Human Rights Committee

Ninety-second Session

2513^th & 2514^th Meetings (AM & PM)

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONCLUDES TWO-DAY CONSIDERATION OF TUNISIA’S fifth REPORT;

EXPERTS WELCOME LEGAL REFORMS THAT OFFER BETTER HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION

Also Express Concerns on Freedom of Expression, Torture Allegations;

Justice Minister Says Issue of Ill-Treatment Serious, but Many Claims False

While welcoming progressive Tunisian legal reforms that offered better protection for human rights, United Nations experts today encouraged officials from the North African country to take seriously -- and proactively address -- persistent allegations of torture or ill-treatment by prison officials, curbs on freedom of association and expression, and intimidation of human rights defenders.

Rafael Rivas Posada, expert from Colombia, who summed up the Human Rights Committee’s two-day consideration of Tunisia’s fifth periodic report on compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, said the 18-member body had been pleased to note the progress made regarding the protection of human rights and the primacy of international conventions in national legislation, on which jurisprudence had been developed.

At the same time however, Mr. Rivas Posada, who is the Committee’s Chairman, said that there still seemed to be restrictions on the freedom of expression and association.  Moreover, regulations on assembly could easily lead to violations of relevant provisions of the Covenant.  In that regard, he hoped Tunisia could later provide information on what criteria existed to prohibit certain meetings, as well as on the procedures for denying the right of registering as an association.

On torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment, he said that, while the delegation had given comprehensive information on Tunisian officials who had been suspended or sent to prison, those were simple cases of an abuse of authority.  But, providing a clearer picture on torture cases was very important, as the Committee had received information from many sources on the continuation of that practice.

He also said the Committee welcomed Tunisia’s commitment to pursue the path towards abolition of the death penalty, but members had been concerned that the system of punishment currently in place allowed judges to continue handing down death sentences even if they were not carried out.  Further steps should be taken along the abolitionist path, he stressed.

Jose Luis Sanchez Cerro, expert from Peru, expressed similar concern about press freedoms, as there were reports that one agency in Tunisia had a monopoly on news and functioned as a filter to other media.  Further, Tunisian legislation did not provide for official censorship, but in practice there seemed to be various forms of pressure exerted on journalists.  He was also among the experts concerned by allegations that had been levelled by human rights defenders, who said they were subject to travel restrictions and that acts of aggression had been taken against them and their families.

Earlier in the discussion, Béchir Tekkari, Tunisia’s Minister for Justice and Human Rights, who headed up the delegation, addressed questions about human rights defenders, saying that whenever their activities did not run counter to law, no preventive action was taken.  As for the death penalty, he said the Covenant did not compel the State party to abolish the death penalty.  However, the State had undergone an abolitionist process.

He regretted that taking into account the time that elapsed following pronouncement of a death sentence was seen as something negative, when, on the contrary, it was positive.  The rights of the condemned and the victims had to be taken into account.  Commutation could, therefore, not occur the day after a death sentence was handed down.

He went on to say that, while the Government took seriously the issue of ill-treatment, many allegations of the practice were false.  The Committee itself had even acknowledged some of the allegations of torture as being false.  And the fact that an organized campaign was under way to accuse Tunisia of ill-treatment did not mean that such acts were being committed.  The authorities acknowledged that there could be individual violations, and did not hesitate to sanction them.  Recognizing the possibility that torture existed was already a step towards repressing those acts, he said, adding later that the Government intended to invite the Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit the country.

The Human Rights Committee will meet again at 11 a.m. Wednesday, 19 March, to take up Botswana’s initial report on compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Background

The Human Rights Committee today continues its consideration of Tunisia’s fifth periodic report.  (For a summary of yesterday’s proceedings, see Press Release HR/CT/693.)

Experts’ Questions and Comments

JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ CERRO, expert from Peru, expressed concern regarding freedom of expression, as there were reports that one press agency in Tunisia had a monopoly on news and functioned as a filter to other media.  Also, Tunisian legislation did not provide for official censorship, but in practice there seemed to be different forms of pressure exercised on journalists.  He was concerned that the terrorist laws guaranteed the anonymity of judges, thereby making a recourse impossible.  Also, the definition of a terrorist act was too broad.  Did the State have a plan to change the law to international standards?  Could the State explain complaints from human rights defenders that they had travel restrictions and that there had been acts of aggression against them and their families?

NIGEL RODLEY, expert from the United Kingdom, asked what the purpose was of the “mercy commission” looking at the amount of time somebody had been incarcerated under a death sentence, when deciding the issue of commutation.  He agreed, however, that it was a positive sign when a State party to the Covenant took the view formally that it was a de facto abolitionist State.  As it had been nine years ago that a first request from the Special Rapporteur on Torture had been submitted, and the new Rapporteur had submitted another request recently, he asked when an invitation could be issued.

Having heard the delegation’s statement that allegations of torture had to be accompanied by solid evidence, he expressed concern that the burden of proof rested with the individual in detention.  There had also been allegations that, when a person presented solid evidence, a judge refused to listen.  He also asked for the number of prosecutions under the 1999 law on torture, convictions and sentences.  As most of the cases for ill-treatment that had been brought against public officials had been brought against police and the national guard, he wondered if there had also been complaints against the State security.

Next, RUTH WEDGWOOD, expert from the United States, said that, in her discussions with colleagues and friends from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), she understood that confidentiality concerning prison visits covered Red Cross/Red Crescent workers, not State parties.  She stressed the importance of allowing such visits to every place of detention, “black sites, gray or green sites, if only for the sake of the country”.  In her experience, no hierarchy was ever able to successfully or completely manage care of detainees.  “You need that feedback and monitoring,” she concluded.

Tunisian Delegation’s Response

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; and Taher Fellous, General Director of International Cooperation, Ministry of the Interior and Local Development.

Also present were 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, lawyer; and Monia Ammar, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.

Responding to the experts’ questions and comments, Tunisia’s Minister of Justice and Human Rights, Mr. TEKKARI, began by giving examples of Tunisian jurisprudence that had integrated international legal norms.  “We want Tunisian judges to, as much as possible, apply international legal norms, because it is very positive for the evolution of Tunisian jurisprudence,” he asserted.  He also said that setting international law alongside and, in some cases, above national legislation was not an abdication of sovereignty, but an exercise of it.   Tunisia had also applied the tenets of the African Charter of Human Rights in some cases.

Also on this point, another member of the delegation said that, in order to encourage judges to apply the tenets of international law, the Government had recently put together a binder that had compiled and indexed international instruments and covenants.  It had been conceived as part of Tunisia’s commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and would be distributed to judges throughout the country.

He went on to say that Tunisia had lifted many of its reservations to international human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.  The delegation’s initial response had said that Tunisia was “studying” several international instruments.  That did not mean that the Government “feared” joining those mechanisms, or that it would never join them.  It merely meant that it was considering the implications. 

He said that Tunisia had, de facto, abolished capital punishment.  The death penalty could be handed down as punishment, but would not be carried out.  In a recent case, a condemnation of death had been commuted to a prison sentence and he described the legal procedures that led to such commutation.  The State was taking initiatives to prepare the public for more radical moves, including the outright abolishment of capital punishment.  The ground had to be prepared and the commutation procedures and the Government’s openness about sentencing were part of that process.

On visits by special procedures of the Human Rights Council, especially the Special Rapporteur on Torture, he said that, as part of the Government’s new push to inculcate a culture of human rights, Tunisia had acknowledged that it was open to visits by United Nations experts, as well as regional procedures.  In the context of that new initiative, the Special Rapporteur on Torture might be receiving an invitation.

A delegation member addressed a question about the decision of the European Court against expelling a Tunisian citizen accused of terrorism to the country of origin.  The Court had pointed out that the person could be ill-treated in the place of origin.  While respecting that Court’s decision, he wondered how that Court had determined that there was torture in Tunisia.  The Court had been influenced by a campaign of disinformation against Tunisia, he said, giving some examples of Tunisians who had retracted accusations of torture.

He said the cases mentioned by the World Organization against Torture were being dealt with by the judiciary in an open manner.  Some cases were not being followed up because there was no additional information, but others were being processed.

As for the question regarding the burden of proof for somebody who alleged that they had been tortured, he said the article, article 110 bis of the penal code, had been applied only in a few cases.  He recalled that a person who had been accused of rape had been ill-treated, resulting in the amputation of both his legs.  The prison guards involved in that ill-treatment had been convicted and sentenced to four years in prison, but Tunisian authorities had not been able to prove that the supervisors had ordered the acts.  The victim had been awarded some $150,000.

Mr. TEKKARI then addressed questions regarding the law on terrorism, saying that that law often was read selectively.  A concern had been raised about prosecution on grounds of intention to commit terrorist acts.  However, a preparatory act had to be committed and had to be carried out within a terrorist organization before intent could be punishable.  Those provisions were common to laws trying to criminalize organized crime.  As for the confidentiality of lawyers, he said a lawyer’s obligation of confidentiality was protected by law when he was doing his or her work.  Outside of his work, if a lawyer had any information about a terrorist act, there was an obligation to inform authorities.

As for the anonymity of witnesses, police officers and judges, he said the International Convention against Transnational Crime had recognized that, for the sake of the effectiveness of the penal justice system, one could take measures for protection of witnesses, police officers and judges.  Tunisian law, article 49, provided only for that protection if there was true peril.  So far, no court had resorted to the provision.  There were also international commitments that compelled a State to combat terrorism.  Tunisia was a victim of terrorism and continued to be a target of terrorist activities.  The State tried to establish a balance and, in doing so, priority was given to the protection of human rights.

Turning next to the criteria governing the appointment of members serving on the Supreme Committee on Human Rights, Mr. TEKKARI said that membership in that body was based on impartiality and knowledge of human rights.  They served for three years.  Ministries played no part in the decision-process, but the views of civil society were taken into account.  As for the Human Rights Ombudsman, he said that procedure made recommendations and carried out visits to various sites around the country.  Of course, the suggestions of the Ombudsman were not binding, but they did become a part of the dialogue and were frequently implemented.

On the many questions concerning prison visits, he said that ICRC was not the only body that visited the countries detention centres.  Indeed, the Supreme Committee on Human Rights visited such centres.  The Government was not, however, allowed to speak about the visits made by ICRC under the current confidentiality agreements.  At the same time, he could say that the situation in the prisons had changed.

“The mindset of prison officials and guards has changed because the doors of the prisons had been opened, not to let prisoners out, but to let monitors in,” he said, adding that the Government had discussed the situation with Human Rights Watch, as well as other organizations.  He also added that prisoners had the right to deny any visits by such organizations.

Experts’ Questions and Comments

CHRISTINE CHANET, expert from France, thanked the delegation for answering so many of her questions, while noting that she still had some concerns about the imposition of the death penalty in the country, especially regarding the wait period between the time that the sentence was handed down and a decision was made on commutation.  She also felt that the delegation was denying instances of torture and ill-treatment of detainees.  Such denial gave no space for preventive measures, she asserted.

Sir NIGEL expressed concern that the fact that it was up to individuals claiming torture to prove such treatment -- and to prove that superior authorities had given the order for such treatment -- seemed to be putting undue burden on possible victims.  That burden of proof was particularly daunting when senior officials often adopted a code of “nods and winks”, eschewing outright orders to carry out such ill-treatment.  It was difficult to ignore all the accusations of torture and ill-treatment, he said.

Even though some of those allegations might be false, as could be the case, he urged the delegation to at least examine the “tenor and trend” of the allegations.  He also expressed concern about the detention of suspects in Government premises.  He also hoped that the delegation’s assertion that the Special Rapporteur on Torture “might” receive an invitation to visit the country meant that it “would” receive such a request.

Ms. WEDGWOOD, expert from the United States, asked whether the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent was permitted to visit every site, and whether Tunisia intended to ratify the Optional Protocol of the African Human Rights Council that provided for the African Court of Human Rights to take up individual petitions.

PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI, expert from India, asked what the results had been of appeals under article 14, and what human rights training was being given to police officers?

Responses

Addressing questions about human rights defenders, Mr. TEKKARI said that, whenever the activity of a promoter of human rights did not run counter to law, no preventive action was taken.  As for ill-treatment, he said the impression existed that the individual must prove such mistreatment, but that was not the case.  The judge must provide evidence.  As for the question about the absence of measures against supervisors, he said there was a presumption of innocence, not a presumption of responsibility.  If responsibility was proven, then the sentence would also involve the supervisor. 

As for the death penalty, he said the Covenant did not compel the State party to abolish the death penalty.  However, the State had undergone an abolitionist process.  Regarding the commutation commission taking into account the time elapsed since the pronouncement of a death penalty sentence, he regretted that it was seen as something negative.  On the contrary, it was something positive.  The rights of the condemned and the victims had to be taken into account.  Commutation could, therefore, not happen the day after the death sentence was handed down.  Such a process was in keeping with recommendations received on the issue.

He said that allegations of torture were false.  Some allegations had been acknowledged by the Committee as being false.  However, there was also an organized campaign of false accusations.  The fact that there was an organized campaign of accusations did not mean that such acts had been committed.  The authorities acknowledged that there could be individual violations, and did not hesitate to sanction them.  Recognizing the possibility that torture existence was in itself already a step in repressing those acts.

He went on to clarify that the Special Rapporteur on Torture “will” receive an invitation to visit the country.  Responding to other questions, he said he believed that representatives of ICRC had visited all detention centres.

Tunisia’s Replies to Experts’ Written Questions

Returning to application of the provisions of the Covenant, specifically the experts’ concerns about censorship of journalists, a member of the delegation said that the Government had worked for decades to ensure freedom of expression.  For the past 30 years, no journalist had been imprisoned, no media outlet had been censured or suspended and, currently, there were no libel suits in play in the country.

He said that the Press Code had been reformed in 2006 to abolish the statutory registration requirement for all national press publications, whether daily newspapers, periodicals or magazines.  He also underscored the independence of Tunisian newspapers, whose operations were free from Government interference or pressure.  Media independence was encouraged and the President himself had often urged journalists to eschew self-censorship and be more enterprising.  Opposition parties regularly published their papers and magazines.  Such publications were readily available in newsstands and via subscription services.  Those publications, which more often than not were critical of the Government, were not censored in any way.

Representatives of political opposition parties took part in televised debates and the State often supported the participation of the opposition in the political process with “no strings attached”.  He went on to describe the rise in Tunisia of privately owned and financed media and newspaper outlets.  Further to that end, the Government no longer had a monopoly over satellite feeds.  All this had –- and was -– playing an important role in promoting the growth of independent media in the country.  In related matters, he said that the Government did not censor publication of books, and that Tunisian television viewers had access, via subscription, to outside media.   Tunisia was one of the most “connected” African countries, the Government encouraged Internet use and there were currently more than 1 million people currently surfing the Web.

Addressing a question about a provision in the Electoral Code that prohibited Tunisians from expressing an opinion for or against a presidential election candidate to the foreign audio-visual media, Mr. TEKKARI said that provision was restricted to the electoral period.  Candidates got equal time on national radio and television.  A parallel system through satellite senders from abroad would disrupt the principle of equality of the candidates.  It would also mean that a candidate was subsidized from abroad.

Another delegate, answering questions about the freedom of assembly for human rights defenders, said freedom of assembly was guaranteed under the Tunisian Constitution.  Some conditions must be met, however, which were consistent with international norms.  Prior information must be given about a public meeting and a responsible entity must be assigned, in order to ensure that the meeting will be orderly and no criminal offences will be committed.  Any individual can attend the meeting, but an individual can only speak with the permission of the responsible entity.  Authorities might take measures against any meeting that might endanger public order, but such measures can be brought before the Administrative Tribunal.  Authorities only tried to prevent public meetings when laws were being broken or the public order was being threatened.

As for obstacles that kept organizations of human rights defenders from having their organization registered as an association, he said that an organization wanting to be registered as an association only had to deposit its statute at the headquarters of the governate in which the association was based.  Whenever the authorities refused to receive a document or to give a receipt, there was legal recourse and there was liberal jurisprudence on that issue.

Turning next to measures taken or envisaged to guarantee the maintenance and development of Berber culture in accordance with the Covenant, a member of the delegation said that Tunisia’s plan for society at large took into account the countries 3,000-year cultural heritage and was based on deep-rooted appreciation of the complexities and richness of its diversity.  Tunisian schools taught the history of the Berbers, as well as other cultures in the country.

There was so much mixture that it was impossible to talk about any ethnic group as either “Berber” or “Arab”.  The Government supported “organic solidarity” of all parts of society and rejected any form of exclusion or marginalization.  He said that, among other things, some 80 per cent of the country’s budget was targeted towards socio-economic sectors and the Government welcomed openness.

Tunisia was working to assure that its society was constantly evolving so that all citizens could benefit from technological and social advances.  The Government wanted to move away from notions of Islamo-centrism and a “clash of civilizations”.  Another delegate stressed that Berbers were now “Arab-ized” and Arabs were “Berber-ized”.  “This diversity is really our wealth,” he added.

As for religious freedoms, a delegate said that, in Tunisia, the freedom of religion was guaranteed for all minorities, including Jews and Christians, in the Constitution and the Convention between the State and the Vatican.  There were no problems among the faiths in the country.  Most of the Tunisian people were Muslim, which did not mean that that majority controlled minorities.  The interest in minorities was not restricted to churches, but also to cemeteries, which were maintained in good conditions.  The minorities benefited from the same rights and had the same duties as other communities.  There was no distinction between the various Muslim sects either.  Reforms on education had been introduced in order to teach respect for others and for the right to be different.  All of that was consistent with articles 18 and 27 of the Covenant.

Another delegate, addressing the same matter, said he was a Jewish Tunisian who had been working in industry and business for 68 years and had participated in the country’s public life for 40 years in various capacities.  He was proud of being part of the Tunisian Senate and had always been able to enjoy his rights as a full-fledged citizen, passively and actively.  Members of the Jewish community had always been free to practice their religion.  One of the first synagogues in Africa had been built in Tunisia on the island of Jerba, to which international pilgrimages were organized.

Moving on to dissemination of information about the Covenant, a member of the delegation said that the Government ensured that the provisions of the Covenant were included in school curricula at all levels.  Specialized institutions provided training to judicial officials on the instrument and other international human rights norms.   Tunisia was also making considerable efforts to broaden the dissemination of the Committee’s concluding observations.  It tried as much as possible to ensure that non-governmental organizations participated in the elaboration of the country’s various compliance reports.  Mr. TEKKARI added that, when the Government identified some insufficiencies, it worked towards changes, establishing a body within the ministry that would follow up with other ministries and representatives of civil society.

Experts’ Comments and Questions

AHMED TAWFIK KHALIL, expert from Egypt, said that, like his other colleagues on the Committee, he was uneasy about reports that confessions extracted through torture or ill-treatment were admissible in court.  When judges were aware of such offences, what was their course of action?  While noting “good steps forward” in the area of freedom of expression, including the amendment of Tunisia’s Press Code in 2006, he was struck by the relatively large number of reports of oppression of free speech.  He noted that the delegation said that electronic media outlets could operate freely in the country unless their transmissions “threatened human rights”.  But some international non-governmental organizations had alleged that the Government resorted to that principle as an excuse to suppress certain news organs.  He was also concerned by the relatively large number of reports that human rights defenders and others had allegedly been threatened for having been members of groups not recognized by the authorities, or for exercising their freedom of expression.

Regarding question 19, about the freedom of assembly, he asked what the scope of criteria in the law was, according to which an assembly could be declared illegal.  He also asked how many political prisoners were still behind bars.  He had the clear impression that dissent and criticism remained far from being tolerated by the Government.

RAJSOOMER LALLAH, expert from Mauritius, said the answers concerning the registration of associations had not been satisfactory.  The questions on the number of applications for registration from associations of human rights defenders, the time needed for registration and the number of refusals and on what grounds had not been answered.  According to reports received from within the United Nations system, there were problems.  He asked if there had been court proceedings since 1998 regarding associations that had fulfilled the requirements for registration, and how long those proceedings took.  Aware that Tunisia faced the problem of extremism, he said that the Government needed the collaboration of society, especially of the “thinking society” that the associations represented. 

Ms. WEDGWOOD, expert from the United States, said that, regarding questions about the freedom of expression, the Tunisian Code de la Presse still took too broad a view of defamation.  How could institutions be defamed? she asked.  That and other articles in the Code would make the press very cautious in their criticism of the Government.  As for the Electoral Code, she asked if people during election time were permitted to express their opinion to a foreign radio or television sender, such as the BBC or CNN.  Regarding Internet access, she noted that, under the former President, Internet providers were closely linked to the President’s family, and she asked if today’s Internet providers were independent.  The Code also requested that a certain number of employees at a newspaper had to be graduated journalists.  Did that mean that people could not publish a newspaper unless they could afford to hire people who had gone to college?  Also, why was there still a requirement for a money deposit before a newspaper could publish?

IULIA ANTOANELLA MOTOC, expert from Romania, noting the recent adoption of the Convention on Persons with Disabilities, asked how Tunisia dealt with the problem of people with disabilities.

Tunisia’s Response

A member of the delegation said that Courts did not accept cases where it had been proved that information had been obtained through torture.  He acknowledged that complaints had been made regarding freedom of expression, but underscored the fact that Tunisia’s diverse media were able to operate freely.  As for electronic media, he said that some sites were shut down, including those that incited violence or promoted pornography.  By example, he said that one site had been shut down because it provided detailed instructions on how to make a bomb.  That site had also shown photographs of places the group managing it wanted to blow up.

He went on to say that Tunisia did not have a single journalist in jail because he or she had expressed their opinion.  The one journalist in prison was there facing charges on other legal matters.  On matters related to freedom of association, he said that any meetings held without a prior declaration of intent was considered illegal.  He said that political opposition groups were allowed to meet and express their opinions freely.  On Tunisia’s Press Code, he said the law held that an act of defamation was not mere criticism, but statements that “impaired honour or respect for the person”.

On the electronic media and the Internet, a member of the delegation said that 90 per cent of the newspapers and wire services in Tunisia were private and were free to run stories of their own choosing.  Further, there was today a clear trend giving exposure to the opposition and civil society media and press outlets.  The notion that there was a gap between the law and practice in that area was, therefore, unwarranted.  He added that those who abused the Internet were most often abusing the cause of advocacy.  Further, the websites of human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were easily accessible inside Tunisia.  “Some claims have to be checked against the truth,” he stressed.  He also believed much remained to be done regarding press freedom, but much had already been accomplished.

Mr. TEKKARI then addressed the question about people with disabilities, saying that Tunisia adhered to the International Convention on Persons with Disabilities and to its Optional Protocol that provided for petitions by individuals.  Public buildings must provide access to the disabled.  There were specialized schools for children with disabilities, including mental disabilities.  The law of civil service provided for employment of disabled people.

Another delegate said that the law on education stipulated that the Government must give special needs children free education.  Another delegate noted that many factories employed people in wheelchairs.

Closing Remarks

Summarizing the discussion, the Committee Chairman, RAFAEL RIVAS POSADA, expert from Colombia, said the Committee was pleased to note the progress made regarding the protection of human rights and the primacy of international conventions in national legislation, on which jurisprudence had been developed.  Regarding the independence of the judiciary, the Committee had been told that the fact that the Head of State presided over the Supreme Council of the Judiciary should be seen as an honorary function.  That, however, was an unlikely situation.  The law on combating terrorism implied a danger for the respect for human rights, in particular the provision allowing anonymous officials to participate in trials.  The Committee had a firm position on so-called “concealed judges”.  The accused should be guaranteed the full means of defence.

The Committee welcomed the commitment of Tunisia to pursue the path of abolition, he said, but it appeared that the system currently intended to continue handing down death sentences even if they were not carried out.  A further step should be taken along the abolitionist path.

As for torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, he said that comprehensive information had been given on officials who had been suspended or sent to prison.  However, those were simple cases of an abuse of authority.  A clearer report on torture cases was important, as the Committee had received information from many sources on the continuation of that practice.

As the State had provided explanations on the participation of the media in electoral campaigns, he asked if any individuals had been imprisoned for exercising their duty, in that regard.  There still seemed to be restrictions on the freedom of expression.  Regulations on assembly could easily lead to violations of the Covenant provisions regarding the freedom of assembly.  In that regard, he asked what criteria existed to prohibit such meetings.  In the same vein, he wanted to know what the criteria were for denying the right of registering as an association.

Mr. TEKKARI thanked the Committee for its patience and a fruitful discussion that had offered the delegation an opportunity to provide detailed answers to its questions.  The Tunisian delegation had tried to provide answers to all the questions and had provided written answers giving further details.  Looking ahead, he said that Tunisia would send an invitation to the Special Rapporteur on Torture and it was studying the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.  The Government was also going to pursue its agreement with Human Rights Watch regarding prison visits.  It was also planning a wealth of events to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including circulating a series of commemorative stamps spotlighting the centrality of the need to protect and promote fundamental freedoms.  The delegation’s two-day meeting with the Committee would certainly give new impetus to the evolution of human rights protection in the country, he added.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record