizens were equal before the law; there was no immunity for an individual because he or she was a defender of human rights.  Regarding the conditions of prisons, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies had visited prisons in Tunisia.

Regarding complaints of torture and ill-treatment of detainees by public officials, another delegation member said the Government had established numerous judicial and non-judicial mechanisms to consider such complaints.  To back up the relevant laws, the Government had set up effective human rights protection mechanisms, which had made it possible for alleged victims of abuse by police officials, the National Guard or prison officials to file complaints against them for various offences relating to the performance of their duties.  The Government was working “almost daily” to improve the judicial system and put in place the mechanisms necessary for the protection of all human rights.

On reports that the opposition and human rights defenders were subject to harassment and even torture or other ill-treatment, a member of the delegation stressed that many political parties were actively participating in the political system.  At the same time, Tunisia hosted a plethora of organizations that claimed to be human rights defenders.  There were often conflicts between and even within some of those associations.  In any event, the State was in no way indifferent to acts of aggression, from any quarter, whenever it was established that law-enforcement officers had carried out such attacks, and it took appropriate action.  The victims, for their part, had every right to complain and obtain redress.

Addressing questions relating to the use of statements obtained through torture or ill-treatment as evidence in any legal proceedings, another delegation member said police and judicial authorities supported the general legal principle that any act procured through violent means was null.

Experts’ Questions and Comments

CHRISTINE CHANET, expert from France, commenting on replies to the first question, said there was nothing on detention in the jurisprudence provided.  In the matter of torture, had there been a decision that referred specifically to the Covenant?  Why had Tunisia not yet ratified the Optional Protocol?  Also, what did it mean when the delegation said Tunisia favoured abolishing the death penalty?  It was difficult to understand the consistency of the position that there would be no executions.  The President, after all, could change his mind.  A death sentence had been handed down less than a month ago.  What was the reason for that sentence?

Regarding police custody, she asked what recourse an arrested person had and what authority was competent to determine the legality of their detention.  As for the laws on terrorism, how could an attorney be trusted if he or she was “freed” from professional confidentiality?  Since the names of police officers could be concealed, how could one ensure protection against torture if one did not know who was holding the potential victims?

She also asked to see cases in which official authorities had been condemned for practising torture.  The delegation’s information on torture and ill-treatment was very vague, she said, but there had been very specific allegations, and she did not believe they had been made up.

PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI, expert from India, said that, although Tunisia’s report was “a few years late”, it nevertheless provided details of what steps the Government had taken towards providing fundamental freedoms.  Still, clarification was needed on the work of the High Committee on Human Rights.  Who appointed its members and what was their term of office?  Were their recommendations binding on the Government?  What mechanisms had been set up to ensure redress?  In addition, could the delegation provide more information about the human rights ombudsman?

MAURICE GLÈLÈ-AHANHANZO, expert from Benin, said he was bothered about areas “where judges had no face”.  In addition, there were cases in which the identity of police and other law-enforcement officers was kept secret.  People facing trial in those areas needed to see their accusers.  Could representatives of national non-governmental organizations visit prisons to assess their living conditions?

* *** *

For information media • not an official record