Site icon Iran Human Rights Documentation Center

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.
        

Download Attachments:

Exit mobile version