Aadel Collection

Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/37 B

          
          UNITED
          NATIONS
          E
          Economic and Social
          Distr.
          GENERAL
          Council
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          10 January 1997
          Original: ENGLISH
          COMMISSION ON HUNP N RIGHTS
          Fifty—third session
          Item 8 (a) of the provisional agenda
          QUESTION OF THE HUNP N RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS SUBJECTED TO ANY FORM OF
          DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT, IN PARTICUL/AR: TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL,
          INHUNP N OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT
          Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, submitted
          pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/37 B
          CONTENTS
          Paragraphs Page
          Introduction . 1 — 2 4
          I. MP NDATE AND METHODS OF WORK 3 - 13 4
          A. Themandate . . . . 3-11 4
          B. Methods of work 12 — 13 7
          8
          9
          9
          9
          II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR 14 - 17
          III. INFORMATION REVIEWED BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
          WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS COUNTRIES . 18 - 217
          Algeria
          Albania
          Armenia
          Austria
          Azerbaijan . .
          Bahrain
          Bangladesh . .
          Bolivia
          Bulgaria
          Burundi
          20
          21
          22
          —
          23
          10
          24
          10
          25
          10
          26
          —
          29
          10
          30
          —
          31
          11
          32
          —
          34
          11
          35
          —
          37
          12
          38
          12
          GE.97—10113 (E)
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 2
          CONTENTS ( continued
          ParaQra hs PaQe
          Carftodia
          Cameroon
          Canada
          Chad
          Chile
          China
          Colori ia
          Congo
          Côte d'Ivoire
          Cuba
          Cyprus
          Ecuador
          Egypt
          El Salvador
          Equatorial Guinea
          Ethiopia
          France
          Germany
          Greece
          Guatemala
          Guinea
          Honduras
          Hungary
          India
          Indonesia
          Iran (Islamic Republi
          Iraq
          Israel
          Italy
          Jamaica
          Jordan
          Kazakstan
          Kenya
          Libyan Arab
          Mexico
          Morocco
          Myanmar
          Nepal
          Nigeria
          Pakistan
          Paraguay
          Peru .
          Philippines
          Poland
          Portugal
          39
          40
          41
          42
          43— 54
          55— 61
          62— 64
          65
          66
          67— 68
          69
          70
          71— 73
          74
          75— 76
          77
          78
          79— 80
          81
          82 — 83
          84
          85
          86
          87 — 90
          91 — 111
          112 — 113
          114
          115 — 121
          122 — 124
          125
          126
          127
          128 — 138
          139
          140 — 142
          143
          144 — 148
          149
          150 — 152
          153 — 154
          155
          156 — 158
          159
          160
          161
          162 — 165
          166 — 169
          170 — 176
          177 — 178
          13
          13
          13
          13
          13
          16
          17
          17
          18
          18
          18
          18
          18
          19
          19
          19
          20
          20
          20
          20
          20
          21
          21
          21
          22
          27
          27
          28
          30
          30
          31
          31
          31
          33
          33
          34
          34
          35
          35
          36
          36
          36
          37
          37
          37
          37
          37
          38
          40
          Jamahiriya
          Republic of Korea
          Romania
          Russian Federation
          Saudi Arabia .
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 3
          CONTENTS
          ParaQra hs PaQe
          Senegal
          Slovakia
          Spain
          Sudan
          Sweden
          Switzerland
          Syrian Arab Republic
          Tunisia
          Turkey
          Uganda
          United Arab Emirates
          United Kingdom of Great Britain and
          Northern Ireland
          United Republic of Tanzania
          Uzbekistan
          Venezuela
          Viet Nam
          Yugoslavia
          Zaire
          Zarftia
          Other corimunications: information transmitted to
          the Palestinian Authority 216
          Concluding remarks . . . 217
          179 — 181
          182
          183 — 184
          185 — 187
          188
          189
          190
          191 — 193
          194 — 200
          201
          202
          203
          204 — 205
          206
          207 — 208
          209
          210 — 212
          213 — 214
          215
          41
          41
          41
          42
          42
          42
          43
          43
          43
          46
          46
          46
          46
          46
          47
          47
          47
          47
          48
          48
          48
          Annex: Methods of work of the Special Rapporteur on torture
          49
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 4
          Introduction
          1. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture, assigned since
          April 1993 to Mr. Nigel S. Rodley (United Kingdom), was renewed for three more
          years by the Corimission on Human Rights in its resolution 1995/37 B. In
          conformity with this resolution and with resolution 1996/33 B, the Special
          Rapporteur hereby presents his fourth report to the Corir ission. Chapter I
          deals with a nur er of aspects pertaining to the mandate and methods of work.
          Chapter II sur1r arizes his activities during 1996. Chapter III consists mainly
          of a review of the information transmitted by the Special Rapporteur to
          Governments, as well as the replies received, from 15 Deceriber 1995 to
          15 Deceriber 1996. Chapter IV contains conclusions and recorimendations.
          2. In addition to the above—mentioned resolutions, several other
          resolutions adopted by the Corir ission on Human Rights at its fifty-second
          session are also pertinent within the framework of the mandate of the
          Special Rapporteur and have been taken into consideration in examining and
          analysing the information brought to his attention. These resolutions are, in
          particular: resolution 1996/20, “Rights of persons belonging to national or
          ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities”; resolution 1996/32, “Human
          rights in the administration of justice, in particular of children and
          juveniles in detention”; resolution 1996/46, “Human rights and thematic
          procedures”; resolution 1996/47, “Human rights and terrorism”;
          resolution 1996/48, “Question of integrating the rights of women throughout
          the United Nations system”; resolution 1996/49, “The elimination of violence
          against women”; resolution 1996/51, “Human rights and mass exoduses”;
          resolution 1996/52, “Internally displaced persons”; resolution 1996/53, “Right
          to freedom of opinion and expression”; resolution 1996/55, “Advisory services,
          technical cooperation and the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the
          Field of Human Rights”; resolution 1996/62, “Hostage taking”;
          resolution 1996/78, “Comprehensive implementation of and follow—up to the
          Vienna Declaration and Prograrir e of Action”; resolution 1996/85, “Rights of
          the Child”.
          I. MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK
          A. The mandate
          3. There have been no changes to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur,
          which is primarily concerned with torture, as well as with what the first
          Special Rapporteur, Professor Peter Kooijmans, described as the “grey zone”
          between torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
          punishment (see E/CN.4/1986/15, para. 33) . Among the phenomena understood as
          falling within the wgrey zone” was that of corporal punishment and it has been
          the general practice under the mandate to take up cases involving corporal
          punishment, usually by means of the urgent appeal method.
          4. However, as indicated in the addendum to this report
          (E/CN.4/1997/7/Add.1, para. 435), the Government of Saudi Arabia has contested
          the basis of the Special Rapporteur's concern with corporal punishment.
          Informal contacts with Governments and non—governmental organizations have
          also suggested a more generalized interest in the conceptual issues raised by
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 5
          the relationship of the practice to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
          Accordingly, the following paragraphs aim to address the matter.
          5. The Special Rapporteur throughout his tenure has received substantial
          information on the practice of corporal punishment in a nuriber of countries.
          The information pertains to a variety of methods of punishment, including
          flagellation, stoning, amputation of ears, fingers, toes or lircJis, and
          branding or tattooing. With respect to the practice in some countries, the
          authority for the imposition and execution of the punishment derives from
          legislation or executive decree having the force of legislation. The legal
          provisions in question envisage the infliction of corporal punishment as an
          ordinary criminal sanction, either alternative to or in corftination with other
          sanctions such as fine or imprisonment. In some countries the provisions are
          to be found in administrative regulation, such as that contained in prison
          manuals in respect of disciplinary offences. In other instances, informal or
          quasi—official agencies, such as ad hoc village tribunals or religious courts,
          have pronounced sentences of corporal punishment which appear to be extrinsic
          to the State's constitutional criminal justice system. In respect of these
          latter cases, the State must be considered responsible for the consequences of
          these sentences, if they are carried out with its authorization, consent or
          acquiescence.
          6. The Special Rapporteur takes the view that corporal punishment is
          inconsistent with the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or
          degrading treatment or punishment enshrined, inter alia , in the Universal
          Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
          Rights, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected
          to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and
          the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
          or Punishment. Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur has made a nuriber of
          urgent appeals on behalf of persons who had been sentenced to corporal
          punishment, requesting that the concerned Government not carry out the
          sentence. He has also brought to the attention of a nunter of Governments
          information he received on the general practice of corporal punishment in
          their respective countries, as well as individual cases in respect of which
          such punishment had been carried out.
          7. The Special Rapporteur is aware of the view held by a small nunter of
          Governments and legal experts that corporal punishment should not be
          considered to constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
          punishment, within the meaning of the obligation of States under international
          law to refrain from such conduct. Some proponents of the proposition that
          corporal punishment is not necessarily a form of torture argue that support
          for their position may be found in article 1 of the Convention against
          Torture, wherein torture is defined for the purposes of the Convention. That
          definition excludes from the a n tit of proscribed acts those resulting in “pain
          or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful
          sanctions”. Thus, the argument proceeds, if corporal punishment is duly
          prescribed under its national law, a State carrying out such punishment cannot
          be considered to be in breach of its international obligations to desist from
          torture.
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 6
          8. The Special Rapporteur does not share this interpretation. In his view,
          the “lawful sanctions” exclusion must necessarily refer to those sanctions
          that constitute practices widely accepted as legitimate by the international
          corir unity, such as deprivation of liberty through imprisonment, which is
          common to almost all penal systems. Deprivation of liberty, however
          unpleasant, as long as it comports with basic internationally accepted
          standards, such as those set forth in the United Nations Standard Minimum
          Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, ‘ is no doubt a lawful sanction. By
          contrast, the Special Rapporteur cannot accept the notion that the
          administration of such punishments as stoning to death, flogging and
          amputation — acts which would be unquestionably unlawful in, say, the context
          of custodial interrogation — can be deemed lawful simply because the
          punishment has been authorized in a procedurally legitimate manner,
          i.e. through the sanction of legislation, administrative rules or judicial
          order. To accept this view would be to accept that any physical punishment,
          no matter how torturous and cruel, can be considered lawful, as long as the
          punishment had been duly promulgated under the domestic law of a State.
          Punishment is, after all, one of the prohibited purposes of torture.
          Moreover, regardless of which “lawful sanctions” might be excluded from the
          definition of torture, the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading
          punishment remains. The Special Rapporteur would be unable to identify what
          that prohibition refers to if not the forms of corporal punishment referred to
          here. Indeed, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments are, then, by
          definition unlawful; so they can hardly qualify as “lawful sanctions” within
          the meaning of article 1 of the Convention against Torture.
          9. As regards corporal punishment used for offences against prison
          discipline, the Special Rapporteur considers that the peremptory language of
          rule 31 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners reflects
          the international prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment:
          wCorporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel,
          inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments
          for disciplinary offences.”
          10. The Special Rapporteur cannot ignore the objections advanced by some
          commentators that certain religious law and custom, such as that arising from
          Shari'a, as interpreted by some Governments, requires the application of
          corporal punishment in practice and that this exigency overrides any
          interpretation of the norm against torture which would effectively outlaw
          corporal punishment. While the Special Rapporteur cannot claim any competence
          to deal with questions of religious law, he does take note of the fact that
          there exists a great divergence of views among Islamic scholars and clerics
          concerning the obligations of States to implement corporal punishment. In
          this respect, he notes that the overwhelming majority of mer er States of the
          Organization of the Islamic Conference do not have corporal punishment in
          their domestic laws. He stresses that all States have accepted the principle
          that human rights are universal, most notably in the Vienna Declaration and
          Prograrime of Action. In part II, paragraph 56 of the Vienna Declaration and
          Prograrime of Action, the World Conference on Human Rights authoritatively
          reaffirms that under human rights law and international humanitarian law,
          freedom from torture is a right which must be protected under all
          circumstances . As there is no exception envisaged in international human
          rights or humanitarian law for torturous acts that may be part of a scheme of
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 7
          corporal punishment, the Special Rapporteur must consider that those States
          applying religious law are bound to do so in such a way as to avoid the
          application of pain—inducing acts of corporal punishment in practice. In this
          connection, he draws attention to the axiomatic doctrine that a State may not
          invoke the provisions of its national law to justify non—compliance with
          international law.
          11. The Special Rapporteur notes support for his view in the position of the
          Human Rights Corimittee, which has affirmed on at least two occasions that the
          prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
          contained in article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
          Rights extends to corporal punishment. 2 Furthermore, the Sub—Corimission on
          Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in
          resolution 1984/22, recorimended to the Corimission on Human Rights to urge
          Governments of States which maintain the penalty of amputation “to take
          appropriate measures to provide for other punishment consonant with article 5
          [ of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights]”. The United Nations
          General Asser ly has also addressed the issue with respect to the
          administration of Trust Territories, recorimending in resolutions 440 (V) of
          2 Decer er 1950 and 562 (VI) of 18 January 1952 that irir ediate measures be
          taken to abolish corporal punishment in the Trust Territories. Corporal
          punishment is plainly prohibited in the context of international armed
          conflict by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I
          and, in non—international armed conflict, by Additional Protocol II. Finally,
          various organs of the Corimission on Human Rights have contested resort to
          corporal punishment, including the previous Special Rapporteur on torture (see
          E/CN.4/1993/26, para. 593), the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
          rights in Afghanistan (see A/51/481, annex, para. 81), the Special
          Representative on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of
          Iran (see E/CN.4/1991/35, para. 494), the Special Rapporteur on the situation
          of human rights in Iraq (E/CN.4/1995/56, para. 32; E/CN.4/1996/61, para. 29;
          A/51/496, annex, para. 108) , and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
          human rights in the Sudan (E/CN.4/1994/48, paras. 59-61)
          B. Methods of work
          12. The Special Rapporteur has continued to follow the methods of work
          described in the first report of his tenure (E/CN.4/1994/31, chap. I) and
          approved by the Corir ission in its resolutions 1994/37, paragraph 13,
          1995/37 B, paragraph 6 and 1996/33 B, paragraph 6. In the light of frequent
          requests from governmental and non—governmental sources for information
          concerning the methods of work of the Special Rapporteur, a recapitulation
          of the methods is contained in Annex 1 to this report.
          13. The Special Rapporteur has continued the recent practice of cooperating
          with the holders of other Corimission mandates to avoid duplication of activity
          in respect of country—specific initiatives. Thus, he has sent urgent appeals
          to Governments in conjunction with the following mechanisms: Working Group
          on Arbitrary Detention; Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or
          arbitrary executions; on the independence of judges and lawyers and on freedom
          of opinion and expression; Special Representative of the Secretary—General on
          internally displaced persons; Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human
          rights in Burundi, Cuba, Myanmar, the Sudan, the former Yugoslavia and Zaire;
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 8
          Special Representative on the situation of human rights in the Islamic
          Republic of Iran; Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations
          Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
          II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL PAPPORTEUR
          14. During the period under review the Special Rapporteur undertook missions
          to Pakistan (23 February—3 March 1996) , Venezuela (7—16 June 1996) and, in
          respect of East Timor, Portugal (5 and 6 Septer er 1996) . The reports of
          the visits to Pakistan and Venezuela may be found in addenda 2 and 3,
          respectively, to the present report. Information on the visit to Portugal may
          be found in paragraphs 95—109 of the present report. Outstanding requests for
          invitations to visit Cameroon, China, India, Indonesia and Turkey remained
          uncomplied with. The Government of Mexico responded positively to the
          Special Rapporteur's request of last year and offered a date in 1996 that,
          unfortunately, was not reconcilable with the Special Rapporteur's existing
          corir itments. The Special Rapporteur hopes that the visit will be able to be
          arranged early in 1997. Meanwhile, the Special Rapporteur this year sought an
          invitation from the Government of Kenya, a request he followed up in a meeting
          with the country's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office at
          Geneva.
          15. Within the framework of related activities of the Coririjssion on Human
          Rights, the Special Rapporteur participated in the third meeting of special
          rapporteurs/special representatives/experts and chairpersons of working groups
          of the special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights and of the
          advisory services programme, which took place from 28 to 30 May 1996. He also
          attended the Commission's open—ended working group on a draft optional
          protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
          Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He drew attention to a nuriber of factors
          he considered essential for the sort of preventive scheme contemplated by the
          draft protocol. His points are reflected in the report of the Working Group
          (E/CN.4/1997/33) . He also took advantage of these visits to Geneva for
          consultations with the Secretariat. In addition, he visited the Centre for
          Human Rights in Geneva from 5 to 9 August and 16 to 21 Decer er 1996 for
          consultations with the Secretariat, Governments and non—governmental
          organizations.
          16. The Special Rapporteur also attended part of the fifth session of the
          Corir ission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice which took place in Vienna
          from 21 to 31 May 1996. Of particular relevance to his mandate were agenda
          items under which reports on the responses of Governments to questionnaires
          on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and on the Code
          of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials were discussed. From 4 to
          6 Septeriber 1996, he participated in an international conference in Stockholm
          organized by Amnesty International on means of corftating torture.
          17. Finally, the Special Rapporteur draws attention to changes in the format
          of his annual report. In most respects it follows the format of last year's
          report for the reasons given therein (E/CN.4/1996/35, para. 8). This year,
          however, addendum 1, which contains sur1r aries of individual cases taken up, is
          reproduced in the official languages of the organization, an improvement for
          which the Special Rapporteur is most grateful. However, he has had to reduce
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 9
          even more the amount of space given to the already abbreviated sur1r aries of
          allegations and of government responses, because of the further page
          limitation now imposed on the addendum.
          III. INFOPT1ATION REVIEWED BY THE SPECIAL PAPPORTEUR WITH RESPECT TO
          VARIOUS COUNTRIES
          18. During the period under review, the Special Rapporteur sent 68 letters
          to 61 Governments containing some 669 cases (about 67 known to be women
          and about 55 known to be minors) or incidents of alleged torture. He
          also transmitted 130 urgent appeals to 45 countries on behalf of some
          490 individuals (at least 50 known to be women and 10 known to be minors), as
          well as several groups of persons with regard to whom fears that they might be
          subjected to torture had been expressed. Together with individual cases the
          Special Rapporteur also transmitted to Governments allegations of a more
          general nature regarding torture practices, whenever these allegations were
          brought to his attention. In addition, 42 countries provided the Special
          Rapporteur with replies on some 459 cases submitted during the current year,
          whereas 24 did so with respect to some 363 cases submitted in previous years.
          19. This chapter contains, on a country—by—country basis, sur1r aries of the
          general allegations transmitted by letter to Governments and the latters'
          replies, as well as a numerical breakdown of the individual cases and urgent
          appeals transmitted by the Special Rapporteur and the replies received from
          Governments. Information about follow—up action to reports and
          recorir endations made after previous years' visits to countries are also
          included. Finally, observations by the Special Rapporteur have also been
          included where applicable.
          AlQeria
          Observations
          20. At the end of the year, the Special Rapporteur received substantial
          information concerning the use of torture in the context of detention and
          enforced disappearances sometimes followed by death. Although there was
          neither the time nor the resources to process the information with a view
          to transmitting it to the Government, the Special Rapporteur felt that it
          justified his drawing the concerns of the Corimittee against Torture to the
          attention of the Corimission. In particular, the Corimittee expressed concern
          about the resurgence since 1991 of torture, which had practically disappeared
          between 1989 and 1991 as well as the possibility of extending Qarde a vue
          detention up to 12 days and of ordering administrative detention without any
          judicial authority. Like the Corimittee, the Special Rapporteur is aware of
          the appalling level of violence in the country, including atrocities,
          sometimes involving torture, perpetrated by armed opposition groups. He urges
          the Government nevertheless to give urgent and favourable consideration to the
          Corir ittee' s recorir endations.
          Albania
          21. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government one urgent appeal
          on behalf of mer ers of opposition political parties.
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 10
          Armenia
          22. By letter dated 12 June 1996 the Special Rapporteur informed the
          Government that he had received reports of beatings and other forms of
          ill—treatment inflicted for the purpose of obtaining information,
          wconfessions or intimidation upon a nunter of persons detained in Armenia.
          Detainees were reported frequently to be denied access to family meribers while
          their cases were being investigated. Many alleged victims of ill—treatment
          were said to be reluctant to make official complaints about the abuse for fear
          that they might suffer reprisals. The Special Rapporteur also transmitted
          six individual cases and information concerning a group of individuals.
          Observations
          23. In the light of the information he has received, the Special Rapporteur
          shares the concern expressed by the Corir ittee against Torture “about the
          nuriber of allegations it has received with regard to ill—treatment perpetrated
          by pJ lic authorities during arrest and police custody” (A/51/44, para. 95)
          and shares the Corimittee's “doubts about the effectiveness of the provisions
          for the safeguard of persons in police custody” (para. 94) . He urges the
          Government to give serious consideration to the Corimittee's recorimendations
          (paras. 96-101)
          Austria
          24. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government two individual
          cases, to which the Government provided replies. The Government also replied
          to one case transmitted in 1995.
          Azerbaijan
          25. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government one individual
          case.
          Bahrain
          26. By letter dated 6 May 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the Government
          that he had continued to receive information indicating that most persons
          arrested for political reasons in Bahrain were held incorir unicado, a
          condition of detention conducive to torture. The Security and Intelligence
          Service (SIS) and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) were alleged
          frequently to conduct interrogation of such detainees under torture. The
          practice of torture by these agencies was said to be undertaken with impunity,
          with no known cases of officials having been prosecuted for acts of torture
          or other ill—treatment. In cases heard before the State Security Court,
          defendants were reportedly convicted solely on the basis of uncorroborated
          confessions made to political or security officials or on the testimony of
          such officials that confessions had been made. Although defendants often
          alleged that their “confessions” had been extracted under torture, impartial
          investigations of such claims were reportedly never ordered by the court. In
          addition, medical examinations of defendants were rarely ordered by the court,
          unless the defendant displayed obvious signs of injury. Such outward displays
          of injury were said to be uncommon, since torture victims were usually brought
          to trial well after their injuries had healed.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 11
          27. In addition to its use as a means to extract a “confession”, torture was
          also reportedly administered to force detainees to sign statements pledging to
          renounce their political affiliation, to desist from future anti—government
          activity, to coerce the victim into reporting on the activities of others, to
          inflict punishment and to instil fear in political opponents. The methods of
          torture reported include: falaga (beatings on the soles of the feet); severe
          beatings, sometimes with hose—pipes; suspension of the lircJis in contorted
          positions accompanied by blows to the body; enforced prolonged standing; sleep
          deprivation; preventing victims from relieving themselves; irimersion in water
          to the point of near drowning; burnings with cigarettes; piercing the skin
          with a drill; sexual assault, including the insertion of objects into the
          penis or anus; threats of execution or of harm to family mer ers; and placing
          detainees suffering from sickle cell anaemia (said to be prevalent in the
          country) in air—conditioned rooms in the winter, which can lead to injury to
          internal organs.
          28. The Special Rapporteur transmitted one individual case to the
          Government, to which he received a reply, and informed the Government that he
          had received information on other cases, but that the names of the alleged
          victims had been withheld or the victim had requested that the case remain
          confidential for fear of reprisals by the authorities against the victim or
          his or her family. The Special Rapporteur also made 6 urgent appeals on
          behalf of 19 persons. The Government replied to each of these appeals.
          Observations
          29. In the light of repeated allegations of torture and other ill—treatment,
          sometimes resulting in death, especially at the hands of the SIS, the Special
          Rapporteur believes the Government should establish measures to ensure the
          independent monitoring, on a sustained basis, of the arrest, detention and
          interrogation practices of law enforcement agencies, particularly the SIS.
          BanQladesh
          30. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 29 individual cases. He also made
          one urgent appeal, to which the Government provided a reply.
          Observations
          31. In the light of the severe injuries inflicted on some university
          students at an incident at Dhaka University (see E/CN.4/1997/7/Add.1,
          para. 17), the Special Rapporteur believes the Government should institute an
          independent inquiry into the handling of the incident. The continuing flow of
          information about abuses corir itted by the army in the Chittagong Hill Tracts
          suggests that the Government should establish effective and independent means
          to monitor the army's counter—insurgency methods in that area.
          Bolivia
          32. The Special Rapporteur received the report of the Charter of Deputies
          Human Rights Corimission entitled “Complaints of torture of citizens charged
          with armed revolt”, which gives an account of the Corir ission's investigation
          of torture and other human rights violations involving persons detained
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 12
          between 1989 and 1993 in the context of the anti—terrorism campaign. The
          report contains, inter alia , data on the cases of persons who were reportedly
          tortured, methods of torture and the identity of the persons responsible, and
          calls for the institution of criminal proceedings against them as well as for
          the forwarding of the report to the courts in which criminal proceedings are
          under way against the persons charged with armed revolt and other crimes
          against State security.
          33. In the light of this report, the Special Rapporteur requested the
          Government, by a letter of 11 July 1996, to provide information on the
          follow—up action taken by the competent bodies on the recorir endations of the
          Corir ission and the status of the proceedings against the persons accused of
          having perpetrated torture in cases where such proceedings have begun.
          34. The Special Rapporteur also transmitted to the Government two urgent
          appeals on behalf, respectively, of two groups of persons.
          BulQaria
          35. By letter dated 9 August 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had received information according to which torture and
          other ill—treatment against criminal suspects occurred on a widespread basis
          in Bulgaria. Victims were reportedly tortured or beaten to coerce the signing
          of “confessions” or to elicit other information in connection with criminal
          investigations. In a nur er of cases, victims of ill—treatment allegedly had
          not been provided adequate medical treatment. Most victims were said to
          desist from making official complaints for fear of further harassment or
          because they did not believe that such action would result in the punishment
          of the perpetrator.
          36. The Special Rapporteur also transmitted allegations
          concerning 24 individual cases. The Government replied to 16 of them as
          well as to 2 cases transmitted in previous years.
          Observations
          37. The Special Rapporteur is concerned by the frequency of allegations of
          torture or ill—treatment, sometimes followed by death, of persons in police
          custody. The rarity of any disciplinary measures and of investigations
          leading to criminal prosecutions, as well as the virtual absence of successful
          prosecutions of those responsible, can only lead to a climate of impunity. He
          believes the Government should establish measures to ensure the independent
          monitoring, on a sustained basis, of the arrest, detention and interrogation
          practices of the relevant law enforcement agencies.
          Burundi
          38. The Special Rapporteur transmitted, in conjunction with the Special
          Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi, one urgent appeal on
          behalf of a group of 15 persons.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 13
          C arib odi a
          39. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government seven individual
          cases.
          Cameroon
          40. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government three urgent
          appeals on behalf of six persons.
          Canada
          41. The Special Rapporteur sent one urgent appeal to the Government on
          behalf of an asylum seeker about to be deported to his country of origin. The
          Government replied to this appeal.
          Chad
          42. The Special Rapporteur transmitted one urgent appeal to the Government
          on behalf of one person.
          Chile
          43. The Special Rapporteur received replies from the Government with respect
          to 25 cases transmitted in 1995.
          44. By a note verbale dated 10 Septer er 1996 the Government transmitted its
          observations on the report on his visit to Chile which the Special Rapporteur
          submitted to the fifty-second session of the Corir ission on Human Rights
          (E/CN.4/1996/35/Add.2)
          45. The Government made the following corir ents regarding the obstacles to
          the democratic functioning of some of the highest institutions, constituted by
          laws inherited from the military regime, to which the Special Rapporteur drew
          attention in his report (paras. 4—8)
          (a) The democratic Governments have maintained their forthright
          opposition to the Amnesty Act; they have stated that it was unlawful and
          regretted that they had been unable to abrogate it as they lacked the
          necessary parliamentary majority. The legislation in force does not preclude
          investigations conducted by the courts from continuing until the facts have
          been elucidated and the identity of those responsible determined;
          (b) In August 1995 the President of the Republic submitted to the
          Senate a nuriber of bills whose purposes were to do away with the institution
          of appointed senators, to change the composition of the Constitutional Court,
          to effect changes in the Security Council and to authorize the President
          to retire Generals without the need for a proposal by the relevant
          Corir ander—in—Chief. These bills were rejected by the Senate;
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 14
          (c) As to the functioning of the Prograrime of Compensation and Full
          Health Care for Victims of Human Rights Violations (PRkIS) , 13 teams are now
          operating throughout Chile and between 1992 and 1995 the progranwne catered to
          4,197 family groups with meribers who had been tortured.
          46. Regarding the alleged irregularities in the proceedings involving
          three cases of persons tortured and executed during the period of the military
          Government, to which the Special Rapporteur drew attention (para. 9), the
          Government provided the following information:
          (a) In the case of Mario Fernández Lopez, two mer ers of the army
          received prison sentences of 6 years and 10 years and 1 day respectively; they
          began serving their sentences in Punta Peuco prison on 17 January 1996;
          (b) In the case of Carlos Godoy Echegoyen, a former carabinero was
          sentenced to imprisonment for three years and one day; he began serving his
          sentence in Punta Peuco prison on 12 Decer er 1995;
          (c) In the case of Carmelo Soria Espinoza, on 4 June 1996 the court
          ordered the general dismissal of proceedings under the terms of the Amnesty
          Act, a decision was being appealed to the Supreme Court.
          47. With regard to the Special Rapporteur's observations on the situation of
          minors assigned to punishment cells in the Comunidad Tiempo Joven detention
          centre for minors (para. 33), the Government stated that work on a special
          section to replace the cells in question was to be completed in
          Septer er 1996.
          48. As to the criticism heard by the Special Rapporteur about the fact
          that article 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for “arrest
          on suspicion”, and his recorir endation that it should be amended
          (paras. 34—38), the Government reported that in July 1996 the Chariber of
          Deputies' Constitutional, Legislative and Judicial Corimittee issued a report
          advocating the deletion of that provision from the present Code and its
          replacement by the one contained in the draft of the new Code of Criminal
          Procedure.
          49. As for the attitude of the police authorities towards torture
          (paras. 39—42), the Government stated that it shares the Special Rapporteur's
          view that both the uniformed police ( Carabineros ) and the plain—clothes police
          department ( Investi Qaciones ) should be brought under the authority of the
          Minister of the Interior to permit better coordination in preventing and
          investigating offences. Moreover, both departments have undertaken a process
          of weeding out staff who have failed to observe the basic rules of law in
          performing their duties. On 24 January 1996 the Director—General of the
          Carabineros reported that he had decided to retire a total of 249 meribers of
          that body on 1 February 1996.
          50. The Special Rapporteur had drawn attention to a nunter of shortcomings
          in the system of criminal justice regarding the protection of detainees
          against torture or ill—treatment by the police. However, the Government
          reported that many of these shortcomings will be remedied as a result of the
          reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is under way. The draft
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 15
          reform lists the rights of accused persons who have to be informed of them by
          the police. They include the right to remain silent, the right to be assisted
          by a lawyer during the initial phases of the investigation, the right to
          confer daily and in private with a lawyer during detention and the right to
          have their family irimediately informed of their arrest. The draft institutes
          oral, public and adversarial proceedings and separates the investigatory
          functions from the judicial by establishing the Prosecution Service. The
          reform will also make it possible to conduct more detailed, thorough and
          specialized police investigations, based on the balanced use of a variety of
          investigative tools and precluding the possibility of basing the trial
          essentially on the suspect's confession. The maximum period for which
          suspects may be held in police custody is reduced to 12 hours, after which
          they are to be referred to the Prosecution Service. The police are prohibited
          from questioning detainees without the prior authorization of the Prosecution
          Service's prosecutor. Suspects may not be held incorir unicado for more than
          five days, after which they must be allowed to corir unicate with their lawyer.
          51. The Government also reported that, on 17 July 1996, the Charter
          of Deputies' Constitutional, Legislative and Judicial Corir ittee adopted the
          full text of the draft which would then be considered by the Charter and
          subsequently the Senate. Meanwhile, the Organization Act and constitutional
          reform relating to the Prosecution Service are to be adopted. The Government
          hopes that Congress will have completed the reforms process before the next
          presidential term of office in 1998.
          52. As regards the definition of torture as an offence, in respect of which
          current legislation is allegedly inadequate (para. 69), the Government has
          reported that it submitted a bill to the Charter of Deputies in order
          specifically to define torture as an offence using the wording contained in
          the Convention against Torture. In addition, anyone who, being aware of such
          offences and in a position to prevent them, fails to do so, will also be
          liable to punishment.
          53. Regarding the Special Rapporteur's recorimendation that the Government
          should consider increasing its contribution to the United Nations Voluntary
          Fund for Victims of Torture, the Government has indicated its intention of
          increasing its contribution to US$ 10,000 as from 1997.
          Observations
          54. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to the Government of Chile for the
          very detailed response and the extensive information, indicating its
          continuing serious and constructive approach to cooperation with the Special
          Rapporteur and the Corimission. He attaches particular importance to the
          successful prosecution in two cases of persons responsible for criminal
          excesses and looks forward to learning of developments before the Supreme
          Court in respect of a third (Carmelo Soria Espinoza) . He corimends the
          Government on its efforts to amend the Penal Code and reform the Code of
          Criminal Procedure. In the light of the inevitably protracted procedures
          involved in such a major exercise, he suggests that the Government and
          Congress consider acting with special expedition towards the adoption of the
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 16
          bill amending the existing Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code in
          respect of detention and introducing rules for strengthening the protection of
          civic rights.
          China
          55. By letter dated 5 July 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had received information indicating that torture and other
          ill—treatment had continued to be used on a widespread and systematic basis
          against both common criminal detainees and persons detained for political
          reasons. Criminal suspects were allegedly tortured or otherwise ill—treated
          during preliminary or pre—trial detention to intimidate, to coerce
          wconfessions , or to elicit information about the detainee or other persons.
          56. Persons detained during the preliminary stages of an investigation of a
          case were said usually to be held incorir unicado, without access to family or
          legal counsel. Such periods of incorir unicado detention might last for a
          nuriber of months or even years. Under the recent amendments to the Criminal
          Procedure Law, lawyers were permitted to meet detainees in the presence of
          police officers “following the first interrogation”. However, the provisions
          were also said to allow persons to be held without notification of the
          detention to family meribers or legal representatives if “this notification
          hinders the investigation of the crimes or cases”.
          57. Torture was also alleged to occur frequently in administrative
          detention, including wShelter and Investigation” ( shouronc schencha ), in which
          persons may be held for up to three months without any judicial proceedings or
          approval, “Re—education Through Labour” ( laodonQ iioyanQ ) , in which persons
          may be sent to labour camps for up to three years without judicial proceedings
          or approval, and wRetention for In-Camp Emplo ent” ( liuchanc jiuve ), in which
          persons may be detained in prison camps after they have completed their
          sentences.
          58. The forms of punishment reported to be administered in prisons and
          labour camps include beatings, shackling and prolonged solitary confinement.
          In some instances, torture was reportedly carried out for discipline or
          punishment by inmates, known as “trustees”, acting as surrogates for or at the
          instigation of prison officials. Arrangements of this nature were said to
          allow prison officials to avoid accountability for abuse inflicted upon
          prisoners.
          59. The Special Rapporteur also informed the Government that he had
          continued to receive reports according to which the practice of torture was
          endemic to police stations and detention centres in Tibet. At police
          stations, the forms of torture and ill—treatment reported include kicking;
          beating; application of electric shocks by means of batons or small electrical
          generators; the use of self—tightening handcuffs; deprivation of food;
          exposure to alternating extremes of hot and cold temperatures; enforced
          standing in difficult positions; enforced standing in cold water; prolonged
          shackling of detainees spread—eagled to a wall; placing of heated objects on
          the skin; and striking with iron rods on the joints or hands. Tibetans who
          had been forcibly returned to Tibet after seeking asylum in Nepal were alleged
          to be particularly vulnerable to torture.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 17
          60. The Special Rapporteur also transmitted allegations on 16 individual
          cases and 2 urgent appeals on behalf of 2 persons. The Government replied to
          one of the urgent appeals.
          Observations
          61. The information reaching the Special Rapporteur continues to justify
          concern at the situation. Recent legal developments could make a positive
          contribution, the impact of which would be a focus of a visit to the country
          should he receive an invitation, as requested in 1995 (see E/CN.4/1996/35,
          paras. 5 and 47).
          Co 1 orib i a
          62. By letter dated 16 Septer er 1996 the Special Rapporteur transmitted
          17 cases to the Government, to which the latter replied on 26 Nover er 1996.
          The Government also replied to two cases that had been transmitted in 1995.
          63. On 29 October 1996 the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special
          Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent a letter to
          the Government reminding it of the recorimendations made after their visit to
          the country in October 1994 (see E/CN.4/1995/111) and requesting information
          about a nunter of issues, such as the following: the reform of the military
          criminal justice system as well as the regional justice system, the programme
          for the protection of witnesses intervening in proceedings on human rights
          violations, the bill on compensation for victims of human rights violations,
          the measures to dismantle the paramilitary groups and the measures to coribat
          the social cleansing killings.
          Observations
          64. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the conclusion of the agreement between
          the High Commissioner/Centre for Human Rights and the Government of Colori ia
          which seems to offer the prospect of being a significant response to the need,
          referred to in his last report “to set up a standing international human
          rights mechanism . .. to report publicly on the human rights situation and to
          monitor human rights violations in situ , as well as to assist the Government
          and non-governmental organizations in this field” (E/CN.4/1996/35, para. 54)
          Such a field presence could contribute to preventing the occurrence of torture
          and ill-treatment as well as the impunity which permits them to continue, in
          particular through the implementation of the recommendations formulated in the
          joint report of the Special Rapporteurs. It will be desirable for the
          Commission to keep the matter under review with a view to assessing the
          effectiveness of the new office at its fifty—fourth session.
          Con Qo
          65. The Special Rapporteur transmitted two urgent appeals on behalf of four
          persons.
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 18
          Côte d'Ivoire
          66. The Special Rapporteur transmitted nine individual cases to the
          Government.
          Cuba
          67. The Special Rapporteur transmitted nine individual cases to the
          Government, as well as a nuriber of cases already transmitted in 1995 on which
          he had received no replies. He also sent one urgent appeal on behalf of one
          person. The Government replied to one urgent appeal sent in 1995 together
          with the Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
          and on the situation of human rights in Cuba, on behalf of three persons.
          Observations
          68. The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that he has only
          infrequently received allegations of physical torture or ill—treatment of
          persons held for interrogation. However, over the years he has continued to
          receive persistent allegations of brutality, often resulting in injury, to
          persons held in prisons where conditions are reportedly extremely harsh. In
          this connection, he draws attention to and associates himself with the
          recommendation of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
          Cuba, that the Government should “ensure greater transparency and guarantees
          in the prison system, so as to prevent, to the extent possible, excessive
          violence and physical and psychological suffering from being inflicted on
          prisoners. In this connection, it would be a major achievement to renew the
          agreement with the International Corimittee of the Red Cross and to allow
          non—governmental humanitarian organizations access to prisons” (A/51/460,
          annex, para. 44 (Ic))
          C ru 5
          69. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government one individual
          case.
          Ecuador
          70. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government five individual
          cases. The Government replied to two cases transmitted by the Special
          Rapporteur in 1995.
          Ec t
          71. By letter dated 22 July 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had received information according to which inmates at
          Fayyom prison had frequently been subjected to torture or ill—treatment as a
          means of discipline or punishment. Upon arriving at the prison, new inmates
          were said to undergo a “reception party”, whereby they were forced to kneel
          down and move for 10 metres between two rows of guards who beat and kicked
          them as they moved. With the exception of a four-day period in April 1996,
          lawyers and relatives had reportedly been banned from visiting prisoners.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 19
          72. The Special Rapporteur also transmitted 11 individual cases and 1 urgent
          appeal on behalf of 5 persons. The Government replied to 150 cases
          transmitted in previous years.
          Observations
          73. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the great effort undertaken by the
          Government to asserible information on a large nunter of cases, which must have
          involved a substantial deployment of resources. While appreciating this
          effort, as well as the difficulties posed by the serious incidence of
          politically motivated violence in the country, the Special Rapporteur is
          compelled to note how long investigations of allegations generally take and
          the rarity of such investigations concluding in prosecutions, especially where
          the Security Services Investigation is concerned. In this connection, he
          finds notable the conclusion of the Corir ittee against Torture, after its
          inquiry pursuant to article 20 of the Convention against Torture “that torture
          is systematically practised by the security forces in Egypt, in particular by
          State Security Intelligence, since in spite of the denials of the Government,
          the allegations of torture submitted by reliable non—governmental
          organizations consistently indicate that reported cases of torture are seen to
          be habitual, widespread and deliberate in at least a considerable part of the
          country” (A/51/44, para. 220) . He also underlines the Corimittee's
          recorir endations (paras. 221—222).
          El Salvador
          74. The Special Rapporteur transmitted three individual cases to the
          Government.
          Equatorial Guinea
          75. By letter dated 12 July 1996 the Special Rapporteur informed the
          Government that he had received information according to which torture and
          ill—treatment were frequently inflicted on detainees, including those arrested
          for political reasons. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation
          of human rights in Equatorial Guinea referred extensively to this problem
          (E/CN.4/1996/67, paras. 27—31). By the same letter the Special Rapporteur
          transmitted to the Government 13 individual cases. He also sent to the
          Government two urgent appeals on behalf of two persons.
          Observations
          76. The Special Rapporteur is concerned by the allegations he has received
          which are consistent with information in the hands of the Special Rapporteur
          on the situation of human rights in Equatorial Guinea and he endorses the
          latter's recorir endations (paras. 78 and 79 of E/CN.4/1996/67)
          Ethiopia
          77. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government 4 urgent appeals on
          behalf of 18 persons. The Government replied to one of the appeals concerning
          one person.
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 20
          France
          78. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government allegations about
          one particular incident involving several persons, as well as one individual
          case. The Government sent replies on eight cases transmitted in 1995.
          Germany
          79. By letter dated 6 May 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the Government
          that he had received information according to which a nuriber of persons
          belonging to ethnic or national minorities residing in Germany had been
          subjected to severe beatings and other ill—treatment by police officers. A
          substantial nunter of such incidents were said to have occurred in Berlin.
          80. The Special Rapporteur also transmitted seven individual cases, to which
          the Government provided replies.
          Greece
          81. The Special Rapporteur transmitted allegations concerning five
          individual cases, to which the Government provided replies.
          Guatemala
          82. The Special Rapporteur transmitted six individual cases, to which the
          Government replied. He also sent, together with the Special Rapporteur on
          extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, one urgent appeal on behalf of
          one person, to which the Government also replied.
          Observations
          83. The information continuing to reach the Special Rapporteur leads him to
          draw attention to the findings of the Human Rights Corimittee and the Corimittee
          against Torture. The Human Rights Corimittee noted “with alarm the information
          received of cases of . . . torture, rape and other inhuman or degrading
          treatment or punishment . . . by menters of the army and security forces, or
          paramilitary and other armed groups or individuals (notably the Civil Defence
          Patrols (PACs) and former military corimissioners)” (A/51/40, para. 232). The
          Corir ittee was also concerned “that the absence of a State policy for co n tating
          impunity has prevented the identification, trial and punishment . .. of those
          responsible, and the payment of compensation to the victims” (para. 229) . The
          Corir ittee against Torture expressed similar concerns (A/51/44, paras. 53—56)
          Gui ne a
          84. The Special Rapporteur sent one urgent appeal on behalf of three
          persons, to which the Government replied.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 21
          Honduras
          85. On different dates the Special Rapporteur transmitted allegations
          concerning 12 cases involving minors. The Government replied to 10 of them.
          Hun Qary
          86. The Special Rapporteur transmitted allegations concerning four
          individual cases, to which the Government provided replies. He also
          transmitted an urgent appeal on behalf of four persons.
          India
          87. By letter dated 16 Septer er 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had continued to receive information indicating that the
          security forces in Jarimu and Kashmir had tortured detainees systematically in
          order to coerce them to confess to militant activity, to reveal information
          about suspected militants, or to inflict punishment for suspected support or
          s pathy with militants. The use of torture was said to be facilitated by the
          practice of holding detainees in temporary detention centres without access to
          courts, relatives or medical care. The methods of torture reported include
          severe beatings, electric shocks, crushing the leg muscles with a wooden
          roller, burning with heated objects and rape.
          88. The practice of incorir unicado detention was said to facilitate torture.
          The security forces were reported rarely to produce detainees before a
          magistrate, despite their being required by law to do so within 24 hours of
          detention. It was reported that since 1990 over 15,000 habeas corpus
          petitions had been filed to reveal the whereabouts of detainees and the
          charges against them, but that in the vast majority of these cases the
          authorities had not responded to the petitions. It was further reported that
          on no occasion had information been made public regarding instances of action
          taken against security force personnel in Jarimu and Kashmir for acts of
          torture.
          89. The Special Rapporteur transmitted six individual cases and received
          replies to three of these cases. He also transmitted follow—up information on
          19 previously transmitted cases. The Special Rapporteur sent 2 urgent
          appeals, 1 on behalf of 2 individuals and another on behalf of some
          180 Ehutanese refugees staging a march through India. The Government replied
          to those appeals. The Government also replied to six cases transmitted in
          previous years.
          Observations
          90. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the responses of the Government
          and the efforts involved in collecting such information in a large federal
          State. Nevertheless, he continues to be concerned at the persistence of
          allegations of torture, followed often by death in custody, and to regret the
          reluctance of the Government to invite him to visit the country.
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 22
          Indonesia
          91. By letter dated 11 July 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had continued to receive reports indicating that torture or
          other ill—treatment of both criminal suspects and persons detained for
          political reasons was occurring on a widespread basis in Indonesia. Persons
          said to be particularly vulnerable to such abuse were those arrested within
          the context of counter—insurgency operations in Irian Jaya and East Timor,
          workers engaging in strikes or unauthorized union activities, student
          demonstrators and journalists.
          92. The use of torture was reportedly facilitated by the following factors:
          the near—impunity enjoyed by meribers of the security forces; the frequent
          practice of unacknowledged and/or arbitrary detention; the denial to detainees
          of access to legal counsel; and restrictions on such access by human rights
          monitors. The methods of torture reported include beatings all over the body
          with fists, pieces of wood, iron bars, cables, bottles or rocks; burning with
          cigarettes; electric shocks; rape and other sexual abuse; suspension
          upside-do by the ankles; sleep and food deprivation; and death threats.
          93. The National Corimission on Human Rights ( Komnas HAM ) was said to lack
          full independence and effectiveness, as evidenced by its apparent failure to
          consider, in its investigation of the riots in East Timor of Septer er and
          October 1995, a nuriber of human rights violations, including torture,
          allegedly corimitted by meribers of the security forces. In addition, being
          under no formal obligation to act on the Corir ission's findings, the Government
          had reportedly ignored them partially or wholly.
          94. By letter dated 20 October 1996 the Government stated that by presenting
          sweeping allegations, without any substance whatsoever, that torture was
          widespread in Indonesia, the Special Rapporteur was engaging in a questionable
          method of work. Allegations of this nature should not be processed by the
          Special Rapporteur. The Government stressed that it had neither the time nor
          the inclination to explain that the Indonesian National Corir ission on Human
          Rights had all the power and resources to be operational and independent. To
          explain this matter, on behalf of the Corir ission, would be an irresponsible
          attempt to tamper with its work. The Government also provided quotations from
          an Indonesian human rights lawyer, a former Chairman of the Indonesian Legal
          Aid Foundation, the United States Secretary of State and a United States
          Under—Secretary of State, all corimenting favourably upon the work of the Human
          Rights Corir ission.
          Information transmitted to the Government in connection with the Special
          Ra orteur's visit to PortuQal
          95. By letter dated 19 Septer er 1996 the Special Rapporteur informed the
          Indonesian Government that the Government of Portugal had invited him to visit
          Lisbon in order to meet a nunter of East Timorese persons residing in Portugal
          who had allegedly been tortured by Indonesian security forces prior to leaving
          their country. Partly due to the fact that the Government of Indonesia had
          replied negatively (at least until spring 1997) to the Special Rapporteur's
          request for a visit to Indonesia and East Timor, he decided to accept the
          invitation. The Special Rapporteur considered that that opportunity to obtain
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 23
          first-hand information would help him to assess the situation regarding the
          use of torture against East Timorese and to better evaluate the information he
          regularly received from other sources, in particular non—governmental
          organizations. Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur visited Lisbon on 5 and
          6 Septeriber 1996, during which he received the testimony of alleged victims as
          well as information from non—governmental organizations.
          96. By the same letter, the Special Rapporteur provided the Government with
          a summary of allegations he had received during his visit. According to
          non—governmental sources, the use of torture against suspected supporters of
          the East Timorese resistance movement was widespread, despite the fact that it
          was prohibited under the Indonesian Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal
          Procedure and various ministerial regulations. Torture was allegedly carried
          out by the military, most frequently by mer ers of the SGI (Special
          Intelligence Unit) forces, as well as the police, especially in East Timor,
          but also in Jakarta or other cities in Indonesia where the activists might be
          arrested. Few of the persons arrested were reportedly brought before a judge
          or prosecuted and, in any event, judges did not normally take into
          consideration allegations of torture made by those being prosecuted, who
          themselves were frequently not assisted by defence lawyers. It was also
          reported that torture usually occurred during the first hours or days
          following the arrest, during which time the detainees were deprived of contact
          with their families and interrogated about their links with the resistance
          movement. Arrests frequently took place in the context of demonstrations or
          other acts of protest, even if they were peaceful. The most common methods of
          torture reported include severe beatings with fists, lengths of wood and iron
          bars, kicking, burning with cigarettes and electric shocks. Although the
          majority of torture victims seemed to be males, reports were also received
          documenting sexual abuse, including rape, of women under detention or in other
          circumstances, such as when house—to—house searches were conducted.
          97. The Special Rapporteur also heard 10 oral accounts of torture from the
          alleged victims, surimaries of which were also transmitted to the Indonesian
          Government on 13 Septeriber 1996. In a reply dated 1 Nover er 1996, the
          Government informed the Special Rapporteur that seven of the persons from whom
          the Special Rapporteur had received information had never in fact been
          detained nor had they been involved in law-breaking situations. The police
          and other law—enforcement officials had no criminal record of them whatsoever.
          With respect to the remaining three alleged victims, a summary of the
          Government's reply follows that of the corresponding case in the paragraphs
          below.
          98. Martinho Kimenes E do, a student, was first arrested at the age of 12 in
          1981 in Vatulari. He and his father were interrogated about his brother's
          links with the resistance movement at military headquarters (KOPANIL) , during
          which he received a cigarette burn to his forearm and he and his father were
          beaten in front of each other. They were detained at KOPAMIL for about three
          months, and then imprisoned together with five other mer ers of their family,
          in Atauro island. He was released in 1986. In 1992 he was arrested again in
          Viqueque by military personnel but was not ill-treated during interrogation.
          99. Moisés de Amaral was first arrested on 31 March 1982 in Vatularialong,
          along with 35 other persons, by KOPAMIL personnel. All of the detainees were
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 24
          beaten heavily with wooden sticks during interrogation. He was later
          transferred to the Atauro island prison, where he remained until January 1987,
          without having seen a judge. On 27 Noveriber 1991, after he was arrested again
          in Viqueque, he was interrogated and beaten with belts, kicked and punched at
          KODIM headquarters. He remained at KODIM for about three months, during which
          time he was not allowed to receive visits, including from the ICRC.
          100. Egas Dias Quintas Monteiro, a student, was arrested for the first time
          in August 1991 in Bandung, West Java, by military personnel, who blindfolded
          him and brought him to a military barracks in Sumera. There he was beaten
          with a rubber stick, kicked and given electric shocks to his sexual organs and
          ears. He also had a nail harimered in each foot, was burnt with cigarettes and
          had all his toenails extracted. During the torture he was interrogated about
          his participation in demonstrations and about declarations he had made to the
          press criticizing the Indonesian study programme for young East Timorese in
          Java. He was later taken to a military hospital, from which he escaped. He
          was subsequently arrested in Nover er 1991 and Nover er 1994 in Jakarta, but
          he was not ill—treated on those occasions.
          101. Alfredo Rodriguez was first arrested in October 1987, while carrying
          arms for the guerrilla in the mountains. He was wounded in the incident and
          hospitalized in Dili. One month later he was taken to premises of the
          military intelligence unit (SGI) where, under interrogation, he was beaten,
          burned with cigarettes, and two of his toenails were removed. The
          interrogators also placed his feet under the legs of a chair and sat on it.
          He was again arrested on 9 June 1993 in Los Palos by military personnel. At
          the local barracks he was deprived of his clothes, handcuffed, punched, kicked
          and beaten with wooden sticks, burned with cigarettes repeatedly and his legs
          were scraped with a sharp object that caused deep wounds. During the torture
          he was interrogated about his involvement with the resistance movement and was
          subsequently placed in a cell for six days with his hands and feet tied. He
          was released on 17 July 1993 after being warned not to tell anybody that he
          had been tortured.
          102. Valdemar Pereira da Silva, a student, was arrested on 17 January 1990 in
          Lecidere, Dili, by the SGI, during a peaceful pro—independence demonstration.
          At SGI headquarters in Colmera, he was interrogated about his links with the
          resistance movement and beaten until he fainted. The interrogators also put
          the legs of a chair on his feet and sat on it. He was released a few days
          later and arrested again on 12 Nover er 1991 in the context of the Santa Cruz
          incidents. He was interrogated on over 10 occasions during four months'
          detention and was severely beaten during three of the session. Following a
          demonstration in Colmera on 5 Septer er 1994 he was detained for a third time.
          At SGI headquarters he was interrogated for about two hours, during which he
          was severely beaten and given electric shocks to his feet and arm.
          103. Ilidio de Oliveira Câmara was arrested together with six friends on
          26 Deceriber 1995, near the Canadian F±ntassy in Jakarta. At KODIM
          headquarters they were interrogated separately and severely beaten.
          Ilidio de Oliveira Câmara was also burned with cigarettes in his arms. He was
          transferred to a police station and further interrogated and beaten. He
          stayed at the police station for two months, during which he was not allowed
          to contact his family.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 25
          He was subsequently taken to a rehabilitation centre (Rutan) , where he was
          beaten again upon arrival and subjected to degrading treatment, such as
          forcing him to put his leg into the toilet.
          104. A ntonio Campos was first arrested on 12 February 1987 in Los Palos,
          East Timor. At SGI headquarters in Jakarta he was interrogated about his
          involvement in the resistance movement, subjected to beatings, and one of his
          toenails was removed. In addition, the legs of a table were placed on his
          feet while one of the interrogators jumped on it. After three months in
          Jakarta, he was taken back to the Dili SGI headquarters and released 10 days
          later. On 9 July 1993 he was arrested again in Los Palos. On each of the
          following five days he was interrogated, beaten and given electric shocks to
          his toes and fingers. He spent nine days in a dark cell before being
          released. During the night of 16 April 1996 he was arrested for a third time
          while trying to enter the Eribassy of Germany in Jakarta together with seven
          other East Timorese. Fifteen minutes after they had jumped over the Eribassy's
          wall, military personnel arrived and beat them severely using iron bars, as a
          result of which A n tonio Campos had one foot fractured.
          105. Victor dos Reis Carvalho, a student, was arrested in Dili on
          27 January 1994, after having set fire to an Indonesian flag. At SGI
          headquarters, he was interrogated and beaten until he fainted and his forearm
          was deeply pierced with a pin for about 10 minutes. A judge in Ermera
          subsequently sentenced him to one year's imprisonment. When he mentioned that
          he had been tortured, the judge stated that, since the torture had been done
          by the military, it was not his concern. No defence lawyer assisted him
          during the trial. The day he arrived at Becora prison, he was beaten by the
          guards and forced to do physical exercises for some two hours. In the
          following days he was beaten several times. The Government replied that
          Victor dos Reis Carvalho's prison term was completed on 2 February 1995.
          During his interrogation and imprisonment he was never tortured.
          106. Domingos Savio Correia, a student, was arrested in Viqueque by meribers
          of the SGI on 22 Nover er 1995 while trying to leave the country by boat with
          28 other persons. At the military post near the harbour, he was interrogated
          and beaten. After being transferred to Dili police headquarters (POLWIL) they
          were again interrogated and beaten. Domingos Savio Correia was interrogated
          for about three hours and severely beaten on the head and chest. He and three
          other detainees also had a chair placed on their feet in the manner described
          above. After being held at POLWIL for five months he was released. The
          Government replied to these allegations that Domingos Sanzo Correia had been
          arrested on 14 Nover er 1995 for stealing a boat and was released on
          22 Noveriber 1995. Neither he nor his friends had been tortured. The leader
          of the boat people told the High Corimissioner for Human Rights during his
          visit to Indonesia in Decer er 1995 that they had not been mistreated by the
          police and that she wanted to leave East Timor to make a better life for her
          and her daughter.
          107. Florindo dos Santos, a student, was first arrested on 9 July 1993 in
          Los Palos by SGI personnel. At SGI headquarters in Los Palos, he was slapped
          while being interrogated, but did not suffer any further ill-treatment.
          However, four other persons arrested at the same time and considered to be
          local leaders of the resistance movement, Aurelio Gandara, Gil da Cruz,
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 26
          Estakio José Fernandes and Kamilio Alegria, were allegedly beaten, hung from
          their arms, burned with cigarettes and irir ersed in a water tank with blocks of
          ice roped to their bodies. One month later he was released. On
          3 February 1996 he was arrested again in Dili. At the police station he was
          interrogated about his participation in a demonstration, punched, beaten with
          a wooden stick, kicked on his forehead and burned with cigarettes. After his
          release, Florindo dos Santos fled to Jakarta where, on 16 April 1996, he
          entered the Eribassy of Germany as described in the case of Antonio Campos
          referred to above. In that incident he also was heavily beaten with wooden
          and iron sticks until he fainted. At the KODIM barracks and the police
          station he suffered no further ill—treatment and on 20 April he was released.
          The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that Florindo dos Santos had
          been arrested on 11 July 1993 on charges of involvement as a liaison for armed
          separatists. He was released on 18 July 1996 and had not been arrested since
          that time.
          108. By letters dated 20 October 1996 and 1 Noveriber 1996 the Government
          informed the Special Rapporteur that it considered that the decision by the
          Government of Portugal to invite the Special Rapporteur to the country had
          been triggered by Portugal's hostile attitude towards Indonesia and had not
          been based on a sincere desire to promote and protect human rights. It was
          merely a part of a concerted and systematic effort to besmirch and discredit
          Indonesia. This hostility against Indonesia was shared by those East Timorese
          who had forced their way into erftassies in Jakarta in the months before or
          during the sessions of the United Nations General Asseribly, the Commission on
          Human Rights and the Sub—Corir ission on Prevention of Discrimination and
          Protection of Minorities. The timing of actions provided clues as to the real
          motive of their deeds. Indonesia did not intend to bar them from leaving the
          country, but they had no well—founded fear of persecution. In addition, those
          East Timorese youths who had previously fled to Portugal had been students in
          scholarship programmes in various provinces who had failed to graduate. As
          they were faced with shame, an urgent need for resources and an uncertain
          future, they had opted for the popular shortcut of fleeing to Portugal with a
          fake claim of persecution. The reason that Portugal, as opposed to other
          foreign erftassies, had provided them with refugee status was because only
          Portugal would benefit politically from such a situation.
          109. The Government also expressed concern that the Special Rapporteur had
          used the term “oral testimonies” to refer to the above—described allegations,
          as it was not clear whether the statements of the persons interviewed had been
          made under oath. Even if the statements had been made under oath, taking such
          evidence would be beyond the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, as his post
          had never been charged to act as a court of law. Furthermore, using the term
          woral testimonies” could lead one to equate the work of the Special Rapporteur
          with that of common NGOs, which most if not all of the time had claimed to
          secure testimonies which had later turned out to be mere allegations.
          Moreover, the allegations could not be true, because the ICRC had had
          unlimited access to places of detention in East Timor since 1979.
          110. To sum up, the Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government
          information on 26 individual cases, including the 10 mentioned above. The
          Government replied to 23 of these cases and to 27 cases which had been
          transmitted by the Special Rapporteur in 1994 and 1995. The Special
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 27
          Rapporteur also made 9 urgent appeals on behalf of 27 individuals and four
          situations involving an undetermined nunter of individuals. One of the urgent
          appeals was joined by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and
          expression and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary
          executions. Another appeal was joined by the Chairman of the Working Group on
          Arbitrary Detention.
          Observations
          111. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the Government's responses in respect
          of the cases he transmits to it. Despite these responses, he believes that
          the persistence and consistency of the allegations he receives, justify
          continuing concern with the issue. In particular, he does not consider simple
          denials by law enforcement or security agencies of detention or ill—treatment
          during detention as conclusive. With regard to his meetings with alleged
          victims of torture or ill—treatment in East Timor, he found several of their
          stories (which he subjected to close examination) credible, partly because of
          the limited nature of the allegations: ill—treatment did not occur on every
          occasion of detention of the person in question, nor did the ill—treatment
          necessarily last for the duration of the detention. The Special Rapporteur
          continues to regret that an invitation to visit Indonesia and East Timor has
          not been forthcoming.
          Iran (Islamic Re i jblic of )
          112. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 20 individual cases to the Government
          and 4 urgent appeals on behalf of 24 persons. One of the urgent appeals was
          made in conjunction with the Special Representative on the situation of human
          rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, concerning the alleged resumption of
          amputation as a punishment for criminal offences.
          Observations
          113. The Special Rapporteur considers that the allegations of torture should
          be thoroughly investigated and measures should be put in place to ensure
          effective monitoring of detention and interrogation practices of the relevant
          agencies. Prolonged incommunicado detention should not be possible.
          Amputation, flagellation and other forms of corporal punishment should be
          ended.
          Ira q
          Observations
          114. In the light of information he has received over the years, the Special
          Rapporteur feels obliged to draw attention to paragraphs 9—15 of the report
          of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq to the
          General Asse n tly (A/51/496, annex) , which cites “cruel torture and gross
          mistreatment upon arrest” (para. 9). He shares that Special Rapporteur's
          concern at continuing resort to measures of amputation and mutilation
          (paras. 12-15 and 108)
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 28
          Israel
          115. By letter dated 11 Nover er 1996, the Government replied to information
          the Special Rapporteur had transmitted on 14 July 1995 concerning the practice
          of torture in the country (see E/CN.4/1996/35/Add.1, paras. 384-386). The
          Government stated that Israel's law forbade all forms of torture or
          maltreatment and conformed to the basic provisions of the Convention against
          Torture, to which it is a party. Every allegation of maltreatment was
          thoroughly investigated by the Department for Investigation of the Police at
          the Ministry of Justice, which is under the direct supervision of the State
          Attorney. Disciplinary or criminal measures were instigated against those
          responsible. In addition, any person could petition directly the Supreme
          Court of Israel sitting as a High Court of Justice, and the petition would be
          heard within 48 hours of submission.
          116. Regarding access to judges, while it was true that persons suspected of
          State security offences could be held for up to 15 days without notification
          of arrest, this seldom—used procedure could be brought into effect only at the
          discretion of the judge when the Minister of Defence affirmed that the
          security of the State required temporary secrecy. While persons in the
          Administered Territories could be held for up to 11 days in serious cases,
          arrested persons could file a petition for cancellation of the arrest order
          and release from detention and the military courts would hear their petitions
          within a few days. Habeas corpus petitions could also be submitted to the
          Supreme Court. Israel had no policy or system of incorir unicado detention, but
          sometimes a delay in seeing family and lawyers could occur as a result of
          security measures that must be taken. In any event a person must be allowed
          to meet with a lawyer by the fifteenth day and this requirement would be
          shortened to 10 days under a new Criminal Procedure Law that would enter into
          force in May 1997. In extreme cases, the President of the District Court
          could deny access to lawyers for up to 21 days. Any denial of access could be
          appealed to both the District Court and the Supreme Court.
          117. The Government asserted that personal and political motives might be
          behind the fabricated or exaggerated allegations of torture made by
          individuals who had been arrested. The motive of making these allegations
          would be to eribarrass the Government of Israel by spreading anti—Israel
          disinformation in the form of bogus human rights complaints or to justify
          their owi actions vis—â—vis their fellow Arabs.
          118. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government information
          on 12 individual cases. He also made 7 urgent appeals on behalf
          of 24 persons. The Government provided replies to two of the appeals, one
          of which is surimarized in the following paragraph. The Government also
          replied to seven cases that had been transmitted in 1995.
          119. The Government replied to the urgent appeal transmitted by the Special
          Rapporteur on 15 Nover er 1996 on behalf of Moharimad Abdel Aziz Hamdan, whose
          appeal to the Supreme Court that “physical pressure” not be used against him
          during his custodial interrogation was rejected, by transmitting a copy of the
          14 Noveriber 1996 Supreme Court decision on the case. The Government also
          provided a background paper prepared by the Ministry of Justice on “Israel's
          Interrogation Practices and Policies”. In the paper, the Government affirms
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 29
          that Israeli law strictly prohibits all forms of torture or maltreatment. To
          prevent terrorism effectively while ensuring that basic human rights are
          protected, the authorities had adopted strict rules for handling
          interrogations to obtain crucial information on terrorist activities or
          organizations, while ensuring that suspects were not maltreated. The Landau
          Corir ission, in examining the issue in 1987, had determined that in dealing
          with terrorists representing a great threat to the State of Israel and its
          citizens, the use of a moderate degree of pressure, including physical
          pressure, to obtain information, such as that which would prevent irir inent
          murder or would provide vital information on a terrorist organization, was
          unavoidable. The use of moderate pressure was permissible under international
          law, as evidenced by the European Court of Human Rights ruling that
          ill—treatment would have to “reach a certain severe level in order to be
          included in the ban” of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment
          contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.
          120. The Landau Corir ission had constrained the boundaries of permissible
          physical pressure to forbid disproportionate pressure or that which reached
          the level of physical torture or maltreatment or grievous harm to the
          detainee's honour which would deprive him of his human dignity, as follows.
          The use of less serious measures must be weighed against the degree of
          anticipated danger; physical and psychological means of pressure permitted for
          use by an interrogator must be defined and limited in advance through binding
          directives, the implementation of which must be strictly supervised; and those
          supervising the interrogators must see to it that disciplinary and, in serious
          cases, criminal proceedings are brought against interrogators deviating from
          what is permissible. The exact forms of pressure permissible to the
          interrogators had been kept secret so as not to limit their effectiveness.
          Safeguards had been put in place, including the mandatory investigation of
          claims of mistreatment and external supervision of the interrogation process
          by the State comptrollers and a special sub—corimittee of the Israeli
          Parliament (Knesset) . The ICRC was able to meet with detainees in private
          within 14 days of arrest. A special ministerial corimittee also undertook
          periodic reviews of the guidelines. Pursuant to such a review, new guidelines
          issued in 1993 established that the need and justification for physical
          pressure must be established in every individual case.
          Observations
          121. The following forms of pressure during interrogation appear so
          consistently (and have not been denied in judicial proceedings) that the
          Special Rapporteur assumes them to be sanctioned under the approved but secret
          interrogation practices: sitting in a very low chair or standing arced
          against a wall (possibly in alternation with each other); hands and/or legs
          tightly manacled; subjection to loud noise; sleep deprivation; hooding; being
          kept in cold air; violent shaking (an “exceptional” measure, used against
          8,000 persons according to the late Prime Minister Rabin in 1995) . Each of
          these measures on its own may not provoke severe pain or suffering.
          Together - and they are frequently used in cori ination - they may be expected
          to induce precisely such pain or suffering, especially if applied on a
          protracted basis of, say, several hours. In fact, they are sometimes
          apparently applied for days or even weeks on end. Under those circumstances,
          they can only be described as torture, which is not surprising given their
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 30
          advanced purpose, namely, to elicit information, implicitly by breaking the
          will of the detainees to resist yielding up the desired information. The
          Special Rapporteur concurs with the view of the Special Rapporteur on the
          situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967,
          reaffirming the position of the Corir ittee against Torture, that “an immediate
          end should be put to current interrogation practices and all victims of such
          practices should be granted access to appropriate rehabilitation and
          compensation measures” and that “interrogation procedures be published in full
          so that they are both transparent and seen to be consistent with the standards
          of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
          Treatment or Punishment” (E/CN.4/1996/18, para. 36) . The Special Rapporteur
          appreciates the responses of the Government and is aware of the grave
          challenges posed by politically motivated terrorist activities, but, as the
          Government itself acknowledges, these cannot justify torture or cruel, inhuman
          or degrading treatment.
          Italy
          122. On 10 October 1996 the Special Rapporteur informed the Government that
          he had received information to the effect that persons suspected of having
          corir itted offences under the ordinary law or during identity checks were
          sometimes ill—treated by police officers when they were arrested. In most
          cases this ill—treatment occurred in the street, during the arrest and the
          first 24 hours of detention, and therefore before the person arrested had seen
          a lawyer or had been brought before a judge. Cases were also mentioned of
          police officers having brutalized persons who tried to intervene when they
          were ill—treating third persons.
          123. Physical violence appeared to be used as a means of punishing or
          humiliating an individual, and certain forms of prejudice, particularly racial
          prejudice, seemed to be a factor in this connection. Furthermore, physical
          ill—treatment was allegedly accompanied in many cases by insults, particularly
          racial insults when the persons concerned were immigrants or Gypsies. It was
          said that the most common forms of ill—treatment were repeated slapping,
          kicking, punching and beating with a truncheon.
          124. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 10 individual cases, to which the
          Government replied. At the Special Rapporteur's request, the Government also
          provided follow—up information on a nuriber of cases transmitted in previous
          years.
          Jamaica
          125. By letter dated 18 Decer er 1995 the Government replied to the letter
          the Special Rapporteur had sent on 10 July 1995 regarding the conditions under
          which children were held in police lock—ups in the country (see
          E/CN.4/1996/35/Add.1, paras. 411-412). The Government stated that under the
          provisions of the Juveniles Act, youngsters under the age of 17 may not be
          detained in the same cells as adults. In practice, juveniles were sometimes
          held in the same building as adults, but they were not held with adults in the
          same cells, as alleged. Each police station was staffed with persons skilled
          to handle juvenile matters and there existed an educational programme aimed to
          inform the public of this fact and of the referral system between social
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 31
          agencies. The Government planned in the medium to long term to upgrade
          facilities for teenage girls. It was also taking steps to expedite hearings
          and provide better learning facilities for those in the care of the State. In
          addition, visiting corimittees, comprising Justices of the Peace, served to
          bring to the attention of the relevant authorities any weaknesses in the
          system, with an emphasis on human rights. The Government was acutely aware of
          the importance of protecting persons in lock—ups and correctional institutions
          from abuse. Personnel were constantly reminded that juveniles and young
          persons must be treated strictly in accordance with existing legislation and
          appropriate action was taken when violence occurred.
          Jordan
          126. The Special Rapporteur transmitted one individual case to which the
          Government provided a reply.
          Kazakstan
          127. The Special Rapporteur transmitted one individual case and made one
          urgent appeal on behalf of one person.
          Kenya
          128. By letter dated 24 January 1996 the Special Rapporteur informed the
          Government that he had continued to receive reports indicating that the use
          of torture and ill—treatment by officers of the Directorate of Security
          Intelligence (DSI or “Special Branch”) and the Criminal Intelligence
          Department (CID) was widespread. The regular police, local administrative
          police and the KANU Youth Wingers (the youth division of the ruling party, the
          Kenyan African National Union) are also alleged to carry out torture. Torture
          and ill—treatment were reportedly inflicted to intimidate detainees, to
          dissuade them from engaging in political activities, to obtain “confessions”
          or other information, and to extract bribes.
          129. Although detainees accused of offences for which the death penalty is
          not applicable are legally permitted to be held incorir unicado for no more than
          24 hours, in practice such detainees were reportedly often held incorimunicado
          well beyond this period. (Persons accused of offences carrying the death
          penalty may be held incorimunicado legally for up to 14 days.) It was reported
          that in order to maintain a state of incorimunicado detention, officers often
          move detainees from one station to another upon arrest. It is during periods
          of incorir unicado detention that most torture and ill—treatment occurs.
          130. The methods of torture reported to be the most common include beatings
          with sticks, fists, run us (knobbed sticks) , handles of hoes and guns on
          various parts of the body, especially the soles of the feet; beatings to the
          soles of the feet while being suspended upside down on a stick passed behind
          the knees and in front of the elbows; and infliction of simultaneous blows to
          both ears, sometimes resulting in ruptured ear drums. Other forms of torture
          reported were the removal of toenails and fingernails; near—asphyxiation
          caused by the irimersion of the head in dirty water; being held in a cell
          filled with two inches of water for several days (the “swimming pool”)
          beatings administered while the victim is suspended from a tree in the forest
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 32
          at night; rape or the insertion of objects into the vagina; and pricking the
          penis with large pins or tying the penis with a string and pulling.
          131. The vast majority of officials engaging in torture or ill—treatment
          were said to act with impunity. The courts reportedly rarely investigated
          complaints of torture, examined medical evidence, questioned the lack of
          medical treatment from a prisoner who alleges that he or she was tortured, or
          declared evidence or confessions of guilt inadmissible when extracted by
          torture. The courts were also said seldom to enforce the legal limits on the
          duration of detention periods. Lawyers defending prisoners alleged to have
          been tortured had reportedly faced threats to their employment and received
          excessively high income tax bills to dissuade them from taking up such cases.
          132. The denial of medical care to prisoners was alleged to be prevalent.
          Private doctors are reportedly frequently denied access to prisoners or
          must pass through such hurdles as obtaining a court order in order to gain
          such access. Doctors who were able to examine prisoners allegedly faced
          intimidation from warders. Detainees and prisoners were often refused access
          to hospitals and, even when taken, were sometimes removed from hospital before
          treatment had corir enced or been completed.
          133. In a reply dated 18 March 1996 the Government stressed that torture as a
          means of intimidation or extracting confessions from prisoners or witnesses
          was prohibited and confessions obtained as a result of torture or intimidation
          were inadmissible in a court of law. Indeed, there had been instances when
          the courts had rejected such evidence. In cases where police officers had
          overstepped their bounds, they had been called upon to face the law and if it
          were established that they had corimitted an offence, the officers were
          punished. Law enforcement officers were instructed to follow both Kenyan
          national law and the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement
          Officials. Those officers who exceed lawful force are subjected to criminal
          prosecution and/or disciplinary measures. In recent times, the Attorney
          General has acted in about 25 cases, sanctioning 48 law enforcement officers
          on various charges, such as murder and manslaughter, torture, and/or had
          directed public inquests to be held.
          134. It was untrue that courts consistently failed to investigate complaints
          of torture. There had been many instances when officials were surir oned to
          court to produce suspects held in police custody. Such orders had always been
          complied with. The Corir issioners of Police and Prisons had on several
          occasions been ordered by courts to take suspects to hospital or to allow
          private doctors to visit those being detained. While it was true that fees
          for courts and lawyers were higher than the average Kenyan might be able to
          afford, this problem was economic in nature and could best be solved by
          development projects geared to raising the standards of living of the entire
          citizenry.
          135. There had never been a deliberate attempt by the Government to deny
          prisoners medical facilities. The Prisons Act required prison officers to
          take ill prisoners to hospital and the Ministry of Health managed prison
          health facilities with the available resources. Private doctors were also
          allowed to treat prisoners within the procedures stipulated in the Prison
          Rules. However, poor health facilities were a national problem sterir ing from
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 33
          lack of resources and not a problem of detainees only. The Prison Department
          and the Ministry of Health were only able to meet the health needs of
          detainees from limited resources.
          136. Kenyan prisons were 30 per cent overcrowded, but efforts were being made
          to decongest the prisons. On 20 October 1995 (Moi Day), the president
          released some 10,000 petty offenders serving custodial sentences. In
          Deceriber, the Government organized a symposium for law enforcement and
          judicial officers on extramural punishment, with a view to having more
          extramural sentences adopted to alleviate crowding in the prisons. On
          20 February 1996 the Attorney General appointed an Interim Corir ittee in
          Corir unity Service to implement the symposium's recorimendations and produce
          legislation to that effect. The Government had also expanded the capacity of
          old prisons, such as Nairobi Remand Prison, and had built new prisons in Busia
          and Siaya districts. It had also acquired more blankets, mattresses and
          clothing for prisoners.
          137. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 24 individual cases and the
          Government replied to 14 of these cases. The Government also replied to two
          cases which had been transmitted in 1995.
          Observations
          138. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the responses of the Government
          on a nuriber of the cases he transmitted. He, nevertheless, believes that the
          nature and extent of the information he receives suggests the continuing
          desirability that he be extended an invitation to visit the country.
          Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
          139. The Special Rapporteur made one urgent appeal on behalf of eight
          persons.
          Mexico
          140. The Special Rapporteur informed the Government that he had received
          reports according to which the courts continue to base their action on
          well—established case—law in accepting confessions, in many cases extracted
          under torture, as primary evidence in pronouncing convictions, although this
          is at variance with, inter alia , the Federal Act for the Prevention and
          Punishment of Torture. The remedy of am aro , which enables individuals to
          challenge acts by the authorities which violate rights established in the
          Constitution, is apparently ineffective in situations of this kind since, in
          accordance with existing case law, the first confession can still be used to
          convict a person even if it can be proved that it was obtained through the use
          of force. In addition, there is reportedly a tendency on the part of judges
          to disregard medical certificates furnished by defendants as proof of having
          been tortured. It was also reported that, pursuant to the above—mentioned
          Act, no convictions have yet been pronounced, even though the Act has been in
          force for several years.
          141. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 13 newly reported cases to which the
          Government replied. He also retransmitted four cases from previous years,
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 34
          requesting the Government to provide further details about investigations
          carried out. In addition, the Government transmitted information on 10 cases,
          some of them collective, transmitted by the Special Rapporteur in 1995.
          Finally, the Special Rapporteur sent 4 urgent appeals on behalf of 22 persons
          to which the Government also replied.
          Observations
          142. As the Government had announced to the Corimission at its fifty—second
          session, it invited the Special Rapporteur to visit the country, offering a
          date in Decer er that was not reconcilable with the Special Rapporteur's
          existing corir itments. However, at the time of writing, it is hoped that the
          visit will be able to take place early in 1997.
          Morocco
          143. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government one newly reported
          case. He also retransmitted eight cases regarding which he had received
          corir ents from the sources which were in contradiction with the Government's
          reply. The Government, however, reiterated its previous response.
          Myanmar
          144. By letter dated 11 June 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had received information according to which a nuriber of
          persons detained for political reasons at Insein prison in Yangon had been
          held in exceedingly small wdog cells”, intended for the keeping of military
          dogs. Some persons detained for political reasons at Insein had also
          allegedly been subjected to torture under interrogation by Military
          Intelligence (MI) officers, even after they had been sentenced. The
          interrogation was said to take place usually with the prisoner in leg irons
          and to be accompanied by severe beatings. Other forms of ill—treatment
          reported include being kept in the hot sun for prolonged periods and being
          forced to crawl on the ground over sharp stones.
          145. The Special Rapporteur also continued to receive information indicating
          that meribers of ethnic minorities had been forced against their will to
          perform portering duties for the army ( tatmadaw ) . Many such persons were
          reportedly subjected to torture or other ill—treatment while serving as
          porters. In this connection, it was alleged that porters were given
          inadequate food and medical care and were beaten when seen not to be working
          with sufficient rapidity. The situation was reported to be particularly grave
          with respect to ethnic Karens forced to porter during army operations against
          the Karen National Union (KNU)
          146. The Special Rapporteur also received numerous allegations regarding
          Karenni villagers subjected to torture, including beatings, rape and other
          ill—treatment during army operations against the Karen National Liberation
          Army (KNLA) . Some of the alleged abuses were said to have been carried out by
          the Democratic Kayin Buddhist Army, which is reported to receive logistical,
          tactical and other support from the tatmadaw . However, the alleged victims
          had requested that their names be withheld for fear of reprisals against them.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 35
          147. The Special Rapporteur transmitted seven individual cases and reminded
          the Government of the cases sent in 1995 regarding which no reply had been
          received. He also sent six urgent appeals, five of which were joined by the
          Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, on behalf of
          31 persons. The Government replied to four of the appeals concerning 24
          persons. The Government also replied to two urgent appeals concerning four
          persons that had been transmitted in 1995.
          Observations
          148. The information available to the Special Rapporteur leads him to share
          the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
          Myanmar that “the practice of torture, portering and forced labour continue to
          occur in Myanmar” (A/51/466, annex, para. 149) . He draws particular attention
          to that Special Rapporteur's recorimendations (2), (3), (8), (9), (15), (16)
          and (17).
          Nepal
          149. By letter dated 24 Septer er 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had received information according to which persons
          arrested in the course of police operations against Maoist political activists
          in the Rapti region of mid—western Nepal had been subjected to torture or
          other ill—treatment by police. Such arrests were said to have been made on a
          widespread basis following an attack on the Halori police station in Rolpa
          district, reportedly by mer ers of the Samyukta Jana Morch (SJ 1) and Corimunist
          Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN(M) ) . The methods of torture reported include
          repeated beatings, beatings to the soles of the feet, the placing of nettles
          ( Shishnu ) on the body and the use of rollers on the thighs. The
          constitutional provision limiting the duration of detention to 24 hours before
          remand was said to be frequently ignored. Many persons detained beyond the
          24—hour period were said to be held incorir unicado without relatives being
          informed of their detention, a condition which facilitates torture. In
          addition to that, the Special Rapporteur transmitted 22 individual cases.
          Ni Qeria
          150. By letter dated 6 May 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the Government
          that he had received information according to which the use of torture and
          other forms of ill—treatment against persons detained for political reasons in
          Nigeria was widespread. Under State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree
          No. 2 of 1984, such detainees may be held indefinitely, incorimunicado and
          without an opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention. In
          practice, the detainees were allegedly held incorimunicado in overcrowded and
          unsanitary cells, with inadequate food and washing facilities and without
          exercise or exposure to fresh air. Persons suffering from injuries or
          illnesses were reportedly frequently denied necessary medical treatment.
          151. The Special Rapporteur transmitted five individual cases. He made an
          urgent appeal in conjunction with the Chairman of the Working Group on
          Arbitrary Detention on behalf of 19 persons. He also made two other urgent
          appeals on behalf of two persons.
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 36
          Observations
          152. The Special Rapporteur draws attention to the deep concern expressed by
          the Human Rights Corimittee in respect of “cases of torture, ill—treatment, and
          arbitrary arrest and detention by meribers of the army and security forces and
          by the failure of the Government to investigate fully these cases, to
          prosecute alleged offences, to punish those found guilty and provide
          compensation to the victims or their families” (A/51/40, para. 284), as well
          as to its concern on the use of incorir unicado detention (paras. 260 and 286)
          He supports the Corir ittee's pertinent recorimendations (paras. 298—300)
          Pakistan
          153. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 20 individual cases and 2 urgent
          appeals on behalf of 10 persons. The Government replied to one appeal
          concerning seven persons.
          Observations
          154. The Special Rapporteur visited Pakistan from 22 February to 3 March 1986
          at the invitation of the Government. The report on the visit is contained in
          addendum 2 to the present report.
          ParaQuay
          155. The Special Rapporteur transmitted four newly reported cases.
          Peru
          156. The Special Rapporteur transmitted nine newly reported cases as well as
          one case updated with new information provided by the sources. The Government
          replied to one case transmitted in 1995. In addition, the Special Rapporteur
          sent two urgent appeals on behalf of two persons. One of those appeals was
          sent in conjunction with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges
          and lawyers.
          Observations
          157. The Special Rapporteur continues to be concerned regarding the incidence
          of allegations of torture in Peru. He welcomes steps suggesting that police
          officials may not enjoy impunity from criminal or disciplinary action in
          respect of abuses inflicted on detainees; he would also welcome information
          indicating that meribers of the armed forces involved in similar activity do
          not enjoy such impunity.
          158. In this connection, he joins the Human Rights Corimittee which expressed
          “its deepest concern with respect to the cases of ... torture, ill—treatment
          and arbitrary arrest and detention by meribers of the army and security forces,
          and by the Government's failure to investigate fully these cases, to prosecute
          alleged offences, to punish those found guilty and provide compensation to the
          victims and their families” (A/51/40, para. 354)
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 37
          Phili ines
          159. The Government replied to seven cases that had been transmitted by the
          Special Rapporteur in 1995.
          Poland
          160. The Special Rapporteur transmitted two cases, to which the Government
          replied.
          Portu Qal
          161. The Special Rapporteur transmitted two newly reported cases to which the
          Government replied. The Government also replied to two cases transmitted in
          previous years.
          Republic of Korea
          162. By letter dated 24 January 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had received information according to which persons
          detained for political reasons were sometimes subjected to beatings, sleep
          deprivation, enforced physical exercises, and threats to themselves or their
          families. The Agency for National Security Planning (At4SP), the Military
          Security Corir and (MSC) and the police, were all said to employ such methods,
          primarily to coerce “confessions”. Suspects were reportedly often held
          initially without a warrant or judicial supervision for the purpose of
          interrogation, which effectively resulted in short periods of incorimunicado
          detention. It was during such periods that detainees were most vulnerable to
          torture or ill—treatment. In a nuriber of cases in which persons were held
          under the National Security Law, the detainees had allegedly been denied
          access to lawyers or families for a preliminary period.
          163. In a subsequent letter dated 24 Septer er 1996 the Special Rapporteur
          informed the Government of reports that he had received indicating that during
          the course of police operations between 10 and 22 August 1996 against students
          from a nuriber of universities holding a demonstration at Yonsei University for
          reunification of the Korean peninsula, a substantial nunter of persons were
          subjected to torture or other ill—treatment.
          164. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 20 cases and received replies
          to 2 cases.
          Observations
          165. The Special Rapporteur notes the deep concern expressed by the Corir ittee
          against Torture at its Noveriber 1996 session regarding reports of torture
          being inflicted on political suspects and corimends the Corimittee's
          recorir endations.
          Romania
          166. The Special Rapporteur informed the Government that he had received
          reports according to which improper investigations, defined by article 266 of
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 38
          the Criminal Code as the use of promises, threats or violence against a person
          being investigated with a view to obtaining certain statements, were
          punishable by imprisonment for one to five years. Nevertheless, torture and
          ill—treatment were said to have taken place during detention, usually at
          police stations. Very often police officers had allegedly used force during
          interrogations in order to obtain confessions, which were regarded as prime
          pieces of evidence, particularly as Romanian legislation did not invalidate
          confessions obtained under duress.
          167. Lawyers were said to be unable to have confidential discussions with
          their clients during their detention by the police, since a police officer was
          always present during their conversations. According to the Criminal Code, a
          meriber of the accused's family or a person designated by him should be
          informed within 24 hours of his arrest. It was said, however, that this
          provision was not always respected. In some cases, it was apparently the
          family who found the person arrested by looking in various police stations.
          During the period of pre—trial detention, the right to correspondence and
          visits was allegedly often used as a means of bringing pressure on the
          accused, and was granted in exchange for a confession.
          168. It was said that when an investigation was er arked upon as a result of
          a complaint, it was rarely carried out thoroughly or impartially, and was
          often held up or prolonged without reason. This situation was allegedly due
          to the status enjoyed by police officers, who were held accountable for their
          acts only before the military courts. The investigation was entrusted to
          military prosecutors who allegedly openly favoured police officers in many
          cases. Furthermore, there was no procedure enabling the civilian victim to
          appeal to an independent court against the conclusions of a military
          prosecutor. His only recourse was to lodge a complaint with a higher military
          prosecutor.
          169. In addition to the above the Special Rapporteur transmitted eight newly
          reported cases to the Government. The latter replied to four cases that had
          been transmitted in previous years.
          Russian Federation
          170. By letter dated 23 Septer er 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had continued to receive information concerning the alleged
          torture or ill—treatment of persons during the course of military operations
          in the Chechen RepJ lic.
          171. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 25 individual cases. The Special
          Rapporteur also made an urgent appeal in conjunction with the Special
          Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special
          Representative of the Secretary—General on internally displaced persons,
          concerning the situation in the Chechen RepJ lic.
          Follow—un to the visit of the Special Ra orteur to the Russian Federation
          172. The Special Rapporteur visited the Russian Federation from 17
          to 28 July 1994. His report on that mission is contained in document
          E/CN.4/1995/34/Add.1. During 1995 the Government had informed the Special
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 39
          Rapporteur of measures that had been or were to be taken pursuant to the
          recorir endations in his report (see E/CN.4/1996/35, paras. 142-148). During
          the present reporting period, the Government continued to inform the Special
          Rapporteur of such measures taken, pursuant to resolutions 1995/37 B,
          paragraph 11 and 1996/33 B, paragraph 11 of the Corimission on Human Rights,
          concerning follow—up work relating to country visits.
          173. On 22 January 1996 the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that
          under a decree signed by the President of the Russian Federation on
          29 Septer er 1995, State enterprises/institutions that applied criminal
          penalties in the form of deprivation of freedom were to become State unitary
          enterprises (federal State—funded enterprises) during 1996/97. Proposals to
          introduce the changes dictated by the decree would have to be tabled in the
          State Duma of the Federal Asser ly. The Government subsequently informed the
          Special Rapporteur that Council of Europe officials and experts and officials
          of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs had participated in the fourth
          session of the Steering Corimittee on reform of the custodial system in the
          Russian Federation, held in Moscow from 20 to 22 February 1996. The issues
          addressed included those concerning personnel involved in the enforcement of
          penalties, reducing the nunter of inmates in prison institutions and
          conditions in which prisoners are held. The Corir ittee decided that proposals
          for changes in legislation must not lead to an increase in the nuriber of
          prison inmates and steps must be taken so that legislation contains clear
          criteria concerning conditions in places of detention and to ensure that
          courts adhere to those criteria in accordance with the requirements of
          article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Corir ittee also
          noted the importance of efforts to improve the working conditions of staff in
          places of detention, thereby making it possible to raise the entrance
          requirements for work in those institutions. It was agreed to convene the
          next meeting on 6 and 7 May 1996 in Strasbourg and to hold a future seminar on
          questions pertaining to the protection of staff of custodial institutions.
          174. On 27 Septeriber 1996 the Government advised the Special Rapporteur that
          on 5 June 1996 the upper house of the Russian Federation's Federal Assently
          had adopted a decision suggesting to the Russian Government that it take
          urgent measures to provide sufficient funds for the penal system to operate
          normally and that it provide instructions to the relevant corimittees of the
          Federation Council to examine proposals from the Procurator General of Russia
          for legislation aimed at strengthening human rights safeguards and reinforcing
          legality in the Russian penal system and to prepare them for submission to the
          State Duma. The decision also served as a basis for an appeal from the
          Federation Council to legislative (representative) and executive organs of
          State power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation that the
          situation regarding the provision of supplies and equipment to the Russian
          penal system which had deteriorated markedly in recent years; the conditions
          of detention in remand centres ( sizos ) under the control of the Russian
          Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) constituted flagrant violations of human
          rights and of the law and the international obligations of the
          Russian Federation. The Federation Council called on the legislative and
          executive organs of State power of the constituent entities of the Russian
          Federation to assist in repairing, modernizing and building MVD sizos in their
          territories and in supplying them with food and medicine in at least the
          minimum necessary quantities.
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 40
          175. The Government also stated that early in June 1996 the Constitutional
          Court of the Russian Federation had declared unconstitutional the provision of
          the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure on the time within which persons
          deprived of their freedom must be acquainted with the material relating to
          their cases. However, in view of the risk that the irimediate repeal of that
          provision would leave no means of countering the delaying of proceedings by
          prisoners, the Court ruled that its decision should be implemented within six
          months. By that time the Federal Asseribly should have amended the existing
          law on acquainting prisoners with the material concerning their cases, perhaps
          even by adopting a new Code of Criminal Procedure. On 13 June 1996, the
          President of the Russian Federation signed legislation providing that the new
          Criminal Code would come into force on 1 January 1997. The new Criminal Code
          was distinguished by its humanism, as noted by numerous independent experts,
          including specialists from the Council of Europe. Of fundamental importance
          was paragraph 2 of article 7, “The Principle of Humanism”, providing that:
          wNeither punishment nor other measures under criminal law undertaken against a
          person who has corimitted a crime shall have as their purpose the causing of
          physical suffering or the degradation of human dignity”.
          Observations
          176. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the continuing cooperation of the
          Government in respect of matters within his mandate. He acknowledges the
          positive measures that have been taken to address the problems he identified
          in the report on his 1994 visit, particularly in respect of the torturous
          conditions in some remand prisons ( sizos ) . The fact remains that two years
          later these conditions seem to persist. In this connection, he notes the
          concern expressed by the Corir ittee against Torture at its Nover er 1996
          session in respect of overcrowding in prisons, made worse by the poor and
          unsanitary conditions prevailing therein. He repeats his call for urgent
          measures to be taken to bring irir ediate relief, such as releasing at once all
          first—time, non—violent suspected offenders. He also notes the Corimittee's
          concern about widespread allegations of torture and ill—treatment of suspects
          and persons in custody with a view to secure confessions, a problem especially
          notable in Chechnya, and supports the Corir ittee's recorir endations.
          Saudi Arabia
          177. The Special Rapporteur made 5 urgent appeals on behalf of 10 persons.
          The Government replied to 4 of the appeals on behalf of S persons, as well as
          to 3 urgent appeals on behalf 13 persons transmitted in 1995.
          Observations
          178. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the Government's responses, but is
          concerned at the absence of any information denying the existence of
          incorir unicado detention apparently without limit. As to the question of
          corporal punishment and the Special Rapporteur's mandate, he draws attention
          to paragraphs S to 11 of the present report.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 41
          S eneQal
          179. The Special Rapporteur informed the Government that he had received
          reports indicating that mer ers of the police deliberately resorted to
          physical violence in the hours or days that followed the arrest of persons.
          It appeared that their purpose was to obtain confessions, and that the victims
          were both ordinary law detainees as well as political detainees, particularly
          those accused in connection with the conflict in Casamance.
          180. It would appear that several gendarmes and police officers were arrested
          at Dakar during 1995 as a result of complaints of torture and ill—treatment.
          In general, however, the authorities allegedly showed very little zeal in
          opening an inquiry and impunity was widespread in the absence of an exhaustive
          investigation. Moreover, it was said that allegations of torture were not
          investigated and that confessions obtained in that way were taken into account
          in convicting the accused. These practices were allegedly facilitated by the
          existence of a procedure under which suspects could be held in custody
          incorir unicado for a maximum period of four days. In the case of acts
          involving State security, the period of initial detention incorimunicado could
          be extended to eight days. It was said that even this period was in some
          cases once again extended illegally. It was during the period of detention
          incorir unicado, when the suspect had access neither to a lawyer nor sometimes
          to a doctor, that the great majority of cases of ill—treatment occurred.
          181. In addition to the above the Special Rapporteur transmitted four
          individual as well as one collective case. He also retransmitted one case
          updated with additional information received from the sources.
          Slovakia
          182. The Special Rapporteur transmitted one case, to which the Government
          provided a reply.
          Spain
          183. The Special Rapporteur informed the Government that he had received
          reports indicating that the manner in which forensic physicians carried out
          examinations of detainees was sometimes irregular. It was reported that these
          examinations were frequently superficial, did not take due account of the
          individual's physical and mental condition, and were not always carried out in
          private, i.e. without the presence of police officers. In addition, cases had
          occurred in which these physicians' reports had contradicted reports prepared
          by other physicians whom the detainees had consulted on their o i initiative.
          The reports on Spain prepared by the European Corimittee for the Prevention of
          Torture were said to contain examples of this situation, on which the
          CoririJttee had issued recorir endations.
          184. In addition to the above the Special Rapporteur transmitted two newly
          reported cases and asked the Government for further information regarding four
          others. The Government replied to all of them.
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 42
          Sudan
          185. By letter dated 13 Septer er 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had received information indicating that the use of torture
          in the Sudan remained widespread. Although in March 1995 the secret detention
          centre known as “City Bank” or “the Oasis” ( al—Waha ) was reportedly closed and
          its detainees transferred to a section of Khober prison to be administered by
          the security authorities, many other secret detention centres were said to
          continue to operate throughout the country. Under new legislation promulgated
          in 1994 and amended in 1995, to replace the 1990 National Security Act,
          persons reportedly could be detained, without notice of the reasons for
          detention, for three months by order of the National Security Council or “its
          authorized representative” approved by a magistrate. The three—month
          detention could be renewed once without magisterial approval and further
          periods of removal were allowed with the approval of a “competent judge”.
          Detainees reportedly did not have the right to challenge judicially the
          legality of their detention. During these periods of pre—trial detention,
          persons were said to be held frequently incorimunicado, a condition which
          leaves them vulnerable to torture.
          186. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 25 individual cases and nine urgent
          appeals on behalf of 66 persons. Six appeals were joined by the Special
          Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, two were joined by
          the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and
          two were joined by the Chairman of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
          The Government replied to 1 of the appeals concerning 7 persons and to 14
          cases transmitted in previous years.
          Observations
          187. In the light of the information he has received, the Special Rapporteur
          considers that the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
          human rights in the Sudan in his 1996 report to the Commission remains
          applicable: “torture at the hands of armed and security forces, as well as
          inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees, has been a routine practice over
          the last few years” (E/CN.4/1996/62, para. 96(c)).
          Sweden
          188. The Special Rapporteur transmitted one urgent appeal on behalf of one
          person.
          Switzerland
          189. The Special Rapporteur transmitted three newly reported cases. In
          addition to that he sent one urgent appeal, in conjunction with the Special
          Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, on behalf of one
          person. A reply from the Government was received too late for inclusion in
          the addendum to the report.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 43
          Syrian Arab Re J lic
          190. The Special Rapporteur transmitted one urgent appeal on behalf of two
          persons, to which the Government provided a reply.
          Tunisia
          191. The Special Rapporteur informed the Government of reports he had
          received according to which the Tunisian judicial system appeared to be
          unaware that detainees had alleged that their statements were obtained by
          torture, particularly when they were being held in custody — even when, weeks
          or months after the arrest, the detainee bears physical signs tending to prove
          that he was ill—treated. In the rare cases when medical examinations were
          carried out, the doctors were designated by the authorities, usually several
          weeks after the events in question took place. It was also said that the few
          investigations carried out into allegations of torture and ill—treatment did
          not provide all the necessary guarantees, particularly as regards
          impartiality, and the results were never made public.
          192. In addition to the above the Special Rapporteur transmitted eight newly
          reported cases and retransmitted three cases updated with additional
          information provided by the sources. The Government replied to all of them.
          Moreover, the Special Rapporteur sent two urgent appeals on behalf of two
          persons and the Government replied to one of them.
          Observations
          193. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the consistent cooperation of the
          Government, evidenced by its responses. Nevertheless, the persistence of
          allegations over the years and the widespread doubts as to the evidence of
          medical examinations conducted by doctors in government service suggest the
          importance of ensuring the monitoring of the detention and interrogation
          practices of law enforcement agencies by an independent body and permitting
          access of independent physicians to detainees at their request.
          Turkey
          194. By letter dated 8 February 1996 the Special Rapporteur reminded the
          Government of the general allegations he had transmitted in 1995 (see
          E/CN.4/1996/35, paras 174-176) . He also advised the Government that he had
          received information indicating that many examinations conducted by
          State—appointed doctors of the Forensic Medicine Institute appeared to be
          flawed. The medical examinations were reported to be often carried out in the
          presence of soldiers or police officers from the units responsible for the
          original interrogation under torture. Many such examinations were said to be
          perfunctory and in a nunter of cases misleading certificates were alleged to
          have been produced. On 29 May 1996 the Government replied that the
          allegations regarding medical reports were devoid of any element of truth.
          The Ministry of Health had taken measures to ensure that medical reports were
          safely transmitted to the prosecutor and that their contents were withheld
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 44
          from security personnel. A project to provide training for practitioners in
          31 provinces had been initiated and the Ministry of Health had issued
          instructions that all hospitals with over 100—bed capacity should have
          forensic medicine available.
          195. By the same letter, the Government asserted that it attached great
          importance to the prevention of ill-treatment during periods of detention in
          cases within the purview of the State Security Courts (SSC) . A programme
          introduced by the Government on 22 March 1995 had established an
          Under—Secretariat for Human Rights and had proposed legislation of some
          20 bills to reinforce human rights protection. Pending the consideration of
          the bills, written directives issued by the Prime Ministry on 13 February 1995
          would remain in force, including the following: that under no circumstances
          may suspects be subjected to ill-treatment; during detention, all time limits
          and measures prescribed by law shall be strictly observed; modern methods
          which are used in European countries and the United States shall be applied
          during interrogation; all medical reports shall be drawn in strict conformity
          with the circulars issued by the Ministry of Health; suspects shall have
          access to legal counsel as per relevant laws; police detention centres shall
          be controlled periodically; all detainees shall be registered; detainees shall
          be placed in sufficiently large units conforming to health standards; all law
          enforcement officials who ill—treat detainees shall irimediately be subjected
          to legal action; all governors and security authorities shall constantly
          supervise their subordinate police departments and inform the Ministry of
          Interior of the result of their controls so as to ensure strict adherence to
          the aforementioned measures.
          196. With a view to implementing the European Convention on Human Rights and
          preventing torture and ill—treatment, 20 police officers had been sent to
          meriber countries of the Council of Europe for training and seminars on human
          rights issues had also been organized for security personnel. Human rights
          had been introduced as a compulsory course in the curricula of primary and
          secondary schools and as an elective for high schools. At the request of the
          Prime Minister, the High Advisory Council for Human Rights had prepared a
          study on effective and humane interrogation methods and the Ministry of
          Interior had initiated studies for the application of the report. During
          1995, 291 cases had been registered against pJ lic officials under
          articles 243 and 245 of the Turkish Penal Code prohibiting torture and
          ill—treatment, Of these cases, 20 had resulted in convictions, 49 in
          acquittals and the remaining cases were pending.
          197. On 9 October 1996 the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that in
          accordance with changes that had been made to article 8 of the A nti—Terror Law
          calling for the revision of sentences passed under its former provisions,
          269 persons had been released and 1,408 persons had seen their sentences
          reduced. On 23 October 1996 the Government informed the Special Rapporteur
          that the periods of detention in State Security Courts would be reduced to
          fall into line with other democratic countries in Europe. Additional reforms
          would also be made to the State Security Court system.
          198. By letter dated 11 Nover er 1996 the Special Rapporteur, on behalf of
          himself and of the Chairman of the Board of the United Nations Voluntary Fund
          for Victims of Torture, expressed concern to the Government over information
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 45
          received on the prosecution of officials of the Human Rights Foundation of
          Turkey (HRFT) , a non—governmental organization operating four torture
          rehabilitation centres. Mustafa Cinkilic, the Adana representative of HRFT,
          was charged in connection with the operation of the Adana rehabilitation
          centre without licensing from the Department of Health. Tuf an Kose, the
          doctor in charge at the HRFT Adana office, was charged with failing to notify
          the judiciary or police magistrate that 167 patients examined by him had
          claimed to have been subjected to torture and with failing to make certain
          information about those patients available when requested to do so by the
          Public Prosecutor. Their trial was scheduled to reconvene on 17 January 1997.
          (Similar charges of opening an unlicensed health centre, brought by the
          Istanbul Beyo lu Public Prosecution Office against the Istanbul representative
          of HRFT, Ukran Akin, reportedly resulted in his acquittal on
          1 Nover er 1996.) In addition, notice was reportedly served upon HRFT by the
          head of the Department for A nnexed and New Foundations that the organization
          was to be investigated for “collaboration” with various non—governmental and
          intergovernmental agencies, including the United Nations Voluntary Fund for
          Victims of Torture, without having obtained permission from the authorities.
          It was alleged that the legal actions constituted elements of a concerted
          effort on the part of a nunter of governmental ministries to curtail or halt
          altogether the activities of HRFT and that an inter-ministry meeting had been
          convened for this purpose. The principle expressed in article 14 of the
          Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
          Punishment and in Corir ission on Human Rights resolution 1996/33 that national
          legal systems should ensure that the victims of acts of torture are afforded
          medical rehabilitation appeared to be strained, if not breached, by the
          actions of the Government. Many patients might fear that adverse consequences
          could result from disclosure of medical records and so might avoid seeking
          treatment. In addition, as principles of medical ethics might compel doctors
          under circumstances arising in the cases of some HRFT patients to maintain
          strict confidentiality, they might be deterred from rendering their services
          for fear of prosecution for behaving in accordance with professional ethics.
          The Special Rapporteur and Chairman accordingly appealed to the Government to
          refrain from taking action against HRFT personnel that could effectively limit
          the activities of rehabilitation service providers or restrict the
          opportunities for torture victims to receive rehabilitation services and to
          take care not to inhibit the flow of scarce financial resources to Turkey
          earmarked for torture rehabilitation.
          Observations
          199. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the Government's responses, but
          continues to be concerned at the apparently widespread practice of torture in
          Turkey. In this respect, he notes the public statement issued at the end of
          1996 by the European Corimittee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
          Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) . The Corimittee, after visiting places
          of detention on a nuriber of occasions over recent years, most recently in
          Septe n ter 1996, asserted that “resort to torture and other forms of severe
          ill—treatment remains a common occurrence in police establishments in Turkey.
          To attempt to characterize the problem as one of isolated acts of the kind
          which can occur in any country — as some are wont to do — is to fly in the
          face of the facts”. The Special Rapporteur was particularly struck by the
          CPT's observation that “the cases of seven persons (four women and three men)
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 46
          medically examined at Sakarya Prison, where they had very recently arrived
          after a period of custody in the Anti—Terror Department at Istan bul Police
          Headquarters, must rank among the most flagrant examples of torture
          encountered by CPT delegations in Turkey”. He shares the CPT's concern that
          even the bill that would provide for access to a laywer after four days
          permits a delay that is “not acceptable”. 5
          200. In the light of the Government's consistent reliance on reports from
          officially appointed doctors to the effect that there has been no torture or
          ill—treatment (a conclusion not, to the Special Rapporteur's knowledge,
          normally within medical competence even in respect of physical torture or
          ill—treatment), he endorses the following statement of the CPT: “the forensic
          doctor must enjoy formal and de facto independence, have been provided with
          specialized training and been allocated a mandate which is sufficiently broad
          in scope. If these conditions are not met — as is frequently the case — the
          present system can have the perverse effect of rendering it all the more
          difficult to cor at torture and ill—treatment” (para. 6) . The Government has
          still not agreed to extend an invitation to the Special Rapporteur to visit
          the country.
          U Qanda
          201. The Special Rapporteur made an urgent appeal on behalf of one person.
          United Arab Emirates
          202. The Special Rapporteur made an urgent appeal on behalf of one person.
          United KinQdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
          203. The Special Rapporteur transmitted five individual cases, to which the
          Government provided replies.
          United Republic of Tanzania
          204. By letter dated 10 June 1996 the Special Rapporteur informed the
          Government that he had received reports regarding instances of torture and
          other ill—treatment alleged to have occurred in Zanzibar following the general
          election in October 1995. Activists from the opposition Civic Unit Front
          (CUF) were said to have been particularly targeted by the police, the security
          services and mer ers of the youth wing of the ruling party (CCM)
          205. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 12 individual cases, to which the
          Government provided replies.
          Uzbekistan
          206. The Special Rapporteur transmitted three individual cases. He also made
          an urgent appeal in conjunction with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
          summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the independence
          of judges and lawyers on behalf of four persons.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 47
          Vene zuel a
          207. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 37 newly reported cases of incidents
          of torture. The Government provided replies on 20 cases transmitted in
          previous years, some of them involving several persons.
          Observations
          208. The Special Rapporteur visited Venezuela from 7 to 16 June 1996, at the
          invitation of the Government. The report of the visit is contained in
          addendum 3 to the present report.
          Viet Nam
          209. The Special Rapporteur made an urgent appeal in conjunction with the
          Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on behalf
          of three persons, to which the Government replied. He also made an urgent
          appeal in conjunction with the Chairman of the Working Group on Arbitrary
          Detention on behalf of one person, to which the Government replied.
          YuQoslavia
          210. By letter dated 6 August 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the
          Government that he had continued to receive information indicating that ethnic
          Albanians had been subjected to ill—treatment and torture, including severe
          beatings and electric shocks, by police officers in Kosovo. The situation was
          said to be particularly grave in the district of timjle since October 1995,
          when a new corir ander assumed his position at the timjle police station.
          211. The Special Rapporteur transmitted eight individual cases. He also made
          two urgent appeals in conjunction with the Chairman of the Working Group on
          Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
          rights in the former Yugoslavia. The Government replied to one of those
          appeals on behalf of six persons. He sent another urgent appeal in
          conjunction with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
          the former Yugoslavia on behalf of three persons.
          Observations
          212. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the reply he received from the
          Government. He continues to be concerned at the persistence of allegations of
          torture or ill—treatment of persons in custody, especially in Kosovo. He
          supports the recorimendation of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
          human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia that “provisions
          permitting suspects to be held for 72 hours in police custody without judicial
          supervision should be brought into line with the narrower limits set in
          international standards, notably in the International Covenant on Civil and
          Political Rights” (E/CN.4/1997/9, para. 131).
          Zaire
          213. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 15 newly reported cases and
          retransmitted the cases already sent in 1995. In addition, he sent S urgent
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 48
          appeals, most in conjunction with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
          human rights in Zaire, involving 13 individuals or groups. He received no
          replies from the Government.
          Observations
          214. In the light of the information he has received, the Special Rapporteur
          considers that the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
          human rights in Zaire in his 1996 report to the Corimission remains applicable:
          wtorture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and the rape of women
          prisoners . .. have not ceased” (E/CN.4/1996/66, para. 121)
          Z arcjii a
          215. The Special Rapporteur made an urgent appeal on behalf of two persons,
          to which the Government provided a reply.
          Other corir unications: information transmitted to
          the Palestinian Authority
          216. The Special Rapporteur made 5 urgent appeals on behalf of 11 persons.
          ConcludinQ remarks
          217. The Special Rapporteur again reiterates the recorimendations surimarized
          in his report to the Corimission at its fifty—first session (E/CN.4/1995/34,
          para. 926) and reminds Governments of how some of their responses to his
          corir unications could be focused to facilitate his work, as indicated in his
          report to the fifty—second session of the Corimission (E/CN.4/1996/35,
          paras. 198-201)
          Notes
          1.Approved by Economic and Social Council resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of
          31 July 1957 and 2078 (LXII) of 13 May 1977.
          2.General Coriments 7 (16) and 20 (44) . See Official Records of the General
          Asseribly. Thirty—seventh Session. Su lement No. 40 (A/37/40) and
          Forty—seventh Session. Su lement No. 40 (A/47/40)
          3.Council of Europe, press release 707 (96), 6 Decer er 1996.
          4. Ibid.
          5. Ibid.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 49
          A nne x
          METHODS OF WORK OF THE SPECIAL PAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE
          1. The Special Rapporteur's methods of work are based on his mandate as
          stipulated originally in Corir ission on Human Rights resolution 1985/33 and as
          developed by the Corimission in numerous further resolutions. The parameters
          of his work are set forth in the International Bill of Human Rights and other
          United Nations instruments containing provisions that guarantee the right not
          to be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
          punishment.
          2. The Special Rapporteur carries out the following main types of activity:
          (a) Seeking and receiving credible and reliable information from
          Governments, the specialized agencies and intergovernmental and
          non—governmental organizations;
          (b) Making urgent appeals to Governments to clarify the situation of
          individuals whose circumstances give grounds to fear that treatment falling
          within the Special Rapporteur's mandate might occur or be occurring;
          (c) Transmitting to Governments information of the sort mentioned in
          (a) above indicating that acts falling within his mandate may have occurred or
          that legal or administrative measures are needed to prevent the occurrence of
          such acts;
          (d) carrying out visits in situ with the consent of the Government
          concerned.
          3. An urgent appeal is made on the basis of information received by the
          Special Rapporteur expressing concern about the fact that a person is at risk
          of being subjected to torture. Such concern may be based, inter alia , on
          accounts by witnesses of the person's physical condition while in detention,
          or on the fact that the person is kept incorir unicado, a situation which may be
          conducive to torture. The Special Rapporteur, when making a determination as
          to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that an identifiable risk
          of torture exists, takes into account a nur er of factors, any one of which
          may be sufficient, though generally more than one will be present. These
          factors include: (a) the previous reliability of the source of information;
          (b) the internal consistency of the information; (c) the consistency of the
          information with information on other cases from the country in question that
          has come to the Special Rapporteur's attention; (d) the existence of
          authoritative reports of torture practices from national sources, such as
          official cor1r issions of inquiry; (e) the findings of other international
          bodies, such as those established in the framework of the United Nations human
          rights machinery; (f) the existence of national legislation, such as that
          permitting prolonged incorir unicado detention, that can have the effect of
          facilitating torture; and (g) the threat of extradition or deportation,
          directly or indirectly, to a State or territory where one or more of the above
          elements are present.
        
          
          E/CN.4/1997/7
          page 50
          4. The urgent appeal procedure is not per se accusatory, but essentially
          preventive in nature and purpose. The Government concerned is merely
          requested to look into the matter and to take steps aimed at protecting the
          right to physical and mental integrity of the person concerned, in accordance
          with the international human rights standards.
          5. In view of the fact that the urgent appeal contains information that is
          extremely time—sensitive, the appeal is addressed directly to the foreign
          affairs ministry or department of the country concerned.
          6. The Special Rapporteur, where appropriate, sends urgent appeals jointly
          with other organs of the United Nations human rights machinery.
          7. The Special Rapporteur transmits to Governments surimaries of all
          credible and reliable information addressed to him alleging individual cases
          as well as practices of torture. At the same time he requests the Governments
          to look into those allegations and to provide him with relevant information on
          them. In addition, the Special Rapporteur urges Governments to take steps to
          investigate the allegations; to prosecute and impose appropriate sanctions on
          any persons guilty of torture regardless of any rank, office or position they
          may hold; to take effective measures to prevent the recurrence of such acts;
          and to compensate the victims or their relatives in accordance with the
          relevant international standards.
          8. The Special Rapporteur analyses responses from Governments and transmits
          the contents to the sources of the allegations, as appropriate, for corir ent.
          If required, dialogue with the Government is then pursued further.
          9. The Special Rapporteur does, where appropriate, acknowledge the
          existence of persistent acts of violence, including torture, corir itted by
          armed groups when these are brought to his attention. However, in
          transmitting allegations of torture he deals exclusively with Governments, as
          the authorities bound by the regime for the international legal protection of
          human rights.
          10. The Special Rapporteur maintains contact and, where appropriate, engages
          in consultation with related bodies and mechanisms of the United Nations human
          rights machinery, such as the Corimittee against Torture and other organs of
          the Corimission on Human Rights, the Board of Trustees of the United Nations
          Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the Corimission on Crime Prevention
          and Criminal Justice.
          11. The Special Rapporteur does not, as a rule, seek to visit a country in
          respect of which the United Nations has established a country—specific
          mechanism such as a special rapporteur on the country, unless a joint visit
          seems to both to be indicated. As regards countries where the mandates of
          other thematic mechanisms may also be affected, he seeks consultation with
          them with a view to exploring with the Government in question, either jointly
          or in parallel, the possibility of a joint visit. Similarly, where the
          Corir ittee against Torture is considering the situation in a country under
          article 20 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1997/7
          page 51
          Degrading Treatment or Punishment, especially if that consideration involves a
          visit or possible visit to the country in question, the Special Rapporteur
          does not seek a visit.
          12. The Special Rapporteur carries out visits to countries on invitation,
          but also takes the initiative of approaching Governments with a view to
          carrying out visits to countries on which he has received information
          indicating the existence of a significant incidence of torture. Such visits
          allow the Special Rapporteur to gain more direct knowledge of cases and
          situations falling within his mandate, and are intended to enhance the
          dialogue between the Special Rapporteur and the authorities most directly
          concerned, as well as with the alleged victims, their families and their
          representatives and concerned non—governmental organizations. The visits also
          allow the Special Rapporteur to address detailed recorimendations to
          Governments.
          13. With regard to countries in which visits have been carried out, the
          Special Rapporteur periodically reminds Governments concerned of the
          observations and recorimendations formulated in the respective reports,
          requesting information on the consideration given to them and the steps taken
          for their implementation, or the constraints which might have prevented their
          implementation.
          14. The Special Rapporteur reports annually to the Corir ission on Human
          Rights on the activities which he has undertaken since the Corir ission's
          previous session. He may also make observations on specific situations, as
          well as conclusions and recorimendations, where appropriate.
        

Download Attachments:

Show More

Related Articles

Back to top button