Aadel Collection
Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. P. Kooijmans, pursuant to Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1990/34
UNITED
NATIONS
Economic and Social
Council
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Forty—seventh session
Item 10 (a) of the provisional agenda
Distr.
GENERAL
E / CN .4 / 1991 / 17
10 January 1991
ENGLISH
Original: ENGLISH/FRENCHI
SPANISH
QUESTION OF THE
OF DETENTION OR
HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS SUBJECTED TO ANY FORM
IMPRISONMENT: TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR
DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHNENT
Report of the Special Rapporteur. Mr. P. Kooijmans. pursuant to
Commission on Human Rights resolution 1990134
E
GE. 91—10026/2805B
E/CN.4/1991 / 17
page ii
CONTENTS
Chapter Paragraphs Page
INTRODUCTION 1 — 4 1
I. MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK 5 — 18 2
II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR 19 — 202 6
A. Urgent action 19 — 23 6
B. Correspondence with Governments 24 — 202 6
Bahrain 24— 26 6
Bangladesh 27 — 28 8
Brazil 29 — 31 9
Burkina Faso. . 32 — 34 10
Cameroon 35 11
Chad 36 11
Chile 37 11
China 38 — 43 12
Colombia 44 — 51 13
Comoros 52 16
Congo 53 — 54 16
Cuba 55 — 56 17
Ecuador 57 — 61 17
Egypt 62 — 63 18
El Salvador 64 — 66 20
Equatorial Guinea 67 21
Ethiopia 68 — 69 22
Fiji 70 22
Gabon 71 23
Greece 72 23
Guatemala 73 23
Guinea 74 23
Haiti 75 — 77 24
India 78 24
Indonesia 79 — 86 25
Iran, Islamic Republic of 87 27
Iraq 88 — 89 27
Israel 90 — 97 27
Kenya 98 — 102 31
Kuwait 103 — 105 32
Malaysia 106 33
Mauritania 107 — 109 33
Mexico 110 — 114 34
Morocco 115 36
Myanmar 116 — 125 36
Nepal 126 39
Papua New Guinea 127 40
CONTENTS ( continued )
E / CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page iii.
Chapter
Paragraphs Page
III. VISITS BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ....
A. Visit to the Philippines
203 — 275
203 — 274
67
67
B. Follow—uptovisits ..... . 275
II (cont'd) Peru
128
— 133
41
Philippines
Republic of Korea
Saudi Arabia
134
141
— 138
139—140
— 142
42
43
46
Somalia
143
— 144
47
SouthAfrica
145—149
47
Spain
Sri Lanka
150
— 153
154
48
51
Sudan ...
155
— 169
51
Syrian Arab Republic
Turkey .
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Venezuela. . . . .
170
173
196
198
— 172
— 195
— 197
— 200
54
55
64
64
Yemen...... .
201
66
Zaire
202
66
87
IV. CONCLUSIONS JD RECOMMENDATIONS
276 — 303 88
E / CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 1
INTRODUCTION
1. At its forty—first session, the Commission on Human Rights adopted
resolution 1985/33, by which it decided to appoint a special rapporteur to
examine questions relevant to torture.
2. On 12 May 1985, the Chairman of the Commission appointed
Mr. Peter Kooijmans (Netherlands) Special Rapporteur, who, in pursuance of
Commission resolutions 1986/50, 1987/29, 1988/32 and 1989/33, submitted
reports (E/CN.4/1986/15, E/CN.4/1987/13, E/CN.4/l988/17 and Add. 1 and
E/CN.4/1989/l5) to the Commission at its forty—second, forty—third,
forty—fourth and forty—fifth sessions respectively.
3. At its forty—sixth session, the Commission had before it the fifth report
of the Special Rapporteur (EICN.4/1990/17 and Add. 1) and adopted
resolution 1990/34 by which it decided to continue the mandate of the
Special Rapporteur for another two years, while maintaining the annual
reporting cycle in order to enable him to submit further conclusions and
recommendations to the Commission.
4. In conformity with Commission resolution 1990/34 the Special Rapporteur
hereby presents his sixth report to the Commission. Chapter I of the report
deals with a certain number of aspects pertaining to the Special Rapporteur's
mandate and method of work. Chapter II consists of the correspondence between
the Special Rapporteur and Governments of States with regard to which detailed
information alleging the practice of torture has been received. This chapter
describes, in a summarized form, communications from the Special Rapporteur to
Governments, including both urgent appeals and letters, and Governments'
replies thereto. Chapter III consists of a report on the visit by the
Special Rapporteur to the Philippines. Chapter IV contains conclusions and
recommendations.
E/CN.4/1991 / 17
page 2
I. MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK
5. The number of communications with information on alleged cases of torture
or severe maltreatment received by the Special Rapporteur continued to
increase, in comparison with previous years. The Special Rapporteur wishes to
reiterate what he said in last year's report, viz, that this increase does not
necessarily mean that torture itself is practised on a larger scale in the
world. It may be explained by the fact that it is more widely realized that
the international community has established mechanisms to monitor violations
of basic human rights and also by the fact that a number of societies have
become more transparent in the course of time.
6. The decision to transmit an allegation about human rights violations to a
Government is always a difficult one, but especially so in the case of
torture. Even in cases where there is a recorded pattern of torture in a
country, the question of whether a specific person has been tortured can
hardly ever be determined with absolute certainty without a careful medical
examination. In this respect the mandate on torture is different from the
mandates on enforced or involuntary disappearances and on summary or arbitrary
executions. Torture is almost invariably practised in seclusion, and the only
witnesses are the accomplices to the fact. Physical marks, if present, often
disappear or heal or can be ascribed to other causes. To that extent torture
can be said to be the most private of human rights violations.
7. The Special Rapporteur is well aware that, precisely because of this
peculiarity, torture allegations may be made in order to tarnish a
Government's reputation and that this may be quite effective in view of the
fact that torture is generally and absolutely abhorred. When the
Special Rapporteur's report was under discussion in the Commission on
Human Rights at its 1990 session, some Government representatives accused
non—governmental organizations of making unfounded allegations of torture for
the purposes of political confrontation. The Special Rapporteur was invited
to subject the information he received to a thorough screening process lest he
would lose his credibility.
8. Whenever the Special Rapporteur transmits allegations to a Government, he
does so on the basis of the following considerations: the alleged case
usually should correspond to the general pattern of the human rights situation
of the country concerned as recorded in documentation provided by governmental
and non—governmental institutions. If this is not the case, the allegation
will only be transmitted if it is sufficiently detailed; in such cases the
Special Rapporteur feels that he is entitled to bring it to the Government's
attention in order to enable it to investigate the matter. As for the
reliability of the source, which is normally a non—governmental organization,
it should be borne in mind that the possibility that the alleged facts have
actually occurred must always be corroborated by other, inevitably more
general, information.
9. In this context it deserves mention that torture is often applied against
persons who are seen by the authorities as political opponents. However, the
fact that the allegations are made by politically opposed groups does not
necessarily imply that they are made merely for political purposes.
E / CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 3
10. The Special Rapporteur himself is not in a position to evaluate the
veracity of the allegation. This can only be done through an investigation on
the spot by the national authorities. Only they are in a position to verify
or disprove the allegation by informing the Special Rapporteur about the way
they have carried out this investigation and about its outcome. It is the
Special Rapporteur's opinion that a reply should contain information about the
authority responsible for the investigation, the persons questioned, the
results of the medical examination and the identity of the person who
performed it, the decision on a complaint which was eventually filed and the
grounds for this decision, as well as any other relevant material. A flat
denial, or a reference to the prohibition of torture under national law or to
the fact that the individual has not submitted any complaint or has been
released cannot be seen as satisfactory replies. Finally, if the authorities
are of the opinion that allegations are made for the sole purpose of smearing
the Government, they can always invite the Special Rapporteur to carry out an
investigation himself.
11. The number of requests for urgent appeals is steadily increasing. The
Special Rapporteur feels that the possibility to send urgent appeals is a
unique feature of the Commission's thematic mandates. Such appeals are purely
humanitarian in character. They refer to situations where people are actually
under detention and where fear is expressed that they are or may be subjected
to torture. Such fear may be based on various grounds. Sometimes relatives
who have visited them, or other prison inmates, have seen that their physical
condition is extremely bad or that their bodies bear marks of torture. In
other cases it is reported that the arrested persons are held incommunicado
and, since incommunicado detention is highly conducive to torture, fear that
torture may be practised is comprehensible. In all such cases the
Special Rapporteur feels that the humanitarian character of his mandate
obliges him to make such an urgent appeal. These appeals, therefore, should
certainly not be seen as accusations. In some cases the Government itself may
not be aware of the actual situation and, only after receiving the appeal, may
be in a position to look into the matter and instruct the authorities
concerned to respect the individual's right to physical and mental integrity.
Since torture is absolutely prohibited and cannot be justified under any
circumstances, each Government is obliged to take all necessary steps to
prevent its occurrence. The urgent appeal procedure is an excellent
instrument to serve that purpose.
12. Resolution 1990/34 of the Commission appealed to Governments to
co—operate with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of his
tasks and to furnish all information requested. During 1990 a higher
proportion of Governments which received letters and/or urgent appeals have
heeded that request by providing the Special Rapporteur with information,
although this information cannot always be deemed satisfactory. The
Special Rapporteur wishes to express his appreciation to Governments which
provided him with information and co—operated willingly with him. He feels
that these Governments in doing so comply with the obligation under Article 56
of the Charter of the United Nations “to take joint and separate action in
co—operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set
forth in Article 55”, viz. “the promotion of universal respect for, and
observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”. Since the mandate of the
E/CN. 4/1991 / 17
page 4
Special Rapporteur has been established by the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights and has been confirmed by the Economic and Social Council, all
Member States must be deemed to have pledged themselves under Article 56 of
the Charter to co—operate with him.
13. Upon the invitation from the Government of the Philippines the Special
Rapporteur visited the country from 1 to 10 October 1990. The account of that
visit appears in the present report in section A, Chapter III. The
Special Rapporteur feels that such visits provide him with highly useful
information about the human rights situation in a country in general, and the
occurrence of torture in particular, thereby enabling him to make
recommendations to prevent torture, while taking into account the specific
legal and administrative context of that country. Although the Commission, by
its resolution 1990/34, encouraged Governments to give serious consideration
to inviting the Special Rapporteur to visit their country so as to enable him
to fulfil his mandate even more effectively, he has so far not received any
invitation for 1991. From time to time he has consultations in Geneva with
permanent representatives of Member States or Observer States to indicate that
he would welcome an invitation from their Government. He does so in
particular when a Government upon its taking office, has strongly committed
itself to improve respect for human rights and to restore the rule of law or
when he receives information that the situation in a particular country with
regard to torture is deteriorating. He feels that by visiting such a country
he can help the Government concerned in its efforts to eradicate torture.
Another reason for visiting a country may be that the Government has
established new mechanisms, such as an independent human rights commission.
It might be useful for the Special Rapporteur to inform himself about the way
in which such a mechanism functions in order to see whether it can also be
used in different contexts. In some cases such consultations have led to an
invitation to visit the country, whereas in other cases the Government made
clear that a visit would not be appreciated or was not deemed useful. The
Special Rapporteur feels that in the latter cases the function of a visit is
misunderstood. In one recent case the Special Rapporteur has opened
consultations with the permanent representative of a Member State after he
received information about an increase of the practice of torture in that
State. The Government concerned informed him that corrective mechanisms
within the country functioned well and that the courts usually rejected
evidence obtained under duress and acquitted the accused. The Government
therefore saw no reason to invite the Special Rapporteur. The Special
Rapporteur bad been well aware that the court system functioned well and bad
explicitly said so; the purpose of his intended visit was the prevention of
practices of torture, the existence of which was implicitly admitted, and
which continued in spite of the court decisions and this was obviously, and
regrettably, misunderstood.
14. As the Special Rapporteur has said in previous reports, an invitation
extended to him by a Government should not be seen as an admission that
torture is wilfully condoned in the country concerned. Nobody knows better
than the Special Rapporteur how difficult it is to eradicate torture and that,
once its occurrence has decreased, it may easily re—appear under certain
conditions, in particular if there is an armed insurgency or a virulent
opposition. OEe outlawry of torture and well—functioning corrective
mechanisms in such circumstances are obviously insufficient and supportive
preventive measures are called for. The Special Rapporteur strongly feels
that he would perform his function in a half—hearted way if he confined
El CN. 4/1991 / 17
page 5
himself to transmitting allegations to Governments without offering advice to
them on how to fight effectively the phenomenon of torture. All Governments
have committed themselves to this effort and the United Nations mechanisms are
specifically designed to support them. In this context the Special Rapporteur
also wishes to refer to resolution 1988/54 of the Commission, in which a
direct link was laid between the work of the Commission's Special Rapporteurs
and working groups and the advisory services programme. In its operative
paragraph 9 the Commission requested its special rapporteurs “to inform
Governments, whenever appropriate, of the possibility of availing themselves
of the services provided for under the programme of advisory services and to
include in their recommendations, whenever appropriate, proposals for specific
projects to be realized under the programme of advisory services.”
15. Last year's report also had a section entitled “Follow—up to visits”. It
contained the reactions of the Governments of the Republic of Korea and of
Turkey to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur in his reports on
the visits to these countries. The Special Rapporteur expressed his deep
appreciation for these reactions since he felt that through this form of
co—operation with individual Governments the prevention of torture is well
served. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no such reaction has so far been
received from the Governments of Peru (visited in April 1988), Guatemala and
Honduras (both visited in September 1989). He wishes to express his
appreciation to the Government of Zaire which provided him with information on
measures taken following his visit to the country in January 1990. This
information appears in the present report in section B, chapter III.
16. Some Governments have provided the Special Rapporteur with general
information about the human rights situation in their country, both from
governmental and non—governmental sources. The Special Rapporteur wishes to
thank the Governments of Colombia, El Salvador, Israel, Mexico, South Africa
and Turkey for such information.
17. The Special Rapporteur continued, on several occasions, to have informal
consultations with the Chairman of the Committee against Torture. These
consultations have contributed to a better understanding of the scope of the
mandates of the Committee and of the Special Rapporteur and to a shared
strategy to avoid overlapping in the activities of the United Nations in
combating torture, as required by resolution 1990/34. The Special Rapporteur
trusts that working methods have been developed which complement each other
and will make both mechanisms more effective.
18. The Special Rapporteur had, together with the Chairman of the Committee
against Torture, a meeting on 23 January 1990 in Geneva with the newly elected
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. The meeting was organized after the Committee had
expressed the wish to be informed about the way in which the various
United Nations mechanisms dealing with torture functioned. The meeting was
considered fruitful by all participants and has led to continuing contacts.
E /CN.4/ 1991 / 17
page 6
II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
A. Urgent action
19. During the period covered by the present report, the Special Rapporteur
continued to receive increasing numbers of requests for urgent action or
information containing elements which, he deemed, justified such urgent
action. These requests principally concerned persons who were allegedly being
subjected to torture, or regarding whom fears were expressed that they may be
subjected to torture, usually while being held incommunicado in police or army
custody, or during interrogation. The Special Rapporteur brought 70 of these
cases to the immediate attention of the respective Goverunients and appealed to
them, on a purely humanitarian basis, to ensure that the right to physical and
mental integrity of those concerned was protected and that the treatment meted
out to them while in detention was humane.
20. Appeals were sent to the following Governments: Burkina Faso, Chad,
China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial
Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran,
Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanniar, Peru, Somalia,
South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and Zaire.
21. The following Governments replied to the appeals for urgent action
addressed to them by the Special Rapporteur (including appeals sent previously
and reflected in previous reports of the Special Rapporteur): Burkina Faso,
China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya,
Mauritania, Myanmar, Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey.
22. It may be noted that, in a small number of cases, the Special Rapporteur
was informed by the source of information that the person, or persons,
regarding whom a request for urgent action was made had already been released
at the time the appeal on their behalf was sent to the Government. In such
cases the appeals may be considered as null and void and will not be mentioned
in the present report.
23. Further details on the contents of the appeals and of Government replies
thereto received by 7 December 1990 are given in section B below, entitled
“Correspondence with Governments”.
B. Correspondence with Governments
Bahrain
2 1 i. On 28 December 1989 the Government of Bahrain sent the following
information to the Special Rapporteur in reply to his letter of 21 April 1989
(EICN.4/l990/l7, para. 27): “Mr. Ebrahim Babman Dashti was involved in
anti—Governinent activities calling for violence and use of arms, in
collaboration with a banned extremist group linked to foreign quarters.
Furthermore, he exercised his right to appoint a lawyer of his choice to
defend him in his trial which was not only open but also in accordance with
the legal norms and procedure. His allegation about torture being perpetrated
against him was flatly refuted after a thorough medical check—up and
investigation.”
E / CN .4 / 1991/17
page 7
25. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Bahrain transmitting information alleging that in 1988 and 1989
the practice of arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detention without formal
charges, and torture for the purpose of extracting confessions continued to
occur, Victims principally included anti—Government supporters, members of
banned political groups, such as the Islamic Front for the Liberation of
Bahrain (IFLB) and the Bahrain National Liberation Front (BNLF), and members
of Christian minorities. The following cases of alleged torture were reported:
(a) Sheikh Saeed Alsalatneh, of the Alnaim district, was arrested in
mid—May 1989. He was detained for one month, and was allegedly subjected to
physical torture, as a result of which he suffered fractures in his legs. He
was later released;
(b) Salah Abdulla Habil Alkhawaja, 26 years old, of Almanama, was
arrested on 2 November 1988 and allegedly subjected to torture in the form of
electric shocks as of 26 December 1988 following his extradition from
Saudi Arabia;
(c) Nabil Baker Ibrahim, a 23—year--old engineer from Almanama,
Abmad Husain Mirza, a 22 year old teacher from Almanama, and Khaled Abduirasul
Mohamad, a 24 year old teacher of Umulhimain, were allegedly subjected to
various types of torture since their detention in December 1987. Abmad Mirza
and Khaled Mohamad were allegedly pulled by a jeep on rocky terrain in the
Al Sekheir district, as a result of which they suffered severe injuries;
(d) Mr. Abmed Almakabi, aged 30, was arrested by the Special
Intelligence Service (s.I.S.) and was reportedly tortured;
(e) Abbas Ahmad Yusef of Rasrumman, a student of Engineering in
Riyadh University, was arrested in connection with activity for the
Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain. He was allegedly subjected to
torture and kept in a deteriorating condition for four years.
26. On 6 August 1990 the Government of Bahrain informed the
Special Rapporteur that “The security services in Bahrain do not practice
torture. The persons named were not subjected to any form of physical or
mental torture and were not detained on political grounds. OEey were arrested
and referred to the examining magistrate for questioning. Those who were
indicted were sent for trial by the courts and those against whom no charges
were preferred were released”. With regard to the persons mentioned in the
Special Rapporteur's letter the following information was given:
“Said Sultan Mansour al—Salatneh appeared before the examining magistrate
on 14 June 1989. No charges were preferred against him and he was released
on 1 July 1989. Salah Abdullali Habil al—Khawaja was tried in court and
sentenced to a term of seven years' imprisonment. Abmad Hussein Mirza,
Nabil Baqir Ibrahim and Khalid Abdur—Rasoul Muhammad al—Amir were tried in
court and sentenced to terms of imprisonment, on 26 October 1989. The names
Abmed al—Makabi and Abbas Abmad Yusef were not found in the records of the
Ministry of the Interior”.
E / CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 8
Bangladesh .
Letters and Government replies
27. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Bangladesh transmitting information alleging that several cases
of deaths in custody, allegedly as a result of torture, occurred in the
country in recent months. The following cases were reported:
(a) Shahidul Islam, arrested on 31 May 1989 at his home in Bara Bail
Danga village, by the Kotwali Police, Jessore District, on suspicion of being
in possession of weapons. He was allegedly tortured on two occasions at the
Kotwali District Police Station. On 2 June 1989 he died in hospital. A
post—mortem report said that the death was caused by “trauma in different
parts of the body”;
(b) Ofazuddin, from Laduakunda village, Dhainrai District, was arrested
in late June 1989 and charged with murder. After being interrogated and
allegedly tortured he became unconscious and was admitted to hospital. He
died a month later. A doctor at Dhamrai Hospital stated that when Of azuddin
was brought in he was unconscious and had difficulty in breathing, and that
there were wounds on his head, arms and legs. A complaint was reportedly
filed and a judicial inquiry was held on 27 September 1989, but the outcome
was not reported;
(c) Khoka Mia, from Mukuddapur village, Kaharol Sub—Division, was
arrested in June 1989 along with a teacher named Animesh Roy and others on
unspecified charges and taken to Kaharol Police Station, where they were
allegedly beaten up and tortured, Khoka Mia reportedly died as a result of the
torture and Animesh Roy suffered from a broken leg. Eight policemen were
charged in connection with that case but it was not known whether the trial
had taken place;
(d) Wazed Au, a rickshaw puller who had been detained on charges of
banditry, died on 7 February 1990 at the Kotwali Police Station,
Jessore District, allegedly as a result of beatings and torture.
28. On 9 July 1990 the Government of Bangladesh replied, stating that the
allegations were “misconceived, distorted, misleading” and did “not relate to
the facts”. The Government provided further details about the four cases
transmitted to it. With regard to Shahidul Islam it was stated that during
his detention he told the law—enforcing agencies that he had been suffering
from tuberculosis for some time and accordingly, he was sent to the hospital
in Jessore for medical treatment. He died in hospital on 2 June 1989. The
post—mortem said “there was no injury or trauma on his body”, and the report
was submitted to the judicial Magistrate who confirmed the veracity of the
post—mortem report. “Though there was no evidence of misbehaviour on the part
of the police officer... he was, however, transferred from the Kotwali Police
Station by the Police administration.” As regards Mr. Ofazuddin, “during the
time of his arrest, he tried to flee to escape from the arrest, but the angry
public caught him. Unfortunately, due to the emotive nature of the situation,
a commotion took place and this resulted in violence and Ofazuddin was
injured”. In spite of medical treatment he died on 7 August 1989.
Mr. Khoka Mia was arrested on 6 June 1989 for his alleged involvement in a
robbery. “Regrettably, the police officials were rather rough and manhandled
El CN. 4/1991/17
page 9
the accused (persons) including Khoka Mia. Since Khoka Mia was suffering from
high blood pressure he was not feeling well” and was sent to a hospital for
treatment. He died on 9 June 1990. Consequently five police officers and
eight police officials were immediately suspended from service and a judicial
inquiry has been set up. The case is still under investigation. Wazed Au
was arrested on charges of robbery and during the time of his arrest the
public got very emotional and violence took place which had caused injury to
him. He later died in hospital.
Brazil
Letters and Government replies
29. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Brazil transmitting information alleging that the situation in
many prisons throughout the country continued to be a cause for concern.
Police and prison personnel brutality against detainees was said to be
widespread. Many cases of severe beatings were reported. Conditions
prevailing in the prisons, and in particular sanitary conditions, were said to
be extremely poor. The following prisons and detention places were mentioned
as examples: Agua Santa, Talavera Bruce, Leblon, Evaristo de Morais,
Casa de Detenc' 'o, Ataliba Nogueira, Taubate, and Franco da Rocha; the
S o Bernardo gaol in Campinas, the detention centre Penitenciaria de Americano
in the Santa Isabel do Para Municipality, State of Para; the Campo Grande
Maximum Security Centre in Mato Grosso do Sul, and the lock—up in the
Departamento Estadual de Investigacao Criminal (DEIC). In addition to the
aforementioned, the following cases of alleged torture were reported to have
occurred in recent months:
(a) Several persons, including Manuel Nobrega da Silva,
Francisco Silvestre Bezerra, Elizete Bezerra da Silva and Eurides Bezerra da
Silva, were allegedly tortured on 6 October 1989 by 12 military police from
the State capital Rio Branco in connection with a search operation for two
fugitives in the Manuel Urbano region of the Acre State in north—western
Brazil;
(b) Reginaldo Rodrigues Pereira was reportedly taken out of detention at
Campo Grande Prison on 4 November 1989 and subjected to electric shocks at the
local police station.
30. On 27 November 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Brazil transmitting several cases of alleged torture and
ill—treatment which had been brought to his attention. Most of these cases
occurred in Campo Grande, State of Mato Grosso do Sul, and the agents said to
be responsible were policemen, including Federal Police agents and military
police. The cases of the following individuals were transmitted to the
Government: Jocimar Borjes da Silva, arrested on 20 June 1990; Alex Ferreira;
Aif redo Nogueira da Silva Dilho, arrested on 17 May 1990; Adilson Rodrigues
Lemes, Jos dos Santos Oliveira, Emerson Gabriel Santos and Marcelo Machado
Nascimento, all arrested in March 1990; Paulo Sebasti o da Silva and
Josias Chaustz da Silva, both arrested on 15 May 1990; Manoel da Silveira
Araujo arrested on 4 May 1990; Adelino Souto Major, arrested on 5 June 1990;
Ariolino de Assis Neto, arrested on 24 June 1990; Eribaldo de Araujo Menezes
and Paulo Roberto dos Santos, both prisoners, allegedly tortured on
4 April 1990; and Jos Carlos Lujz da Silva, arrested on 10 September 1990.
E /CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 10
31. On 7 December 1990 the Government of Brazil provided the Special
Rapporteur with information on the above—mentioned cases, as well as on one of
the cases transmitted to it by letter dated 6 June 1990, i.e. that of
Reginaldo Rodrigues Pereira. It was reported that an inquiry had been opened
within the “Council for the Defence of the Rights of the Human Person” —
CDDPH, which is the Federal Government's body in charge of promoting and
protecting human rights in Brazil. In reply to a request for information from
the CDDPH the Secretary of Public Security of the State of Mato Grosso do Sul
reported on 21 November 1989 that it had asked the competent body at the State
Police to investigate the facts. Similar inquiries were reportedly opened
into the cases of Jocimar Borges da Silva, Alf redo Nogueira da Silva Filho,
Adilson Rodriguez Lemes, Jose dos Santos Oliveira, Emerson Gabriel Santos,
Marcelo Machado Nascimento, Paulo Sebasti o da Silva, Josias Chaustz da Silva,
Adelino Souto Maior and Ariolino de Assis Neto. In all the above cases the
competent authorities were asked to provide information on the torture
allegations. In some of the cases it was affirmed that the competent
authorities had already taken measures to investigate the allegations. It was
further reported that, as regards all the remaining cases transmitted by the
Special Rapporteur, the CDDPH was in the process of establishing inquiries
into these cases.
Burkina Faso
Urgent appeals and Government replies
32. On 21 June 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Burkina Faso transmitting information concerning several leaders
and members of student organizations, including Seni Konanda, Sie Souleymane
Coulibaly, a medical student named Dabo, Jean—Clement Bagre and 12 other
students whose names have not been made available. The first three were
arrested on 18 May 1990 and the fourth on 30 May 1990. All were allegedly
held incommunicado following student protests. It was reported that persons
arrested during the preceding year for political reasons and held
incommunicado were tortured or subjected to ill—treatment.
33. On 11 July 1990, the Government of Burkina Faso informed the Special
Rapporteur that no students were in prison or being held incommunicado
following the student strike.
34. On 9 November 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Burkina Faso referring to his telegram of 21 June 1990 and to
the Government's reply of 11 July 1990 and adding further information he had
received, namely, that the medical student named Dabo (his first name is
Boukary) allegedly died in detention as a result of ill—treatment. It was
also reported that Guillaume Sessouma, a lecturer at the University of
Ouagadougou, died as a result of the torture to which he was subjected in
detention one week after his arrest in late December 1989. According to the
same source, the above—mentioned students and other students arrested after
the student demonstrations of May 1990 were allegedly still being held
incommunicado.
E/ CN .4/1991/17
page 11
Came roon
Letters
35. On 6 June 1990, the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Caineroon transmitting information that two prisoners at
Nkondengui Prison, Yaound , former Captain Madam Dogo Aboubakar and former
Warrant Officer Pagor6, allegedly died in December 1989 after having been
subjected to torture and ill—treatment and deprived of medical care.
According to the same source, these two persons and about 30 other
prisoners were tortured and severely beaten when their cells were searched
on 24 November 1989 and prohibited items, such as radios and copies of the
Koran, were allegedly discovered. All these persons were reportedly deprived
of medical care after being beaten.
Chad
36. On 24 October 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Chad transmitting information concerning the following persons:
Lieutenant Laoukein Barde, Souleymane Kabo (aged 16), Youssouf Kabo, Joseph
Madjimbang, Zakaria Moursal, Abmed Nahor, Gali Gatta N'Gothe, Edouard Sailly
and Hissein Seydou Thaim, These persons, who were arrested in N'Djamena in
the past five months, were allegedly held incommunicado, without charges, in
an unidentified place of detention in N'Djamena and fears were expressed that
they might be subjected to torture and ill—treatment.
Government letters and repliea
37. On 15 February 1990, the Government of Chile sent the Special Rapporteur
a note replying to two letters he sent on 17 April 1989 and 2 October 1989
(see document E/CN.4/l990/17, paras. 39 and 40, respectively). Together with
the note, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile sent a document containing
information on 14 of the persons referred to in the two letters sent by the
Special Rapporteur, including additional details on their detention (date,
personnel responsible, places of detention and reasons for detention) and
their physical condition. The document contains the following information:
“Carabineros of Chile reports that, with regard to the cases of
Iv .n Escurra Campos and Sissi Guzm n Vargas, Jos Luis Donoso C ceres,
Marco Antonio Sep(ilveda Senoceain and Sandra Ver6nica Ranz Velasquez , the
necessary information was requested from the courts with jurisdiction in
the proceedings.
An analysis of the statements made by the above—mentioned detainees
and the confidential files provided by the various zones shows that the
detainees were not subjected to physical or psychological ill—treatment
by Carabineros who took part in the arrests.
El CN .4/1991/17
page 12
On the basis of the foregoing, it may be concluded that the
complaints to the Special Rapporteur that persons arrested by Carabineros
were allegedly subjected to torture are unfounded and untrue and the
information compiled contains no sound arguments to back up the
allegations by the persons concerned. There are also documents written
and signed by these persons stating that they have no charges to bring
against Carabineros and its members.
The Chilean Criminal Investigation Department provided information
on the cases of Cristobal Modesto Carrasco O iate, Mirko Zapkovic Orrego
and Victor Hugo Pkvez Raniirez, Luis Carlos Godoy Cort s, Oscar Patricio
Molina Ossandon, H ctor Alf redo Z ffiiga Su rez and Luis Hern .n Bravo
Ord6i iez.
In all these cases, the Chilean Criminal Investigation Department
acted in accordance with orders by the competent •courts and on the basis
of the powers entrusted to it by the Carabineros Organization Act; its
procedures are thus fully in keeping with the law. In addition,
prisoners taken to Carabineros premises are given a medical examination
to determine the state of their health. Their detention is recorded in
the Public Register of Prisoners, which shows, inter qua , their identity
and the reason for, and order authorizing, their detention. When they
come back and are placed at the disposal of the courts, they are given
another medical examination.”
China
jkgent appeals and Government replies
38. On 17 January 1990 the Government of China provided the Special
Rapporteur with a reply to an urgent appeal dated 29 November 1989 concerning
Tseten Norgye (see document EICN.4/1990/17, para. 44). It stated that, after
receiving the communication from the Special Rapporteur, the department
concerned in China conducted an investigation and found that no person by the
name of Tseten Norgye was among the prisoners.
39. On 18 May 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of China concerning further information he received with regard to
Tseten Norgye. According to that information the Chinese Ambassador to
the United States of America addressed a letter to United States
Senator Patrick Leahy, informing him that Tseten Norgye had been detained on
an unspecified date in 1989 for investigation as a major suspect and that he
was formally charged on 10 November 1989 and was at present awaiting trial.
It was further reported on 28 March 1990 that Tseten Norgye was being held in
solitary confinement in the military prison below Chokpori, and that he was
now totally blind, allegedly as a result of beatings during interrogation.
40. On 9 July 1990 the Government of China informed the Special Rapporteur
that ‘sowing to different translation versions of Tibetan names, Tseten Norgye
was translated into Danzeng Nuojie. Besides, according to the communication
transmitted by the Rapporteur, he was 45 years old and was from Lhasa. Since
this was at variance with the fact, attempt to locate him failed. Through the
efforts of various quarters, it has been verified that Tseten Norgye is Cidan
Luojie, 48 years of age, from Xigaze region of the Tibetan Autonomous Region.
E / CN. 4/1991/17
page 13
He was arrested in November 1989 according to law for his activities aimed at
splitting China and subverting the Government. The case is now under
investigation. According to the cable, it has been claimed that Cidan Luojie
was severely beaten and became totally blind during detention. It has been
verified through investigation by the Chinese department concerned that such
accusation did not conform to the reality. In fact during his detention,
Cidan Luojie has been shown a humanitarian treatment according to law by the
Chinese public security and judiciary departments. He has never been beaten
and has not become blind. He is actually in good health now.”
41. On 13 June 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of China concerning Sichoe Dorje, aged 40, from Lhasa, who was
reportedly arrested at his home on 1 March 1990 by eight members of the public
security bureau and was currently detained at the Sangyiip prison in Lhasa.
It was alleged that detainees accused of supporting the Tibetan separatist
movement have been ill—treated or tortured and fears were therefore expressed
that Sichoe Dorje may be in danger of torture while being interrogated for his
alleged pro—independence activities.
42. On 6 July 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of China concerning Mrs. Xiao Xuehui, aged 35, a philosophy
lecturer who was reportedly arrested in 1989 and is currently held in Chengdu,
Sichuan Province. It was alleged that she was being detained with common
criminal of fenders in Xindu Prison, where conditions were said to be very
harsh. It was further alleged that she had been beaten while in detention and
that she was at present seriously ill, suffering from liver and kidney
troubles.
43. On 10 September 1990 the Government of China addressed to the Special
Rapporteur the following information: “It has been learned that the
information you presented in the cable is not accurate for there is no Xindu
Prison in Chengdu, Sichuan, but only a Xinduchiao Prison in Sichuan Province.
Of all the female prisoners in the Province, there is no one by the name of
Xiao Xuehui. In China, all cases are tried fairly in accordance with the
relevant laws and regulations. During their detention, the prisoners are
treated in a humanitarian manner and when falling ill, they are promptly
provided with medical treatment.”
Col oinb ip
Urgent messages and Government replies
44. On 6 December 1990, the Government of Colombia provided the
Special Rapporteur with information on the case of Mr. Orlando Agredo Jim nez
(see document E/CN.4/1990/17, para. 45) and additional information on the
cases of Rodolfo Hern nde and Ef rain G6mez (see the same document, paras. 47
and 48). With regard to Mr. Agredo Jim nez, it was reported that officials
from the Military Prosecutor's Office visited the military facilities in the
area where the incidents allegedly took place and compared the information
given by a witness who was travelling with Mr. Agredo Jim nez on the day of
his alleged arrest with that obtained from the brother of the alleged victim
in the complaint he filed. The two versions differed enormously as far as
Orlando Agredo Jim nez's physical identity is concerned. In addition, the
Military Prosecutor's Office conducted inquiries in other military and police
E/ CN.4/1991 / 17
page 14
units without finding any testimony or documentary evidence concerning the
arrest and torture of Mr. Agredo Jim nez. The Prosecutor's Office therefore
did not institute a formal administrative investigation, since there was no
proof of the facts complained of. With regard of the cases of Rodolfo
Hern ndez and Ef rain G6mez, it was reported that officials of the
Administrative Security Department (DAS) visited Mr. G6mez in the Bucaramanga
Model Prison and asked him and Mr. Rodolfo Hern ndez whether they had been
subjected to ill—treatment; the two prisoners replied that they had not been
ill treated by the soldiers while they were in the BR—5 facilities.
Subsequently, when efforts were made to obtain a written record of their
statement, they refused to give it to DAS.
45. On 20 March 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to the
Government of Colombia concerning the following trade union members:
H ctor Castro, Toribio Bohorquez, Sim6n Duque, Henry Hurtado Guerrero,
Luis Serna Carvajal, Jorge Eliecer Baylon Hern ndez, Maria Elizabeth Suarez,
Luis Orlando Salazar Gallego, Eli de Jesi s Quebrada Trejos, H ctor Eduardo
Castro Hern ndez, Harold Roberto Ruiz Moreno and James Lozano Dias. According
to the information received, these persons were allegedly being held in the
premises of the Administrative Security Department (DAS) in Call, where they
had been subjected to torture or ill—treatment. Two other trade union
members, William Arley Escobar and Clotario Adrada, were allegedly being held
at the Judicial Police (SIJIN) Station in Call.
46. On 24 April 1990, the Government of Colombia informed the
Special Rapporteur that, on 2 March 1990, the Call Regional Prosecutor's
Office reported that it hired an investigator, who went to the Brigade
premises where the trade union members were being held and determined that
they were in good physical condition. On 14 March 1990, the Call Regional
Prosecutor's Office reported that it was conducting preliminary inquiries into
alleged irregularities during the raids and in the wording used in Decrees
No. 180 of 1988 and No. 1859 of 1989. It also provided assurances that, once
the investigations being conducted in accordance with the legislation in force
in Colombia have been completed, the national Government will report to the
Special Rapporteur.
47. On 20 July 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent the Government of Colombia
an urgent message concerning Juan de Dios Moreno and Licinio Renteria, banana
plantation workers who were arrested on 28 June 1990 by members of the
Infantry Battalion in Apartado, Antioquia, and accused of collaboration with
guerrilla groups. According to the information received, they were taken to
the regional military barracks where they were interrogated under torture.
Fears have been expressed that they might continue to be in danger of being
tortured.
Government letters and replies
48. On 6 December 1990, the Government of Colombia provided the
Special Rapporteur with information on two of the cases referred to in his
letter dated 19 April 1989 (see document E/CN.4/1990/l7, para. 46). With
regard to the cases of Marisela Margarita Cuello Villamil (not Hern ndez) and
Argiro Alonso Avendai io Palacio, it reported that the Prosecutor's Office for
the Defence of Human Rights made a special visit to the Seventh Court of
Public Order in Medellin. The visiting lawyer from the Attorney—General's
Office spoke with the persons concerned, noting that there had been no
E/CN.411991/17
page 15
physical torture. Mrs. Cuello Villaniil's lawyer reported her death to the
Seventh Court as having occurred in Caucasia, Antioquia. However, the Court
has not been able to provide evidence of her death.
49. On 6 June 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of
Colombia transmitting information relating to the following cases of torture
which allegedly occurred between 1989 and March 1990.
(a) Emiro Bustamante, aged 22, arrested on 10 February 1989 and
transferred to Sanbenito Prison, Sucre. Members of the Sanbenito police and
the police commander allegedly beat him, covered his face up with a towel and
strung him up by the hands, which were tied with a nylon rope;
(b) Orlando Chamorro Medrano, aged 30, arrested on 16 February 1989 by
members of DAS and Battalion No. 5 in Corozal. They allegedly tortured him in
his house, in the presence of his family. The chief of DAS allegedly hit,
kicked and punched him; and then they bashed his head against a tree;
(c) Victor Julio Palacios Martinez, aged 29, arrested on 25 May 1989 by
members of the Anti—Guerrilla Army. A captain whose name has been transmitted
to the Government and two members of the Rifles Battalion are said to have
tortured him for about one and a half hours. They grabbed him by the hair and
beat him on the head with the handle of a knife and the butt of a rifle;
(d) Maximiliano S nchez Mejia, aged 27, arrested on 17 June 1989 by
members of the Infantry Battalion who allegedly tortured him for over 50 hours
by kicking him and threatening him with electric shocks and death;
(e) Maria Elizabeth Suarez Giraldo, arrested on 2 March 1990 by members
of DAS and the Third Infantry Brigade in Cali. She was transferred to the
Third Brigade barracks and taken on 6 March to a detention centre where she is
still being held. During her detention, she was allegedly subjected to
torture and ill—treatment, including being deprived of food and water,
receiving death threats against herself and her seven—year—old daughter and
being beaten, forced to stand for 8 or 10 hours and jabbed in the chest with
pins. She was also allegedly raped by two men.
50. In a letter dated 6 December 1990, the Government provided information on
the case of Victor Julio Palacios Martinez. According to the information,
there were no complaints of the alleged torture of this person until
3 November 1990. Officials from the Attorney—General's Office nevertheless
visited the premises of the Rifles Battalion, where they found no evidence
leading to the conclusion that this person was arrested by military
personnel. The captain whose name was communicated to the Government as the
alleged torturer of Mr. Palacios Martinez is not on duty with the Battalion
and has never been listed as one of its active members.
51. On 19 November 1990, the Government of Colombia provided the
Special Rapporteur with information on three of the above—mentioned persons.
In the cases of Emiro Bustainante and Orlando Chamorro Medrano, it stated that
the Regional Prosecutor of the capital of Sucre informed the Prosecutors'
Office for the Defence of Human Rights, in a telegram of 25 August, that it
had so far not received any complaint of the alleged torture of these
persons. In the case of Maximiliano Sanchez Mejia, it was stated that a
communication sent by the Prosecutor's Office for the Defence of Human Rights
E/ CN.4 /1991/17
page 16
refers to a telegram from the Regional Prosecutor in Apartado, the area of
influence of the Infantry Battalion, reporting that, on the basis of the
review of the records of this regional office of the Attorney—General's
Office, no proceedings have been instituted in connection with the alleged
torture of this person. On 20 November 1990, the Government provided
information on the case of Maria Elizabeth Su rez Giraldo to the effect that,
according to the Prosecutor's Office for the Defence of Human Rights and in
connection with the complaint of the rape of this person, “the file states
that she appeared for a forensic medical examination 20 days after it
allegedly occurred, thus preventing the medical expert from identifying signs,
symptoms or injuries which would make it possible to determine etiology,
consequences or forensic disability”. It was also stated that, in connection
with the disciplinary investigation into the possible torture of trade
unionists, charges were brought against four officers (a colonel, a major, a
captain and a lieutenant). At present, the proceedings are at the stage of
the gathering of evidence as admitted and ordered by the Prosecutor's Office
for the Defence of Human Rights.
Comoros
Urgent appeals
52. On 11 October 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Comoros concerning a group of more than a dozen persons who were
reportedly arrested in late August 1990 and detained incommunicado without a
charge or trial. among these persons seven were identified as follows:
Moussa Ali, Ahamada Chioni, Mohamed Machangama, Al Mohamed Massani,
Hadji Mohamed, Au Soihili. and Said Mlinde. Said Mlinde was said to have died
in detention on 15 September 1990. According to the information the arrests
occurred following reports from Government sources that a destabilization
attempt against the Government had been foiled.
Congo
Urgent appeals and Government replies
53. On 27 July 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of the Congo transmitting information concerning
Mr. Celestin Nkona, who was arrested on 9 July 1990, and Clement Mierassa, who
was arrested on 11 July 1990. These two persons, whose arrest was linked to
the discovery of a plot to overthrow the Government, were allegedly held
incommunicado, under the supervision of the Public Safety Department.
According to the information received, they were not able to communicate with
a lawyer and were not brought before a court. Fears were expressed that they
might have been tortured while they were being held incommunicado.
54. On 31 August 1990, the Government of the Congo informed the
Special Rapporteur that, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the
country's independence, the President of the People's Republic of the Congo
decreed a general amnesty for all political prisoners. All individuals being
prosecuted or detained for political offences committed prior to
14 August 1990 benefit from this presidential clemency measure.
E/ CL 4/1991/17
page 17
Cuba
Urgent messages and Government replies
55. On 23 May 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to the
Government of Cuba concerning Mr. Juan Enrique Garcia, a member of the
Association for Free Art (APEL) who was arrested in October 1988 and sentenced
in November 1989 to 18 months in prison, plus two years for an earlier
conviction. According to the information received, Mr. Garcia's state of
health is allegedly very serious, since he is said to suffer from various
illnesses, including digestive paralysis, and has been denied the necessary
medical treatment.
56. On 13 August 1990, the Government of Cuba sent the following information
to the Special Rapporteur:
“At present, Mr. Garcia Cruz is in the National Prisoners' Hospital
in Combinado del Este, where he was visited last 21 June by officials
from the Office of the Attorney—General of the Republic.
Prior to the above—mentioned communication, the prison authorities
arranged for a thorough medical check—up for Garcia Cruz, who
specifically recognizes that the check—up is up to the standard available
in any of the.hospitals in the country. Thus, since he has been found to
have gastritis and chronic duodenitis, a balanced diet which satisfies
the medical requirements in the case has been ordered.”
Ecuador
Urgent messages and Government replies
57. On 7 June 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to the
Government of Ecuador concerning Mr. Ren Sangolqui, aged 27, who was arrested
on 7 May 1990 by two policemen in the town of Loja. According to the
information received, Mr. Sangolqui was allegedly interrogated under torture
to make him confess to having taken part in the murder of two persons in
Vilcabaniba on 5 March 1990. Mr. Sangolqui is still in detention and fear has
been expressed that he might again be subjected to torture.
58. On 12 July 1990, the Government of Ecuador informed the Special
Rapporteur that Mr. Sangolqui's case was not one of arbitrary or unlawful
detention, but of proceedings conducted with every legal guarantee. “With
regard to the complaints of the alleged torture of this person during the
police investigations, the National Government is conducting thorough
investigations and will impose the necessary penalties when it finds the
persons responsible for having violated the trade union's individual rights
and guarantees”.
59. On 6 July 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to the
Government of Uruguay concerning Mrs. Rosa C rdenas Hern ndez, aged 30.
It is reported that she voluntarily turned herself in to the law enforcement
authorities as a result of an arrest warrant for her alleged participation
in the kidnapping of Mr. Nahin Isaias in August 1985. Since October 1983,
Mrs. C rdenas Hern ndez has allegedly been persecuted and threatened as a
. .
E/CN.4/1991/17
page 18
result of her presumed membership of an opposition group, for which she was
tried twice and acquitted for lack of evidence of the charges against her.
It is reported that, in October 1983, she was held incommunicado for 15 days,
during which, as stated in the complaint, she was tortured and given electric
shocks. It is also reported that, in August 1984, she was again held
incommunicado for seven days and tortured.
60. On 10 August 1990, the Government of Ecuador informed the Special
Rapporteur that: “Mrs. C .rdenas Hern ndez voluntarily turned herself in so
that the court proceedings lawfully interrupted by her absence could continue,
a procedure provided for by Ecuadorian law. Mrs. C rdenas' voluntary
surrender took place publicly at the Court of Constitutional Guarantees in
the presence of members of the Court and the Government Under—Secretariat,
thus clearly demonstrating that conditions of humanitarian treatment,
respect for human rights and the guarantee of an impartial trial have changed
for the better in the country since August 1988, when the Government of
Dr. Rodrigo Borja took power. In this specific case, the extended duration
of the proceedings against Mrs. C rdenas is due primarily to the fact that
Ecuadorian law requires the interruption of judicial proceedings when the
accused are not present, as in this case. Mrs. C rdenas now has the assurance
of treatment surrounded by every possible individual and procedural guarantee”.
Government letters and replies
61. On 28 February 1990, the Government of Ecuador sent the Special
Rapporteur a letter replying to a communication of 17 November 1989
(E/CN.4/1990/l7, para. 53) stating that the National Government is conducting
the necessary investigations into the cases referred to and assuring him that
it would make the information provided by the National Government available
as soon as the investigations were completed. It also reported that, as an
example of the activities being carried out to put an end to violations of
human rights in the country, about 20 prison guards were dismissed from their
functions for being responsible for the ill—treatment of prisoners in the
various social rehabilitation centres in the country. In addition, in order
to eliminate the ill—treatment of prisoners in rehabilitation centres, the
National Government is setting up a training school for prison guards to
prepare persons specifically for this work.
Egypt
Urgent appeals
62. On 14 September 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to
the Government of Egypt concerning Khaled El Sherif, a journalist, who was
arrested on 13 August 1990 and is currently being held at Tora Prison near
El Maadi. It was alleged that Mr. El Sherif was tortured from 13 to
15 August 1990 at the Headquarters, known as
La ughli, and that after being transferred to Tora Prison he was taken back to
Lazughli and was again tortured for a week. A representative of the Egyptian
for Human Rights reportedly visited Mr. El Sherif and s is
marks of torture on his body, including black scars indicating torture by
electric shocks, and cigarette burns. It was further alleged that the Tora
Prison administration failed to obey an order by the El Maadi Prosecutor to
transfer Mr. El Sherif to a clinic.
E/ CN.4/1991/17
page 19
Letters
63. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Egypt transmitting information alleging that the practice of
torture and ill—treatment of detainees has continued to increase in the last
months of 1989. According to testimonies given by former detainees arbitrary
arrests and detentions without formal charges have become more common in
recent months. The methods of physical and psychological torture allegedly
resorted to in Egyptian prisons and State Security Intelligence Pol-ice(SSIP)
centres included: beating, flogging, suspension by the wrists, ankles or
knees; electric shocks administered to sensitive areas such as the mouth,
nipples or genitals; sexual abuse, indefinite solitary confinement, stripping,
blindfolding, exposure to extreme water temperatures, temporary suffocation,
deprivation of basic necessities, such as food, water or bathroom facilities;
and threats of rape or abuse directed at the detainees' friends, family, or
relatives. It was further reported that in 1989 the practice of “aroussa”,
whereby a prisoner is placed semi—naked on a cross and whipped, came back into
use in Egyptian prisons. Detention centres and prisons where torture was
alleged to be practised systematically included SSIP centres in Cairo
(Lazughli), Giza and Asyat, as well as the Tora Reception prison and the
Abu—Za'abal prison. Victims were said to have principally included activists
of opposition groups and members or sympathizers of Islamic fundamentalist
groups, but to an increasing extent simple demonstrators and children have
allegedly also been subjected to ill—treatment and torture. In some cases
the wounds reportedly inflicted, resulted in the detainee's death. It was
reported that numerous torture complaints have been filed with the office
of the Prosecutor General, but that the result was usually one of no
investigation or refusal to comment. The following cases of alleged torture
and death as a result of torture were reported:
(a) Makhlouf Abdel—Al Abmed was arrested on 2 January 1989 by security
officers and detained at el Dahar Police Station. He was allegedly beaten on
the head, face and chest, and then sent to the Coptic hospital. Re died on
8 January 1989. A forensic study concluded that the cause of death was severe
cerebral haemorrhaging as well as a collapse of the cardiac and circulatory
systems. The former reportedly resulted from beatings on the back of his head;
(b) Emad Yussef Abmed Qandil, arrested on 4 April 1989, was allegedly
tortured at the SSIP centre in Tanta (Gharbia Governorate). Torture included
electric shocks and being suspended from an iron bar between two chairs;
(c) Mohamed Mostafa Ibrahim, a worker and elected member to the board
of directors in the Iron and Steel Company in Heiwan, was arrested on
6 August 1989 in connection with a peaceful sit—in demonstration. Both he
and his colleague, Mostafa Nayed, were stripped, bound, beaten, and received
electric shocks in sensitive areas;
(d) Kamal Khalil Ibrahim, arrested with 62 other persons on
24 August 1989. Upon transferral to Abu Za'abal Prison Ibrahim and his
colleagues were subjected to a group beating by police, armed with sticks
and electric batons. It was further reported that Khalil's head was banged
against a wall until he lost consciousness;
E / CN. 4/1991/17
page 20
(e) Tariq al Aswani, Au Abdulmuneim and Kamal Assa'id held on
22 August 1989 in connection with activity in the banned “Jihad” Islamic
group, were reportedly subjected to the “aroussa” treatment;
(f) Dr. Ahined Abdel Salim, Husni Nagdi and another approximately
500 persons arrested in Asyut in December 1989 following violent clashes
between the security forces and supporters of the Islamic groups at Asy t
University. The detainees were reported to be held incommunicado by the SSIP
at its detention centre in Asy t. The two above—mentioned detainees had
allegedly been severely beaten on their faces and others had been beaten and
tortured;
(g) Abdel Nasser Abdel Aiim Durra and Magdi Muhammad Salem had
reportedly been forcibly repatriated to Egypt from Saudi Arabia in
November 1989 and were detained under emergency legislation in Tora
Reception prison. They were allegedly tortured by SSIP officers at the
SSIP headquarters at Lazughli;
(h) Ahmed Abdul Nabi Muhammad Antar, Hisham Muhammad Muhammad Eisa,
Muhammad Said Abdul Meguid, Ali Ahmad Ali al—Naggar were arrested by SSIP at
Alexandria on 28 November 1989. During interrogation and upon transferral to
Tora Reception prison on 12 December 1989 they were allegedly tortured,
including being kept naked, denied food and drink, as well as medical
treatment, and subjected to beatings, abuse and electric shocks for four days;
(i) It was further reported that on 29 August 1989, 80 children between
the ages of 6 and 10 years old, in addition to 13 supervisors, attending a
recreational camp in Alexandria were arrested by a large security force of
soldiers and officers with machine—guns. The children and supervisors were
forced to spend the first night on the ground of a custody room without any
amenities in Montazah Police Station in Alexandria. According to children's
testimonies, specifically Ahined Emad Mohamed Abdel Wahab (age 9) and
Hani Mohained Ali Beshir (age 10), a number of them were subjected to verbal
abuse, exposed to crowded conditions without facilities, deprived of blankets,
and beaten or kicked.
El Salvador
Urgent messages
64. On 14 September 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to
the Government of El Salvador concerning Miguel Angel Barillas Osegueda, a
25—year—old university student who was arrested on 11 August 1990 by soldiers
from the Atlacatl Battalion. On 13 August, Mr. Barillas was allegedly
transferred to the National Guard in Santa Tecla, where he was reported to
have been brutally tortured. He was kept at the Municipal Police Station
until 27 August, when he was taken to the First Criminal Court in
San Salvador. Even though he denied the charges against him and described
the harassment and treatment to which he was subjected, he was remanded to
“La Esperanza” prison in San Luis Mariona, where he is still being held.
According to the complainants, from the time of his arrest until now, he has
not received medical care or any official medical examination of his physical
condition, even though he continues to suffer from the consequences of the
ill—treatment to which he was allegedly subjected.
E / CN .4 / 1991 / 17
page 21
Letters and Government replies .
65. On 20 September 1990, the Government of El Salvador sent a letter to the
Special Rapporteur providing information on cases of the torture and killing
of civilians and soldiers which allegedly occurred in the country during the
period from May to September 1990. According to the letter, those responsible
for such incidents were members of the Frente Farabundo Marti armed irregular
group. On 22 October 1990, the Government sent the Special Rapporteur a
report on the cases of human rights violations by members of the Armed Forces
which have been referred to the courts (from January to July 1990).
66. On 15 October 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the
Government of El Salvador transmitting information concerning:
(a) Avelino Escobar Jim nez, aged 42, member of a co—operative, arrested
on 26 March 1990 at El Jicaro Co—operative, Department of Ahuachap n, by
12 soldiers. He stated that he had been tortured in the barracks of Military
Unit N7 in Ahuachap n. The torture consisted of being beaten on all parts of
the body with a stick and a pistol while he was naked and of being strung up
by his hands, which were tied behind his back. Mr. Escobar Jim nez was
released on 29 March 1990;
(b) Jos Santos Tobar Escobar, aged 32, farm worker in Teotepeque,
La Libertad, arrested on 4 May 1990. Alleged that he had been tortured while
he was being interrogated in the barracks of the Sixth Military Unit. The
torture included blows and kicks to the head, stomach and other parts of the
body; being strung up by the arms for 10 minutes; sleep deprivation; and
threats. Mr. Tobar Escobar also stated that he had been tortured at the
National Guard headquarters in Izalco. He filed an official complaint with
the Attorney—General's Office on 25 May 1990;
(c) Carlos Gonz 1ez, a Spanish national, was arrested on 4 June 1990 by
members of the National Guard in the outskirts of San Salvador. He states
that., during, the two and one half days of his detention, he was subjected to
torture: during the interrogation, he had his eyes blindfolded and he was
repeatedly hit, burned with cigarettes and left out in the very hot sun, as a
result of which he suffered first—degree burns. He was also threatened with
the electric chair, other types of torture and death. After his release, he
was examined by two independent doctors. These medical examinations led to
the conclusion that he had wounds which were fully in keeping with his
description of the ill—treatment to which he had been subjected.
Equatorial Guinea
Urgent messages
67. On 6 July 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to the
Government of Equatorial Guinea concerning Jos Eneme, former Consul of
Equatorial Guinea in Canieroon, who was allegedly arrested in January 1990 and
taken to Bata Prison. As a result of the torture to which he was allegedly
subjected, particularly by having his head submerged in a toxic solution, his
face was disfigured. The message also concerned Juan Eyeme Nguema, former
director of the National Social Security Institute, who was allegedly arrested
in April 1990 at Malabo Airport and taken to the prison in that city.
E/CN .4 / 1991/17
page 22
According to the information received, in the past, prisoners in Malabo and
Bata Prisons were allegedly beaten and tortured. Fear has been expressed that
the two above—mentioned persons might still be in danger of being tortured.
Urgent atpeala
68. On 21 May 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Ethiopia concerning Tilahun Fardesse, aged 38, employee at the
Ministry of Transport, and another person whose name was not reported. Both
were reportedly detained on 16 May 1990 in Addis Ababa by eight or nine armed
policemen in plain clothes and taken to the police head office. Three other
persons were reportedly detained at the same time: a philosophy student at
Addis Ababa University whose first name was reported to be Salomon and
two Dutch journalists. Salomon was released on 17 May 1990 and the
two journalists were expelled from the country on 18 May 1990. According to
one of them Tilahun Fardesse was tortured immediately after his arrest and an
eyewitness saw his clothes stained with blood. Mr. Fardesse had reportedly
spent two years in gaol in 1987—1988 for supporting rebel activity.
Letters and Government repli a
69. On 9 February 1990 the Government of Ethiopia sent the following
information to the Special Rapporteur in reply to his letter of 2 October 1989
(E/CN,411990117, para. 65): “... The Government of the People's Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia has taken steps to investigate the case brought to its
attention by the Special Rapporteur, concerning the alleged ill—treatment and
torture of prisoners, as well as conditions in prison centres. The result of
the investigation has made it clear that the allegations transmitted to the
Special Rapporteur are unfounded and baseless”. In addition, the Government
of Ethiopia provided several legal texts, including relevant articles of the
Constitution of 1987 which was adopted in a national referendum, with a view
to proving the existence of legal and administrative safeguards for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of those under detention in Ethiopia.
Letters
70. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Fiji transmitting information according to which Chief Justice
Apaitia Seru was reported as saying, on an unspecified date in 1989 that many
defendants appeared in court with “visible signs of injury”, apparently
resulting from ill—treatment and torture while in police custody. He also
reportedly expressed concern about the frequency of “deliberate police
assault” of detainees. It was further reported that several students and
staff members at the University of the South Pacific (UsP), all of them
politically active, were detained between 8 and 14 October 1989 by members
of the security forces and were allegedly subjected to physical abuse and
intimidation. Sushil Chandra, President of the USP Indian Students'
Organisation, and Nandesa Gounder, Secretary of the same organization, were
reportedly detained by police on 14 October 1989 and were allegedly kicked and
E / CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 23
beaten during interrogation. Two USP lecturers were reportedly arrested on
8 October 1989 by plain clothes army officers. They were allegedly beaten
while in detention and as a result suffered serious head injuries. Their
request to be taken to hospital was allegedly denied. .
Gab on
71. On 15 October 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the
Government of Gabon transmitting information that Mr. Auguste Ambourouet and
Mr. Guy Nang Bekale, both members of the Gabonese Progress Party (PGP), as
well as six other members of opposition parties, were arrested in early
June 1990 in Port Gentil. Although the six opponents were released before
late June 1990, Mr. Ambourouet and Mr. Bekale were reportedly still being held
incommunicado, without charges, in Libreville and they had allegedly been
subjected to ill—treatment.
Gree e
Government replies
72. On 7 February 1990 the Government of Greece addressed a letter to the
Special Rapporteur providing further details regarding a case transmitted
to it on 28 July 1988 and its letter of reply of 15 February 1989
(E/CN.4/1989115, para. 38 and E/CN.4/1990/l7, para. 66, respectively). The
Greek Government informed the Special Rapporteur that the administrative
inquiry concerning the Katsikoyannis case had been concluded and that no
findings of guilt against policemen were established.
Guatemala
Urgent messages
73. On 27 November 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to
the Government of Guatemala concerning Mr. Luis Arturo Ar&valo, a Guatemalan
national who was allegedly arrested on 3 or 4 November 1990 in Belize by the
Special Branch of that country's police force after having been accused of
belonging to a Guatemalan armed opposition group. Mr. Ar valo was reportedly
tortured in Belize and, around 10 or 11 November, handed over to the
Guatemalan military forces (Kaibiles) in Melchor de Mengos, Pet n Department.
Concern has been expressed that he might be subjected to torture and that his
life might be threatened.
Guinea
Urgent appeals and Government replies
74. On 12 January 1990, the Guinean Government sent the Special Rapporteur
the following information in reply to his urgent appeal of 11 December 1989
(E/CN.4/1990/17, para. 73): the first four names referred to in the appeal
are not known to the services of the Guinean Ministry of National Defence.
The last three persons, Togba Traore, Nanfory Camara and Mohained Au Bangoura,
were taken in for questioning and released. The Guinean Government assured
the Special Rapporteur that there was no need for concern about these
three persons, since the Government respects human rights.
E/ CN. 4/1991/17
page 24
Haiti
Urgent appeals and Government replies
75. On 28 December 1989, the Government of Haiti sent the Special Rapporteur
the following information in reply to his urgent appeal of 20 November 1989
(EICN.411990117, para. 77): “According to the information available to the
Haitian Ministry of Justice, these detainees, Mr. Jean Auguste Mesyeux,
Mr. Evans Paul and Mr. Marineau Etienne, were brought before their natural
judges on 3 November 1989, in accordance with the law, in order to answer the
charges brought against them. They were also taken to the Military Hospital
on 17 November 1989, in order to receive the care they needed' t .
76. On 1 February 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Haitian Government transmitting information that Mr. Enock Joseph, Mayor of
the Commune of Chardoni re, and Mr. Camelo Brutus, as well as a large number
of other persons, were recently arrested and reportedly being subjected to
torture.
Letters
77. On 10 August 1990, the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Haitian Government transmitting information that Mr. Tony Verriot, a
journalist with Radio Haiti Inter, was allegedly arrested by Haitian Army
soldiers in Port—de—Paix on 15 May 1990 while he was conducting an
investigation in the court in that town. According to the source,
Judge Thulien Vincent, who was the subject of the journalist's investigation,
had called soldiers in to have Mr. Verriot removed from the court. During
his arrest, Mr. Verriot was allegedly beaten by the soldiers inside the
court—house and on the way to the army command post in the town. While he was
being detained at the post, he was reportedly tortured by some 30 soldiers.
He was released the following day and had to be given emergency medical
treatment. According to the same source, Mr. Dauphin Eug ne, a journalist
with Radio Etincelle in Port—de—Paix, was reportedly arrested on 19 May 1990,
also at the request of Judge Vincent. Mr. Eug ne was allegedly held at the
army command post, where he was subjected to ill—treatment.
India
Letters
78. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the Government
of India transmitting information alleging that 19 members of the Pardhi
community, a tribe, were arrested by police on 13 February 1989 at Khopoli,
Raigad district, Maharashtra, on suspicion of involvement in gang robbery in
Raigad and Thana districts. Their names and ages were reported to the
Government. According to sworn statements they made in court they had been
tortured by being beaten while held in Khopoli, Panvel, Uran and Vasai police
stations, and had been often denied food. On 21 April 1989 the Bombay High
Court ordered an immediate judicial inquiry into the torture allegations. The
judge who carried out the inquiry concluded that the detainees had received
ill—treatment at the hands of the Khopoli police during the period between
13 and 24 February 1989, but the exact identity of the six persons believed to
be responsible was not established. On 14 August 1989 the Bombay High Court
E / CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 25
confirmed those findings but did not order the State to pay compensation and
failed to take steps to prosecute the guilty police officers. The court left
it to the accused persons “to move the appropriate civil or criminal courts
for suitable action including compensation and criminal prosecution”. Another
suspect, Jaggu Lakishnian Chavan, who also belongs to the Pardhi tribe, was
arrested in Bombay on 14 February 1989 and died on 3 March 1989 in the Panvel
municipal hospital, while still in police custody, allegedly as a result of
injuries received under torture. According to the police Chavan died of an
“unidentified illness”. But the 19 men arrested in the same case claimed that
he died as a result of severe police beatings, and some said they were present
when he was being tortured. But two doctors who carried out a post—mortem
examination said they did not find injuries on the body, although one of them
said he found the right hand to be bent. It was further reported that Kuijit
Singh Dhatt, from the village of Ainbala Jattan, Hoshiapur District, was
arrested (on an unspecified date, probably in the second half of 1989), from
the home of Reeve Gurmail Singh in the village of Garrhi. It was alleged that
Kuljit Singh was taken to the Tanda Police Station where he was tortured with
an electromagnetic device known as garari. The device was allegedly applied
to his genitals by a Police Superintendent whose name was transmitted to the
Government, while other police constables were holding him. Kuljit Singh
reportedly died of a heart failure, allegedly as a result of the prolonged
torture to which he was subjected.
Indonesia
Urgent appeals and Government replies
79. On 2 May 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Indonesia concerning three East Tiniorese students: Fernad
Trindade, aged 17, Mario Trindade, aged 22, and Felizberto Nascarenhas,
aged 23, who were reportedly arrested by military police on 26 April 1990 in
Denpasar, Bali, and were allegedly subjected to torture.
80. On 1 June 1990 the Indonesian Government provided more details on the
circumstances of the arrest of the three aforementioned students, which
reportedly followed a fight with a West Timorese student. OEe three students
were released on 1 May 1990. It was affirmed that they had not been subjected
to torture or ill—treatment at any stage of the proceedings.
81. On 16 October 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Indonesia concerning Aleixo Laga, aged 22, a pupil at Sao Jose
Externato School in Diii, East Timor, who was arrested in that town on
11 September 1990. It was alleged that on the day of his arrest he was taken
to the Dili Police Office and kept in a water tank, and that since then he has
been subjected almost daily to torture. It was reported that his family had
recently been given permission to visit him and that they found him weak from
lack of food, and his face swollen and covered with cuts and bruises. Fears
were expressed that he may not be able to survive if torture and maltreatment
did not stop.
82. On 20 November 1990 the Government of Indonesia informed the Special
Rapporteur that Aleixo Laga was released after being questioned, on condition
that he reported regularly to the authorities, but he had never done so and
since his release his whereabouts had not been known. During the proceedings
E/CN.4/l991/ 17
page 26
of the questioning the authorities did not use torture nor other forms of
ill—treatment. The allegation that he has been subjected to daily torture was
therefore unfounded. With regard to the other East Timores pupils allegedly
arrested following a demonstration in Diii on 4 September 1990, it was
affirmed that not a single person was arrested or subjected to torture by
the security authorities. A number of persons were indeed questioned for
partaking in the demonstration, but they were subsequently released as there
was no sound reason for the authorities to detain them.
Letters and Government repliea
83. On 24 July 1990 the Indonesian Government sent a letter to the
Special Rapporteur in reply to his communication of 14 November 1989 (see
EICN.4/l990/l7, para. 89) concerning several East Timorese people. It was
affirmed that several people had been questioned in connection with “a
conspiracy to entice security disturbances” during the President's visit to
East Timor in November 1988. Following further investigation only two
persons, Filomeno Gomes and Anacias Fuca do Carmo, were put on trial and were
given prison sentences of seven and six months, respectively. It was further
affirmed that throughout the investigation, their right to physical and mental
integrity was protected and the proceedings were in strict compliance with
Indonesian laws and legal procedures. With regard to the use of torture and
other forms of ill—treatment in the interrogation of suspects which is often
alleged as being practised by Indonesian security personnel, the Government
stated that such treatment is contrary to the State Philosophy, to the basic
values of the Indonesian people and to existing legislation and regulations.
Any failure to comply with these regulations is subject to disciplinary action.
84. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Indonesia transmitting information alleging that a large number
of Sumatran civilians, described as sympathizers of a so—called Acheh/Sumatra
National Liberation Front, were detained during 1989 and allegedly subjected
to torture. Most of those arrested were said to be farmers, businessmen and
students, principally from villages near the city of Lhok Senmawe, Pase
Province. The Lhok Senmawe gaol and Lammenlo gaol were the two prisons where
most of those arrested were alleged to be tortured. It was alleged that
Indonesian security forces or police were responsible for the arrests and
torture. A list of 24 persons, including women, who were allegedly tortured
in detention, was transmitted to the Government.
85. On 24 July 1990 the Government replied by affirming that the allegations
were totally groundless, and by describing the organization which made them
as “a foreign based/sponsored group intent on disintegrating the national
unity and territorial integrity of Indonesia”. The Government also provided
information pertaining to the situation in the province of Aceh, where several
security personnel and civilians were recently killed as a result of activity
by armed groups. During operations undertaken by the authorities to restore
order in the province, a man named Yusuf Ab, believed to be a band leader, was
killed in a shoot—out on 1 July 1990, as he defied arrest, and other suspects
were arrested. “Since those arrested are involved in criminal activities and
have no connection whatsoever with membership of nor are they sympathizers of
the so—called Acheh/Sumatra National Liberation Front which is non—existent,
the list of cases and persons submitted in the communication cannot be taken
seriously. However, a serious investigation is being conducted by the
relevant authorities, and due process of law will continue to be strictly
observed”.
EICN.4/19911 17
page 27
86. On lIt August 1990 the Government provided additional information
according to which, of the list of names submitted to the Government, only one
could be identified: that of Bukhari Abdul Rahman, aged 26. The man was at
present in police custody for interrogation regarding his supposed involvement
in uthe recent criminal activities”. “The allegation that he was tortured in
gaol is clearly unfounded. As to the remaining names on the list, none of
them appears to correspond to any known individual”.
Iran. Islamic Republic of
Urgent appeals
87. On 20 July 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent un urgent appeal to
the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning Mohainmad Hossein
Bani Assadi, Reza Sadr, Nour Au Tabandeh, Abol Fazl Mir Shams Shahahahani,
Akbar Zarinehbaf, Abdolali Bazargan, Yadollah Roshan—Ardalan, Rahim Abedi,
Habidollah Davaran, Amir Tavakol Ebrahimi, Abbas Ghaem Al Sabahi,
Mabmoud Naimpoor, Ezatollah Sahabi, Farhad Behbehanl, Au Ardalan,
Mohammad Tavassoli Hojati, Hashem Sabbaghian, Khosrow Mansourian,
Mahinoud Maleki, Hormoz Momaiezi, Mezameddin Movahed and Hossein Shah Hosseini.
The above—mentioned persons, many of whom were ministers or associates of
former Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, were reportedly arrested on or after
12 June 1990, and are believed to be detained incommunicado in Evin prison.
It was reported that some of those arrested are elderly or in ill health. One
of them, Ali Ardalan, reportedly suffers from cardiac problems. It was
further alleged that some of them were beaten while being arrested, and fears
have been expressed that they may be subjected to torture or ill—treatment
while in detention.
Iraq
Urgent appeals and Government replies
88. On 11 September 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent un urgent appeal to
the Government of Iraq concerning the following persons: Haidar Ashkanani,
aged 24, Muhammed Kadhim, aged 26, All Kadhim, aged 22, Abd Al—Muhsin Kadhim,
aged 18, Jawad Al Qallaf, aged 19 and Muhammad Ibrahim, aged 18. These
persons, all of whom Kuwaiti nationals, were reportedly arrested by Iraqi
forces on 3 August 1990, after participating in a peaceful demonstration in
the Sulaibikhat district of Kuwait city. They are believed to have
subsequently been taken to Baghdad and to be currently detained incommunicado
and without legal protection, and fears have been expressed that they, as well
as other persons detained in similar circumstances may be subjected to torture
or Ill—treatment while they are interrogated.
89. On 1 November 1990 the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that
there was no truth to the allegations contained in the above—mentioned appeal.
Israel
Urgent appeals
90. On 11 October 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to
the Government of Israel concerning ‘Abd Al—Ra'Uf Ohabin, aged 32, who was
reportedly arrested on 30 August 1990 in the Beach Refugee Camp in the
E / CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 28
Gaza Strip and detained in Gaza Central prison. According to the information,
before he was allowed to see a lawyer for the first time on 24 September 1990,
he had been deprived of sleep for three weeks, with breaks only at weekends,
and beaten several times on his face, abdomen and genitals.
91. On 20 November 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Israel concerning Abmed Kabaha and Rand Muslah. Abmed Kabaha,
aged 17, from the village of Barta'a, was arrested on 1 November 1990, on
suspicion of raising the Palestinian flag in his village. He was first taken
to the Kishon prison and then, on 8 November, was transferred to a detention
centre in Petah Tikva, where he was reportedly interrogated by agents of the
General Security Service (OSS). On 11 November, when he was brought to court
for a remand hearing, he alleged that a GSS interrogator had burned him with
cigarettes on his chest and then threatened him with further torture if he
complained about it. He showed the judge five or six cigarette burns.
Raini Muslah, aged 14, from Al—Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, was
arrested on 25 September 1990 following the burning to death of an Israeli
soldier in the camp and taken to Gaza Central prison. A lawyer saw him, for
the first time since his arrest, on 29 September. The lawyer later affirmed
that Muslah was breathing heavily, had difficulty speaking and was coughing
frequently and spitting blood. Rarni Muslah reportedly told the lawyer that
during interrogation he had been beaten all over his body, mainly on the
head and chest. On 30 October his detention was extended for 120 days. On
9 November two lawyers visited him and later affirmed that he looked ill,
continued to have difficulty speaking and coughed frequently. In an affidavit
they took from him he alleged that he had been interrogated by eight men who
beat him all over his body, including his chest, stomach and genitals. He was
allegedly also subjected to threats of being shot unless he confessed, as well
as to degrading treatment. The torture and ill—treatment allegedly continued
for a week. Rand Muslah saw a doctor three times but received only tablets.
Fears have been expressed that Ahmed Kabaha and Rand Muslah may continue to be
subjected to torture and ill—treatment while being interrogated, and that they
may be denied appropriate medical treatment.
Letters and Government replies
92. On 7 December 1990 the Government of Israel provided the Special
Rapporteur with detailed information on the cases of Ra'ad Adwan and
Nidal Q'abi, transmitted to it by letter dated 19 July 1989 (E/CN.4/199O/l7,
para. 92) and that of Sha'wan Jabarin, transmitted by letter dated
16 November 1989 (E/CN.4/l990/17 , para. 94). Regarding the case of
Ra'ad Adwan, an inquiry was carried out by the Investigation Department of
the Israel Police, and it was determined that he was injured during a stone
throwing incident. Contrary to widely disseminated allegations his medical
records indicate that his injury was caused by a rubber bullet, the use of
which was found to be justified under the circumstances. No evidence
whatsoever supports the claim that he was beaten or hit. As regards
Nidal Qa'bi, he was injured during a violent confrontation between Border
Policemen and masked youths, after he himself threw a rock which hit the
deputy commander of the force in the chest. During the ensuing chase a Border
Policeman fired a cannister of rubber bullets which hit Qa'bi's head and
fractured his nose. “The Border Police administered first aid to Qa'bi who
was then transferred by ambulance to Ittihad hospital in Nablus for further
care ... The medical report makes no mention of any burns. This fact
El CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 29
corroborates the testimony given by the Border Policemen that Qa'bi was not
asked to remove burning tyres and contradicts the story circulated that
Border Policemen ‘forced his hands onto the burning tyre'.” As regards
Shawan Jabarin, who was arrested in his home in the village of Sair, the
following information was given regarding his allegation that he was beaten
during the arrest. “The officers and the soldiers involved testified that
Jabarin had refused to accompany them and resisted arrest in a manner which
compelled the soldiers to use force in order to carry out their arrest
order ... As a result of the force that was used Jabarin was slightly
injured. Jabarin once again resisted arrest while being escorted to the
vehicle. Consequently the soldiers were again compelled to use reasonable
force in handcuffing Jabarin and placing him in he vehicle”. As regards his
allegation that he was beaten by soldiers during his transfer to the Civil
Administration building in Hebron, it was reported that; “After questioning
the soldiers involved, it became apparent that Jabarin was indeed struck on
the back of his neck and on the head. On the basis of the investigation's
findings, the Military Advocate ordered one of the soldiers court—martialled.
In addition, two other soldiers involved in the incident faced disciplinary
proceedings.” It was further reported that the Military Advocate had
recommended that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against several
soldiers who allegedly used excessive force while carrying out a body search
on Jabarin at the Hebron police station. Jabarin's allegation that policemen
witnessed the soldiers beating him at the police station but did not intervene,
were investigated and it was determined they were false. Jabarin's allegation
that, while in prison, soldiers burned his ear and hand with a cigarette,
could not be substantiated during the investigation. As regards his allegation
that he was taken, in prison, to a rest—room where he was forced to lie on the
floor of a lavatory stall and was beaten there by a soldier, the Military
Advocate, on the basis of prima faci evidence supporting this claim, ordered
that the soldier in question be indicted for abuse. Jabarin was subsequently
subjected to two medical check—ups and was found to be in good health. As
regards the remaining allegations transmitted to the Government, it was stated
that in view of their considerable number it has so far been impossible to
investigate all of them thoroughly. The Government also provided general
information regarding detention or imprisonment in the country, methods of
questioning suspects and investigation of complaints about alleged torture or
ill—treatment.
93. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the Government
of Israel transmitting the following detailed cases of alleged torture or
ill—treatment suffered by Palestinian detainees while in police custody:
(a) Ibrahim Habash, aged 22, student at the Bir Zeit University, arrested
on 28 August 1989. It was alleged that while he was detained at the Moscobiyah
detention centre in Jerusalem he was repeatedly beaten and ill—treated by six
persons described as informers. Cigarette burns were said to be visible on
his body when his lawyer visited him on 20 October 1989;
(b) Murad Muhammad Isa Jadallah, aged 12, from Beit Safafa, arrested on
29 October 1989 on suspicion of possessing Palestinian flags, masks and petrol
bombs. According to an affidavit signed by him on 1 November 1989, given to
his lawyer, while he was being held in the Mocobiyah detention centre for
interrogation he was beaten with clubs all over his body, his head was banged
on a table and his face was slapped while his hair was being pulled. He was
E/CN.4/1991 / 17
page 30
also allegedly denied medical treatment. On 2 November 1989 he was examined
by an independent doctor in the Moscobiyah detention centre. The doctor
stated in his report that Jadallah showed signs of having been beaten all over
his body, including injuries near his eyes and bruises on several parts of his
body;
(c) Ibrahim Kassem Kawarik, aged 25, from El—Bireh, arrested in Ramallah
on 1 December 1989 and taken to the Moscobiyah detent:ion centre. He was
allegedly severely beaten, deprived of sleep, choked to the point of losing
consciousness and subjected to a practice known as “Shabeh” (being forced to
stand for prolonged periods in the open, exposed to all kinds of weather, with
one's head covered and hands tied behind the back). Ten days later he was
transferred to Ramallah prison where his ill—treatment allegedly continued.
in particular, it was alleged that his arm was broken by a General Security
Services officer whose name as well as those of the other interrogators, was
transmitted to the Government. He received medical treatment for his broken
arm two weeks after it was broken;
(d) Yusuf Abu Ta'a, aged 22, student at the Bir Zeit University,
arrested on 8 December 1989. He was allegedly severely beaten by one of his
interrogators and was subjected to the practices of “Shabeh” and “Khazaneh”
(being confined to a space too small to sit or stand).
94. In addition to the aforementioned it was reported that Walid Abu—Surur,
from the Aida refugee camp near Bethlehem, was allegedly beaten all over
his body with fists and rifle butts by two soldiers. The incident occurred
on or around 17 April 1990. Abu—Surur, a member of a group called “Runners
for Peace”, has reportedly been harassed and threatened on several occasions
by soldiers, in an attempt to dissuade him from participating in the group's
activities. Three other members of the group, Abined Abu—Surur, Muhammad
Abu—Surur and Mustafa Akal, all from the Aida camp, have allegedly also been
harassed, beaten and threatened in similar circumstances. Mustafa Akal was
arrested on 17 April 1990 and was at present reportedly detained at the
Dhahiriya detention centre. The reason for his detention was not known.
95. On 15 October 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government
of Israel transmitting information according to which Riad Shehabi, aged 24,
was arrested on 17 July 1990 in the Old City of Jerusalem, on charges
including stone throwing, and was taken to the Kishle police station. He
later alleged that on 21 July, during interrogation, he was hooded and beaten
with sticks all over the body, particularly the hands, head, legs and back.
Several sticks were said to have been broken while he was being beaten.
According to the source Shehabi was taken to hospital for treatment and then
transferred to the Russian Compound detention centre. When his family and his
lawyer visited him, on 22 July, marks of the beatings were said to be clearly
visible on his body and both hands were in plaster casts.
96. Reports concerning Palestinian women detained in the detention centres
of Kishon, Russian Compound in Jerusalem and Hasharon, alleged that conditions
in these facilities are very harsh and that the detainees, sometimes girls
aged 15 or 16, are often beaten and threatened with rape or other sexual
abuse. A list of eight female detainees, including a 15—year old girl named
Efaf Abdallah Salim, who were allegedly tortured in detention, was transmitted
to the Government.
El CN. 4/1991/17
page 31
97. In addition to the aforementioned the Special Rapporteur was informed of
the case of Fatme Abu Bacra, aged 34 from the Gaza Strip, who was sentenced
in June 1989 to six years' imprisonment. While she was in custody in the
Ashkelon prison, from November 1986 until January 1987, she was allegedly
severely tortured, as a result of which she is said to still suffer pain in
one of her ribs which was fractured. It was alleged that over the past
10 months she has been denied medical treatment for a urinary tract infection
which developed during the 4 months she spent in solitary confinement. She is
said to suffer unbearable pain, sometimes causing her to lapse into
unconsciousness.
Kenya
Urgent appeals and Government replies
98. On 26 July 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent un urgent appeal to the
Government of Kenya concerning the following persons: Mohamed K. Ibrahim,
Mama Mbacha, George Njoya, Stephen Mwangi, Stephen Ngotho Mwangi,
Boniface Wambiri Wanjohi (all the above—mentioned were reportedly arrested
on 4 or 5 July 1990); George Anyona, Edward Oyugi, Ngotho Kariuki,
Andrew Ngumba, S.K. Ndungi, Joseph Mukiri, Kiruhi Kimondo and Augustin Kasanga
(all the above—mentioned arrested between 10 and 12 July 1990). All the
aforementioned persons are said to be advocates of a multi—party system.
Some had served prison terms in the past. They are reportedly being held
incommunicado, probably by the Special Branch, and fears have been expressed
that they may be interrogated under torture in order to coerce them to confess
to political off ences or to plead guilty to a charge in court.
99. On 22 August 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent un urgent appeal to the
Government of Kenya concerning Joe Omwaka Ager, aged 38. He was reportedly
arrested in Nairobi on 31 July 1990 and was held incommunicado and without
charge until 7 August. On that date he was brought to court, charged with
possession of a seditious publication and remanded in custody. He is believed
to be held in Kamili prison, where conditions for political prisoners are said
to be harsh, and no date has been set for his trial. It was reported that in
recent months, several defendants accused of similar of fences had alleged they
were tortured in order to make them plead guilty, and fears have therefore
been expressed that Mr. Ager may be at risk of torture or ill—treatment.
100. On 16 October 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent un urgent appeal to the
Government of Kenya concerning Koigi Wa Wamwere, leader of the Kenya Patriotic
Front (KPF), who was arrested in Nairobi on 8 October 1990, allegedly for
having entered the country clandestinely. Reportedly the police also affirmed
that weapons were found in the house where he was arrested. Over a dozen
other people, whose names were not given, were reportedly arrested because
of their connections with Koigi Wa Wamwere. It was further alleged that
Koigi Wa Wamwere might be held incommunicado by the Police Special Branch
(also known as the Department for Security and Intelligence), in Nyayo House
in Central Nairobi. Fears were expressed that he might be subjected to
torture or ill—treatment, as it was alleged that political prisoners had been
tortured in Nyayo House in the past.
E /CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 32
101. On 23 October 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent un urgent appeal to the
Government of Kenya concerning three persons arrested on 8 October 1990,
apparently in connection with the detention of Mr. Wa Wamwere. They are
Mirugi Kariuki, a lawyer in Nakuru, Rumba Kinuthia, a lawyer in Nairobi, and
Christopher Kaniuyu, member of Parliament for Dagoretti, in Nairobi. They are
reportedly being held in incommunicado detention, without charge, and fears
were expressed that they may be subjected to torture or ill—treatment.
102. On 28 October 1990, the Kenyan Government informed the Special Rapporteur
that Mr. Keigi, Mr. Kinuthia, Mr. Kariuki. and Mr. Kainuyu had been arraigned
before the courts in Nairobi and that they have legal representation. Their
case will be mentioned in court on 2 November 1990. It was a lie that they
were held in incommunicado detention. They have been charged before the
principal magistrate on 19 October 1990. The charges against them were
criminal and not political. Those who saw them in court noticed no signs of
torture or ill—treatment.
Kuwait
i gent appeals
103. On 2 March 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Kuwait concerning ten members of the Kuwaiti. Shi'a community
who were arrested on 14 and 18 February 1990 and were believed to be held at
Amn Al—Dawla prison, in Al—Kuwait. Their names were: Hassan Habib Al—Salman,
Saleh Jawhar, Kadhim Abd Al—Hussain, Jawad Al—Attar, Sayyid Jail Tabataba'i,
Sayyid All Tabataba'i (arrested on 14 February 1990 following raids and
searches on their homes), Sayyid Taleb Abd Al—Majid Al—Kadhimi, Adel Dashti,
Sayyid Mustafa Al—Mazidi and Sayyid Anwar Al—Mazidi (arrested on
18 February 1990). Most of them had been detained in 1989 following bomb
explosions in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, in July 1989, and the execution of
16 Kuwaiti pilgrims in Saudi Arabia on 21 September 1989. Fears have been
expressed that these persons may be tortured during interrogation, following
reports alPeging that other members of the kuwaiti Shi'a community recently
held in the same prison were tortured during interrogation by the State
Security Intelligence.
Letters
104. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the Government
of Kuwait transmitting information according to which, following the alleged
involvement by Kuwaiti Shi'a pilgrims in bomb attacks which occurred in
Mecca, Saudi Arabia on 10 and 17 July 1989, and the subsequent execution of
16 Kuwaiti nationals in Saudi Arabia, several members of the Shi'a community
were arrested in Kuwait and were allegedly tortured. The cases of the
following individuals were reported: Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Abbas al—Musawi
(also known as al—Muhri), the Imam of the Imani All Mosque in the al—Umairiya
district of al—Kuwait city. He was arrested on 22 September 1989 on suspicion
of planning the bomb attacks in Mecca and was held until 13 February 1990,
reportedly without charge or trial, at the Ann al—Dawla prison in Kuwait, and
later at the Kuwait Central Prison. It was alleged that he bad been tortured
during interrogation by the State Security Intelligence. The alleged torture
included beatings and electric shock treatment. It was further alleged that
one of the prison guards had trod on his neck and banged his head against a
wall after he refused to sign a “confession”.
E /CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 33
105. Another four members of the Kuwait! Shi a community who were transferred
to Kuwait Central Prison together with Mr. Abbas al—Musawi, were among a
group of approximately 20 Shi'a arrested in Kuwait in the second half of
November 1989. All were reportedly beaten and subjected to electric shock
treatment during interrogation while in detention at Amn al—Dawla prison.
Their names were reported as follows: Faisal Abd al—Had! al—Mahmid, who
was allegedly kicked and beaten to the point of losing consciousness;
Abd al—Hamid al Saf far; Sayyid Walid al—Mazidi, student at Kuwait university,
and his father—in—law Abd al—Rida Karoun, a Government employee.
Malaysia
Urgent appeals
106. On 19 June 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Malaysia concerning Benedict Topin and Albinus Yudah who were
arrested on 25 and 26 May 1990 in the State of Sabah and have since been held
incommunicado at Bukit Aman police headquarters in Kuala Lumpur. Both were
reportedly arrested under the internal security act which allows for indefinite
detention without trial, and it was alleged that persons detained in the past
under that act had been subjected to severe ill—treatment while held for
interrogation. It was further reported that Benedict Topin had recently
undergone surgery for a back injury and Abbinus Yudah was on his way to
hospital to seek orthopaedic treatment when he was arrested.
Mauritania
Urgent appeals and Government replies
107. On 6 July 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Mauritania transmitting information concerning Dieng Ibra Yero,
Samba Papa Sy and his wife, Aissata Sy, Lo Boubacar Amath and Niang Samba
Dienga. According to the information received, these five persons, who are
all members of the Hal—Pulaar ethnic group, were arrested in April 1990 and
are allegedly still being held incommunicado together with some 350 other
persons in the Aziat Military Camp between Boghe and Aleg in the southern part
of the country. The five persons were reportedly tortured in detention and
fears have been expressed that they might be tortured again. The Special
Rapporteur's attention was also drawn to the case of Mr. Cire Djekou Sow,
aged 66, and Mr. Kegaido Coulibaly, aged 38. Mr. Djekou Sow was arrested on
an unspecified date between 20 and 23 May 1990 and was reportedly taken
unconscious to the National Guard Headquarters at Kaedi. Three days later, he
was transferred to the Kaedi Police Station, where he was interrogated under
torture. Mr. Coulibaly was also reportedly being held at Kaedi and fears were
expressed that he might also be tortured.
108. On 21 October 1990, the Mauritanian Government sent the Special Rapporteur
the following information: “Mauritanian legislation prohibits torture and any
other corporal punishment. The relevant texts are a major component of the
instruction given to law enforcement officials at all levels. The judiciary
applies the full force of the law to any Government agent who is guilty of the
use of torture and the political authorities ensure scrupulous respect for the
protection of all human rights, including the right not to be subjected to
torture or any other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Any person living
El CN .4/1991/17
page 34
in Mauritanian territory, whether a citizen or not, may assert all these
rights and is free to institute court proceedings where necessary. The Courts
rule within a reasonable period of time on any properly registered complaint
and administer justice to possible victims. However, the courts have not
registered complaints from any of the persons referred to in the Special
Rapporteur's telex, whereas an application to the courts is not only the
easiest course, but also the initial remedy which must be sought by any
citizen who claims to be a victim of an abuse. The exhaustion of local
remedies is after all widely recognized as being a prerequisite for any
application to international bodies”.
Government letters and replies
109. On 17 January 1990, the Mauritanian Government sent the Special Rapporteur
a note verbale in reply to his letter of 2 October 1989 (E/CN.4/l990/l7,
para. 102). The note contained statements which were identical in content to
those referred to in the preceding paragraph.
Mexico
Letters and Government replies
110. On 6 June 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of
Mexico transmitting information stating that Mr. Jesus Manuel Martinez Ruiz
was arrested by Judicial Police officers on 4 September 1989 in Villahermosa,
State of Tabasco, and, during his detention, was allegedly subjected to
torture that led to his death. Mr. Julio C sar M rquez Valenzuela, who was
also arrested on the saoee day and subjected to torture, reportedly stated that
Mr. Martinez Ruiz's death was the result of torture by Judicial Police
officers. Two of Mr. Martinez Ruiz's relatives, Mr. Oscar Gonzalez Martinez
and Mrs. Esperanza Luna Jim nez, were also reportedly detained on
13 October 1989 in Villahermosa by Judicial Police officers and subjected to
torture to make them provide information about Mr. M rquez Valenzuela.
111. It has also been reported that some persons in Embocadero, State of
Veracruz, were arrested in November 1989 in connection with the murders of two
bosses in 1984 and were reportedly subjected to torture and ill—treatment to
make them confess to having taken part in the murders. The Special Rapporteur
transmitted the cases of S6cimo Centeno Hern ndez, Guilebaldo Centeno,
Gonzalo Ibarra and Quintil Quintero to the Government. According to another
complaint, Jos Sandoval M ndez, aged 63, and his son, Santiago Sandoval
Ramirez, aged 16, were arrested in the outskirts of San Antonio Escobedo,
State of Jalisco, on 24 August 1989 by members of the armed forces and
transferred to the headquarters of Military Zone XV in Guadalajara, where they
were allegedly subjected to torture to force them to confess to having grown
and sold marijuana.
112. On 29 August 1990, the Government of Mexico informed the
Special Rapporteur that, following an investigation into the death of
Jesus Manuel Martinez Ruiz, the case was referred by the Attorney—General's
Office to the competent criminal court on 17 August 1990 and proceedings were
instituted against a commander and four officers of the Judicial Police in
the State of Tabasco, who allegedly committed the offence of abuse of
authority in connection with the torture and murder of Mr. Martinez Ruiz. On
3 October 1990, the Government gave the Special Rapporteur the recommendation
EICN.41199l/17
page 35
in this case made by the Mexican National Human Rights Commission on
24 September 1990. On 5 October 1990, the Government sent the
Special Rapporteur information provided by the competent authorities of the
Government of the Mexican State of Veracruz on the other cases referred to in
his letter of 5 June 1990. The Government reported that: “The arrests of
Mr. S6cimo Centeno Hern ndez, Mr. Guilebaldo Centeno, Mr. Gonzalo Ibarra and
Mr. Quintil Quintero were made on the basis of well—founded charges and at no
time were their individual guarantees under articles 19 and 20 of the
Political Constitution of the Republic violated”.
113, On 15 October 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the
Government of Mexico transmitting complaints that torture and ill—treatment of
detainees were regularly practised to obtain confessions and information,
despite the legislation which prohibits torture and regards it as a punishable
offence. Apparently, torture is used mainly by members of the Judicial Police
and “informers” who help them unofficially. It was stated that these persons
enjoy impunity in their work even though these practices are unlawful. Other
apparent incentives for the use of torture are that no defence counsel is
present during the first 72 hours of detention and the fact that confessions
are regarded as valuable evidence. The methods of torture allegedly used were
severe beatings, electric shocks, immersion in water, death threats, squirting
carbonated water up the nose, pistol whipping, burns, plastic bags over the
head and other forms of physical and psychological torture.
Reference was made to the following cases of alleged torture resulting in
death:
(a) Prado Meno died on 15 September 1989 in the cells of the State
Judicial Police, reportedly as a result of torture inflicted by police
officers;
(b) Emiliano Olivas Madrigal was allegedly tortured and finally killed
by State and Federal Judicial Police on 19 October 1989 in a hotel in
Guadalupe y Calvo. The autopsy revealed many injuries caused by torture,
which was determined to have been the cause of death;
(c) tlbaldo Santil1 n Aguilar, who was arrested without a warrant on
23 January 1990 in Aguascalientes, was first taken to the Prosecutor's Office
and later transferred to a police detention centre. During the interrogation,
he was reportedly tortured by three State Judicial Police officers who held
his head under water and squirted carbonated water up his nose several times.
Santill n died the same day, reportedly as a result of torture.
114. In addition to the above, the following cases of alleged torture were
communicated:
(a) Irma Ver6nica Guerra and Manuel Huerta L6pez were allegedly tortured
by Federal Judicial Police officers on 21 November 1989 in Chihuahua. The
woman, who was pregnant, filed official complaints with the Attorney—General's
Office;
(b) Felipe Edgardo Canseco Ruiz, member of the PROCUP Party, was
arrested on 13 June 1990 in Mexico City by several policemen in plain
clothing. He was reportedly tortured during the five days of interrogation
E/CN.4/1991/17
page 36
that followed his arrest. The torture included electric shocks to sensitive
parts of the body, water up the nasal passages until he nearly suffocated and
blows on all parts of the body;
(c) Octavio Rend6n P rez, member of the National Democratic People's
Front, was arrested by the Judicial Police on 27 April 1990. After his
arrest, he was reportedly stripped and beaten and kicked by six policemen on
all parts of his body, including the testicles and ears.
Morocco
L t s
115, On 27 November 1990, the Special Rapp rteur sent a letter to the
Government of Morocco transmitting information that the following persons
reportedly died in 1989 after having been tortured: Abdeljalil Yakouti died
on 4 February 1989 in the Ouarzazate police station; according to the sources
an autopsy carried out in Marrakech disproved the theory that his death was
the result of suicide; Bouaza Kharraz, arrested in May 1989 in Abijaad by
members of the Auxiliary Forces; he was taken home several hours later, dead,
with injuries and traces of torture; Abdeslam Ouahabi, a 28—year—old sailor
who died on 10 August 1989 in the Larache police station after several days of
detention during which he was allegedly subjected to torture; he was buried
without an autopsy; Abderrahim Ben Khalif a, aged 23, died on 25 August 1989
during his transfer to the hospital, after having been brutally tortured;
Larbi Charrat, a craftsman aged over 60, was arrested with other citizens
following their demonstration against the demolition of dwellings in their
village; he was reportedly beaten and tortured by security agents and died as
a result of the torture on 27 August 1989 in the premises of the Sidi Slimane
gendarme station. The Special Rapporteur's attention was also drawn to the
case of Riahi Alayachi, a teacher in the Beni Slimane region who was allegedly
tortured on 8 April 1989 when the local boss of Sidi Moussa and two auxiliary
forces officers arrested him and took him to the local boss's office on
charges of having sent letters to the press. He reportedly filed a complaint,
but it is not known whether an inquiry was instituted and what the results
were. The Special Rapporteur's attention was also drawn to the extremely
harsh conditions of detention in the Tazmaxnart Military Prison, Rich region,
and in the K nitra Central Prison. Complaints have been made about unhygienic
conditions, the lack of medical and paramedical care, the smallness of the
cells, the lack of food and water, ill—treatment by the guards and the harsh
climate.
Mvanmar
Urgent appeals and Government replies
116. On 16 February 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Myanmar concerning U Tin Soe, a parliamentary candidate for the
National League for Democracy (NLD) Party, and two other NLD candidates, who
were arrested in Yangon on 8 February 1990, and U Htwe Myint, a candidate for
the Democracy Party, who was arrested in the same week. U Tin Soe had
allegedly been tortured when he was detained in 1989. He was later released.
It was alleged that any person arrested on political grounds by government
security forces risked being tortured or ill—treated.
E / CN. 4/1991/17
page 37
117. On 5 March 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to
the Government of Myanmar referring to his appeal of 16 February 1990, and
adding that he had subsequently received information concerning seven
other politicians, most of whom were affiliated to the National League
for Democracy, and who were reportedly arrested in Yangon on 8 and
11 February 1990. Their names were reported as follows: U Them Han,
U Ne Oo, Dr. Maung Zaw, U Kyaw Mm, U Zaw Pe Win (Chairman of the Burma
United Democratic Party), U Sein Hla Oo and Dr. Khin Tun. Fears were
expressed that these persons were in danger of being tortured or ill—treated,
since according to testimonies other persons arrested on political grounds by
government security forces have allegedly been tortured or ill—treated.
118. On 11 October 1990 the Government of Myanmar provided the Special
Rapporteur with detailed information concerning the charges filed against the
persons mentioned in the urgent appeals dated 16 February and 5 March 1990,
some of whom were convicted and sentenced and others released. In one of the
cases, that of U Ne Oo, there was no record in the list of detainees under
that name. It was stated that, in the light of the information referred to
above, “it is obvious that there is discrepancy between the allegations
concerning those individuals and what happened actually. Should an action be
taken against any of them, it was only in the due process of the existing law
and there was absolutely no ill—treatment nor any form of torture towards
them”.
119. On 28 May 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Myanmar concerning U Nay Mm (A) U Win Shwe, regarding whom an
urgent appeal was sent to the Government on 23 December 1988. Replies to that
appeal were sent by the Permanent Mission of Myanmar to the United Nations
Off ice at Geneva on 13 February and 1 March 1989. According to a recent
report U Nay Miii, who was currently serving a sentence of 14 years' hard
labour, has developed an acute heart condition, allegedly as a result of
severe torture by electric shocks. It has been alleged that he was being held
in a cold damp cell and that he has been denied the proper medical treatment
for his heart condition.
120. On 9 July 1990 the Government of Myanmar informed the Special Rapporteur
that U Nay Miii (A) U Win Shwe was “in normal good health and serving the
sentence passed by the competent court of laws for violation of existing
laws”. It again denied the allegation that his health condition was very poor
due to torture and the harsh conditions of his imprisonment. It added that,
even if a prisoner were to develop serious health conditions, it was most
unlikely that the case would go unnoticed and unrecorded or the prisoner left
without proper and adequate treatment. In cases where a prisoner's health
condition required a specialist's consultation and treatment, the prison
authorities arranged for such a treatment to be given.
121. On 25 September 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Myanmar concerning six leading members of the National League
for Democracy (NLD) as follows: Kyi Maung (Acting Chairman of the party) and
Chit Kaing (Party Secretary), both in their seventies, were said to have been
arrested on 6 September 1990 for allegedly having handed over classified
documents to unauthorized persons. Ohn Kyaing, Them Dan, Ye Myint Aung and
Sein Hla Aung were said to have been arrested on 8 August 1990 in Mandalay for
allegedly sending out false news. It was further alleged that persons
E/CN.4/1991 / 17
page 38
arrested in the country in recent months on political grounds were often
subjected to ill—treatment or torture and fears have, therefore, been
expressed that the above—mentioned persons are in danger of being ill—treated
or tortured.
122. On 10 October 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Myanmar concerning the following seven persons: Kyi Hla,
aged 43, Information Officer of the National League for Democracy (NLD),
arrested on 20 September 1990 for publishing anti—GovernineLLt propaganda;
Kyi Win, aged 32, Ye Naing, aged 23, and Ngwe Oo, aged 20, leaders of the
Democratic Party for a new society (DPNS), arrested on 12 September 1990 in
Kayan Township for possessing anti—Government pamphlets; Seing Hlaing,
aged 35, Myo Myint Nyein, aged 38, and Nyan Paw, aged 36, arrested on 9, 12
and 13 September 1990 respectively, for organizing youths and students to
create instability in Yangon and for preparing, planning and publishing an
anti—Government publication. It was further alleged that persons arrested in
the country in recent months on political grounds were often subjected to
ill—treatment or torture and fears have, therefore, been expressed that the
above—mentioned persons are in danger of being ill—treated or tortured.
123. On 19 October 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Myanmar concerning U Maung Maung Lay Ngwe, aged 40, an organizer
of the National League for Democracy in Yenangyaung, who was arrested on
6 September 1990, reportedly for writing and publicly distributing documents
criticizing the Government. Political prisoners who were recently released
and refugees who fled Myanmar alleged that political prisoners are often
subjected to torture and ill—treatment, and fears were therefore expressed
that U Maung Maung Lay Ngwe is at risk of being tortured while detained.
124. On 29 November 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Myanmar concerning Khin Maung Swe, Chan Aye, Soe Them,
Kyaw Mm, Tin Htut, Aung Khin Sint, Sein Hla Oo, Moe Saw U, U Naing Naing,
Hla Than, Tin Maung Win, Kyi Aye, Yan Aung, Myint Soe, Than iltaik, Ko Ko Gyi.
All the above—mentioned persons are said to be activists or members of the
National League for Democracy (NLD) or leaders of the Democratic Party for a
New Society (DPNS), who were arrested by the State Law and Order Restoration
Council between 23 and 31 October 1990. The Special Rapporteur's attention
has also been drawn to the cases of U Laba alias U Wayama, U Kokkhana,
Shin Wiseiktha, Shin Yarzeinda and Y Pyin Nya Wuntha, all of them Buddhist
monks who were reportedly detained by security forces following a
demonstration in Mandalay on 8 August 1990. The Special Rapporteur was also
informed that Maung Ko, aged 52, a senior NLD Member, died in a military
detention centre north of Yangon, approximately two weeks after being
detained. It was reported that the cause of death was suicide, but family
members alleged that Maung Ko's body was covered in bruises and that one leg
was broken. It was further reported that the military was moving political
prisoners from the Myanmar main prison at Insein to detention centres outside
Yangon. In that connection, fears were expressed that persons detained in
centres outside Yangon may be at a greater risk of torture or ill—treatment by
interrogators and warders. In the light of these allegations fears have been
expressed that the above—mentioned persons may be tortured while being held in
detention.
El CN .4/1991/17
page 39
Lette ra .
125. On 10 August 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Myanmar informing it of a recent report to which his attention
has been drawn, alleging that torture continued to be widespread in the
country. Most of the victims were said to be political activists opposed to
the Government, mainly in ethnic minority regions where armed opposition
groups where active. It was alleged by former detainees that torture was
often practised during interrogation, and was meant both as a means of
punishment and as a means to extract information or confessions. The security
agency said to be responsible for most of the cases of torture during
interrogation was the Directorate of Defence Services Intelligence—DDSI, which
is the military intelligence agency, also known as MIS or MI. Other State
security forces that allegedly resorted to torture or ill—treatment of
detainees were the People's Defence Forces and the People's Police Force, in
particular two of its branches: the Criminal Investigation Department — CID,
and the Special Investigation Department — SID. It was alleged that torture
and ill—treatment usually occurred soon after detention, while the detainees
were held incommunicado for interrogation purposes. Methods of torture
alleged to be practised included beatings, sometimes to the point of
unconsciousness, while detainees were often blindfolded or hooded; application
of electric shocks to sensitive parts of the body; walking on the knees on
sharp gravel; squatting for prolonged periods; rolling of iron or bamboo rods,
or bottles, along the shinbones until the skin scrapes off; prolonged standing
in water; prolonged exposure to sun or to intense cold; burnings with
cigarettes; near drowning through immersion in water; hanging by the feet and
having salt, salted water, urine and curry powder applied to open wounds.
Methods of ill—treatment included deprivation of sleep, food, water and
washing facilities. Psychological torture methods included threats of
execution and several forms of pressure. The following detailed cases were
reported:
(a) Zaw Mm , a physician aged 30, detained on 13 July 1989 at his home
in Insein by a group of soldiers and MIS personnel and taken to Ye Kyi Aing
detention centre, north of Yangon. According to a former detainee in that
centre Zaw Mm was, when he last saw him, emaciated and had marks of blows on
his body;
(b) Myo Myint , aged 26, a former soldier who had lost his right arm and
right leg after he stepped on a mine in 1987. He was reportedly arrested on
8 July 1989 at his home in Thauk—Kyant, north of Yangon and put in the custody
of the MIS, for suspected communist affiliation. Despite his serious war
injuries he was allegedly badly tortured;
(c) U Soe Myint , aged 50, leader of an opposition group, arrested in
mid—May 1989 by MIS personnel in Moulmeingyun. According to a person who saw
him in Bassein prison he had been severely tortured.
Nepal
Letters
126. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Nepal transmitting information alleging that in 1989 the
practices of arbitrary arrest without warrants and detention without formal
E /CN. 4/1991 / 17
page 40
charges, often leading to police brutality or torture, have increased.
According to detainees' testimonies, victims of such practices included
Nepalese Christians and members of other religious minorities such as
Protestant and Muslim, as well as other Nepalese citizens. The methods of
torture included beatings during interrogation, suspension by the feet,
threats of torture to extract confessions, and threats of rape or abuse
directed at the detainees' friends, family, or relatives. The Detention
Centre of Pokhara was frequently reported as a place where torture was being
practised. The cases of the following individuals who were allegedly tortured
were transmitted to the Government: Tir Bahadur Dewan, Babu Kazi and his son,
Ms. Pal Kuxn ri, Ms. Nira Khanal, Mr. Dhruva Thapalia, Mr. Jhalak Subedi,
Som Nath Pyasi, Daniodar Laniuchhane, Keshav Gin, Man Nath Timilsina,
Shakti Upadhyaya and Chandra Bahadur.
piia New Guinea
Letters
127. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Papua New Guinea transmitting information alleging that since
April 1989 the practice of torture and ill—treatment of detainees, sometimes
resulting in death, appeared to occur on the island of Bougainville, in the
context of a government campaign against an armed rebel group known as the
Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA). The situation reportedly deteriorated
after the declaration of the state of emergency on the island on
26 June 1989. Most of the victims were said to be suspected militants or
supporters of the BRA, and those alleged to be responsible for the abuses were
members of the police or military forces. The following cases were reported:
(a) Vincent Onari was detained on 24 November 1989 by members of the
Papua New Guinea Defence Force. He was reportedly beaten and then taken to
Army Camp 10 at Panguna. According to eyewitness reports Onani, who was
semi—conscious as a result of the beating, was thrown out of a military
vehicle to the ground, kicked and beaten with rifle butts and then shot four
times in the head. Officials at the Asawa General Hospital later confirmed
that he had been beaten before being shot dead;
(b) Siang Montoru and Aquila Pinoko were detained by Defence Force
soldiers on 21 November 1989. They were allegedly beaten until they were
unconscious and were later hospitalized in critical condition;
(c) Aloysius Minitong, a farmer in his mid—forties, was arrested on
7 December 1989 on suspicion of being a member of the BRA. He was first
detained briefly at Boku Police Station, where he reportedly received knife
cuts requiring stitches and where his knees were beaten until he could not
walk. After being transferred to Army Camp 10 at Panguna, he was said to have
been beaten and kicked in the head and body until he lost consciousness. He
was taken to hospital where eyewitnesses said he could not stand. The next
day he was reportedly taken to the Joint Forces Headquarters in Arawa, where
he was again beaten during questioning. He was finally jailed at the
Arawa Police Station where he was denied any medical attention.
Aloysius Minitong died in his cell on 28 December 1989.
El CN. /1991/17
page L 1
Peru
Urgent messages
128. On 5 January 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to the
Government of Peru concerning Victor Taype Z iga, President of the Peruvian
National Mining Federation, who was arrested on 20 November 1989 in
Huancav 1ica by members of the police. After having been held incommunicado
for two weeks at Technical Police Headquarters, Mr. Taype Z 1 iga was
transferred to Huancav 1ica Prison, where he is now being detained. While
being held at Technical Police Headquarters, he was allegedly severely beaten
and tortured with electric shocks. He was also reported to have been forced
to sign a statement incriminating himself and compelled to have his photograph
taken with sheets of propaganda in favour of the armed struggle.
129. On 11 October 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to the
Government of Peru concerning Mr. Constantino Saavedra Mu oz, secretary of the
Agricultural Federation, who was arrested by military personnel in his home in
the city of Ayacucho on 1 October 1990 and taken to Los Cabitos Military
Barracks, where he is being held incommunicado. It has been indicated that he
was arrested in July 1987 by civil defence officials and that, when he was
released, he had a broken arm and sores on his back from burns made with
lighted cigarettes. For this reason, there is concern about the security and
physical integrity of Constantino Saavedra Muiioz following his recent arrest.
130. On 2L October 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to the
Government of Peru concerning Mr. Victor Taype Zi iiga, President of the
Peruvian National Mining Federation. According to information received
recently, Mr. Taype Zt iiga was released on lL March 1990 after the
Huancav lica examining magistrate ordered that he should be released and that
the accusation against him for advocacy of terrorism should be withdrawn.
However, the Huancav lica Prosecutor ordered that the case should be re—opened
and issued a new arrest warrant. Since Mr Taype Z( ifiga was reportedly
subjected to severe torture during his detention in November 1989 at Technical
Police Headquarters in Huancav lica, including electric shocks, there is
concern about his security and physical integrity as a result of the new
arrest.
131. On 12 November 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent message to the
Government of Peru concerning the following persons: Jorge Lozano Vasquez,
Alejandro Pinedo Arce, Jos Garcia Saavedra, Dami n Flores Vela,
Warren Trigozo Garcia, Cesar Saavedra Grandez, Mauro Flores Sanchez,
Edgar Vilcarromero Tangoa, Hugo Garcia Rodriguez, Eleazar Garcia Armas and
Javier Tuanama Valera. According to the information received, these persons
were arrested between 16 and 21 October 1990 by members of the army and taken
to Mariscal C ceres Military Base in Tarapato, San Martin Province, where they
are still being held incommunicado. Concern has been expressed that they
might be tortured, since cases of torture reportedly occurred at that military
base in the past.
Letters
132. On 6 June 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of
Peru transmitting information on complaints of cases of torture, as described
below:
E/CN.4/1991117
page 42
(a) Am rico Le6n Ramirez, aged 30, student. Was arrested by military
personnel at his home on 18 April 1989. During his detention, he was
reportedly subjected to torture and ill—treatment, such as blows, electric
shocks to the ears and death threats. He was taken to Ayacucho General
Hospital with a fever and numbness in his feet that prevented him from walking;
(b) Albero L6pez Bautista, aged 39, resident of the town of
Pampagrande Iluayllay in Ayacucho. Was arrested by army personnel at his
home on 5 October 1989 and taken to a barracks, from which he managed to
escape on 7 October 1989. According to his testimony, he was arrested by
10 or 15 members of the army, who came into his house armed and hooded and
proceeded to tie his hands behind his back and beat and kick him. During his
detention, he was reportedly subjected to physical and psychological
harassment, received constant death threats and had his hands tied behind his
back the entire time;
(c) Gregorio Castellares Robles, Mayor of the Peasants' Community of
Carhuancho, San Pedro de Cons district, Churcampa province, Huancav lica
department. Was arrested by army personnel on 20 March 1989. As a result of
the torture he allegedly suffered during his detention, he had contusions on
the wrists, hip bones, lower back and calves; he also lost about 7 kilos and
was suffering from anxiety attacks, as stated in the medical certificate of
27 April 1989 provided by Dr. Juan Jara Salcedo at the General Hospital of
Cobriza Division, Centromin Peru (the Special Rapporteur received a copy of
the certificate);
(d) Dr. Carlos Reai o Carrasco, anaesthetist, was arrested on
16 September 1989 in Cajainarca by members of the National Police. He was
reportedly tortured for several consecutive days, both physically and
mentally, and threatened that his family would be attacked. As a result of
the torture he underwent, his right arm is seriously impaired, with a danger
of permanent damage and disability. The case has been reported to the
Attorney—General of the Nation (the Special Rapporteur received a copy of a
medical certificate dated 28 September 1989).
133. The Special Rapporteur also received copies of medical certificates
dated 29 and 30 November 1989 from the following persons: Juan Ancasi Dami n,
Braulio Zegarra Garcia, Edgar Buzaico Arroyo, Feliz Quispe Balb ,
Abd6n Acui a Asto and Oscar Pariona Clemente. They are all mine workers from
Morococha and La Oroya in Yanli province, Lima department, who were arrested
on 4 November 1989 by army personnel. They were allegedly tortured in army
barracks in Huancayo on 4 November 1989. According to the mec ical
examinations, they had been subjected to punishment and had injuries to
various parts of the body, possible fractures of the arms, bruises and
injuries caused by electric burns.
Philippines
Letters
134. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of the Philippines transmitting information alleging that the
practice of torture and ill—treatment of detainees was extensive in 1989. It
was alleged that such practice was resorted to in order to extract information
El CN.4 /1991 / 17
page 43
and confessions. The torture methods reportedly used included electric
shocks, beatings, rape, cigarette burns, water cure and deprivation of sleep.
Psychological torture methods allegedly included death threats directed at the
detainee or his family, isolation and inflicting torture on victims in the
presence of or within the hearing distance of family or friends. It was
further alleged that torture often took place during the first 24 hours of
detention, which was usually incommunicado. According to one report over
312 cases of torture occurred in the period 1 January to 14 November 1989. It
was alleged that at least one out of four persons detained for political
reasons had been physically tortured.
135. The Special Rapporteur received a list of 11 detainees who alleged having
been severely beaten and subjected to other forms of torture in the period
March to May 1989. It was reported that all had been examined by doctors
subsequent to the alleged torture and that the findings of the physical
examinations confirmed that the persons had been subjected to torture or
ill—treatment. OEeir names, age and places of detention were reported as
follows: Honorio Ayroso, aged 21, Rizal Provincial Gaol; Stanley Marvin
Pengzon, aged 22, Rizal Provincial Gaol; Marcelito Clemente, aged 31, Rizal
Provincial Gaol; Eduardo Bagtas, aged 30, Rizal PC—INP Stockade; Edgardo
Mamuntag, aged 24, Angeles City Gaol; Pedro Calilang, aged 42, Angeles City
Gaol; Steven Pasion, aged 24, Bataan Provincial Gaol; Wilf redo Pili, aged 36,
Bataan Provincial Gaol; Claudio Suangco, aged 23, Bataan Provincial Gaol;
Geronaga Malibi, aged 25, Bataan Provincial Gaol; Norberto Murillo, aged 32,
PC—CIS Headquarters Camp Crame, Quezon City.
136. In addition to the aforementioned it was reported that Jacinto Manaois,
aged 33, a trade unionist, was arrested on 20 October 1989 and taken to the
Northern Police District in Quezon City. It was reported that he later died
while in police custody, allegedly as a result of torture which included
electric shock treatment. The police claimed that Mr. Manaois was killed when
he tried to grab the weapon of one of his escorts. According to one report he
was shot while he was handcuffed.
137. It was also reported that Romeo Lanso, aged 25, was arrested on 4 May 1989
on suspicion of membership of the NPA (New Peop1e s Army) and other security
of fences. It was alleged that while in custody he was severely tortured, and
that as a result he confessed to the charges against him, and had to be
hospitalized twice for psychiatric treatment.
138. It was further reported that Isidro de Lima, aged 40, a suspected
communist rebel detained at Pasay City Police Headquarters, was forcibly taken
out from his cell on 12 April 1990 and was allegedly tortured for almost two
days by members of the Capital Regional Command (CAPCOM). Torture included
electric shocks. De Lima, who was arrested on 25 March 1989 had alleged
having been tortured during the first days of detention.
Republic of Korea
Letters and Government replies
139. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of the Republic of Korea transmitting information according to
which hundreds of trade union activists, students and political dissidents
El CN .4 / 1991 / 17
page 44
have been detained since April 1989. According to human rights lawyers the
two security agencies responsible for the wave of arrests were the Joint
Public Security Investigation Headquarters and the Agency for National
Security Planning. It was alleged by these lawyers that many of the detainea
were being held without warrants of arrests and were being prevented from
meeting their relatives and lawyers. This led to allegations by detainees
that they were tortured or ill—treated during their incommunicado detention.
Reported cases of alleged torture or ill—treatment included the following:
(a) Hwang Chong—su, one of a group of 15 striking workers in Changwon
and Masan who, in April 1989, alleged that they had been tortured by police
with electric shock batons. Hwang Chong—su allegedly required two weeks of
hospital treatment;
(b) Hong Song—dam, an artist and chairman of an artist federation in
Kwangju, was arrested on 31 July 1989 for suspected contacts with a
North Korean agent and for dissident artistic activity. He alleged having
been severely beaten and deprived of sleep. It was later reported that a
forensic pathologist, Prof. Lee Yun—song of the Seoul National University, had
given evidence to the court supporting the torture allegations;
Cc) Chong Ha—su, an artist, was arrested on 4 August 1989. Together
with two other artists — Cha Il—hwan and Paek Un—il — he was accused of having
painted a mural in South Korea describing the history of the dissident
movement in the country, and sending photographs of it to North Korea.
Chong Ha—au claimed he had been tortured to force him to confess that he knew
that Hong Song—dam (mentioned above) was an espionage agent;
(d) Kim Chong—hwan, aged 23, a student at Koonikin University. On
9 August 1989 he was allegedly abducted by three or four men, who blindfolded
and handcuffed him and then questioned him about the whereabouts of two other
students. When he replied that he did not know, his abductors, whom he later
claimed were military security officers, allegedly tied him to a tree, beat
him and then threw him into a hole, shovelled earth on him and threatened to
bury him alive. He was released several hours later. A spokesman of the
Ministry of National Defence reportedly confirmed on 30 August 1989 that two
military intelligence agents had participated in questioning Kim Chong—hwan,
but denied the allegation that he had been put into a hole and threatened with
being buried alive;
Ce) Suh Kyung—won, aged 53, an opposition member of the National
Assembly who, on 20 December 1989 was sentenced to 15 yearst imprisonment for
spying. It was reported that following a visit to North Korea, which he
himself reported, in June 1989, to the Agency for National Security Planning
(ANSP), Suh Kyung—won was interrogated until 17 July and then transferred to
Seoul Prison. It was alleged that during his interrogation period by the
ANSP, which lasted for 24 days, he was banned access to his lawyers and
relatives and was severely beaten and punched in the face and other parts of
the body. In his trial Suh Kyung—won said that the ANSP had forced him to
stay awake for 10 days and that the prosecution authorities did not allow him
to sleep for more than two hours a day;
E / CN .4/1991 / 17
page 45
(f) Pang Yang—Kyun, aged 34, Suh Kyung—won's political aide, who was
sentenced to seven years' imprisonment on similar charges, also alleged he had
been ill—treated during his interrogation. He said in his trial that he had
been subjected to beatings, death threats and sleep deprivation by the ANSP
and the prosecution. He also said that he had been forced under torture to
sign a statement agreeing not to disclose his ill—treatment by the ANSP.
140. On 7 September 1990 the Government of the Republic of Korea provided the
Special Rapporteur with the following information:
“Hwang Chong—Su . The officers who interrogated Hwang Chong—Su and others
deny having used electric shock batons. The other 8 workers among the
15 people, who were interrogated on the same day as Mr. Hwang, stated
that they had never been tortured by electric shock batons and that they
had not seen other workers being tortured or heard them screaming. On
20 December 1989, the police officers were cleared of the charges due to
the lack of evidence as shown above.
For further reference, it should be pointed out that Mr. Hwang stated in
his account of charges that he had never been hurt by or medically
treated for several forced contacts from electric shock batons and he
never presented any medical report with regard to his alleged injury.
Hong Sung—dam . On the day of his being remanded, Mr. Hong clearly
replied to the question by the public prosecutor concerning his health
that he had no physical problem and that he had never been treated
brutally but that he was in good health. The court also rejected the
complaint on his alleged torture. The complaint made by the family of
Mr. Hong, received by the Seoul District Prosecutor's Office, is now
under investigation, the result of which is expected to come out soon.
Chong Ha—Su . Mr. Chong is reported not to have alleged to the
prosecution that he had been tortured. Mr. Chong, during the trial
proceedings, admitted to facts that constitute a violation of the
National Security Law and at the same time Mr. Chong made no reference in
court to the alleged torture and brutalities. One would be convinced
that there never were any brutalities or torture done to Mr. Chong when
reminded of what Mr. Chong told his family and lawyers during his
interview with them on 14 August 1989, in the midst of the investigation
at the said agency; he said that he had not been forced to make a
statement or tortured.
Kim Chong—hwan . The military security officers assert that torture,
violence and threats were not made against Kim .Chong—hwan; it was later
revealed that two of the military security officers, Woo Jae Il and
Suk Lee Young, identified by Kim Chong—hwan as his abductors, were at
different locations during the said time; if Kim Chong—hwan was indeed
pushed into a hole where his abductors allegedly began to shovel earth on
him, then his clothes should have been stained with mud, as it rained on
9 August 1989. However, Kang 1k Soon, who saw Kim Chong—hwan during the
early hours on 10 August, testified that Kim's clothes had no such
stains. Kim Chong—hwan himself acknowledges this point, and on
14 August, five days after 9 August, Kim's father invited certain
officers of the military security unit to dinner at his residence, during
EICN .411991/17
page 46
which time neither Kim nor any of the members of his family raised the
issue of Kim's alleged torture. In the light of the aforementioned, it
is difficult to accept Kim's allegations of torture, and on
26 August 1990, Kim Chong—hwan, withdrew his complaint against the
military security officers from the Seoul Criminal District Court.
Consequently, it was concluded that the present case lacks factual basis
for initiation of a criminal proceeding against the named military
security officers.
Suh Kyung—won . His allegation of having been tortured seems to be aimed
at falsifying the confession he made to the prosecution, allegedly under
the pressure of torture. However, a few episodes during the
investigation of his case would instantly invalidate such an allegation.
During his interview of 19 August at the Seoul Detention Institution with
his attorneys including members of the National Assembly he also
clarified that he had never been forcibly administered medication though
he did complain about lack of sleep.
On this point, the first adjudication by the Seoul Criminal District
Court acknowledges that Mr. Suh had enough sleep during his stay with a
public prosecutor for interrogation and that he was interrogated in a
free atmosphere. As shown above, the charges made by Mr. Suh concerning
the alleged brutalities against him are inconsistent with each other.
Furthermore, the statements he made during the investigation turned out
to be true, not a false confession. Therefore, the complaint for alleged
torture is absolutely unacceptable.
Pang Yang—Kyun . During his interview with the lawyers of the prosecution
on 11 August 1989, Mr. Pang is reported to have admitted to the lawyers
criminal facts and made clear that he slept about six hours per day and
that he was never treated brutally. He also did not specify the
brutalities to which he alleged to have been subjected to the
prosecution. He also admitted to almost all the charges made against
him, which proves that his confession to the prosecution was not a forced
or false one.”
Saudi Arabia
Letters and Government replies
141. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Saudi Arabia transmitting a list of some 20 persons who were
recently sentenced to amputation of their right arm or hand after having been
convicted on various charges such as theft, larceny, gang robbery etc. Among
those sentenced to have their right arm amputated was Muhammad Kashi Ayash
Bin Zayd, a Yemeni national, who was convicted of robbery and theft. He had
his hand amputated on 29 September 1989. The list submitted to the Special
Rapporteur also included names of persons sentenced to imprisonment and
flogging (up to 800 lashes), for lesser crimes.
E ICN. 4/1991 / 17
page 47
142. On 4 December 1990 the Government of Saudi Arabia described the
allegations referred to above as “wrong, inaccurate and exaggerated”. In
particular, regarding the case of the Yemeni citizen Muhammad Kashi Ayash
Bin Zayd, it was affirmed that “the statement narrated by the said person is
groundless”. It was further stated that no sentence had ever been issued in
the history of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia to amputate an arm. “The Islamic
law stipulates that only the hand is amputated if the accusation is proved and
following a confession of the guilty. Moreover, the hand is amputated after
several repetitions of the crime and especially of valuables”.
Somalia
Urgent appeals
143. On 3 August 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Somalia concerning Mohamed Abmed Jaina, Zeinab Yusuf Omar,
aged 28, Abdullahi Yusuf Omar, (Zeinab Yusuf Omar's brother) aged 30,
and 16 unnamed persons. They were reportedly arrested on their arrival at
Mogadiscio International Airport on 22 July 1990 after they had been returned
to Somalia by the Italian authorities which refused their entry to Italy, and
detained at Godka prison. In view of several reports in the past that
detainees suspected of opposition to the Government were tortured at Godka
prison, fears were expressed that the above—mentioned persons might be at risk
of torture and ill—treatment.
Let tera
144. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Somalia transmitting information alleging that
Mohamoud Mohamed Mohamoud, aged 18, a student from Mogadiscio, was arrested
on 9 or 10 February 1990 by security officers and interrogated, allegedly
under torture, about the flight from the country, in July 1989, of his elder
brother who was suspected of anti—Government activity. On 11 February,
Mohamed Mohamoud was admitted to Digfer Hospital in Mogadiscio in a coma.
He died the next day. According to eyewitnesses he had blood coming out of
his ear.
South Africa
Urgent appeals
145. On 5 February 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of South Africa concerning Peter Mokaba, President of the
South African Youth Congress, who was detained on 27 January 1990 in Seshego
township near Pietersburg, reportedly by South African police. Mr. Mokaba was
said to be detained under section 29 of the Internal Security Act (ISA), under
which a detainee could reportedly be held in solitary confinement for an
unlimited period for the purpose of interrogation, without access to lawyers,
family or doctors, other than State officials. Mr. Mokaba had previously been
detained under Section 29 of the ISA from March 1988 to 25 June 1989 and he
subsequently alleged that while he was held in incommunicado detention he was
chained, assaulted and tortured by police.
E/CN.4 / 1991 / 17
page 48
146. On 26 February 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to th
Government of South Africa concerning eight persons who were arrested in
January 1990 and were reportedly being detained in police stations in or near
Pietersburg, Northern Transvaal. Their names and other details concerning
them were reported as follows: Peter Mabitsela, Donald Madisha (aged 25,
arrested on 17 January 1990 in Mahwelereng Township, Potgietersrus),
Frans Mathole (arrested on 31 January 1990), Paul Mathole (aged 21, arrested
on 31 January 1990), Joseph Manaka, Aubrey Ntsoane (aged 23, arrested on
16 January 1990), Jacob Rapholo (aged 29, arrested on 13 January 1990) and
Charles Seakamela (arrested on 19 January 1990). These persons were said to
be detained under Section 29 of the Internal Security Act, and fears were
therefore expressed that they may be at risk of torture or ill—treatment.
147. On 6 July 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of South Africa concerning Mr. Thabiso Radebe, a member of the
Tembisa Youth Congress. He was reportedly arrested in Tembisa Hospital,
Kempton Park, Johannesburg, on 18 June 1990. His lawyer was later informed by
police that Mr. Radebe was being held under Section 29 of the Internal
Security Act. Mr. Radebe had been detained previously between 1986 and 1989,
and was attacked and injured twice recently, by unidentified people, on
27 April and 15 June 1990. Fears have been expressed that he may be in danger
of being tortured while in police custody.
148. On 18 September 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of South Africa concerning Mr. “Mac” Maharaj, a member of the
National Executive Committee of the ANC, who was arrested on 26 July 1990 in
Johannesburg, shortly after he returned to the country under the Government—
proclaimed indemnity accorded to ANC leaders against the risk of arrest,
prosecution and detention. He was reportedly detained under section 29 of the
Internal Security Act. Mr. Maharaj had previously served 12 years in prison,
from 1964 to 1976. He was allegedly severely tortured in 1964, resulting in a
broken vertebra in the neck, a splinter in the skull and the loss of one eye.
He was released in 1976 and left the country. Reportedly Mr. Maharaj has been
seen on 12 September 1990 in the Saint Eden's Hospital in Durban, in traction
and in leg irons. According to one report Mr. Maharaj had to be hospitalized
after being subjected to torture during which his head was allegedly banged
against a wall. Fears have been expressed that, in the light of his poor
physical condition and the renewed allegations of torture or ill—treatment,
Mr. Maharaj's life may be in danger.
149. On 16 November 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of South Africa concerning Mangel Panchia, Kaelo Maropefela,
Silas Mbipa and Mandla Mgwetjane, who were arrested on 12 or 13 November 1990
in the Mafeking area, Bophuthatswana. According to the source cases of
assault against detainees by the Bophuthatswana security police have been
frequently reported and fears have therefore been expressed that the
above—mentioned persons might be tortured while in detention.
Spain
Letters and Government replies
150. On 13 March 1990, the Government of Spain sent the Special Rapporteur a
reply to his letter of 14 November 1989 (E/CN.4/1990/l7, para. 138) containing
the following information: “The detention of Jos Askasibar Aperribai took
E /CN. 4/1991 / 17
page 49
place when he was expelled from France and turned over to the Spanish
authorities as an alleged member of the ETA terrorist group. He was
immediately taken to Civil Guard barracks in San Sebasti n, El Antiguo
district; at no time was he detained in the Intxaurrondo barracks. On
5 October 1987, he was given an examination by the forensic physician of the
National High Court. A medical report was issued following the examination.
The medical certificate, whose contents were made public, states that
Askasibar ‘refuses to answer questions about the treatment he received during
his detention', and that the physical examination refers to ‘good general
condition' and, slight bruising on the left wrist caused by the rubbing of the
handcuffs. ‘There is no other type of violence'. On 7 and 8 October 1987,
proceedings were initiated for the prisoner s statement and photographic
identifications, which he signed after having read them and found them in
order, without ever complaining of ill—treatment. At 11.20 a.m. on 8 October,
the proceedings and the prisoner were referred to the judge of Central
Examining Court No. 1 (National High Court, Madrid), where the statement which
was made contained allegations of torture without any details as to what it
involved and without any questions or clarifications by Mr. Gorostiza, counsel
appointed by the prisoner himself. All this may be clearly explained by the
fact that such allegations are frequently made by prisoners when the aim is to
nullify a statement which was made voluntarily to officials of the State
Security Forces and is incriminating, even if there is r o basis in fact for
it. Thus, a further medical examination was conducted the same day a the
forensic physician of the National High Court issued a medical report, which
is also referred to in the above—mentioned records, and as far as could be
determined, includes the following: His medical condition is normal and,
physically, he has scrapes on both wrists which are typical of handcuffs and
welts about three or four days old on the left hip bone, without any mark
enabling their cause to be determined. He does not have any other type of
injuries and is able to dress and undress completely normally without any sign
of pain'. The investigating authorities express their agreement and state
that the prisoner was never subjected to the treatment referred to in the
Special Rapporteur's letter and that they have no knowledge that either
Askasibar or any legal representative appointed on his behalf has filed a
complaint for ill—treatment in any of the three examining courts in
San Sebasti n.''
151. With regard to Mr. Fernando Egileo Ituarte, the second person referred to
in the letter sent by the Special Rapporteur, the Police Department reported
that: “According to the communication by the Bilbao Police Headquarters,
Examining Court No. 4 in that city took preliminary steps as a result of
Mr. Egileo Ituarte's complaint of injuries which were apparently inflicted on
him on 14 December 1988 at Arenal Bridge and Navarra de Bilbao Street. At
8 p.m. on 14 December 1988, during the general strike called by a number of
trade unions, members of the National Police had to step in to restore public
order, which was disturbed when rebellious groups set up barricades and
carried out attacks on police officers in the area of Casco Viejo, Arenal and
Navarra de Bilbao Street, Order was restored at 9 p.m., when the National
Police withdrew. There is evidence that, at the time when the complainant
states that he was beaten, all the police officers involved had returned to
their base. In the files at Bilbao Headquarters, there is no record of
intervention or arrests by any police units at the times when the complainant
says that he was attacked. On the orders of Examining Court No. 4 in Bilbao,
investigations were conducted to shed light on the facts, with the
above—mentioned results.
E /CN.4/l991 / 17
page 50
152: On 10 August 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Spanish
Government transmitting information concerning Mr. Henri Parot Navarro,
aged 32, of French nationality, who was arrested by members of the National
Guard on 2 April 1990 in Seville and accused of collaborating with ETA. He
was held incommunicado for five days, first in the Civil Guard barracks in
Seville and later in the Civil Guard barracks in Madrid. During this time, he
was reportedly subjected to torture and ill—treatment, including beatings,
suffocation and being made to stay awake. On 7 April 1990, he was transferred
to Carabanchel Prison in Madrid and, on 10 April 1990, to Herrera de la Mancha
Prison in Ciudad Real, where he is still being held. In both prisons, he was
kept in a small isolated cell and subjected to ill—treatment. According to
the sources, Mr. Parot was brought on 7 April 1990 before Central Criminal
Court No. 4 of the National High Court, where he complained of the torture and
ill—treatment he had suffered. On 11 April 1990, he repeated his complaints
to a French judge in the same court.
153. On 10 September 1990, the Spanish Government informed the Special
Rapporteur that Mr. Parot Navarro was arrested in Seville on 2 April 1990
during a road check when he was driving a car full of large amounts of
explosives and battery clocks to be used as detonators. When he was arrested,
he put up a fight and fired a shot, wounding a Civil Guard. It is also
reported that: “As stated below by the forensic physician of Examining Court
No. 17 in Seville, not only was there no sign that he had been subjected to
torture or ill—treatment, but the report expressly recognizes his good
physical condition and his statement that he was not ill—treated. On
3 April 1990, he was examined again by the forensic physician of Court No. 4,
who found no signs of torture or ill—treatment. According to file No. 7
of 1989 of the above—mentioned Court, a further examination of Parot Navarro
by the forensic physician of Court No. 4 on 5 April 1990 showed no signs of
torture or ill—treatment. On 6 April 1990, he was again examined by the same
forensic physician and he continued to be in good health, without any signs of
torture or ill—treatment. At the end of his lengthy statement to the judge of
Central Court No. 4 in Madrid, Mr. Parot stated, in reply to the defence
counsel, that, while he was being detained, they put a plastic bag over his
head, pulled his hair, threatened him and his family with death and gave him a
syringe containing AIDS. From the time of his arrest and in accordance with
Spanish criminal procedure, he had the assistance of defence counsel. File
No. 7 of 1989 of Central Examining Court No. 4 does not refer to the
institution of proceedings in connection with the alleged terrorist's
statement that he was subjected to ill—treatment. This may be the result of
Mr. Parot's way of referring to the ill—treatment, the time at which he did
so, the nature of such treatment and the evidence of his good physical
condition in the various reports based on the examinations made by the
forensic physicians in Seville and Madrid. With regard to the allegation that
Mr. Parot was held in a small isolated cell and was subjected to ill—treatment
in prisons, the complaint is also not true. As the attached reports show,
Parot Navarro never complained of ill—treatment and there is no sign that can
be taken as constituting ill—treatment. On the contrary, Parot Navarro is
being given preferential treatment and, as a result of a specific suicide
prevention programme, he has been recovering from the depression from which he
was found to be suffering when he went to prison. This preferential treatment
is also obvious from the fact that he is moved from one cell to another so.
that he will not be bothered by the noise made by the outside guards when they
change shifts”.
E/CN.4/l991/17
page 51
Sri Lanka
Urgent appeals
154. On 6 July 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent un urgent appeal to the
Government of Sri Lanka transmitting information concerning Mr. K.A. George,
a lawyer and human rights activist from Colombo, who was arrested on
29 June 1990, reportedly for sending information abroad about the human rights
situation in the country. He is said to be currently held incommunicado in
Bambalapitiya police station in Colombo, and fears have been expressed that he
may be subjected to torture or ill—treatment while in detention.
Sudan
155, On 28 November 1990 the Government of Sudan provided the Centre for Human
Rights with two lists. The first one contained 345 names of political
Jetainees, their date of arrest (most of them in the second half of 1989) and
date of release (from July 1989 to August 1990). The second list contained
21 names of prisoners and detainees released on the occasion of the
celebrations of the 21 October 1964 Revolution.
rgent appeals
:L56, On 31 January 1990 the special Rapperteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Qovernment of Sudan concerning Yousif 3ussein Mohammed Al—Amin, aged 48, a
feologist and leading member of the Sudanese communist party, who was detained
y the military authorities on 13 January 1990. According to the information
ceived Nr. Hussein who suffers from heart disease and other serious health
,rohlems, was subjected to torture. Fears were expressed that his life was in
fanger. It was further reported that a number of medical doctors 9 members of
IIe Sudanese Medical Association, were arrested following strikes in
November 1989. One of them, Dr. Mamoun Mohamned Hussein, aged 55, President
of the Trade Union Assembly and the Sudanese Medical Association, arrested
on 1 December 1989, was allegedly severely tortured and had to be
hospitalized. He was report2diy sentenced to death on 10 December 1989. Some
of the other doctors arrested following the strikes were the following:
Dr. Said Mohammed Abdailah, Dr. el Sheikh Kensh, Dr. Alfateh Mohammed
l Sayed, Dr. Abmed El Teigani El Taher, Dr. Hasan Shehata, Dr. Mohammed Abdel
Kader Helal and Dr. Mohy Omar Hamza.
157. On 18 April 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
3overnment of Sudan concerning the following persons: Major Amnaya,
Lieutenant Arkanjelo, Mario Chocho, Adelio Ikwada, Franco Mayo, Martin Odeki,
Francis Oliha, Mauro Omodok, Dr. Monytuoc Biong, Arop Madut Arop and
Arop Bagat. The first eight of the aforementioned were reported to have been
arrested around 20 February 1990 and to have been detained since that date
without charge or trial at the army barracks in Juba . The reason for the
arrest was believed to be their suspected links with, or support for the
opposition Sudan Peopl&s Liberation Army (SPLA). Dr. Monytuoc Biong, a
medical doctor, was reportedly arrested on 13 March 1990 in Khartoum and was
said to be held incommunicado without having been charged with any offence.
Some of his relatives were said to be SPLA members. Arop Madut Arop and Arop
Bagat, both journalists based in Juba, were reportedly arrested in
mid—March 1990, and were being held in Kober prison in Khartoum. It was
E /CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 52
alleged that prisoners suspected of supporting the SPLA had been tortured
while detained at army barracks. It was further alleged that more than
40 people arrested in November and December 1989 were tortured by members of
the security service while being detained in safe houses and interrogation
centres in Khartoum.
158. On 20 April 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Sudan concerning the former Prime Minister, Mr. Sadiq Al Mahdi.
It was reported that following his release from Kober prison he was now under
house arrest in Al—Riyadh suburb, Khartoum. It was alleged that on
13 April 1990 the house was put under heavy military guard, Mr. Sadiq Al
Mahdi's family was ordered to evacuate the house and he was confined to one
closed room. It was further alleged that Mr. Sadiq Al Mahdi, who was
reportedly in poor health, suffering in particular from serious eye problems,
was not allowed to receive visits by his opthalmologist and was being denied
medicine, such as analgesics and tranquillizers. He was also allegedly denied
food.
159. On 1 May 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Sudan concerning Alfred Taban, a journalist, who was arrested in
Khartoum on 31 March 1980, and has reportedly been held incommunicado, without
charge, since that date. Fears have been expressed that he may be tortured
while in detention.
160. On 7 May 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Sudan concerning Abderrahman Farah, a former security adviser
who was arrested in late March 1990 for alleged conspiracy to overthrow the
Government. It was reported that after his arrest he was detained at
Jabal Awliya barracks, but was later taken to a secret detention centre in
Khartoum, reportedly located at the former office of the national elections
committee. It was alleged that Mr. Farah had been tortured and severely
beaten, as a result of which he suffered a serious internal haemorrhage. He
was reported to be in a very critical condition.
161. On 15 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Sudan concerning a group of over 20 people who were arrested in
Khartoum in early and mid—May 1990 and have since been held incommunicado.
Those detained reportedly included former ministers and parliamentarians,
university lecturers and medical doctors, most of whom were said to be members
of the Umma Party and supporters of the Democratic Alliance. The names of
10 of these persons were reported as following: Abu Zeid Mohamed Saleh,
Dr. Bashir Omar, Babiker Digna, Au Al—'Omda, Mekki Al—Massiba,
Dr. Farah Hassan Adam, Dr. ‘Abdin Mohamed Zein Al—'Abdin, Dr. Salma Shwaya,
Fatma Al—Ginayed, and Dr. Osama Abderrabmane Al—Nur. Information was also
received on conditions prevailing in the prison of Shallah, in Dafur Region,
where 71 persons, including politicians, trade unionists, lawyers and members
of other professional groups, were said to be held incommunicado for several
months. It was alleged that the prison was situated in a desert area 1,600 km
from Khartoum and that all the detainees were kept in two medium—sized wards.
It was further alleged that the quality of food and water was very poor,
sanitary conditions were insufficient and medical assistance was unavailable.
E/ CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 53
162. On 6 July 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Sudan concerning Sadiq Al—Shami, Omar Muhajir Muhaxnmadine,
Abd Al—Muttaleb, Shams Eddine and Mohamed Diya Eddine, members of the
Socialist Arab Baath Party in Sudan, who were arrested around 23 May 1990 in
Khartoum. They are reportedly currently held incommunicado, without charge,
at a secret detention centre near the Army s headquarters. Sadiq A1—Shanii had
been detained in the past on two occasions, from August to November 1989, and
again in December 1989. During the second period he was allegedly severely
tortured at a secret detention centre in Khartoum. Fears have been expressed
that the five above—mentioned persons may be subjected to torture or
ill—treatment.
163. On 26 July 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Sudan referring to his cable dated 6 July 1990 concerning five
members of the Socialist Arab Baath Party in Sudan who were reportedly
arrested around 23 May 1990 in Khartoum. The Special Rapporteur has been
informed of the complete names of the third and fourth of these persons, which
were reported as Abd Al—Muttaleb Mohamed Osmane and Shams Eddine Abdallah
Khalil, respectively. in addition to the aforementioned, the names of 14 more
members of the same party were reported as being among a group of 46 persons
who were arrested since 23 June 1990 in Khartoum and Atbara, in Northern
Sudan. Their names were reported as follows: Dr. Mohaoeed Hassan Pasha,
Mohamed Hassan Khalid, Ahmed Abdel Nabi, Salah Mukhtar Al—Khatib,
Majdi Abdelmajid, Adel Khalafallah, Mohained Hamad, Yahya Moharned Al—Hussein,
Ibrahim Mohamed Saleh, Babiker Moussa, Mohamed Aft Daoud, A1—Fatah Al—Mardi,
Al—Tijani Hussein and Mohamed Haji. It was alleged that all the members of
the group, including the above—mentioned, were being held incommunicado,
without charge, at unofficial detention centres in Khartoum, and fears have
been expressed that they may be subjected to torture or ill—treatment.
164. On 19 September 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Sudan concerning Mokhtar Abdallah, a trade union activist,
Abdelaziz Mohamed Salmane, a businessman aged 46, and Mohaxned Oinar
Al—Mirghani, a retired senior civil servant in his sixties. It was reported
that Mr. Abdallah was arrested in late August 1990 and that Mr. Salmane and
Mr. Al—Mirghani were arrested on 4 September 1990 by members of the security
services. All three are said to be held incommunicado in a secret detention
centre in Khartoum, without having been charged with any offence, and fears
were expressed that they may be in danger of being tortured or ill—treated.
165. On 12 November 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Sudan concerning Professor Moneim Attia, a scientist aged 48,
who was arrested on 13 January 1990. it was alleged that he was severely
tortured while in detention in a safe house, from the day of his arrest until
6 February 1990. He was then transferred to the Shallah prison, near
El Fasher, where he is still being held, reportedly without charge or trial.
It was further alleged that conditions in the Shallah Prison, which is located
in the desert, are extremely harsh; the quantity of food and water
insufficient and the quality, when available, very poor. Professor Attia
reportedly went on an unlimited hunger strike on 1 October 1990 to protest his
detention conditions, and fears have been expressed that his health and even
his life, may be in danger.
E/CN.4/1991/17
page 54
Letters
166. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Sudan transmitting information alleging that over 40 people who
were arrested in November and December 1989 had recently been tortured by
members of the security service while detained in secret “safe houses” and
interrogation centres in Khartoum. The alleged victims included trade union
activists, medical doctors, lawyers and human rights.activists. The cases of
the following individuals, who were allegedly tortured, were transmitted to
the Government: Ali al—Mahi al—Sakhi, Magdi Mohammed Suleiman,
Kamal Abulgasim, Magoub al—Zubair, Hashem Babiker Tollob, Saleh Ismail,
Al—Sadik Al—SI -imi, Dr. Mekki Ismail, Mahinoud Mukhtar and Tank Al—Sheikh.
167. It was further reported that several medical doctors, including
Dr. Gaafer Mohammed Salih, Dr. Gamal Abdallah, Dr. Babiker Mohammed Badri, and
Dr. Mohammed Al—Hassan Harnid, had been arrested and tortured in the wake of a
strike called by the banned Sudanese Medical Association in November 1989.
The doctors were allegedly tortured in a secret place and then transferred to
Kober prison.
168. In addition to the aforementioned, the Special Rapporteur received a list
of 37 members of the Sudanese Professional and Technician Trade Unions
Federation who were arrested during the period mid—October 1989 to
mid—January 1990, and who were allegedly tortured while in detention. Their
names were reported as follows: Dr. Mainoun M. Hussein, Dr. Sayed M. Abdalla,
Dr. M.A Elgadir Hilal, Dr. Hainouda Fateh Errahman, Dr. Elshiekh Kenaish,
Dr. Angog Gorden, Dr. Tang Isma l, Dr. Yahia Omer Hamza,
Dr. Babiker M. Badoi, Dr. Carnal Al Ralunan Sid Ahined, Eng. Hashim
Mohamed Ahrned, Eng. Ibrahim Nasreddin, Eng. Saleh Al Rabman El Nagib,
Eng. El Amin Suliman Alalla, Eng. Alalla Beshir Abu Sag, Eng. Alalla El Sunni,
Mr. Nasr Eddin Nur Eddaim, Mr. Al Shakh El Khidir, Mr. Al Gaul M. Hassan,
Mr. Tariq El Sherkh, Mr. Al Moniem M. Salih, Mr. Gasim M. Alalla,
Dr. Mansour Ishag Israil, Dr. Nasri Morgos, Dr. Nasr M. Hussein,
Dr. Al Rahmen El Rashid, Dr. Farouk M. Ibrahim, Dr. Kamal Al—Rashid,
Eng. Abdel Kabir Adam Abdel Kabir, Dr. Ahrned Abdel Mula, Dr. Medani Abmed Isa,
Dr. Khalid Yagi, Professor Riadh Bayumi, Dr. A. Rabman El Zaki,
Dr. Khalil El Dareer, Dr. El Fatih Omer El Sid and Dr. El Fatih Malik.
169. It was further reported that Dr. AU. Fadul, aged 35, member of the Sudan
Doctors Union, who was arrested in March 1990, has recently died in prison,
allegedly as a result of torture.
Syrian Arab Republic
Urgent appeals and Government replies
170. On 12 January 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Syrian Government concerning four Palestinians who were reportedly arrested by
the Syrian Security Forces in Lebanon and were currently in detention in
Syria. Their names were reported as follows: General Hassan Dib Khalil (also
known as Abu Ta'an), arrested in the Tripoli region in 1983; Colonel Fayez
Arafat, arrested in Beirut in November 1985; Lieutenant Colonel Diab Muhammad
Mustafa (also known as Abu Fateh), arrested in Beirut in July 1985; and
Muhammad Dawud (also known as Abu Dawud), arrested in 1985. They have
E / CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 55
reportedly been detained without charge or trial in the military interrogation
branch in Damascus. According to the information received all four were
suffering from injuries, allegedly resulting from torture and from ailments
contracted as a result of prolonged detention and poor prison conditions, In
particular, it was reported that Diab Muhammad Mustafa was suffering from
septicaemia (blood poisoning) and that his life was feared to be in danger.
It was also alleged that all four had been denied medical treatment, as well
as family visits since their arrest.
171. On 28 May 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the Syrian
Government concerning Samir Haddad, a civil engineer aged 33, and
Youssef Ghaith, a student aged 27. Both were reportedly arrested at the end
of March 1990 in Yabrud (Al --Nabk), north of Damascus, by members of the
political security force. Both were reported to be held at present in unknown
detention centres. Sainir Haddad was reportedly admitted to hospital in
Damascus in a grave condition due to an acute kidney failure, Serious concern
has been expressed regarding both men s physical integrity following reports
that another man who was arrested with them, named as Munir Fransis, a civil
engineer aged 30, died in Al—Muwass&a civil hospital in Damascus on 14 or
15 April 1990 after suffering internal bleeding, allegedly as a result of
torture.
172. On 27 July 1990 the Government replied that the competent authorities
have indicated that the two above—mentioned persons were arrested on security
grounds and have been duly referred to the competent courts.
Turkey
Jrent appeals and Government replies
173. On 10 January 1990 the Government of Turkey sent a letter to the
Special Rapporteur in reply to his urgent appeal dated 11 December 1989
(E/CN.4/l990/l7, para. 162), providing detailed information on the
circumstances of arrest and charges against the persons mentioned in the
appeal (except for Musa Erdogan, who was not known to the relevant security
authorities), and several others who were not mentioned in the appeal but were
also taken into custody on similar charges. It is affirmed that following a
thorough examination of the situation of these persons it was established that
they had not been subjected to any form of ill—treatment,
74. On 24 January 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Turkey concerning nine persons, six women and three men, who
were detained on 9 January 1990 by members of the security forces in Ankara,
and have since been held in incommunicado detention at Ankara police
eadquarters. The female detainees were reported to be members of the
Association of Democratic Women (DEM} D). Their names were reported as
follows: Hatice Arikan (President of Demkad), Meryem Topcu, Solmaz Pekin,
Gamze Unal, Zehra Pekin and Aytul Yaganoglu. The three men were TJfuk Gurbuz,
Yavuz Kilic and Metin Turan. It was alleged that the detainees had been
interrogated under torture, particularly during the first days of detention.
It was further alleged that the male detainees in particular had been
subjected to severe torture. Ufuk Gurbuz, who was said to be suffering from a
kidney disease, was allegedly stripped naked, hosed down with cold water and
given electric shocks.
E /CN.4 1l991/17
page 56
175. On 22 March 1990 the Government of Turkey provided detailed information
about the past activities of and the present charges against the n ne
above—mentioned persons. It was affirmed that the competent authorities had
thoroughly examined the allegations concerning these persons and had
established that they had not been subjected to any form of ill—treatment
while in custody. These findings were reportedly confirmed by medical reports
176. On 12 February 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appLal to Lhe
Government of Turkey concerning Ahinet Alkan, Mehmet Kulaksiz and Omer Cakmak.
All three were reportedly detained at the end of January 1990, presumably in
connection with suspected membership of the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK), and
have since been held incommunicado at Diyarbakir Police headquarters.
177. On 15 March 1990 the Government of Turkey informed the Special Rapporteur
that Ahinet Alkan and Mehxnet Kulaksiz were brought before the Public Prosecutor
of the Diyarbakir State Security Court on 8 February 1990 and released after
the audience pending trial. Omer Cakmak was neither taken into custody nor
interrogated. It was affirmed that the competent authorities had thoroughly
examined the situation of the two ex—detainees and had established that they
had not been subjected to any form of ill—treatment while in detention. Those
findings were reportedly confirmed by medical reports.
178. On 5 March 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Turkey concerning Sirvan Sasar, aged 20, and Metin Aytas. The
two were detained in Istanbul on or around 13 February 1990 and were later
transferred to Tunceli police headquarters, in Eastern Turkey, where they were
reportedly being held incommunicado and interrogated on suspected illegal
political activity in the province. It was reported that Tunceli was
currently under a state of emergency, which made it possible to extend the
initial detention period before being formally charged or released for up
to 30 days.
179. On 29 March 1990 the Government of Turkey provided the Special Rapporteur
with detailed information about the past activities and the criminal record of
the two above—mentioned persons. It was affirmed that the competent
authorities had thoroughly examined the allegations concerning these persons
and had established that they had not been subjected to any form of
ill—treatment while in detention. Those findings were reportedly confirmed by
medical reports.
180. On 6 July 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Turkey concerning the following persons: Muzaffer Tekes,
Guzel Ak, Ramazan Karaarslan, Ramazan Kahrainaner, Sukru Kahraxnaner,
Aziz Karakas, Melunet Demirel, Mebmet Diren, Zeki Budak, Abmet Atesli,
Seyfettin Dilekce, Talip Nusral and Zulkuf Ozer. It was reported that the
above—mentioned, and several other persons, were detained in Diyarbakir and
Silvan during the night of 24 to 25 June 1990, apparently in connection with
their activity for a magazine called Medya Gunesi. They are reportedly
currently held incommunicado either in Diyarbakir police headquarters or at
the headquarters of the “Anti—Riot Police” in Diyarbakir, and fears have been
expressed that they might be tortured in order to extract a confession that
they were members of an illegal organization.
E / CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 57
181. On 3 August 1990 the Government replied that the 13 persons concerned
were taken into custody in Diyarbakir and Silvan during operations carried out
in relation with the activities of the “terrorist organization called PKK”.
All were treated in accordance with the legislation and released by the
Diyarbakir State Security Court after the completion of investigations. “The
competent authorities have established, after thorough examination, that the
persons in question have not been subjected to any form of ill—treatment while
in detention. These findings are confirmed by medical reports.”
182. On 26 July 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Turkey concerning the following persons: Hasan Beksek,
M. Emin Kardes, Ismail Ay, Hanifi Yildiz, Zahit Bozaslan, Omer Kaplan,
Resat Tunc, Abdullah Soysal Kenan Kizil, Huseyin Ekmen and
Abdulcelil Kaplan. The above—mentioned persons were reportedly arrested on
19 July 1990, together with several others, including former political
prisoners, and are being held incommunicado either at Diyarbakir police
headquarters or by the Anti—Riot Police in Diyarbakir. Fears have been
expressed that they may be interrogated under torture.
183. On 20 November 1990 the Government of Turkey provided the following
information about the situation of the above—mentioned persons:
Zahit Bozaslan and Resat Tunc were released on 1 August 1990. “Reports of the
Diyarbakir Forensic Medical Department confirm that (they) were not subjected
to any kind of ill—treatment under detention and interrogation. None of
(them) filed a complaint against the relevant authorities for having been
subjected to torture. As regards Emin Kardes, Abdullah Soysal, Ismail Ay,
Hasan Beksek, Omer Kaplan and Huseyin Ekmen (of whom the latter was released
on 20 July 1990, and the others were charged), all were duly examined by
doctors. Medical reports confirm that their physical and mental integrity was
not offended”. None of them filed a complaint or made a statement to the
contrary. Hanifi Yildiz was released on 3 August 1990. Kenan Kizil and
Abdulcelil Kaplan are at large, and are sought by the police for alleged
connections with terrorist organizations.
184. On 13 August 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Turkey concerning the following persons: Siddik Tan,
Abcjulhadi Celik, Metin Tan, Rezan Tan, Emin Ekinci, Emin Ergin, Salih Aktan,
Emin Guven, Zeynel Abidin Celik, Mehmet Tasan, Ramazan San, Mahmut Atlir,
Faysal Celik, Hayrettin Celik and Adem Gokinen. The first two aforementioned
persons were reportedly arrested on or around 18 July 1990. Their detention
period was reportedly extended on 26 July 1990 for another 15 days. All the
others, together with another five detainees whose names were not reported,
were reportedly arrested on or around 31 July 1990. All were detained in
Batman and were later taken to Siirt Regimental Gendarmerie Headquarters,
where they have been held incommunicado. It was alleged that in recent years
many of the detainees named above had been subjected to torture and fears were
therefore expressed that they may be interrogated under torture.
185. On 20 November 1990 the Government of Turkey provided detailed
information about the following persons: Siddik Tan, Metin Tan, Rezan Tan,
Abdulhadi Celik, Emin Ekinci, Emin Ergin, Salih Aktan, Ramazan Salt,
Mehmet Tastan, Mehmet Atlig, Faysal Celik, Hayrettin Celik, Adem G ikmen,
Hasan Tiftik, Muhittin Tekin and Nedim Kaya (as to the other two persons
mentioned in the urgent appeal, Emin Guven and Zaynel Abidin Celik, it was
El CN .4/1991 / 17
page 58
stated that “no person bearing one of these two names was detaine ) ix
the above—mentioned persons, Siddik Tan and Hasan Tiftik, were arre t I
charged. Charges were also filed against six others, who were released
pending trial. The charges against the remaining eight were dropped. It w
stated that “as confirmed by medical reports, none of the above—mentioned
persons was subjected to ill—treatment while in detention. The competent
authorities have not received from these persons any complaint of
ill—treatment.”
186, On 28 November 1990 the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Turkey concerning Imam Fidan, Nazam Celikier and Mustafa Eser
(the latter two were reported to be the Secretary and the Chairman,
respectively, of an association called Karder), who were detained in their
homes in Istanbul by the police on 14 November 1990 and are reported to be
held inconiniunicado at Istanbul police headquarters. It was reported that
their lawyer was refused access to them in spite of a permission granted to
him by a prosecutor to visit his client. The Special Rapporteur's attention
has also been drawn to the case of Ibrahim Sahin who was detained on
16 November 1990 and was reportedly seen being beaten by several police
officers during his detention. He had reportedly been imprisoned and tortured
on numerous previous occasions. In addition to the aforementioned, several
other persons were reportedly detained in Istanbul on the same dates and are
also said to be held incommunicado at Istanbul police headquarters. Their
names were reported as follows: Imani Dogus, Ibrahim Dogus, AliDogus,
Nurten Demir, Au Tasozu, Mithat Zafer, Nihat Ozcan, Zaynep Polat, Leyla Polat
and Sengul Mert. Fears have been expressed that the above—mentioned persons
might be subjected to torture during interrogation.
Letters and Government replies
187. On 5 January 1990 the Government of Turkey sent a letter to the Special
Rapporteur in reply to his letters dated 19 April, 19 July and 14 November 1989
(E/CN.4/199O/l7, paras. 154, 157 and 161 respectively).
(a) With regard to the case of Ali Kent (para. 154) the Turkish
Government provided the following information: “The relevant Turkish
authorities have carefully examined the allegation of ill—treatment concerning
Mr. Ali Kent. They have observed that the allegation did not contain any
information on the real motives behind the imprisonment of Mr. All Kent and
attempted to distort the facts by raising irrelevant and unfounded claims.
Mr. Au Kent has been sentenced to 15 years of heavy imprisonment because of
treason to national security. ... The case of Ali Kent has been dealt with in
conformity with the existing laws. However, the Government is not in a
position to disclose further information, because of the confidential
character of the case”;
(b) With regard to the cases transmitted by letter dated 19 July 1989
(para. 157) the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that: 31 persons
(including 20 whose names were mentioned in the Special Rapporteur's letter)
were taken into custody on serious charges including the wounding of a police
officer, participation in armed criminal conspiracy and opening fire in public
places. Six persons who have been detained under custody from 15 to
22 May 1989 were arrested in accordance with a Court decision; other persons
were released, pending further investigation, and the other accused persons
E / CN .4 / 1991 / 17
page 59
were acquitted. “The competent authorities have thoroughly examined the
situation of the above—mentioned persons and have established that they have
not been subjected to any form of ill—treatment”;
(c) With regard to the cases transmitted by letter dated
14 November 1989 (para. 161) the Government provided the following information:
“Mr. Ahmet Cantay was sought since 1986, for affiliation to and
participation in the activities of an outlawed organization. He has been
caught on 18 September 1989 in Kapikule border gate while leaving
Turkey. He has been taken into custody and transferred to Ankara
Security Department. After the completion of the preliminary
investigation, he has been brought before the Ankara State Security Court
where the Public Prosecutor decided to release Mr. Abmet Cantay, pending
trial.
Mr. Ahmet Cantay has been taken through a medical examination by the
Forensic Medicine Institute, as the result of which no indication of
ill—treatment has been found.
As regards the four other persons mentioned in the
Special Rapporteur's letter, more detailed information is needed on the
identity of persons involved as well as on the place where the alleged
cases of mistreatment have occurred, in order to carry out the necessary
investigation”;
d) As regard the case of Messrs. Mehinet Yal inkaya and HUsnU Eroglu,
referred to in the same letter (para. 161), the Government provided a copy of
a letter it sent to Mr. A. Wako, Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary
Executions, who had also inquired about these persons. Relevant excerpts of
that letter read as follows:
“Messrs. Mehmet Yal inkaya and UjisnU Eroglu are two of the inmates
who tried to escape from the Eskisehir Prison by excavating two tunnels
3—4 metres below ground of 30—40 metres length. The authorities have
discovered these tunnels on 22 June 1989 and decided to temporarily
transfer the inmates to other prisons.
On 29 June 1989, the inmates in question, including
Messrs. Mehmet Yal inkaya and HUsnU Eroglu, launched a hunger
strike . ... The prisoners continued the hunger strike at the prison to
which they had been moved. it is regrettable that two losses of life
(Mehmet Yal inkaya and Hfrsnii Eroglu) occurred during this hunger
strike which lasted 52 days.
It is alleged that the prisoners in question had been transported to
the Aydin Prison under harsh conditions. The doctors examined the said
persons prior to their departure from the Eskisehir Prison and
established that they had no health problem which could prevent them from
being transported to the Aydin Prison.
E / CN. 4/1991/17
page 60
The inmates, including the two persons in question were t ker fr t
Aydin Prison in usual transportation vehicles. The conv v w
by an ambulance carrying two physicians who examined the inmates
times on the way to Aydin. No case of mistreatment occurred diir , t i
transportation.
A team composed of four qualified physicians made a
post—mortem examination and subsequently prepared an autopsy e ,ori t- ner:
the following is stated: ‘The death of Mr. Yal inkaya and r. Ero lu
been the result of a state of shock and coma. This has be n ca sed
dehydration and ketosis related to hunger and thirst”.
188. On 6 June 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Turkey transmitting information alleging that torture and
ill—treatment of detainees and prisoners, especially those who have been
charged with political crimes, continued to occur in Turkey on a large scale-.
It appeared from testimonies given by former detainees and prisoners in the
past year that the use of torture has not been sufficiently curbed despite
legislative and constitutional measures designed for that purpose. In
addition, medical evidence indicated that several prisoners have died as a
result of treatment inflicted upon them by police or security forces. It was
alleged that prisoners were often subjected to various kinds of beatings
including “falaka”, beating of the soles of the feet, and beating of the
genitalia. Prisoners have also allegedly been subjected to electric shocks,
suspension, rape, sleep deprivation, hosings with pressurized ice—cold water,
and dousings with raw sewage. Furthermore, it was reported that detainees,
including children, were often forced to listen to the torture of family
members. Recent reports indicated systematic and consistent use of torture at
the Ankara Police Headquarters, the First Branch of the Istanbul Police
Headquarters, the Kahranianmaras Police Headquarters and the Mersin Police
Headquarters. The following detailed cases of alleged torture were received
by the Special Rapporteur:
(a) Mazhar Kara, a student association activist in Diyarbakir, was
detained on 12 April 1989 and taken to the political police at Diyarbakir
Police Headquarters. He later alleged having been tortured the same day by
the Anti—Riot Police. The alleged torture included death threats, beatings,
squeezing of testicles, electric shocks, suspension by the wrists with arms
tied behind the back and being hosed down with pressurized cold water. While
appearing before the Diyarbakir State Security Court on 15 May 1989
Mazhar Kara told the court that he had been interrogated under torture and
forced to sign a statement without having read it. On 16 June 1989 he was
sentenced to a prison term. On 28 September 1989 the Appeal Court quashed the
sentence and ordered a retrial, on the grounds, inter alia , that his statement
to the police had been taken under force;
(b) Sixteen people who were detained in an operation against alleged
members of the illegal Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party conducted between
2 and 6 February 1989, were allegedly subjected to torture, which was said to
have taken place at the First Branch Istanbul Police Headquarters.
Mehmet Songul, Bektas Ozkan, Ihsan Irmak and Fuat Akyurek were said to be
among those who had allegedly been tortured;
El CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 61
(c) The Special Rapporteur has also received information that numerous
people suspected of being members of the Turkish Communist Party were detained
and tortured at the Kahrainanmaras Police Headquarters in early 1989. Two of
those detained, Gazi Eke and Mustafa Deprem, have testified that they had been
subjected to electric shocks, suspension and beatings. Gazi Eke testified
that he had received beatings to the head and had since suffered from
epilepsy. Another detainee, Oguz Yanian, was detained at Kahranianoearas and
transferred to the Mersin Police Headquarters where he and his wife were both
allegedly subjected to torture;
(d) In addition to the aforementioned, it was reported that on
18 July 1989, Seybmus Orhan of Yoncali was detained in the fields near Yoncali
and was later allegedly killed under torture at the Command of the
118th Gendarmerie Regiment. It was further alleged that the authorities shot
him after his death in order to claim that he was killed while trying to
escape.
189. On 6 November 1990 the Government of Turkey provided the Special
Rapporteur with detailed information concerning the aforementioned persons,
including their date of detention, the charges against them and their physical
condition following their alleged torture. The communication contained the
following information:
(a) Mazhar Kara was released on 28 September 1989 as a result of a
decision by a court of appeal;
(b) Mebmet Ozkan, Songul Ozkan, Bektas Ozkan, Ihsan Irrnak and
Fuat Akyfrrek were arrested on 16 February 1989. “Upon complaints, the Public
Prosecutor of Istanbul initiated an investigation against the security
officials concerned. He has concluded that allegations were unfounded and
that further action was not needed. Medical reports which were duly prepared
attest to the fact that the said persons had not been mistreated under
detentionv ;
(c) Gazi Eke, Mustafa Deprem and Oguz Yaxnan: “the said persons
claimed before the court that they had been tortured in detention. On
16 September 1989 the Public Prosecutor of Kahramaninaras opened an
investigation on the conduct of the officials who had interrogated these
persons at Kahramanmaras Police Headquarters. The investigation was completed
on 19 April 1989 with the decision that there were no grounds for a judicial
proceeding. Medical reports certify that the plaintiffs had not been
subjected to any kind of ill—treatment while in detention and under
interrogation. The results of this investigation were challenged by the
persons in question through an objection submitted to the Gaziantep Criminal
Court. The case was re—examined by the said court which consequently reached
the same conclusion on 16 August 1989. The persons in question made another
application to the Public Prosecutor of Gaziantep. The said office duly
looked into the allegations and, on Il December 1989, decided that there was
no basis for further action”;
(d) Seyharuz Orhan was seriously wounded “in an exchange of fire between
the security forces and terrorists on 18 July 1989 near the Yoncali village of
Hakkari” ... “He later died in the Hakkari State Hospital. The autopsy report
of the hospital shows that he did not die because of mistreatment.
Nevertheless, the allegations have been referred to the competent authorities
who are in the process of conducting the necessary investigation”.
El ON .4 / 1991 / 17
page 62
190. On 15 October 1990 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the
Government of Turkey informing it that his attention has been drawn to a
recent report containing, inter alia , detailed descriptions and testimonies of
alleged victims of torture in various towns and regions during the period
March 1989 to June 1990. Most of the allegations concerned torture or
ill—treatment of detainees while they were being held incommunicado in police
custody, soon after their detention. Most of the alleged victims were
suspected of membership of or activity for banned political groups (such as
“Devrimci Sol”, “Devrimci Yol”, the Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party—TDKP
and the Turkish Workers and Peasants' Liberation Army—TIKKO). Alleged methods
of torture included severe beating on various parts of the body, including
“Falaka”, or beating on the soles of the feet, suspension by the arms in the
form of a crucifix, electric shocks applied to sensitive parts of the body,
squeezing of testicles, spraying of sensitive parts of the body with ice—cold
water from high pressure hoses, sexual assaults, as well as psychological
torture such as threats of death.
191. With regard to the situation in the Turkish Kurdish provinces, it was
alleged that torture was often applied not only to persons suspected of
political offences but also to members of their family. It was further
alleged that the security forces sometimes rounded up the population of entire
villages in that region, while searching for members and supporters of
guerrilla groups, and beat or ill—treated them. Such incidents were reported
in the villages of Darusu, in Van province, Bakiran in Lice district, and
Kizik.
192. In mid—April 1990 soldiers reportedly arrested 16 people belonging to the
Ayalp family in the village of Kiragli, in Bozova/Urfa. They included four
minors, Sait Ayalp, 16, Bekir Ayalp, 14, Cengiz Tuncer, 16, and Abdullah
Ayalp, 16. It was alleged that they had been tortured. Later, three members
o.f the family were released and the others were taken to Diyarbakir prison.
193. The cases of the following individuals, who were allegedly tortured while
in police custody, were transmitted to the Government: Solmaz Karabulut,
Fatma Ozyurt, Haydar Sbylemezoglu, Yusuf Ali Yildiz, Eyiiphan Baser, Haci
Yildiz, LUtf U Demirkapi, Erol Bektas, Hakan Korkmaz, Cemal Gulmez, GUlay
Zengin, GUltekin GUlbahar, All Aziz Kacar, Mebmet Tok, Burhan Caglar Usta,
Au Atalay, Ahrnet Akyiiz, Ibrahim Turk, SiirkrU OEre, Vedat Celik, Seref
Kasikci, Kubilay Selcut, Tuna Ozdamir, Selami Nazlim, Murat Karayel,
Ismail S5umez, Mustafa GUi, Memduh Aydogan and Muharraxn Ozkan (all of them
activists in a workers organization known as “Emek iler Dernegi”); All Asian
and Mehmet Torus, co—owner and editor—in—chief, respectively, of a magazine
called “Hedef”, BUlent Solgun, Nuriye Akbaba, Zehra Pekin, Ufuk GUrbUz,
Mahinut Sahindogan, Hasan Sahindogan, Murat Ceviz, and Sendar Cekic Abasoglu.
(It may be noted that, with regard to Zehra Pekin and Ufuk Gurbuz, the
Special Rapporteur had sent an urgent appeal on 24 January 1990, and that the
Government replied on 22 March 1990 that the two had admitted being members of
DEMKAD, and that the allegations of torture had been thoroughly examined by
the competent authorities and it was established that they had not been
subjected to any form of ill—treatment while in custody. It was further
affirmed that these findings were confirmed by medical reports. However, the
information subsequently received by the Special Rapporteur contained the
detailed testimonies of the two persons, which appear to contradict the
Government's affirmation).
E / CN. 4/1991 / 17
page 63
194. It was further reported that Recep Demir and Aysenur Carnlikaya were
arrested on 1 September 1989 after Demir's alleged involvement in an armed
clash in which an officer of Izmir police was killed and Demir was injured.
According to a testimony by Aysenur Canilikaya, who was Demir's girl—friend,
both were tortured, including electric shocks applied to Demir's wounds and to
her, while she was stripped naked. Demir later died. Aysenur Camlikaya filed
a formal complaint on 25 December 1989 alleging that Demir had been killed
under torture.
195. On 3 December 1990 the Government of Turkey provided the Special
Rapporteur with detailed information concerning most of the cases referred to
above. The following pertinent details were given regarding the cases of
Solmaz Karabulut, Fatma Ozyurt, Yusuf All Yildiz, Eyuphan Baser, Haci Yildiz,
Lutfu Demirkapi, Erol Bektas, Mesut Hakan Korkmaz, Gulay Zengin, Guitekin
Gulbahar, Au Aziz Kacar, Abdullah, Fazil, Sait, Muharrem, Ibrahim, Bekir,
Mustafa, Hasan and Mehmet Ayalp, Bulent Soigun, Zehra Pekin, Hasan Sahindogan,
Nahniut Sahindogan, Murat Ceviz, Burhan Caglar Usta, Ali Atalay, Ahxnet Akyuz,
Sukru Tore, Vedat Celik, Seref Kasikci, Kubilay Selcuk, Tuna Ozdemir, Zinnut
Acar, Mikail Acar, Sait Atalay, Yasar Cevik, Naif Simsek, Zeynep Coskun,
All Asian and Mehinet Tonis: in all the above—mentioned cases the torture
allegations were investigated and it was established that those persons had
not been subjected to torture or ill—treatment. In some of these cases public
law suits had been filed against officials allegedly responsible for abuses
and trials were held but the officials were acquitted. In several cases
(Haydar Soylemezoglu, Mehinet Tok, Nuriye Akbaba, Ibrahim Turk and Aysegul
Camiikaya) public law suits which were filed against the officials concerned
were still continuing. As regards the case of Serdar Cekic Abbasoglu who had
been arrested for theft ‘on 4 June 1990 he was found dead in his bed inside
the prison. The Prosecutor immediately initiated an investigation, which was
further intensif led upon complaints. No evidence of trauma could be found as
a result of the autopsy. No trace of poison could be detected in the
beverages and in the food found in the room of the deceased. Histopathological
analysis of internal organs revealed no sign of ill—treatment or induction of
extraneous agents into the body. Medical doctors established the cause of
death as heart failure and aspiration insufficiency resulting from defects in
the coronary artery, Consequently the Public Prosecutor decided on
4 September 1990 that there was no ground for further action”. With regard to
Recep Demir, a terrorist known to have perpetrated 11 murders, including that
of a policeman, he escaped from prison after his conviction, “He opened fire
on the security officials who found him and demanded his surrender. He was
heavily wounded as a result of the ensuing exchange of fire. He later
died at the hospital to which he was taken for treatment. The medical
report confirmed that his death was due to the wounds inflicted by a
security official during the above—mentioned armed clash. The case was
also investigated by the Public Prosecutor concerned who concluded on
20 September 1989 that allegations of death by torture were unfounded. Upon
complaint a second investigation was carried out. The conclusion reached on
12 February 1990 confirmed that of the first investigation '. As regards
Ufuk Gurbuz, no complaint was ever filed with the competent Turkish
authorities by that person. Regarding the incident in Kizik, there is no
village bearing such name. Should the correct name be given, an investigation
will be carried out. Regarding the case of Cemal Gulmez, such a name did not
appear in the records of the competent authorities.
H / CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 64
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Letters and Government replies
196. On 15 October the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the following persons:
(a) Alexander Alexandrovich Goldovich, aged 43, a physiei t, imprisoned
since 1985 and currently held in a labour camp in Perm. It was alleged that
he had been severely ill—treated between 22 January and 9 April 1990 and that
his state of health was critical;
(b) Anatoly Alexandrovich Matvyenko, aged 34, was allegedly forcibly
sent to a psychiatric hospital in 1984; he escaped in 1985 but was rearrested
and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment under a strict r gime, which he
served in a camp in Kharkov. According to information received, he was
recently sent to Volnyansk psychiatric hospital and then transferred to an
unknown detention centre. This reportedly followed the sending of a letter by
inmates held in the Kharkov camp to the Ukrainian authorities, complaining
about ill—treatment and harsh detention conditions in the camp.
197. On 3 December 1990 the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics provided the Special Rapporteur with detailed information on the two
cases referred to above. As regards Mr. Goldovich, it was affirmed that
“there have been no unlawful actions or breaches of the law in his regard.
His state of health is satisfactory. On 2 October 1990, a medical
investigatory board found him to be entirely fit for work”. As for
Mr. Matvyenko, details were given concerning the charges against him, his
trials and sentences. It was stated that “while serving his sentence,
Matvyenko has twice (1987 and 1989) undergone treatment in the Republican
Psychiatric Hospital. He is currently in a corrective—labour establishment in
Kharkov oblast. On 26 January 1990, criminal proceedings were instituted
against him for malicious disobedience of the orders of the authorities of the
corrective—labour establishment. On 29 September 1990, Matvyenko was found by
psychiatric examination to be of sound mind and was diagnosed as an excitable
psychopath.”
Venezuela
Letters and Government replies
198. On 6 June 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of
Venezuela transmitting information that, following the wave of protests and
incidents which occurred in Caracas in late February and early March 1989,
some persons, primarily student leaders and social activists, were arrested
and reportedly subjected to torture and ill—treatment. Such practices were
said to have occurred at the barracks of the Military Intelligence Department
(DIM) in Caracas, the barracks of the Intelligence and Prevention Services
Department (DISIP) and the Fuerte Tiuna Military Barracks. The methods of
torture allegedly used included blows to all parts of the body, electric
shocks, covering the head with a plastic bag until suffocation occurred,
submerging the head in water and forcing persons to shower with ice—cold water
for 10 minutes. Psychological torture, such as mock execution, was also
allegedly used. According to the same source, the conclusions of the medical
E /CN .4 / 1991/17
page 65
examinations made in May 1989 indicated that the symptoms and injuries
described by the victims were consistent with the methods of torture to which
they were reportedly subjected. Some of the victims confirmed that a doctor
was present and allegedly helped in the interrogations during which they were
tortured. Information has been provided on the following specific cases:
(a) Yanco Rafael Verastegui Gdmez, aged 21, bank employee, arrested on
4 March 1989, taken to the DIM barracks and, for 36 hours, allegedly brutally
beaten on all parts of his body, given electric shocks, suffocated with a
plastic bag until he nearly fainted and subjected to a mock execution;
(b) Yves Roland Denis Boulton, aged 31, student activist, arrested on
4 March 1989, taken to the DISIP barracks and later to the DIM barracks and,
for 36 hours, reportedly beaten on all parts of his body, including the head
and testicles, forced to climb up and down stairs on his knees, with his hands
tied behind his head, made to shower with ice—cold water for 5 to 10 minutes
and subjected to electric shocks and death threats. The torture ended when he
signed a document they would not let him read;
(c) Omar Pinto, aged 32, arrested on 4 March 1989 and taken to the DIM
barracks, where he was allegedly tortured for 24 hours, including blows and
kicks to all parts of the body, having his head submerged in water, having his
head covered up with a plastic bag while he was being beaten and threatened
with electric shocks and that his daughter would be tortured if he did not
co—operate;
(d) Alejandro Fidel Seguar Brice o, aged 19, arrested on 2 March 1989 by
members of the military police and taken to the Fuente Tiuna Barracks, where
he was subjected for 24 hours to torture, such as being hung between two walls
like a hammock, with his hands and feet tied, being beaten all over his body
at the same time and repeatedly being hit on the head and other parts of the
body with a wooden stick; while they were interrogating him, he was forced to
lie on the floor and his hands were stepped on;
(e) In addition, Max Verastegui G6mez, Jos Gregorio Ramos and five
other persons arrested by DIM also stated that they had been tortured. Most
of them were reportedly kept incommunicado in cells without light during part
of their detention.
199. On 7 December 1990, the Government of Venezuela gave the Special
Rapporteur a communication sent by the Office of the Attorney—General of the
Republic stating that the above—mentioned cases were brought before a court of
first instance. “The referral took place on 27 July 1990. The forensic
medicine reports described the following results: according to the official
document sent by the Ministry of Justice, Judicial Police Technical Unit
No. . .., citizen Yango Rafael Verastegui G6mez was examined at San Carlos
barracks on 20 March 1990 and it was found that there were no external
injuries to be described from the forensic medicine point of view. His
general condition is satisfactory. Official document No. ... from the same
body states that citizen Pinto Valera Omar had many scars on the abdomen, both
wrists and the left forearm. These injuries are self—inflicted. The rest of
the physical examination is within the normal limits, but it recommends a
forensic psychiatric examination on account of a suicide attempt. In
addition, the expert report on citizen Denis Boulton Roland, as contained in
E/CN. 4/1991 / 17
page 66
official document No. ..., refers to traces of testicle chafing and pain.
However, the examination states that his general condition is satisfactory.
The proceedings to which reference has been made are still in the preliminary
stage tt .
200. In a letter dated 12 December 1990, the Government informed the
Special Rapporteur that, according to the Office of the Attorney—General of
the Republic, “after a thorough review of file No. ..., which is before
Criminal Court No. 19 in the Federal District and State of Miranda, which is
dealing with all cases relating to the incidents in late February and early
March 1989, no information was found on citizens Alejandro Fidel
Segura Bricei io, Max Verastegui G6mez and Jos Gregorio Ramos”.
Yemen
Government replies
201. On 15 November 1990 the Government of Yemen addressed a letter to the
Special Rapporteur providing information on the changes occurring in the
country since the establishment of the Republic of Yemen on 22 May 1990. It
was affirmed that the new constitution and laws of the Republic of Yemen are
based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. The Government has adopted democracy as a sound
basis for the development of a unified Yemeni society and has helped to
strengthen the principles of human rights.
Zaire
Urgent appeals
202. On 29 August 1990, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Zaire transmitting information concerning the following
persons: Lusaniba Mubi—Malu, Miseia Kabulu Christophe, Ngandu Wa Loko, Mpasu
Mabanza, Sapue Kumune (all members of the Union for Democracy and Social
Progress, UDPS), Ekongo Udimba Paul, Olongo Mamba Jean—Marie and Otete Gaston
(all members of the Lumumba Congolese National Movement, MNC—L). These
persons and other members of the two parties whose names have not been
communicated were arrested in Kinshasa on 16 and 18 July 1990 and allegedly
continue to be held incommunicado in undisclosed places of detention.
According to the source, persons who were arrested in the past for political
reasons and held in similar conditions were reportedly tortured or subjected
to ill—treatment. For this reason, fears have been expressed that the
above—mentioned persons might be subjected to torture or ill—treatment.
E/CN.4/1991/l7
page 67
III. VISITS BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
A. Visit to the Philippines
1. Introduction
203. The Special Rapporteur visited the Philippines. from 1 to 10 October 1990,
in response to an invitation extended to him on 30 November 1989 by the
Government of that dountry. During his visit the Special Rapporteur
held discussions with the Secretary of Justice, Franklin Drilon, who was
accompanied by Under—secretary Bello, the Chief State Prosecutor,
Fernando de Leon, and Deputy Chief State Prosecutor Mariano; Under—secretary
of National Defense for Reserve Army Affairs, Eduardo Ermita, accompanied by
Brig. Gen. Marino Filart, Commanding General of the Regional Capital Command
(CAPCOM) of the Metropolitan Police Force, Brig. Gen. Adam Jimenez,
Deputy Chief of Constabulary for Civil—Military Operations (PC/INP),
Coi. Edwin Bacalla, Special Assistant to the Under—secretary of National
Defense, and Captain Salipsis of the Philippine Navy; the Special Rapporteur
also held discussions with Justice Abraham Sarmiento of the Supreme Court,
Mrs. Mary Concepci6n Bautista, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights,
accompanied by several Commission members and the Director for field
operations, Senator ‘Wigberto Ta ada, Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Justice and Human Rights and Vicente de la Serna, Congressman and Chairman
of the Congress Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He also met with
the Acting Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Manuel Yan, and with the
Solicitor General, Francisco Chavez.
204. On 5 October 1990, during a visit to Cebu City (the main town of
tegion No. VII, in the Visayas), the Special Rapporteur met with
Justice Priscila Agana, and with Justices Perry Alcomar, Jos Burgos,
Portia Hormachuelos and Pedro Son. He also visited the local chapter of the
Commission on Human Rights, where he was briefed by the Director, Attorney
Alejandro Alonzo.
205. The Special Rapporteur also met, in Manila and in Cebu City, with
representatives of the following non—governmental organizations: Philippine
Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), National Movement of Civil
Liberties (NMCL), Task Force Detainees (TFDP), Ecumenical Movement for Justice
and Peace (EMJP), National Council of Churches of the Philippines, Medical
Action Group, SELDA, KAPATID, GABRIELA, BALAY and Free Legal Assistance Group
(FLAG).
206. The Special Rapporteur visited the following prisons and detention
centres: the PC—INP detention centre in Camp Craxne, Quezon City, Pasay City
Gaol, the PC—INP gaol in Camp Bagong Piwa, Bicutan and the Cebu Provincial
Detention and Rehabilitation Centre, In all these prisons and detention
centres the Special Rapporteur met privately with prisoners, whose names were
provided by non—govermental organizations, who had allegedly been subjected to
torture, and with other prisoners who wished to tell him about their past
experience. The cases of some of these prisoners had been submitted in the
past by the Special Rapporteur to the Government, either by letter or by
urgent appeals. Due to the ‘Red alerts' declared following the coup attempt in
Mindanao, the Special Rapporteur was not authorized to meet with detainees
held in Camp Sotero Cabahug, Cebu. Further details about contacts held with
representatives of non—governmental organizations and with alleged victims of
torture are contained in section 3 below.
E / CN .4 / 1991 / 17
page 68
207. The Special Rapporteur wishes to thank the Government of the Philippines
for the invitation extended to him. He also wishes to express his sincere
gratitude to all the persons he met during his visit, be they government
officials, other holders of official posts or non—governmental persons, for
the warm and kind way in which he was received and for the useful information
provided for him during the meetings.
2. Background and legal and institutional framework
208. When in February 1986 a popular uprising brought to an end
the 14—years' rule of President Marcos the new administration under
President Corazon C. Aquino solemnly declared that it would restore the rule
of law and respect for human rights in the country. A new Constitution was
adopted by popular referendum in 1987. Article 2, Section 11 provides that
“the State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full
respect for human rights”. Article III contains a Bill of Rights. Its
Section 12 provides, inter qua , that “no torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against {a person under investigation for the commission of an offense].
Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited”. It further provides that any confession obtained
J:under duress] shall be inadmissible as evidence and that the law shall
provide penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families. Article XIII, Section 17 establishes an independent
office called the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) which, among its other
functions, “shall investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all
forms of human rights violations, involving civil and political rights”. This
Commission is the successor to the Presidential Committee on Human Rights,
which was created by the President on 16 March 1986 and which had similar
powers. .
209. In line with this stated policy the Philippines ratified a number of
international instruments. Being a party since 7 June 1974 to the Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it ratified on 23 October 1986
the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, on 22 August 1989, the
Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which
individuals have the right to bring.a complaint about violations of the rights
set forth in the Covenant before the Human Rights Committee established under
the Covenant. It also ratified, on 18 June 1986, the Convention against
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and,
on 11 December 1986, Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the
Humanitarian Laws of Warfare. Articles 4, 13, l4.and 15 of the
1984 Convention against Torture contain similar provisions as those mentioned
in article III, Section 12, of the Constitution. Protocol II to the
1949 Geneva Conventions deals with situations of armed conflicts not of an
international character and explicitly prohibits, inter qua , the use of
torture.
210. The Philippines has known several insurgent movements for a considerable
number of years. In the southern part of the country the Muslim National
Liberation Front (MNLF) is trying to establish a separate Muslim state.
Although the present Government granted autonomy to four provinces on the
southern island of Mindanao, fighting has not stopped. Of far more importance
is the insurgency by the New People's Army (NPA), the military wing of the
E / CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 69
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), which itself is part of a broader
coalition, the National Democratic Front (NDF). The NDF demands comprehensive
land reform, fundamental redistribution of wealth and power and removal of the
United States bases. The NDF and its component groups have been declared
illegal by the Government; mere membership of these organizations is a
felony and punishable under the Revised Penal Code. The ruthless campaign
against the insurgent movements and affiliated groups under the r gime of
President Marcos led to serious violations of human rights and to an
increasing popular resistance resulting in the 1986 revolution. The new
Government released most political detainees and started a reconciliation
process. Early in 1987 the negotiations on a cease—fire broke down and the
Government decided to resume the armed struggle.
211. A counter—insurgency strategy was developed, the so—called “total
approach strategy”, consisting of various phases. The first phase is called
the “clearing phase” and is aimed at the destruction of the rebel forces by
the mobile military units. The second phase is the “holding phase” wherein
control over the recovered areas is transferred to the territorial (police)
forces. The third phase, the so—called “consolidation phase”, is meant to
involve to an increasing degree the civilian authorities and “the committed
citizenry” (the so—called civilian volunteer organizations, CVOs) to defend
the society against undermining activities. The final phase is called
the “development phase” and is aimed at solving the underlying causes of
the insurgency by initiating livelihood projects, campaigns against
illiteracy, etc.
212. It is this “total strategy approach” which is highly controversial in
Philippine society. This controversy determines to a large degree the human
rights discussion, since according to many sources the total approach strategy
has led to a similar pattern of human rights violations as that prevalent
under the Marcos r gime.
213. Although the armed forces claim that the total approach strategy has been
relatively successful, according to its own statistics there were at the end
of 1989 still about 7,000 “insurgent—affected” barangays (the smallest
administrative local unit) which is about one sixth of the total number;
whereas the strength of the NPA was estimated at nearly 20,000 regulars.
214. Apart from these insurgent movements there have been a number of coup
attempts by dissident military groups of which the RAM (Reform the Armed
Forces Movement), headed by cashiered Lt. Colonel Gregorio Honasan, is the
most important. From 1986 until 1989 there were six such attempts, and during
the Special Rapporteur's visit a seventh coup attempt took place in Mindanao.
This attempt was crushed in two days and unlike the previous ones, was not
concentrated in the capital. Since August 1990 the capital area has been the
target of more than 40 bomb attacks which are also attributed to these
dissident military groups.
215. As a result of the ongoing counter—insurgency efforts the armed forces
have a preponderant position in Philippine society. It should be noted,
however, that under article II, Section 3 of the Constitution it is explicitly
stated that civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military,
and that article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution states that the President
shall be the Commander—in—Chief of the armed forces of the Philippines.
E/CN.4/l991/17
page 70
216. The total approach strategy, mentioned before, is embedded in a
three—tiered defence system for internal security, consisting of three
components:
(a) The Military Mobile Forces (the Armed forces proper) consist of
combat units and are primarily responsible for the clearing phase;
(b) The Territorial Forces, which play a preponderant role in the
holding and consolidation phases have a dual composition: they consist of the
police (the Philippine Constabulary and the Integrated National Police) on the
one hand and the Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU) on the other
hand. The Philippine police is part of the armed forces; there is no civilian
police apart from the fact that the National Bureau of Investigation has
police powers to conduct investigations in criminal cases and disposes of
qualified personnel to carry out this specific task. The CAFGUs are composed
of reservists and are part of the military system. Although it is maintained
that the army strictly controls the CAFGUs and that applicants with a criminal
record are rejected, concern has been expressed by various civil authorities
and human rights organizations about their undisciplined behaviour, reportedly
resulting in serious human rights violations. Another reason for concern is
that the CAFGUs sometimes hire themselves to private business concerns, a
phenomenon that has raised doubts about their loyalty to the Government;
(c) The third element of the three—tiered defence system for internal
security consists of the Civilian Volunteer Organizations, or Bantay Bayan.
These CVOs, to which a role is assigned in the consolidation phase, are not
part of the armed forces; they operate under the supervision of the local
authorities. The function of the CVOs is formally seen as an expression of
the constitutional rights of citizens (art. XIII, Sect. 15) to organize
themselves to protect their interests. They are supposed to enhance the
campaign for peace and order in their respective localities and should
strictly adhere to the orders of military and civilian authorities. In
principle they are unarmed, but members who are authorized to carry arms, can
keep them while carrying out their function.
217. Although the Government considers the CVOs to be an essential element of
the system to maintain internal security, non—governmental sources have
expressed fear that the CVOs function is the same as that of the notorious
armed vigilante forces under the Marcos r gime, which were responsible for
serious human rights violations and are formally banned by article XVI,
Section 24 of the Constitution. It is also said that recruitment is not
entirely voluntary and that their creation blurs the roles of the military and
the civilians, thereby contributing to the militarization of Philippine
society.
218. The process of restoring peace and ending the insurgency is co—ordinated
by Peace and Order Councils (POC), which operate at the national, regional,
provincial, city and municipal level. These POCs consist of representatives
of the Department of Local Government, the military and the private sector.
219. At present the Philippines does not have a Department of the Interior but
a Department of Local Government. A bill is pending before Congress intended
to supplant the latter by a Department of the Interior with supporting
agencies such as a Philippine National Police. If this bill is enacted,
E / CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 71
article XVI, Section 6 of the Constitution providing that the State shall
establish and maintain one police force which shall be national in scope and
civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police
commission, would be complied with.
220. The far from' stable situation in the country has seriously impeded the
Government's confessed policy to restore completely respect for human rights.
According to a number of non—governmental organizations which are
well—established in Philippine society, the Government's policy, by giving
priority to the military suppression of the insurgency, has re—introduced the
occurrence of illegal arrests, torture, extra—legal executions, disappearances
and forced evacuations of whole village communities. Such non—governmental
organizations are on the other hand often portrayed as front organizations of
the prohibited NDF. Such accusations and counter—accusations can freely be
made in the open Philippine society, although human rights—oriented groups
claim that they have been subject to harassment, The Special Rapporteur was
informed that since 1986 six human rights lawyers have been killed, which is
more than during the entire Marcos r gime . The fact that human rights
violations occur on a relatively large scale seems also to be borne out by the
report of a Committee of the Congress and the Senate (named the Tai iada
Committee after its Chairman Senator Wigberto Ta ada). This Committee made an
extensive tour throughout the country and caine to the following conclusions:
“1. Human Rights continue to be violated despite the fact that
human rights violations committed by military, police and other
government—supported organizations are not in pursuit of any government
policy.
2. The ‘total war policy', now referred to as the ‘total approach'
strategy and operationalized through the AFPs (Armed Forces of the
Philippines) Three Tiered Defense System for Internal Security, is
considered a major factor contributing to the continuing human rights
violations.”
221. The independent Commission on Human Rights has received up
until 31 August 1989 more than 2,500 complaints about human rights
violations, the majority of which were directed against the military. The
armed forces filed 421 human rights complaints against the CCP/NPA with the
Commission in the period 1986 to 31 August 1989. The Tai iada Committee,
however, found that “the investigation of many complaints of human rights
violations and the prosecution of many offenders are found to proceed at a
very slow pace despite the availability of witnesses and the existence of the
appropriate mechanisms and institutions of government. Thus, a number of
victims of human rights violations and their families no longer filed their
complaints with the Commission on Human Rights, the Fiscal's Office or the
Military, as many of them expressed lack of trust and confidence in these
agencies' ability to respond immediately and effectively to their complaintsu.
222. During his consultations the Special Rapporteur was also repeatedly told
that many victims of human rights violations did not file complaints since
the procedure was excessively slow and hardly ever led to punishment of the
alleged perpetrators. The Commission on Human Rights provided the
Special Rapporteur with statistical data about the number of cases in which
those responsible for abuse were charged. Some 276 cases had been filed by
E/CN.4/1991/17 . .
page 72 .
the Fiscal's Office, after having been investigated by the Commission, with
civilian courts and 273 with military courts. Of these 549 cases, 86 had been
resolved. According to information received from the armed forces 14 military
men including 2 officers were tried and disciplined for human rights
violations during the period January 1989 until May 1990. Penalties consisted
of demotion, suspension from service or forfeiture of rights.
223. The existence of an independent Commission on Human Rights with
investigating powers is a rather unique phenomenon. The Commission has a
staff of about 600 persons in its headquarters in Manila and 12 regional
offices. The staff includes lawyers, investigators and a small medical unit.
Next to its investigative powers with regard to human rights violations,
either proprio motu or on complaints by any party, the Commission has the
power to recommend on effective measures to prevent human rights violations
and to promote respect for human rights; it has the right to visit all places
where people are detained; it has the duty to establish a continuing programme
of research, education and information to enhance respect for the primacy of
human rights. The Commission on Human Rights itself calls its function a
two—pronged approach, viz., human rights protection through the legal and
investigation services, witness protection, free legal aid and financial
assistance programmes, and human rights promotion through its public
information and education services to heighten awareness of human rights and
the institutions established for the promotion of and respect for human
rights. Within the human rights protection programme the Commission
established a Quick Reaction Team, providing immediate legal assistance to
complainants of human rights violations including visits to police stations
and military detention centres where the suspect is believed to be detained, a
Witness Protection Programme under which a safety shelter and subsistence
allowances are granted for the duration of the hearing or for as long as it
may be deemed necessary, and a Gaol Visitation Programme in response to
reports of torture or maltreatment of prisoners or detainees, complaints of
illegal arrests or detention and lack of adequate basic facilities. The
Special Rapporteur was informed that during the period January to May 1990,
304 gaol visitations were conducted covering a total of 8,051 inmates. As a
result of these visits 64 prisoners were released, 27 detainees were provided
with legal assistance and 39 complaints were documented and investigated.
224. On 6 May 1988 the Commission issued a statement on human rights and
guidelines on visits, conduct of investigation, arrest, detention and related
operations. At the same date the military authorities undertook to comply
with these guidelines.
225. Although the Commission on Human Rights possesses investigative powers,
it has no powers to prosecute. In 1987 a bill was submitted by the Senate's
Committee on Justice and Human Rights to strengthen the organization and to
expand the functions of the Commission on Human Rights, providing it,
inter qua , with the power to file, upon its finding of the existence of a
prima facie case, the necessary information with the proper civil court. The
Bill is still pending before Congress. OEe Department of Justice, however,
has voiced its objection against this idea since it would not be. in conformity
with the Philippine system which makes a distinction between the authority
which collects the evidence and the authority which decides whether there is a
prima facie case and, if so, decides to prosecute. This latter function is
exercised by the fiscal's office. According to the Department of Justice,
.]
El CN. 4/1991/17
page 73
just as in the case of common crimes it is the police which gathers the
evidence and it is the fiscal's office which decides whether, on the basis of
the evidence, a case will be brought against the respondent, it is the task of
the Commission on Human Rights to collect evidence with regard to human rights
violations, but the power to decide whether this evidence is sufficient basis
for a prosecution should be left with the fiscal's office. Giving powers of
prosecution to the Commission would give it a dual function which could be in
violation of the principle of “due process”. In spite of these objections,
several members of Congress were of the opinion that the Commission on Human
Rights should eventually be given pros .ecutory powers, since the present
procedure is complicated and time consuming. As an intermediary solution the
Department of Justice deputized the lawyers of the Commission as Special
Prosecutors. This means that the Commission lawyers can file complaints
directly with the fiscals upon the determination of a prima facie case of a
human rights violation. The decision to prosecute, however, is still made by
the fiscal. Although according to the Commission on Human Rights this measure
has hastened the prosecution of human rights offenders as well as simplified
the process of monitoring human rights cases, other sources expressed concern
about the slow processing of complaints and about the fact that the
Commission, in considering such complaints and determining whether there is a
prima facie case, acted too much as a quasi—judicial body in a dispute between
the applicant and the respondent, instead of taking up the case of the alleged
victim of a human rights violation. In order to speed up the processing of
human rights cases the Secretary of Justice issued on 19 April 1990 a list of
prosecutors designated to handle human rights cases in all cities and
provinces.
226. Another important power of the Commission on Human Rights is the issuance
of clearances for military or police officers who are candidates for
promotion, stating that they have a clean record with regard to human rights
violations. .
227. By administrative order of 13 December 1988, the President established a
Presidential Human Rights Committee with the mandate to monitor, on a
continuing basis, the human rights situation in the country and to advise the
President on the proper measures that ought to be taken without delay. The
Committee is chaired by the Secretary of Justice and is further composed of
the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, the Presidential Legal
Counsel, one representative each for the Department of National Defense, the
Department of Foreign Affairs, the Senate and the House of Representatives,
and two representatives of private human rights groups. The Committee has
prepared, inter qua , a memorandum of agreement allowing the non—governmental
Medical Action Group (FlAG) to give medical aid in evacuation centres and
places of Ietention and guidelines on evacuations as a result of military
operations. It may be noted, however, that after his return from the
Philippines, the Special Rapporteur received information that, in spite
of this agreement, members of a MAC medical team were allegedly arrested,
questioned and ill—treated during a visit to a gaol they carried out
on 14 November 1990.
228. Mention should be made of various legislative measures which are either
pending before Congress or are under consideration. One of these is a Bill
Providing for a Witness and Benefit Programme to which a person can be
admitted if he is subjected to threats of bodily injury or there is a
E/cN.4/1991/ 17
page 74
likelihood that he will be killed, injured, forced, threatened, intimidated or
harassed to prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely or evasively
because or on account of his testimony. This Bill was approved by the Senate
and is presently under consideration for concurrence in the House of
Representatives. Another Bill pending before Congress is a Bill restoring the
authority of the civil courts to try the cases of members of the armed forces
accused of having committed a crime against civilians, unless the offence is
service—connected, in which case the military courts shall have jurisdiction.
Presidential Decree 1850, enacted during the Marcos r4gime, stated that
members of the armed forces, including the police, should always be tried by
military courts. In view of the fact that this hardly ever led to the
punishment of military personnel for violations of human rights, Congress
approv ed a Bill to repeal PD 1850; this Bill, however, was vetoed by the
President in the aftermath of the December 1989 coup attempt. At the same
time, however, the President submitted a draft Bill with the same aims, which
was eventually incorporated in the above—mentioned Bill. As long as this Bill
is not enacted, the President can grant a waiver of PD 1850 upon a request to
do so. Such a request can be made by any party or by his relatives but also
by the authorities and is nearly automatically granted according to Government
officials. The present Bill, however, is criticized by various human rights
organizations as being ambiguous in certain respects.
229. The Commission on Human Rights, together with a number of
Representatives, has taken the initiative for a Bill to establish separate
courts to try, hear and decide certain specified human rights cases.
According to the Commission on Human Rights this would answer the problem of
delayed administration of justice involving human rights cases. Other
sources, however, expressed the fear that the judges serving in such courts
would be particularly liable to harassment.
230. The Human Rights Committee of the House of Representatives is in the
process of drafting a human rights code elaborating on both article III of
the Constitution, containing the Bill of Civil and Political Rights, and
article XIII entitled “Social Justice and Human Rights”, which deals with
labour questions, agrarian and natural resources reform, urban land reform and
housing, health development and the position of women. This highly ambitious
project is still in its initial phase.
231. Under the Marcos r gime torture was widely practised in the Philippines.
Out of the total number of complaints filed with the Commission on Human
Rights' predecessor, the Presidential Committee on Human Rights, and involving
human rights violations by the previous r gime, torture ranked second after
extra—judicial killings. According to non—governmental sources the number of
torture allegations declined rapidly after the new Government came into power
but started to rise again in 1988. The statistics provided by the Commission
on Human Rights on the number of complaints of torture or maltreatment filed
with it are not always consistent, but are for 1988 between 50 and 75 and
for 1989 somewhat lower. Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, a
non—governmental organization, documented in 1988, 718 cases of alleged
torture, in 1989 some 386 cases and in the period January to 6 September 1990,
149 cases. (The vast difference between the number of complaints filed with
the Commission on Human Rights and cases documented by the TFDP will be
discussed later).
E / CN. L / 1991 / 17
page 75
232. As is well—known, torture most often occurs during incommunicado or
illegal detention. As was mentioned before, incommunicado detention is
absolutely forbidden by the Constitution. Moreover, the Constitution provides
(art. III , Sect. 2) that “no ... warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing ... the persons ... to be seized.”
233. The person against whom a warrant is issued must be identified or
identifiable at least. This seems to vitiate the issuance of a warrant for
the arrest of “John Doe” or some other fictitious name, containing no
description. Nevertheless in recent times the “John Doe” system has been
increasingly used by the law enforcement authorities. One documented case,
presented to the Special Rapporteur, refers to a number of members of the
armed forces who were kidnapped by members of the NPA. One hundred accused
were designated as “John Does” with criminal complaint. They were identified
several months later without going through the proper process of adequate
preliminary investigations, establishing probable cause in their individual
case.
234. On 24 September 1990 the Secretary of Justice proposed to the
Presidential Committee on Human Rights the issuance of a Department order in
which warrants of arrest against “John Does” are called unconstitutional and
“totally subversive of the liberty of the subject”. Consequently, the use of
fictitious names will only be allowed in cases where the person concerned is
clearly identifiable and where the description substantially tallies with that
of the person sought.
235. OEere is a fairly wide range of persons specifically empowered by law to
make arrests such as members of the Philippine Constabulary, members of the
staff of the National Bureau of Investigation and peace officers, which
include the officers and members of police and secret service forces. In
making the arrest the arresting officer should avoid unnecessary force. He
has to deliver the arrested person without unnecessary delay to the nearest
police station or gaol. Nevertheless, the Ta ada Committee reports that
several witnesses testified that “safehouses” are still being used by
government agents to interrogate and torture persons who are arrested on
suspicion of being NPA rebels or sympathizers. The Committee concludes that
for as long as torture in safehouses is made part of the interrogation
process, the investigation in cases of human rights violations and the
successful prosecution of offenders become very difficult. According to the
Commission on Human Rights the existence of safehouses has never been proven.
236. In some cases an arrest may be made without a warrant. Article 112,
Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides that a peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offence;
(b) When an offence has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
(c) If the person is an escapee from a prison or detention—place.
E / CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 76
237. According to the Supreme Court in a 1985 decision provisions (a) and
(b) refer to cases when a suspect is caught in flagrante delicto or
immediately thereafter. The authority to arrest without warrant is limited to
the cases expressly authorized by law. In all other cases a warrantless
arrest is an illegal arrest and a petition for habeas corpus can be filed with
the Supreme Court. According to article III, Section 15 of the Constitution
the privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of
invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
238. The practice of warrantless arrests seems to be widespread. All the
persons who were interviewed by the Special Rapporteur either in detention
places or after their release, claimed that they had not been presented with a
warrant of arrest.
239. On 9 July 1990 the Supreme Court dismissed eight petitions for
habeas corpus , filed by or on behalf of persons who had been arrested without
a warrant and claimed that their detention consequently was unlawful. In this
decision, which was widely criticized throughout the country, the Supreme
Court upheld an earlier decision of 1983 in which it had ruled that the crimes
of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit
such crimes, and crimes or offences committed in furtherance thereof or in
connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in
the nature of continuing crimes. One of the persons involved was not arrested
while committing the killing of two soldiers nor was he arrested just after
its commission, but he was arrested the following day. Nevertheless the Court
ruled that, since he was arrested also for being a member of the NPA, an
outlawed subversive organization, and subversion being a continuing offence,
his arrest without warrant was justified as it could be said that he was
committing an offence when arrested.
240. Two judges expressed their dissent from the upholding of the doctrine of
continuing offence. One of them called the doctrine dangerous, since it
allowed a person to be arrested when he is doing the most harmless acts on the
grounds that he is committing the continuing offence of subversion. He
consequently called the doctrine one of the disgraceful vestiges of the past
dictatorship. The other judge also criticized the fact that information was
filed against the arrested person with the Courts after the petition for
habeas corpus was made, in violation of article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
which provides that an arrested person must be delivered to the proper
judicial authorities within the time prescribed by law. He felt that an
illegal detention could not be legitimized a posteriori by the filing of
information with the competent judge without a preliminary investigation
establishing probable cause which in other circumstances would have justified
a warrant of arrest.
241. The decision was criticized not only by human rights organizations, but
also by members of Congress and lawyers. The Chairman of the House Committee
on Civil, Political and Human Rights expressed the fear that the decision
would put in jeopardy the liberty of every citizen who, for the flimsiest of
reasons, could be suspected and accused of being a subversive, and who could
then be subjected to arrest without judicial determination of probable cause
for his arrest.
H / CN. 4 / 1991 / 1 7
page 77
242. A member of the Court majority in an address to the Philippine Bar
Association defended the doctrine of continuing offence. He said that
rebellion and subversion are offences not usually constituted by single acts,
but by a succession of acts, since rebels and subversives plan and expect to
undertake a series of acts geared toward the attainment of their object. He
emphatically denied that arrests of persons may be made on mere suspicion that
they are rebels or subversives, or that their arrests deserve less than the
full attention and concern of the court.
243. Nevertheless, human rights organizations fear that there will be an
increase of arrests merely for being placed on the list of wanted persons by
the military. According to the military authorities, such lists — called
“orders of battle” — are established as a result of intelligence network
information and are thoroughly checked. However, since such lists are drawn
up unilaterally by the military authorities, concern was expressed by human
rights organizations that arrests without a warrant on the mere basis of a
person's inclusion in the list (which to them seems to be the substance of the
Court's ruling), will lead to substitution of the judgement of a judge with
the judgement of the police, the CAFGUs, CVOs or the military. It was feared
that such arbitrary arrests without judicial control might also lead to an
increase in the occurrence of torture.
244. In this respect attention was drawn to the fact that in many cases people
are arrested without warrant on suspicion of sedition or subversion and then,
since rebellion or sedition are difficult to prove, are charged with illegal
possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion, which is an unbailable
offence. A person cannot be arrested for this offence without a warrant,
unless caught in flagrante . It was alleged that often, after a warrantless
arrest on suspicion of sedition, firearms were planted in the arrested
person's house or car, while in the meantime they could be interrogated about
their contacts, etc. It was also said that quite often such persons were
found to be innocent during trial, and, consequently, were acquitted.
245. Meanwhile, a motion for reconsideration of the decision on warrantless
arrests has been filed with the Supreme Court. The decision, therefore, is
not final.
246. If a person is arrested without a warrant, the arresting officer must
deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within a period ranging
from 12 to 36 hours, depending upon the penalty prescribed for the offence
(these terms do not apply for arrests upon warrant, since here the judge has
already evaluated the information filed). Moreover, each detained person
shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed to
communicate and confer at any time privately with his attorney or counsel.
Non—compliance with these provisions is a punishable act (art. 125 of the
Revised Penal Code). Relatives of the arrested person also have the right to
visit him.
247. According to information received from a non—governmental organization,
torture is generally not practised in order to gain confessions nor to
prosecute cases against the victims, but mainly to obtain information.
According to the Constitution any confession or admission extracted by torture
or maltreatment is inadmissible in court. The Supreme Court has given
extremely strict rulings in this respect. It has even ruled that persons
willing to make a confession under oath must be medically examined before they
are sworn in.
E/CN .4/1991 / 17
page 78
3. Contacts with non—govermental organizations
and with alleged victims of torture -
248. In keeping with a practice established in previous country visits, the
Special Rapporteur dedicated much of his time to meetings with representatives
of non—governmental human rights groups (this applies, of course, only to
countries where such groups can operate legally and freely, which is indeed
the case in the Philippines) and individuals who alleged having been
tortured, both former detainees and persons still in detention. As may be
seen in the introduction, the number of non—governmental organizations
concerned with human rights, and in particular with detainees and their
specific problems, is considerable. In fact, all the groups whose
representatives met with the Special Rapporteur, with the exception of the
Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), operate within the network of the
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), which is an umbrella
organization, founded in 1986. It appears that FLAG and PAHRA are recognized
by the authorities as representative of the community of non—governmental
human rights groups in the country, since both were invited to participate in
the Presidential Committee on Human Rights. Among the groups which the
Special Rapporteur met the following are concerned with the conditions of
persons under detention, and in particular with alleged cases of torture:
Task Force Detainees of the Philippines which was founded in 1974, has links
with the Catholic Church and deals with protection of political prisoners and
other victims of human rights violations; Medical Action Group (MAO), founded
in 1982 and made up of physicians and lawyers, concerned with health and human
rights; MAO carries out medical missions to affected areas and helps torture
victims and political prisoners in general; KAPATID, founded in 1978 and
composed of relatives of political prisoners; their programmes include welfare
for relatives of political prisoners and campaigns to improve conditions of
political prisoners; SELDA which deals with ex—political prisoners. Their
programmes include rehabilitation, welfare, education and assistance to
children of former prisoners; Gabriela, a coalition of about 100 women's
organizations and groups, including peasants and urban poor, concerned with
specific problems of female detainees; and Balay, founded in 1985 as a relief
and rehabilitation centre for former political prisoners. The Free Legal
Assistance Group (FLAG) was founded in 1974. It is composed of lawyers who,
on a voluntary basis, provide free legal assistance to political detainees who
cannot find competent legal advice and representation. FLAG is well
represented throughout the country and is the largest human rights lawyers
group in the Philippines. During his visit to places of detention in Cebu
City the Special Rapporteur was accompanied by a FLAG lawyer,
Attorney A. Arnado, who also acted as an interpreter. FLAG, as well as MAO
and TFDP provided the Special Rapporteur with very well documented
information, including lists of alleged cases of torture over the period 1987
to 1990, corroborated by affidavits and medical certificates.
249. In a round—table discussion held on 2 October 1990 with representatives
of the various non—governmental organizations operating under the PAHRA
network, the following points were made by the participants: human rights
violations have increased in recent months. This is due to the intense
militarization of society and the role played by vigilante groups and CAFGUs.
But the Government itself, with its “total approach strategy”, which really
means a total war policy, also greatly contributes to this deterioration.
Victims of such violations are principally the displaced populations, whose
E / CN .4 / 1991 / 17
. page 79
number is about one million; a second group of victims are suspected members
or sympathizers of insurgent groups. Despite the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights, repressive laws still exist. Presidential Decree 1850, which assures
impunity to perpetrators of human rights abuses among the military, is one
example. Another one is Presidential Decree 1866 on illegal possession of
firearms in furtherance of rebellion. This offence carries the penalty of
life imprisonment and, as such, excludes release on bail. All suspected
subversives are charged with PD 1866, since it is easier to produce evidence
by planting weapons than to prove the offence of subversion. The Bill of
Rights is not a safeguard against warrantless arrests, and most serious human
rights violations, such as torture, salvaging (arbitrary or extra—judicial
executions) and disappearances usually occur after such warrantless arrests.
The practice of “tactical interrogation”, used by the military and the police,
means that periods of unacknowledged detention can be very long; this is
especially true in the countryside where the number of lawyers is very limited
and relatives are not allowed to visit the detainees. The military can, in
fact, hold the person for interrogation as long as they wish, until they are
through with the interrogation. Suspected high—ranking leaders of insurgent
groups are generally treated better than simple members or sympathizers. They
are rarely tortured, whereas members of groups such as the “sparrow units”
(urban—based killing squads of the NPA) are often tortured severely, also
because they are the object of military frustration.
250. At a meeting with four members of the Medical Action Group (MAG), all of
them physicians, the Special Rapporteur was told about the group's methods of
action. In most cases doctors have access to detainees approximately one week
after detention. In some rare cases visits can be held as early as three days
after detention. In other cases it is only after one month. In some cases
detainees may see a doctor of their choice. After the creation of the
Commission on Human Rights, in 1986, the Commission resorted to MAG doctors to
visit and examine detainees, but at present the Commission has its own
doctors. Visits to detainees are normally held at the request of their
relatives or lawyers. Although generally MAG doctors have free access to
detention centres and may examine detainees privately, harassment and
intimidation have recently increased, since the group is viewed by the
military as sympathetic to leftist groups. Such intimidation may be done by
telephone threats or the presence of cars without number plates in front of
the group's offices. There is no evidence of participation of doctors in
torture of detainees, however, detainees are almost always blindfolded when
tortured. Also, no cases of torture resulting in death have been documented.
251. At a meeting with two representatives of FLAG the Special Rapporteur was
informed about the group's structure and activities. There were over 300
lawyers working for the group throughout the country on a voluntary basis, in
addition to the 58 full—time staff. At present, some 2,000 cases were being
handled by FLAG lawyers nation—wide. The FLAG representatives made a general
evaluation of the situation in the country and provided detailed information
about certain questions relating to the human rights situation. They
complained that FLAG, like other human rights groups in the country, was
recently subjected to increasing harassment and intimidation. They admitted
that there were also complaints about human rights violations committed by
members of the NPA, but said such complaints principally concerned taxation of
the population and other forms of “revolutionary justice”. They provided the
Special Rapporteur with highly valuable and well—documented material.
E / CN. 4/1991 / 17
page 80
252. The Special Rapporteur could meet privately with some 30 persons, former
detainees or persons still under detention, who alleged they had been
tortured. Most of these persons feared that their safety, or that of their
relatives, could be in danger if their names are revealed. Their statements
can therefore not be described in detail. Nevertheless, a certain pattern
appeared in most of the statements given by these persons.
253. The majority of the detainees and ex—detainees interviewed by the Special
Rapporteur contended that they had been held incommunicado for a period which
was considerably longer than the 36 hours allowed by law (in some cases even
up to two weeks). Nor had they been allowed to see a lawyer during this
period. They alleged that in particular during this period of unacknowledged
detention they had been subjected to torture.
254. Torture, was mainly used in order to obtain information on insurgents,
their activities and movements, links with organizations or persons which are
already suspected, etc.
255. The types of torture most often reported include excessive beating or
kicking, placing of a plastic bag over the head leading to near suffocation
(called “dry submarine”), the pouring of water in the nose while the mouth is
propped with a cloth, leading to near drowning and suffocation (called the
“watercure”), the applications of electro—shocks to sensitive parts of the
body, death threats and mock executions. Almost invariably the victims are
blindfolded or hooded when subjected to torture. Torture (mainly beating) is
allegedly practised during transport immediately after arrest as well as
during interrogations in places of detention.
256. A considerable number of interviewees had not filed a complaint either
with the Commission on Human Rights or with another authority. The
explanations given varied: in most cases it was felt that such a complaint
would either be dismissed or would lead to nothing since it was impossible to
identify the perpetrators because of the blindfolding and the absence of
witnesses. In other cases it was also feared that the bringing of a complaint
might lead to further harassment. Some interviewees complained about the fact
that although they had asked for medical treatment, this was either withheld
or the medical examination by medical prison—staff was superficial.
257. In some cases persons had been released without any charge after
reportedly having been subjected to torture; in nearly all other cases the
torture stopped when the persons concerned were charged and arraigned and
transferred to detention centres where they awaited their trial.
258. One of the ex—detainees interviewed by the Special Rapporteur who
accepted that his identity be revealed, is Rosito Nino. His case, as
described below, may be seen as illustrative of the allegations made by the
other ex—detainees during their meetings with the Special Rapporteur.
Rosito Nino was arrested without a warrant in November 1987. No subversive
documents were found when his home was searched but when he was brought before
a judge the military produced such material which, he alleged, was probably
planted by them. He alleged having been tortured for three consecutive
nights, three hours every night, by being stripped naked, with his hands tied
behind his back, having electric shocks applied to his genitals, and being
beaten. When he lost consciousness he could finally rest, but soon after he
H / CN. i /1991 / 17
page 81
regained his senses the torture resumed. He witnessed others having their
head submerged in a bucket of water while being hanged upside down. He
received no food. He was constantly naked and blindfolded, had cold water
poured on him and then placed before an air conditioner. He later found out
that the reason for his arrest and interrogation was the murder of a navy
officer who he had known since childhood. After a while he was transferred by
CAPCOM soldiers to the Bicutan Camp where torture allegedly continued. He was
accused of being a leading NPA commander, and was beaten and kicked by every
passing soldier. He was threatened with death by being skinned unless he
confessed and gave his friends' names. After two days, thanks to the
intervention of a Congressman, he was sent back to police custody (WPD) and
then to the City Gaol. He was charged with robbery and homicide. After about
five months his case was dismissed and he was released.
259. As mentioned in the introduction, the Special Rapporteur visited four
prisons or detention centres, including one city gaol (Pasay), two military
detention facilities (Camp Crame in Quezon city and Camp Bagong Diwa in
Bicutan) — all three in the metropolitan area of the capital Manila — and one
provincial penitentiary (the Detention and Rehabilitation Centre of Cebu
Province). Most of the detainees interviewed by the Special Rapporteur were
held for offences connected with their alleged activity for the NPA, and
pending their trial. Their torture allegations related, without exception, to
the period of arrest and interrogation. No complaints were made concerning
present detention conditions, except for the insufficient quantity of food.
Visits by lawyers, doctors and family members seem to be held on a regular
basis. In the PC—INP detention facility in Camp Crame (which according to
some non—governmental organizations is a “show piece” for visitors and should
therefore not be considered as a typical, or representative case), the Special
Rapporteur noted that most of the detainees, both males and females, with whom
he had a sort of a round—table conversation, did not complain of having been
tortured. Generally speaking detainees at the Cebu Provincial prison
described torture methods to which they had allegedly been subjected as
consisting principally of severe beating with various objects, and altogether
less “sophisticated” or elaborate than in the other detention centres
visited. No use of methods such as “dry submarine”, “watercure” or electric
shocks was alleged.
260. The Special Rapporteur also heard statements by four persons whose case
he had submitted earlier to the Philippines Government. Two had already been
released, but only one of them, Cleotilde Binabaye, accepted that her name be
revealed. The other two, Joven Lim and Isidro de Lima, are still in
detention. The cases of Cleotilde Binabaye and Joven Urn were transmitted to
the Government by an urgent appeal dated 12 September 1989 (see document
EICN.411990/17, para. 127). Cleotilde Binabaye was released on bail shortly
before she was interviewed by the Special Rapporteur. She told the Special
Rapporteur that she had been arrested without a warrant and accused of
iiiembership in the NPA. She denied the accusation and said she had been active
in a legal workers' organization. She alleged having been maltreated while
being held for interrogation in Fort Bonifacio Camp and in Camp Bagong Diwa in
Bicutan. Joven Lim was interviewed, together with other detainees, at the
PC—INP gaol, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan. He told the Special Rapporteur about
the circumstances of his arrest, in July 1989, in Manila and his alleged
torture in the CAPCOM headquarters. Isidro de Lima's case was brought to the
Government's attention by letter dated 6 June 1990, (see para. 134). De Lima
is still detained at the Pasay City gaol. His statement gave further details
E/CN.4/1991/17
page 82
about his alleged torture. He was arrested on 25 March 1990 by CAPCOM
personnel and accused of being an NPA “sparrow member”. He was later charged
with murder, theft and violation of PD 1866 (illegal possession of weapons in
furtherance of rebellion). His torture, by CAPCOM personnel, allegedly
started immediately following his arrest and consisted of mauling, pouring of
spiced vinegar into his nose and mouth, electric shocks applied to various
parts of his body, including his genitals, and being subjected to “Russian
roulette”, with a gun pointed at his head. He was allegedly again subjected
to similar torture on 11 April 1990, and was later placed in a small cell full
of ants. The next day he was allegedly again tortured by electric shocks.
Afterwards he was returned to the Pasay City gaol and a doctor examined him,
but the examination was limited to his wrist, which was bruised from the
handcuffs. The rest of the body was not examined. The case of Isidro de Lima
was reportedly at present being considered by the Philippine Commission on
Human Rights (PCHR).
261. In this context it may be noted that on 24 October 1990 the Philippine
Mission to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed a letter to the
Special Rapporteur, in reply to his letter dated 6 June 1990, informing him
that the PCHR was investigating the cases transmitted by that letter. The
PCHR further suggested that the investigation of future cases would be
expedited if non—governmental organizations could be encouraged to bring
alleged violations of human rights to its attention at the same time they were
reported to the Special Rapporteur, to enable it to take immediate action.
The Special Rapporteur wishes to endorse this suggestion by the PCHR, He
agrees with the Ambassador and Permanent Representatives of the Philippines
that reporting alleged violations of human rights to him and to the PCHR at
the same time would enable the wheels of justice to move faster and in the
right direction.
4. Evaluation and recommendations
262. The long—yearned fall of the dictatorship of President Marcos in 1986 has
not brought the Philippines the period of stability and concomitantly a
restoration of the rule of law which was the goal of the peaceful and
bloodless revolution. The nation is deeply divided and even the armed forces,
the most powerful entity in the country, are fragmented. OEe ongoing
hostilities with an influential insurgent force provides a situation of
internal strife which so often is conducive to violations of human rights.
The ultimate aim of suppressing armed insurgency is seen as the highest value
under such circumstances. In the case of the Philippines the situation is
worsened by the fact that certain urban guerrilla units (the so—called
sparrow—units) attack and kill personnel belonging to the armed forces and the
police. The fact that they operate in quasi—anonimity contributes to the
sphere of suspicion and mutual fear, for in the eyes of the military each
citizen may be a potential threat. Human rights organizations which come to
the support of persons who allegedly have been deprived of their most basic
rights are themselves seen as allies of the insurgents and consequently are
harassed. It is for this reason that the decision of the Supreme Court of
9 July 1990 on warrantless arrest, referred to earlier, has drawn so much
criticism. The Special Rapporteur was informed that this decision might even
lead to the curtailment of other fundamental rights like freedom of expression
and of peaceful assembly. If a person can be arrested on the suspicion of
El CN. 4/1991 / 17
page 83
committing the continuing crime of sedition, the exercise of these freedoms
could subject him to suspicion of involvement in rebellion or subversion and
then to arrest and detention.
263. Under such circumstances even the best legal guarantees will come to
naught unless there are strong counter—balancing forces in society which
remind those who are responsible for the maintenance of internal order to
abide scrupulously by the law. In spite of promising measures which were
taken immediately after the revolution, the institutions established by these
measures do not seem to function adequately even if the difficult situation in
which they have to carry out their task is taken into account.
264. Some efforts at national reconciliation have been initiated recently.
Leaders from various factions, including principal figures of the political
opposition and of the leftist armed groups, have declared themselves willing
to enter into negotiations to achieve an enduring solution which finally will
bring peace to a nation that has been ridden by violence and internal conflict
for such a long time. This process of reconciliation, however, will take
considerable time. In the meantime it seems vital to maintain and strengthen
the constitutional order which was established after the 1986 revolution
through so much sacrifice.
265. It cannot be denied that human rights violations are committed by the
insurgents. In this context, the assassinations by the sparrow—units deserve
particular mention. If, however, the Government reacts by making the respect
for human rights subordinate to the crushing of resistance, it itself
contributes to the spiralling of violence and lawlessness. The task of
guaranteeing the constitutional order can never be carried out through means
which are themselves a violation of that same order.
266. As far as the armed struggle is concerned it could be of great importance
if the provisions of the Second Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
were considered to be applicable. This Protocol contains important provisions
to safeguard the basic human rights of the population. The position of the
authorities with regard to their applicability is not very clear. Although
representatives of human rights organizations told the Special Rapporteur that
the Government did not consider the Second Protocol applicable, this position
was not unequivocally taken by the representatives of the armed forces during
their discussions with the Special Rapporteur. They said that conditions
“short of war” indeed prevailed in certain areas and that, therefore, the
Protocol could be applicable. Although it is unclear whether the rather high
threshold, mentioned in article 1 of the Protocol is met, nothing prevents the
Government from declaring applicable the Protocol's provisions which,
inter qua , explicitly forbid torture and humiliating and degrading treatment
of persons who do not directly participate in the hostilities. Such a
decision could contribute to an improvement of the political climate and would
indicate that the total strategy approach must not be understood as a total
war strategy neglecting humanitarian standards and respect for human rights.
267. The legal provisions in the Philippines with regard to the rights of
persons who have been deprived of their liberty are of a high quality. They
are nearly word for word in conformity with the Body of Principles for the
Protection of all Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted
by the General Assembly in 1988. The unqualified prohibition of incommunicado
E / CN. 4/1991 / 17
page 84
detention, the right of the detainee to immediate access to his lawyer and his
relatives, the strict rules with regard to the admissibility of evidence
obtained under duress, all seem to make torture virtually impossible.
Nevertheless, since torture is easily practised in situations of civil strife,
it is all the more imperative to have institutions which scrutinize compliance
with the rules and prevent those who violate the rules from doing so with
impunity. The Philippine Commission on Human Rights is established explicitly
to accomplish this task.
268. Important though it is that the Commission has investigative powers, the
mere fact that the decision whether a charge will be brought against an
official (military or civilian) is to be taken by the Office of the
Prosecutor, inevitably causes delay. The enactment into law of the
1987 Senate Bill which provides the Commission with prosecutory powers
therefore seems long overdue. A matter for greater concern, however, is the
Commission's inability to deal in a sufficiently speedy way with the cases
which are brought to it. According to its own records only slightly more than
14 per cent of the cases filed until 1989 had been resolved by the end of that
year. The risk of an ever—increasing backlog is by no means imaginary, and is
bound to cause frustration among the complainants who will be less inclined to
go to the Commission for redress. An even more serious consequence may be
that the preventive effect of an institution like the Commission may gradually
wither away. Indeed it has already done so to a certain extent. As long as
it is generally known that violators of human rights will not go unpunished,
the chances that such violations will take place are slim, but they may again
increase if the system to bring such violators to justice does not work
effectively.
269. Another element which deserves mentioning is that, in spite of the
possibility of presidential waiver of the exclusive jurisdiction of military
tribunals over the military, roughly 50 per cent of the cases resolved by the
Commission, had been filed by the Prosecutor's office with military courts.
In none of these cases was the person found guilty sentenced although in a
number of cases disciplinary measures were taken. There seems to be no reason
whatever why persons belonging to the military should be tried by military
courts for offences committed against civilians during their performance of
the essentially civilian task of maintaining law and order. Having such
persons tried by military tribunals may easily lead to the suspicion of a
cover—up. Presidential Decree 1850, providing the military courts with
jurisdiction over all offences committed by members of the armed forces,
including the police, should therefore be repealed and replaced by a law which
returns to the civil courts the jurisdiction over all offences committed by
the military which are not strictly service—connected. Implementation of
article XVI, Section 6 of the Constitution, providing that a national police
force will be established which is civilian in character and accountable to
civilian authorities, would also contribute to a better understanding of the
separate tasks of the armed forces and the police.
270. With regard to torture complaints, there is the additional difficulty
that the perpetrators generally cannot be identified since the victims are
nearly always blindfolded or hooded during interrogation and witnesses are
absent. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the case has to be
dismissed. First, article 14 of the United Nations Convention against Torture
obliges the State Party to ensure in its legal system that the victim of an
E / CN. 4/1991/17
page 85
act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and
adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as
possible. A person who, during the investigation, has, beyond reasonable
doubt, been found to be tortured while under detention is entitled to
compensation even if the person of the torturer cannot be identified.
Article 14 is an expression of the rule that the State is responsible for the
acts of its organs. The rules of criminal evidence are not pertinent in this
respect.
271. Secondly, even if the torturer cannot be identified in person, the place
where the victim has been tortured usually can be ascertained. This makes it
possible to take action against the commanding officer even if he did not
participate in the interrogation himself. Severe disciplinary measures should
be taken against all officers who wittingly or unwittingly allow torture to be
practised in the places of detention under their command. They must be deemed
to be aware of, and therefore may be held responsible for the acts of their
subordinates. A standing order should be given that all interrogations are
duly recorded with the names of all persons who have participated in the
interrogation. In this way the issuance of clearances by the Philippine
Commission on Human Rights for military or police officers who are candidates
for promotion becomes more meaningful. The Special Rapporteur was told that
this system is not very effective since most human rights violators are not
officers but belong to the rank and file, especially in the rural areas. It
is, however, not enough that an officer has clean hands himself in order to be
fit for promotion, for it is also part of his reponsibility to take due care
that the persons under his charge have clean hands.
272. The present Government has taken highly important measures to restore the
rule of law in the country. It has ratified virtually all relevant
international instruments; a Philippine Commission on Human Rights was
established with clear tasks in the field of protection and promotion of human
rights; educational and training programmes have been set up and in most
administrative branches guidelines regarding respect for human rights have
been issued. In spite of all these highly commendable measures, serious human
rights violations, including torture and inhuman treatment, continue to occur
throughout the country. This can only mean that the Government must
strengthen its hold on the various executive branches and that the corrective
mechanisms must be made more effective. Preventive measures alone are not
enough since they lose their credibility if corrective measures are felt to be
deficient.
273. It is a tragedy that the 1986 revolution, in spite of high hopes, has not
led to greater unity in the country. The nation has remained deeply divided
on political and moral issues and the present human rights situation reflects
that division. All efforts, therefore, should be given to the process of
reconciliation. In this respect it may be worth while to repeat the words of
the President of the Senate, Jovito R. Salonga, pronounced during an address
delivered on 1 October 1990: “The final objective is not to reach agreement
on all substantive issues. It should be enough that agreement is reached on
how to resolve disagreements and conflicts. Unanimity is not a pre—condition
to unity.”
E / CN. 4/1991 / 17
page 86
274. In light of the above—mentioned considerations the Special Rapporteur
wishes to make a number of recommendations. Before doing so, however, he
wishes to point out that several of the proposed measures are already included
in legislative instruments pending before Congress. Compliance with such
recommendations could therefore be achieved rather easily.
(a) The position of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights should be
strengthened, both with regard to its competences and its infrastructure, in
order to enable it to carry out its task more effectively. In particular the
Commission should be provided with prosecutory powers;
(b) The Commission should review and evaluate its methods of work in
order to perform its functions in a more efficient way, thus enhancing its
credibility as an independent body that can be accepted by all strata of
society as the guarantor of the respect for human rights in the country;
(c) Legislative measures should be adopted to establish a national
civilian police force;
(d) Jurisdiction over offences committed by members of the armed forces,
including the police, against civilians should be returned to the civil
courts; an exception for service—connected of fences should be formulated
strictly;
(e) Measures should be taken to ensure that visits by lawyers and
doctors to persons under detention should be conducted immediately after
detention and should be held regularly and without hindrance, intimidation or
harassment of the legal and medical personnel who carry out their professional
duties;
(f) Measures should be taken to strengthen and make more efficient the
protection given to persons wishing to give evidence on cases of torture and
other human rights violations, as well as their relatives, against reprisals,
harassment and intimidation;
(g) Legislative or administrative measures should be taken to provide
victims of human rights violations, including torture and inhuman treatment,
with adequate compensation. In the case of victims of torture such measures
are called for by article 14 of the United Nations Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the
Philippines is a party. A finding of the Philippine Commission on Human
Rights or any other competent investigative body that a person has been
tortured while under detention should be sufficient for such compensation,
irrespective of whether the torturer can be identified;
(h) Persons charged with having practised torture should be brought to
trial speedily and, when found guilty, severely punished;
(i) All interrogations of persons who have been deprived of their
liberty should be recorded and the names of all persons who were present
during such interrogations should be given;
E / CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 87
(j) Disciplinary measures should be taken against the officers in
command of places of detention where torture has been practised, irrespective
of whether the person of the torturer can be identified. The Philippine
Commission on Human Rights should be authorized to recommend such disciplinary
measures to the competent authorities;
(k) Officials who have violated the rules prohibiting unacknowledged
detention or incommunicado detention should be severely disciplined.
B. Follow—up to visits
275. By letters dated 10 August 1990, addressed to the Government of Peru,
Guatemala, Honduras and Zaire, the Special Rapporteur requested those
Governments to inform him of any measures they may have taken in pursuance
of the recommendations made following his visits to their countries (see
E/CN.4/1989/15, para. 187, E/CN.4/1990/17, paras. 216 and 254, and
E/CN.4/1990/17/Add.l, para. 51, respectively). To date, only the Government
of Zaire has sent its observations. By letter dated 1 December 1990 it
informed the Special Rapporteur as follows: “During your visit to Zaire at
the beginning of this year, you met a number of leading Zairian figures,
including the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, who
informed you that Decree—Law No. 1/61 of 25 February 1961, which relates to
State security measures and on the basis of which house arrest and internal
banishment measures were taken against citizens, was being reconsidered with a
view to its amendment or repeal. We take this oppportunity to inform you that
the well—known Decree—Law has been repealed by Legal Ordinance No. 90—049 of
12 September 1990”.
E / CN. 4 / 1991 / 17
page 88
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
276. After five years as Special Rapporteur on questions relevant to torture
one feels inclined to make an assessment of what has been achieved and what
still has to be done.
277. One thing is clear from the outset: the intensified campaign of the
organized world community against torture, starting with the adoption by the
General Assembly in 1975 of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons
from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, has not led to the eradication of that evil. Torture
continues apace, as is clear from the present report.
278. This campaign, however, has led to a universal awareness that torture is
one of the most heinous violations of human rights because it annihilates
manes most essential characteristic: his personality. Although torture was
already explicitly prohibited in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there is now a
world—wide legal conviction that the prohibition of torture belongs to the
rules of jus cogens , binding for each and every member of the international
community, and that this prohibition is unconditional. Torture cannot be
justified under any circumstances.
279. This general outlawry of torture is evidently not sufficient to do away
with this ignominious practice. The international community has, therefore,
taken further steps. A convention was concluded obliging States parties to
take measures of a corrective and of a preventive character to make the fight
against torture more effective. The early entry into force of the Convention
and the rate of ratifications are themselves evidence of the world—wide
condemnation of torture. The Commission on Human Rights decided to appoint a
Special Rapporteur on Questions Relevant to Torture, whose mandate is to
monitor the occurrence of torture throughout the world, to take action with
regard to alleged cases of torture which have been brought to his attention
and to submit recommendations to the Commission on measures to be taken to
strengthen the rdgime against torture.
280. The international community also adopted a set of instruments, containing
guidelines for the treatment of all persons deprived of their liberty and
elaborating the provisions of legally binding conventions. The most
comprehensive of these instruments is the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment of 1988,
on which the Special Rapporteur commented in his fifth report to the
Commission.
281. In a more general way the Commission on Human Rights established a
programme of advisory services and requested its special rapporteurs to inform
Governments of the possibility of availing themselves of the services provided
for under the programme. Services which may be provided under the programme
include training courses and technical assistance. Governments which feel
that they cannot effectively fight the phenomenon of torture on their own can
turn to the international community for help and support.
E / CN. 4 / 1991/17
page 89
282. Additional mechanisms are under consideration. The Commission will,
during its forty—seventh session, discuss the desirability of an Optional
Protocol to the Convention against Torture, instituting a system of periodic
visits by independent experts to places of detention.
283. Much has been accomplished, but the final aim has not been achieved.
Everything seems to be there to make the campaign against torture a successful
one and nevertheless all human rights reports speak loudly of failure. All
the rules are there but they remain paper formulas instead of living in the
minds of men. The mutilated bodies found in ditches along the road and the
empty eyes of the living torture victims tell us that the campaign against
torture has to be relentlessly continued.
284. What has been accomplished has not been a waste of time and energy.
On the contrary, it is the indispensable infrastructure for this continued
campaign. The international campaign has now to be implemented on the
national level, and the only bodies which can do so in a credible way are
those which have endorsed this campaign on the international level, namely
Governments.
285. On the national level, Governments are faced with a choice among many
priorities. If they are confronted with a vociferous opposition or with an
armed insurgency the paramount priority would seem to be the stifling of that
opposition and the crushing of the insurgency. The possibility of realizing
all other priorities, such as economic development, would seem, in the eyes
of the authorities, to be completely dependent upon the realization of that
paramount priority. Therefore all other priorities are made subservient to
the paramount one. Under such circumstances torture is easily used for the
dual purpose of obtaining information and instilling terror. Torture becomes
a political tool for the realization of that paramount priority. But, since
a Government is not a monolithic entity and policy goals are pursued through
various Government branches, we often see the strange situation that one part
of Government continues to endorse the campaign against torture on the
international level, whereas at home another part practises or condones
torture as a political tool. When the Government is confronted with that
inconsistency, it usually denies it, since it is impossible to reconcile it
or to explain it away.
286. The organized world community should realize that the campaign against
torture will completely lose its credibility if this situation is allowed to
continue. New rules may be drawn up and new mechanisms may be established but
they will be to no avail as long as the glaring discrepancy between behaviour
at the international and national levels is tolerated. Governments should
realize that it is not impossible but, on the contrary, a compelling necessity
to pursue several priorities at the same time. They should learn to profit
from history's lesson that internal order ultimately can never — or at best
only temporarily — be restored and maintained at the cost of basic human
rights. During the past few years we have seen throughout the world the
downfall of r gimes which had refused to take that lesson to heart. But
obviously there still are Governments which think that they will be the
exception to the rule.
E/CN.4/1991 / 17
page 90
287. The lesson to be learned is that in the end torture does not pay; that
ultimately the tool of torture will turn itself against those who use it; that
it is not only illogical but also futile to try to restore or maintain law and
order by trampling the law and disturbing order. But as long as this lesson
is not yet learned, there is every reason to step up the campaign against
torture. The members of the international community should increasingly exert
pressure of various kinds upon Governments which allow torture to be used as a
political tool. In his first report the Special Rapporteur called torture the
plague of the second half of the twentieth century. Precious little time is
left for preventing this plague from entering into the twenty—first century.
288. The Special Rapporteur's mandate is aptly called “Questions relevant to
torture”. Thereby it is implicitly recognized that torture does not start in
the interrogation chamber but that the decisive moment is the moment when a
person is deprived of his liberty. As of that moment he finds himself in a
situation where he eventually may be exposed to torture. It is by no means a
coincidence that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
which, in its article 7 forbids torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, states, in its article 10, paragraph 1, that all
persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with
respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Torture is the absolute
denial of the inherent dignity of the human person. Violation of article 10,
paragraph 1, therefore, may lead to violation of article 7 whereas compliance
with article 10, paragraph 1, is the best preventive measure against the
violation of article 7.
289. It is, therefore, no matter for suprise that the prohibition of torture
is an integral part of a number of documents dealing with the treatment of
detained persons in general, such as the Body of Principles for the Protection
of all Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. In none of these
documents do we find an explicit prohibition of incommunicado detention
although there are provisions which limit the possibilities of such detention,
like the prompt hearing by a judicial or other authority and the prompt
notification of a person's arrest to his relatives.
290. Apparently, there is some understanding of the view that for security
reasons a person must be held incommunicado for a certain period in order to
collect information and evidence which under no circumstances should be
allowed to come to the knowledge of his accomplices. Should he have the right
to see his counsel or his relatives, vital information might be leaked to the
outside world. Such understanding has until now prevented the outright
prohibition of incommunicado detention.
291. It should be realized, however, that torture is most frequently practised
during incommunicado detention. To that extent, incommunicado detention might
be called the torturer's bosom friend. It seems, therefore, worthwhile to see
whether there are no other means by which such security considerations might
be properly served. Governments sometimes have overriding objections against
the detainee seeing his own lawyer since it is suspected that he belongs to
the same faction. In such cases use might be made of lawyers placed on a
panel by an independent professional organization, like the national Bar
Association. Similarly, for as long as a person is not allowed to see his
legal counsel or his relatives, a daily medical examination by an independent
doctor to be chosen from a list drawn up by a professional medical
organization might be prescribed. Such measures would divest the detention of
its incommunicado character.
E / CN. 4/1991/17
page 91
292. It is a well—known fact that the prosecution of torturers is often
virtually impossible because during the interrogation session the detainee was
blindfolded or hooded and is consequently not able to identify the culprits.
Implementation of principles 12 and 23 of the Body of Principles, providing
for the recording of all relevant facts at the time of arrest (principle 12)
and during an interrogation (principle 23), including the identity of the
persons who assisted at the interrogation could effectively terminate this
ignominious practice of blindfolding or hooding which — apart from being
highly intimidating — is in itself a violation of the duty to respect a
detained person's inherent dignity.
293. Another effective measure to prevent torture is to hold the person in
charge of a place of detention responsible, if it is proven beyond reasonable
doubt that a detainee has been tortured in that particular detention place,
even if the identity of the torturers themselves cannot be established. Every
person in charge of a detention place should take adequate measures to prevent
any occurrence of torture. If torture is nevertheless practised, he obviously
has failed in meeting his own responsibility. The Special Rapporteur has been
informed that in some countries the taking of disciplinary measures (such as
demotion) have been found to be highly effective tools in combating torture.
294. Administrative detention has often been mentioned as a form of detention
which may easily lead to torture practices, since many of the guarantees
inherent to a criminal procedure are lacking. This is particularly so if
administrative detention is not subject to judicial control or cannot be
appealed against. In many countries deprivation of liberty is only possible
when a person is charged with or convicted for a criminal offence;
administrative detention, consequently, is not allowed. In other countries
deprivation of liberty is lawful if a person is considered a risk to society
or to certain interests of the State without him having committed a criminal
offence. In this context it deserves mentioning that the Body of Principles
is applicable to all forms of detention or imprisonment. Persons under
administrative detention are, therefore, entitled to the same degree of
protection as persons who are suspected of or are found guilty of having
committed criminal off ences.
295. The idea of the institution of a system of periodic visits by independent
experts to places of detention or imprisonment was proposed to the Commission
a long time ago. On 6 March 1980, the Government of Costa Rica submitted
to the Commission on Human Rights a draft optional protocol to the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment — which at the time was still under consideration — which provided
for a system of periodic visits.
296. At that time it was decided to give priority to the conclusion of the
Convention. Consequently, discussion of the draft optional protocol was
deferred. When, in December 1984, the Convention against Torture was adopted,
this same idea of a system of periodic visits was taken up in the context of
the Council of Europe. In resolution 1986/56 the Commission on Human Rights
recommended, in view of this development, that other interested regions where
a consensus existed should consider the possibility of preparing draft
conventions based on the concept of a system of visits. It was decided to
defer consideration of the draft optional protocol until the forty—fifth
session in 1989. On 6 March 1989 the Commission decided to further defer
E / CN.4 / 1991 / 17
page 92
consideration of the draft optional protocol to its forty—seventh session
since it thought it advisable to take note, on the one hand, of the experience
of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which had entered into force on
1 February 1988, and, on the other hand, of the work being carried out in
other regions designed to establish regional systems of visits to places of
detention (decision 1989/104).
297. The Commission will therefore resume consideration of the draft
optional protocol at its present session. The Special Rapporteur has been
informed that the first report of the Committee established under the
European Convention will be published in the beginning of 1991. The Special
Rapporteur has also been informed that in other regions no steps have been
taken to establish similar regional systems of visits.
298. As the Special Rapporteur said in previous reports, such systems of
periodic visits must be deemed to be one of the most effective preventive
measures against torture. As a result of such visits by a committee of
experts Governments may be advised on measures to be taken to improve the
existing r gime in places of detention or imprisonment. The element of
periodicity is designed to strengthen its preventive effect and to emphasize
its character as a form of co—operation with the Government concerned, which
is also underlined by the confidentiality of the reporting system. Although
the institution of such systems of visits on the national level must be
welcomed and consequently has been recommended by the Special Rapporteur, the
preventive effects of an international system will be incomparably stronger.
299. As the Special Rapporteur stated in his second report (E/CN.4/1987/13,
para. 85), such a system of visits is no more an intrusion in the domestic
jurisdiction of a State than the visits of staff members of the International
Atomic Energy Agency to nuclear facilities which may also lead to
recommendations for the improvement of existing standards. Just as in the
latter case such visits have been accepted since they serve a purpose which is
recognized by the international community as being of vital importance, namely
the maintenance of international peace and security, a system of visits to
places of detention would serve the purpose of ensuring respect for human
dignity, a value deemed by the international community of equivalent
importance.
300. The introduction of a system, as provided for by the draft optional
protocol, would to a certain extent be the final stone in the edifice which
the United Nations has built in their campaign against torture. It would also
reflect the three—tiered system of activities of the United Nations in the
field of human rights. First, torture was explicitly prohibited,
(standard—setting). Secondly, a convention was concluded to strengthen the
standard. The Parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment have committed themselves to take
measures on the national level which will enable them better to implement the
norm (implementation). Adoption of the draft optional protocol would
constitute an illustration of the most recent branch of United Nations
activities: co—operation between individual Governments and the
international community for the promotion of the respect for human rights
(Advisory Services).
E/CN.4/1991/17
page 93
301. Persons who allege that they have been subjected to torture often contend
that the complaints they have filed are not handled in a serious manner by the
authority competent to carry out the investigation. Others hesitate to file a
complaint or refrain from doing so, because the complaint has to be filed with
the same authority which formally was responsible for the investigation during
which the torture was practised, usually the prosecutor's office. Governments
should, therefore, consider the possibility of establishing independent
authorities with investigatory and/or prosecutory powers where complaints
about torture can be brought.
302. Since the moment of arrest and the first days of detention form the most
crucial period in the combat against torture, it is of utmost importance that
law enforcement personnel and other persons involved learn to recognize and
respect the inherent dignity of those who are committed to their trust.
Training courses and educational programmes remain therefore of the highest
significance in any credible campaign for the eradication of torture. The
international community has provided excellent documents which serve this
purpose. The Body of Principles and related instruments should be obligatory
material for all such programmes.
303. In conclusion the Special Rapporteur wishes to make the following
recommendations, many of which can also be found in his previous reports:
(a) States which have not yet done so, should ratify as soon as possible
the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment;
(b) Since incommunicado detention is highly conducive to torture
practices it should be declared illegal. A person found to be in
incommunicado detention should be released without delay;
(c) Interrogation of detained persons should only take place at official
interrogation centres. All interrogations should be duly recorded in
conformity with principle 23 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of
All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Evidence obtained
from a detained person in non—official interrogation centres should not be
admitted as evidence in court, unless confirmed by him during interrogation at
official locations. The blindfolding or hooding of detainees during
interrogation should be absolutely forbidden;
(d) Places of detention should be regularly inspected by independent
experts. The institution of a treaty—based system of periodic visits to
places of detention would be a highly effective preventive measure against the
occurrence of torture and should therefore be seriously considered;
(e) Complaints about torture should be dealt with immediately and should
be investigated by an independent authority which has no relation to the
authority that investigated the offence which the detainee was suspected of
having committed. In this context the establishment of the post of an
ombudsman type authority or an independent commission on human rights with
investigative and/or prosecutory powers may be recommended;
(f) Whenever a torture complaint is found justified, the victim should
be provided with compensation without delay;
El CN.411991 / 17
page 94
(g) Whenever a torture complaint is found justified, the perpetrators
should be severely punished. If the torture is found to have taken place in
an official place of detention the official in charge of this location should
be disciplined or punished;
(h) Since the Special Rapporteur continues to receive information that
members of the medical profession play a role in the practice of torture, he
wishes to reiterate his previous recommendation that professional medical
associations take strict measures against such persons who have dishonoured
their profession;
(i) Each detained person should have the right to initiate, immediately
after his arrest, proceedings before a court on the lawfulness of his
detention, in conformity with article 9, paragraph 4 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, which
in principle 32 contains the same provision, makes no exception for times of
emergency, a detained person should be entitled to exercise this right also
under a state of siege or emergency;
(j) Training programmes for law enforcement and security personnel
should reflect the respect due to the inherent dignity of all detained
persons. In particular, such personnel should be instructed on their duty to
disobey orders received from a superior to practise torture;
(k) Governments are reminded that they can avail themselves of the
programme of advisory services of the United Nations Centre for Human Rights
in combating torture.
