OHCHR HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

OHCHR HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 25 / October - December 2014 Message from the Director

HRTD Quarterly Newsletter celebrates its 25th issue!

I

n 2008, the Human rights Treaties Division (HRTD) at OHCHR launched the first issue of its quarterly newsletter. Six years later, we are proud to continue to offer relevant analytical information on the human rights treaty system to all those who, whatever their position, care about this unique and treaty grounded human rights protection architecture. The HRTD Newsletter brings the works of the treaty body system to life. Since 2008 we have also strived to inform the 172 experts that compose the treaty body system today by sending them a Weekly update providing through e-mail news on the sessions of the treaty bodies and other human rights developments. A shorter Weekly Update is also made available to subscribers. Our outreach capacity at HRTD is not a zero cost operation! But despite lack of dedicated funding we are committed to do our outmost to keep treaty body experts, Governments, civil society, academics, UN entities and others aware of our work and its importance. Information flow is crucial of course and we realize that since 2008 all treaty body experts are more aware of the activities of peer treaty bodies. Synergies, common thinking and efficiencies can only be achieved through information bridges, and we, as OHCHR, do our best to build these bridges among treaty bodies, between treaty bodies and other mechanisms and between treaty bodies and other human rights actors, including of course Governments and civil society. Since 2008 our work has evolved and 2015 will be the first full year of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution 68/268 on strengthening the human rights treaty body system. We wish you all a very productive new year.

"Regarding resolution 68/268 on Treaty Body strengthening, the past six months have seen significant follow-up to this landmark document, and I will pay careful attention to its implementation by States and by the Treaty Bodies themselves" from High Commissioner's statement at HRC opening in September 2014. Photo: Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, High Commissioner during the 2nd Forum on Business and Human Rights, Geneva, 2 December 2014 © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

Newsletter No. 25 / October - December 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS EDITORIAL

INTERVIEW

 Message from the Director

1

 Upcoming meetings of treaty body Chairpersons

3

 Entrevista con Jaime Marchán Romero, Miembro saliente y ex-Presidente del

Comité de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (español)  Interview with Jaime Marchan Romero, outgoing Member and former Chair of

the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (English)  Entretien avec Christine Chanet, Membre sortant et ancienne Présidente du

Comité des droits de l’homme (français)  Interview with Christine Chanet, outgoing Member and former Chair of the

Human Rights Committee (English) HIGHLIGHT

 Civil society coordination for effective engagement with the Committee

against Torture  Treaty body jurisprudence highlights (May-August 2014)  Inquiry on Lebanon by the Committee against Torture RECENT

DEVELOPMENTS

 Liberty and Security: A New General Comment on Article 9 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)  General Comment No. 35: Q & A with Gerald Neuman, Member of the

Human Rights Committee and Rapporteur of the General Comment  CEDAW and CRC join forces to provide guidance on eliminating harmful

practices affecting women and girls  First two General Comments of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities  The UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture will support 190 projects in

81 countries in 2015  Lebanese NGO RESTART helps torture victims from Syria with the support of

the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture th

4 21 5 22 6 8 12 13 13 14 15 16 16

 UN celebrates 30 anniversary of Convention against Torture

17

CAPACITY-

 Lebanon: Combatting torture requires political will and systemic change

18

BUILDING

 National Human Rights Commission in Sudan empowered to actively

engage with the Treaty Bodies  Migrant Workers' Rights training for civil society representatives from Asia,

the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa SPT

 Malta - “Progress in preventing torture and ill-treatment but more needs to be

done,” says Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture

18 19 20

ELECTIONS

 States Parties to OP-CAT elect new members to SPT

20

OTHERS

 Latest signatures, ratifications and accessions

23

 Latest State Party reports received

25

 Info on OHCHR Human Rights Treaties Division

27

 Tools and links

28 2

OHCHR -- HUMAN HUMAN RIGHTS RIGHTS TREATIES TREATIES DIVISION DIVISION OHCHR


Upcoming meetings of treaty body Chairpersons

Jose Francisco Calitzay, Chair CERD © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

of

Soledad Cisternas Reyes (CRPD), Nigel Rodley (HRCttee), Nicole Ameline (CEDAW), Zdzislaw Kedzia (CESCR), Kirsten Sandberg (CRC), Emmanuel Decaux (CED), Malcolm Evans (SPT), Francisco Carrion Mena (CMW), Felice Gaer (ViceChair of CAT), at the 26th Meeting of Chairpersons, Geneva, June 2014 © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

Claudio Grossman, Chair of CAT during CAT 53rd session (November 2014) © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

Informal Meeting of Chairpersons

T

aking advantage of the Wilton Park meeting on “Strengthening the human rights treaty monitoring system: what are the next steps?” in January 2015 to which all treaty body Chairpersons have been invited (but which is not a UN organized meeting), Malcolm Evans, Chairperson of the 26th meeting of Chairpersons and Chairperson of the Sub-committee on Prevention of Torture, will host an informal meeting of Chairpersons from 16 to 18 January 2015, immediately after the Wilton Park meeting and at the same premises. The following topics are on the agenda of the informal meeting:  Implementation of GA resolution 68/268 on treaty body strengthening  Elements and principles for a common treaty body policy on reprisals  Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals

27th Meeting of Chairpersons

T

he 27th annual meeting of Chairpersons will take place from 22 to 26 June 2015 in San José, Costa Rica, at the Inter-American Institute for Human Rights to foster greater synergies with the regional human rights protection system. As decided by the Chairpersons at their 26th meeting, the following items will feature on the agenda of the 27th meeting:  Harmonization of working methods, including the possible alignment of the consultation process for the elaboration of general comments  A common treaty body policy on intimidation and reprisals  Late and non-reporting by States Parties  Capacity-building and technical cooperation per GA resolution 68/268

3



Entrevista con Jaime Marchán Romero, Miembro saliente y ex-Presidente del Comité de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales

“Hemos sido testigos de una verdadera democratización de los derechos humanos” English version on page 21 Q. ¿Desde la perspectiva de los derechos económicos sociales y culturales, cómo ve usted los distintos fenómenos políticos en el mundo, incluyendo la denominada “Primavera Árabe” y sus consecuencias? ¿Cuáles son los vínculos entre estos fenómenos políticos con los derechos económicos sociales y culturales? A. En todo movimiento de reivindicación política, como la “primavera árabe”, hay una agenda relegada de derechos humanos. Una verdadera democracia implica respetar todos los derechos humanos. Ninguna restricción de las libertades fundamentales, como la libertad de expresión, puede justificarse aduciendo mejoras sociales o crecimiento económico, como propugnan los regímenes autoritarios y neopopulistas. Solo el pleno respecto de los derechos humanos constituye una base sólida para una democracia perdurable.

Jaime Marchán Romero during end of 53rd session, Geneva © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

D

urante su tiempo de servicio en el Comité (1984-2014), uno de los avances más significativos conseguidos en el ámbito de los derechos humanos ha sido el de eliminar la frontera artificial que existe entre los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales y los derechos civiles y políticos para lo cual el Comité ha venido trabajando arduamente. Q. Podría usted decirnos ¿cuáles son los cambios más importantes que ha presenciado durante su interacción con los Estados partes, las instituciones públicas y privadas así como con la sociedad civil? ¿Qué más se podría hacer al respecto? A. Hecho relevante fue la adopción, en 2008, del Protocolo Facultativo. Ratificó de manera definitiva que los derechos económicos sociales y culturales tienen el mismo valor jurídico y gozan de igual protección internacional que los derechos civiles y políticos. Otro cambio notable consiste en que los Estados han dejado de ser los únicos actores. Las organizaciones internacionales, la sociedad civil, las instituciones públicas y privadas y los propios titulares participan más activamente en el sistema, por lo que puede hablarse de una verdadera democratización de los derechos humanos. Aunque se ha llegado a un grado avanzado de verificación del cumplimiento de las obligaciones, el sistema debe alcanzar un nivel más eficaz de seguimiento. He ahí una tarea pendiente.

Q. Usted ha trabajado arduamente en los derechos culturales, lo que incluyó el liderar la adopción del comentario general sobre los derechos culturales. ¿Qué lo motivó a enfocarse en los derechos culturales? Por favor, comparta con nosotros su punto de vista sobre el estatus actual de estos derechos y hacia dónde deberíamos dirigirnos? A. Como escritor, la cultura ha estado siempre en el centro de mis reflexiones. Explicar el profundo contenido de la cultura como derecho humano fue mi principal motivación al momento de redactar, por encargo del Comité, la Observación General Nº 21 sobre el derecho de toda persona a participar en la vida cultural. Un aporte fundamental en esta materia fue la protección de los derechos culturales de las minorías y de los pueblos indígenas. Esos derechos se entienden ahora en su doble vertiente: derechos individuales y derechos colectivos. La cultura jugará un papel cada vez más destacado para una mejor comprensión de la diversidad del mundo en el diálogo entre civilizaciones a escala planetaria. La cultura implica también una cultura de los derechos humanos. Q. Como miembro y ex-Presidente del CDESC ¿Cuáles son los logros que ha conseguido el Comité y de los cuales usted se siente satisfecho? A. El Comité ha posicionado eficazmente a los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales en la agenda internacional. En apenas veinte años logró avanzar hasta su afirmación plena como derechos exigibles o justiciables. Hoy las violaciones de estos derechos pueden ser objeto de reclamación y reparación internacional. A través de sus diversas Observaciones Generales, el Comité ha contribuido a clarificar su contenido normativo y la índole jurídica de las obligaciones de estatales en esta materia. Ello ha 4

OHCHR -- HUMAN HUMAN RIGHTS RIGHTS TREATIES TREATIES DIVISION DIVISION OHCHR enriquecido grandemente la conciencia ético-jurídica de los Estados, sociedades y personas. El Comité fue líder en reconocer la importancia de la sociedad civil como nuevo actor del sistema global de derechos humanos . También lo fue en identificar la responsabilidad jurisdiccional de los Estados respecto de las actividades de empresas y corporaciones. Pese a estos avances,


subsisten violaciones masivas de derechos humanos en todas las regiones del mundo, por lo que debe seguir trabajándose sin descanso. He tenido el privilegio de haber sido miembro fundador del Comité por veintisiete años. De él he aprendido todo lo que sé sobre derechos humanos y ha marcado mi conciencia y compromiso con los derechos humanos para siempre.

Entretien avec Christine Chanet Membre sortante et ancienne Présidente du Comité des droits de l’homme English version on page 22 Au cours des 27 dernières années, vous avez Q .servi le Comité des droits de l’homme en tant que membre et présidente (1997–1998 and 2005– 2006), toute en travaillant à temps plein comme avocate en France, où vous étiez aussi juge de la Cour suprême. Comment avez-vous réussi à combiner les deux ? Quels étaient les défis et qu’estce qui vous a motivé à les surmonter ? R. Mener de front des fonctions de Juge puis de doyen de section à la Cour de cassation française et un mandat de membre, deux fois présidente du Comité des droits de l’homme, est un défi difficile à gagner. Un seul moyen d’y répondre: travail et organisation. Pourquoi remplir cette double fonction? Afin de provoquer l’interpénétration du Christine Chanet, lors de la 100èmeSession et Anniversaire du Comidroit international des droits de l’homme et du droit té des droits de l’Homme en octobre 2010 au Palais des Nations, national, d’une part en apportant au Comité des droits de Geneva © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby l’homme l’expérience et la technique judiciaire et d’autre part en incitant les juridictions nationales à appliquer plus R. Je suis très heureuse d’avoir contribué pendant 27 souvent et de manière plus approfondie les traités relatifs ans au développement du Comité des droits de l’homme aux droits de l’homme. et à son rayonnement, à la reconnaissance de sa Q. En dehors de votre engagement auprès du Comité jurisprudence comme source du droit international ainsi des droits de l’homme, vous avez également servi que par la Cour internationale de Justice qui l’a reconnue d’autres mécanismes des droits de l’homme de à plusieurs reprises, plus particulièrement dans l’affaire l’ONU en tant que Rapporteur spécial sur les droits Dialo de 2012. Je suis également heureuse d’avoir initié de l’homme à Cuba et avec la Mission internationale des discussions avec la Commission du droit de vérification sur les colonies israéliennes dans les international de l’ONU qui ont abouti à la reconnaissance territoires palestiniens occupés, mandatée par le par cette dernière du pouvoir de contrôle par les organes Conseil des droits de l’homme en 2012. Quelle a été des traités des réserves émises par les Etats parties au votre expérience avec les autres mécanismes et Pacte, et surtout d’avoir activement permis de faire quelle est la valeur ajoutée du système des organes admettre à la communauté internationale l’impossibilité de dénoncer les deux Pactes fondateurs. de traités aux travaux d’autres mécanismes ? R. L'expérience d’une situation des droits de l’homme à Cuba ou dans les territoires occupés par Israël, selon les procédures du Conseil des droits de l’homme, m’a permis de me familiariser avec d’autres mécanismes qui disposent de moyens plus étendus qui permettent un travail plus complet au sein d’une équipe. Quoi de mieux pour aider le Conseil des droits de l’homme dans sa mission que les recommandations des organes des traités dont il se sert pour l’Examen Périodique Universel et l’expérience des experts indépendants pour mener des missions d’enquête ou d’établissement des faits.

Q. Quelles sont vos impressions sur le Comité des droits de l’homme que vous quittez après de nombreuses années de service? Quels changements aimeriez-vous voir dans le travail du Comité et les organes de traités à l’avenir ?

R. Mon souhait pour l’avenir du Comité et le premier d’entre eux c’est que cet organe gagne en visibilité, pas seulement au sein des juridictions internationales et des universités, mais au sein des juridictions nationales. A cette fin, tous les moyens des nouvelles technologies, vidéo, site internet relooké devraient être utilisés au Q. A votre avis, quelles sont les principales maximum et le Comité devrait continuer à progresser et réalisations du Comité des droits de l’homme améliorer ses procédures pour les rendre plus pédagogiques et percutantes. pendant votre mandat avec le Comité ? 5



Civil society coordination for effective engagement with the Committee against Torture

“We developed coordinating structures bringing together groups working on similar issues over a year prior to the review; we promoted collegiality, facilitated shadow report submissions, and provided education, training and support.”

T

he US Human Rights Network (USHRN) coordinated the engagement of about 70 civil society organizations throughout the review process of the USA by the Committee against Torture (CAT) in November 2014. OHCHR asked Rebecca Landy, Human Rights Outreach Coordinator, how the network organized the coordination, what had proved most effective, and what lessons they had learned from this experience.

that without support would find it difficult to attend. Education, training, and support are essential to CSO engagement. USHRN held a number of webinars, preparation calls and orientations, as well as provided informative resources (see our CAT webpage). We find that the webinars with participation by UN staff, and case studies of groups that have successfully used the treaty processes to be particularly effective in engaging the interest of, and preparing grassroots groups to the process. A month before the review, we offered a webinar on How to Advocate in Geneva, which gave invaluable guidance on engagement with the CAT Committee. USHRN also prepared a delegation guide with essential logistical information and other important details such as a coordinated social media plan. Additionally, a partner CSO, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), put together a Committee Member Guidebook.

The US Human Rights Network (USHRN) is a network of organizations and individuals working to grow a human rights movement and culture in the USA led by the people most directly impacted by human rights violations. We engage grassroots and national groups in the use of human rights standards, laws, and mechanisms to advance domestic advocacy and organizing goals. With the leadership of our CAT Taskforce, which serves as the primary entity that coordinates the participation of U.S. groups in the review of USHRN coordinated and facilitated shadow report the USA Government, USHRN was able to help submissions by civil society to CAT and their organize a robust civil society delegation this November. dissemination. We presented guidance on shadow We collaborated with the World Organisation against report collaboration and writing, and had a Shadow Torture (OMCT), which since the beginning of 2014 has Report Template with suggested short, precise, and facilitated participation between civil society (CSOs) coordinated reports. This template led to the submission world-wide and the UN Committee against Torture (CAT of organized and user-friendly reports. For the 43 groups Committee). that choose to submit through USHRN we sent the necessary hard copies of their reports to the Committee. We developed and implemented coordinating structures We also wrote an executive summary of the reports which brought groups together working on similar submitted through USHRN (and translated this issues. The CAT Taskforce, which began its work over a document into French) to assist the Committee members year prior to the review, organized working groups based in reviewing the large number of documents submitted on the CAT’s list of issues. These working groups were by US CSOs. comprised of grassroots and national groups across the US who worked together in the months leading up to the Coalition building review. The working group structure allowed us to coordinate strategic advocacy with Committee members, With a large delegation and limited speaking time before minimize repetition, and communicate effectively. We set the Committee, USHRN organized oral interventions by expectations about the review process early and working group. This allowed several organizations to reinforced them often. It was essential to promote colle- work together and present one joint statement on giality and intersectionality of our advocacy process and specific issue areas thereby taking maximum advantage goals. of the time. OMCT assisted USHRN with coordinating the formal one hour NGO briefing with the CAT Education, training and support Committee. The day before the review, USHRN held an orientation where veteran treaty body review attendees USHRN, and members that have taken part in previous offered guidance and support to those newer to the treaty body reviews, conducted direct outreach to groups process and where working groups met in person to that work on the broad issues covered by the treaty to continue to coordinate their strategies. USHRN also inform them of the applicability to their work and guide prioritized time for directly affected people to give them with reporting and advocacy preparation. testimony on their personal stories. In addition, USHRN Additionally, we were able to offer some scholarships for organized a side event and other meetings, such as with groups to attend the review – giving preference to OHCHR staff supporting special mandate holders to directly impacted people and grassroots organization

6



create extra opportunities for the USA civil society engage them in shadow report writing, and connecting delegation to learn about other UN bodies. them to USHRN process. Groups in Chicago have been particularly effective in this regard. CSOs that have made Our advice to other countries and CSOs is to build a the trip and experienced the electricity and power of coalition of CSOs to serve as an equivalent counterpart international intervention at the UN have the to the government delegation and have a coordinated responsibility to spread the word in their communities at voice. The USHRN CAT Taskforce members were home to help the UN strengthen human rights in the instrumental in reaching out to other groups early to United States and around the world.

USA Civil Society engagement with CAT

“Civil society matters”

G

lobal scrutiny is one of the greatest tools to shine light on human rights violations. The absolute prohibition of torture sets the context for advocacy, rehabilitation and redress on behalf of victims, survivors and their families. On the occasion of the review of the USA by CAT, we spoke to Lin Piwowarczyk, President of the National Consortium of Torture Treatment Programs USA. Could you explain the activities you have undertaken to maximize the impact of your contribution to the CAT. What was, in your view, most successful? When civil society organizations within a country work as a coalition both in preparation of shadow reports and setting a strategic agenda, in addition to collaborating before the Committee Against Torture, their impact is maximized. The U.S. Human Rights Network deserves credit for their leadership in gathering associations and working groups who might otherwise work in silos focusing on their specific areas of concern. Shadow reports, as recently demonstrated, when built on actual facts, enable the Committee’s eyes to penetrate society as the “devil is in the details.”

Thoughtfully written, they become the basis from which Committee members with other evidence and past reports generate specific questions that are particularly relevant and focused. Emotional testimonies by survivors to the Committee and the Government delegation remind us that, although violations occur in a society, it is at the level of the individual and their family that they occur which I have learned from my life work as a psychiatrist documenting and treating torture survivors and their families. What lessons did you learn from this experience? What advice would you give to other organizations? The involvement of organizations to enhance voices both at home and during the proceedings is important to being effective, sharing resources and skills. Physically participating is to be encouraged also because it provides opportunities for solidarity with other sectors of society and momentum for change. Whereas the argument at home is often framed in terms of needs - the Convention provides the forum to heighten and change the dialogue to that of rights which implicitly requires accountability. Civil society matters.

7



Treaty body jurisprudence highlights (May-August 2014) Committee against Torture

A

t its 52nd session (28 April – 23 May 2014), the Committee against Torture adopted nine decisions on the merits finding a violation of the Convention, and four merits decisions finding no violation of the Convention. It also decided to discontinue the consideration of 12 pending communications. Communication No. 372/2009, Barry v Morocco – Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of a migrant during expulsion The case against Morocco concerned a Senegalese national who had embarked on a boat together with other undocumented migrants in order to reach the Canary Islands (Spain). The boat was intercepted by the Moroccan authorities and he was then brought to the desert border area between Morocco and Mauritania, which includes a large minefield, and forced to walk 50 km through the desert to reach the first Mauritanian town, without adequate equipment, food and water. Morocco confirmed that around the date of the complainant’s expulsion, a group of migrants was expelled in accordance with the domestic legislation which provides legal safeguards for the person to be deported and that the complainant had not followed the judicial procedure to appeal his deportation. The Committee noted that, in practice, the complainant had not been granted access to domestic remedies to appeal his expulsion, as provided by the domestic legislation. The Committee considered that the circumstances of the complainant’s expulsion by the State party constituted an infliction of a severe physical and mental suffering on the complainant by public officials, which amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of article 16 of the Convention. Communication No. 477/2011, Aarrass v. Morocco – Torture of a terrorist suspect The communication had been submitted by Mr. Ali Aarrass, a dual Belgian and Moroccan national who claimed to have been subjected to torture in Morocco. He alleged that he was placed in police custody on 14 December 2010 (after his extradition from Spain on charges of membership in a terrorist organisation, see below communication 2008/2010, Views adopted by the Human Rights Committee) and subjected to torture sessions for nine days for the purpose of extracting a confession from him. Considering his allegations that he was not guaranteed access to legal assistance, particularly during his time in custody, that he had no contact with his family, that his family had no information about his place of detention, that he had no access to a doctor and that he was forced to sign statements in a language that he did not know well, and in view of the absence of information

from the State party challenging these claims, the Committee considered that the State party had failed in its obligations under article 2, paragraph 1, and article 11 of the Convention. The Committee also took note of Mr. Aarrass’ allegations that the investigating judge neither launched an inquiry nor ordered a medical examination and refused to take note of his allegations of torture; that he lodged a complaint of torture but was only questioned by the police about his complaint one year after the facts; and that his requests for an examination by doctors from an independent institution were denied. Two independent medical doctors who examined the report produced by the forensic doctor who examined him in January 2012 concluded that this report was not in conformity with the Istanbul Protocol. In the light of the above, the Committee considered that there was a failure on the part of the authorities to conduct an investigation in violation of the State party’s obligations under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. Pursuant to article 15 of the Convention, the State party must ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture is not invoked as evidence in any proceedings. From a reading of the Court of Appeal rulings by which Mr. Aarrass was convicted on terrorism charges it was clear for the Committee that his confession had a decisive impact on his conviction. In light of this, the Committee considered that the State party had breached its obligations under article 15 of the Convention. The Committee asked the State party to conduct an impartial and in-depth investigation into Mr. Aarrass’ allegations, including medical examinations in line with the Istanbul Protocol. Communications Nos 483/2011 & 485/2011, X and Z v Finland – Non-refoulement to Iran The case concerned two brothers, citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who claimed that their deportation to Iran would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by Finland. Both brothers are of Kurdish ethnicity, members of the opposition party Komala, and belong to a high-profile family, which has already been targeted by the Iranian authorities. In addition, the complainants both remained politically active after their arrival to Finland. In considering these two complaints jointly, the Committee examined medical reports submitted by the complainants, evidencing that they might have been subjected to torture in the past. It also examined submissions on the general human rights situation in Iran. Specifically, the Committee gave weight to recent reports of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding persecution and execution of members of the opposition political parties, such as Komala, and individuals of Kurdish ethnicity. Based on these facts, as well as the complainants’ previous incarceration and detailed description of torture suffered during the detention, the Committee concluded that there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainants 8

OHCHR -- HUMAN HUMAN RIGHTS RIGHTS TREATIES TREATIES DIVISION DIVISION OHCHR risk being subjected to torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. For more information: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CAT/Pages/Jurispru dence.aspx

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women At its 58th session (30 June to 18 July 2014), the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women adopted one View and one inadmissibility decision. Communication No. 47/2012, Gonzalez Carreño v Spain –stereotyped and discriminatory notions applied by authorities in a context of domestic violence leading to death of a child The communication was submitted by Ms. Angela Gonzalez Carreño in connection with the killing by her former husband of their seven-year-old daughter in 2003, occurred during an unsupervised visit authorized by the judge. The Committee examined the decisions taken by the national authorities in order to determine whether, in making those decisions, those authorities applied principles of due diligence and took reasonable steps with a view to protecting the mother and her daughter from possible risks in a context of domestic violence. The State party argued that the father’s behaviour was unforeseeable and that nothing in the psychological and social services reports could lead one to predict a danger to the life or physical or mental health of the child. However, the Committee noted that the separation of the spouses had been preceded by many violent incidents directed at the mother which the child often witnessed; that the protective orders issued by the courts were disregarded by the father without any legal consequences for him; that the social services reports repeatedly stressed that the father was using his daughter to transmit messages of animosity to his former wife; that he had been diagnosed with an obsessive-compulsive disorder with aspects of pathological jealousy; and that he systematically and without reasonable justification shirked his obligation to provide child support. In connection with the regime of judicially determined visits the Committee observed that the judges, the social services and psychological experts had as their main purpose the normalizing of relations between father and daughter, despite the reservations expressed by those two services on the father’s behaviour. The judicial decisions did not disclose an interest by those authorities in evaluating all aspects of the benefits or harms to the child of the regime applied. The decision to change the regime from supervised to unsupervised visits was adopted without a prior hearing of the author and her daughter.


The Committee held that this reflected a pattern of action which responds to a stereotyped conception of visiting rights based on formal equality which, in the present case, gave clear advantages to the father despite his abusive conduct and minimized the situation of mother and daughter as victims of violence, placing them in a vulnerable position. In this connection, the Committee recalled that in matters of child custody and visiting rights, the best interests of the child must be a central concern and that when national authorities adopt decisions in that regard they must take into accounts the existence of a context of domestic violence. The Committee considered that the authorities of the State party initially took actions to protect the child in a context of domestic violence. However, the decision to allow unsupervised visits was taken without the necessary safeguards and without taking into account that the pattern of domestic violence that had characterized family relations for years was still present. The Committee considered that in deciding on the establishment of an unsupervised scheme of visits the authorities applied stereotyped and discriminatory notions in a context of domestic violence and failed to provide due supervision, infringing their obligations under the Convention. The Committee recommended inter alia that Spain conduct an exhaustive and impartial investigation on the failures in the State’s structures and practices in the case and also recommended that Spain take measures so that prior acts of domestic violence will be taken into consideration when determining custody and visitation rights regarding children. For more information: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/ CEDAW/Pages/JurisprudenceSession58.aspx

Human Rights Committee At its 111th session (7 – 25 July 2014), the Human Rights Committee adopted 23 Views finding a violation of the Covenant, two Views finding no violation of the Covenant, and five decisions declaring communications inadmissible. It also decided to discontinue the consideration of five pending communications. Communication No 2003/2010, Zilkija Selimović et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina – lack of effective investigation into enforced disappearances This case was submitted by relatives of 12 nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) who were detained on 4 May 1992 together with most of the inhabitants of Svrake (approximately 850 people) by members of the army of the Republika Srpska (VRS). Three weeks later, they were transferred to Planjina kuća. Their families have never seen them again and their fate has not been clarified. The Committee observed that the term “enforced disappearance” may be used in an extended sense, 9

OHCHR -- HUMAN HUMAN RIGHTS RIGHTS TREATIES TREATIES DIVISION DIVISION OHCHR referring to disappearances initiated by forces independent of or hostile to a State party, in addition to disappearances attributable to a State party. It recalled its jurisprudence according to which the obligation to investigate allegations of enforced disappearances and to bring the culprits to justice is not an obligation of result, but of means, and that it must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. Therefore, while acknowledging the gravity of the disappearances and the suffering of the authors because the fate or whereabouts of their missing relatives has not yet been clarified and the culprits have not yet been brought to justice, the Committee considered that this is not sufficient to find a breach of positive obligations of the State party under the Covenant in the particular circumstances of this communication. The Committee however considered that the failure by the investigative authorities to contact the authors for information regarding the suspected perpetrators of these disappearances, the fact that the authors have learned about certain important steps taken by the authorities in their case only during the proceedings before the Committee, the slowness of the Prosecutor’s Office regarding the verification of the information about the possible location of individual and mass graves and the lack of political will to unify the processes for tracing missing persons amounted to a violation of articles 6, 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant with regard to the missing relatives, and of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant with regard to the authors. The Committee also noted that the social allowance provided to some of the authors depended upon their agreeing to seek the recognition of their missing relatives as dead, while there is no certainty as to their fate and whereabouts. The Committee considered that to oblige families of disappeared persons to have the family member declared dead in order to be eligible for compensation, while the investigation is ongoing, constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 7 read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.


submitted a communication before the Human Rights Committee. On the same day, the Committee transmitted the communication to Spain and requested the adoption of interim measures, asking Spain not to extradite him while the Committee examined his case. However, on 14 December 2010 Spain extradited Mr. Aarrass. The Committee examined the admissibility of the claim in view of the fact that the case had been submitted to the ECtHR and declared inadmissible, before being submitted to the Committee. The Committee noted that while Mr. Aarrass’ claim under article 7 of the Covenant concerned the risk of being subjected to incommunicado detention and torture in order to extract confessions from him, the claim before the ECtHR concerned the general prison conditions in Morocco which, according to him would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind also the limited reasoning in the ECtHR’s decision, the Committee considered that the claim before it was not essentially the same as that submitted to the ECtHR and that there was no obstacle to admissibility. Regarding the merits of the case, the Committee observed that credible reports submitted by Mr Aarrass before the National High Court and information in the public domain indicated that persons accused of crimes related to terrorism were held incommunicado in Morocco and subjected to severe ill-treatment and torture. Against this background and in light of his personal circumstances as accused of crimes related to terrorism, the Committee considered that Spain had not adequately assessed the risk of torture and severe ill-treatment before deciding Mr. Aarrass’ extradition . Accordingly, it concluded that his extradition to Morocco constituted a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee requested Spain to provide an effective remedy, including adequate compensation for the violations suffered, and all possible cooperative measures with the Moroccan authorities to ensure the effective monitoring of his situation in Morocco. The Committee also stated that Spain breached its obligations under the Optional Protocol by extraditing him, without respecting the Committee’s request for interim measures to stay his extradition while it examined the case. See also above the decision of the Committee against Torture, case No. 477/2011.

Communication No 2008/2010, Aarrass v Spain – Extradition to Morocco of terrorism suspect in breach of Spain’s non refoulement obligations Communication No 2009/2010, Iliyasov v Kazakhstan – Refusal of entry of permanent resident leading to interference with his family life Mr. Ali Aarrass was arrested in Spain on 1 April 2008. On 22 April 2008, Morocco requested Spain to extradite him The author of the communication is a national of the for offences related to acts of terrorism, pursuant to the Russian Federation, of Chechen ethnicity who had Moroccan Criminal Code and Act No. 03/03 on combating arrived for the first time in Kazakhstan in 1994 and had terrorism. While in detention, he submitted an application been residing there ever since. On 25 February 2003, he to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in order married a Kazakhstan national and on 10 June 2003 they to prevent his extradition. The ECtHR, in a single judge had a son, also a Kazakhstan national. When he formation, found inadmissible his application against attempted to return to Kazakhstan after a visit to the Spain on the grounds that there was no evidence that the Russian Federation on 24 August 2008, members of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its border service of the National Security Committee (NSC) Protocols had been violated. On 25 November 2010, he 10

OHCHR -- HUMAN HUMAN RIGHTS RIGHTS TREATIES TREATIES DIVISION DIVISION OHCHR of Kazakhstan refused to allow him entry into the country. He was later informed that he was prohibited from entering the country in accordance with article 22 of the Law “On Population Migration” of 13 December 1997, in the interests of State security, because Kazakhstan had received information from the Russian Federation intelligence services that he was involved in unspecified illegal activities. The author attempted to appeal the prohibition to enter and requested access to the information based on which he was denied entry but his appeals failed. The Committee observed that he had been residing lawfully in the territory of the State party since 1994 and that he had a permanent residence permit since 2000, which had never been revoked; that he was married to a national of the State party, his son is a national of the State party and that he had developed private and family life in the State party over the course of 14 years before being refused entry. The Committee considered that the State party had failed to justify its interference with the right of the author as protected by articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant, and that the unjustified refusal to allow the author to enter the territory of the State party constitutes an arbitrary interference with the family, contrary to articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant in respect of the author. In the light of the above finding the Committee decided not to pronounce itself on possible violations of articles 12 and 19 of the Covenant. For more information: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/Jurisprudence.aspx

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination


Communication No 49/2011, L.A. et al v. Slovak Republic – Opinion on the merits - denial of financial compensation to victims of racial discrimination The Committee adopted its opinion related to communication no 49/2011 (L.A. et al v. Slovak Republic), which was submitted by three Slovak citizens of Roma origin, who had participated in a “discrimination testing” during which they were refused the entrance to a discotheque. The Slovak jurisdictions recognized that the petitioners were victims of racial discrimination and ordered that they be awarded satisfaction in the form of individual letters of apology from the discotheque owner, as they had requested. However, the jurisdictions refused to award them financial compensation as the petitioners had not provided evidence that they had endured “a real grave diminution of their human dignity with considerable consequences on their social status and social functioning”, as required by the Slovak provisions regulating the award of financial compensation for nonpecuniary damages. Therefore, the petitioners claimed a violation of their right to effective remedy against acts of racial discrimination, as provided by article 6 of the Convention. The Committee noted that the petitioners were awarded a remedy that was not contrary to the UN basic principles on the right to remedy and reparation, and which was not manifestly arbitrary or otherwise amounting to a denial of justice. The Committee considered that in the specific circumstances of the case, the denial of financial compensation did not amount to a violation of the Convention. For more information: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CERD/Pages/Jurispr udence.aspx

At its 85th session (11 – 29 August 2014), the Committee adopted one opinion on the merits of a communication.

11



Inquiry on Lebanon by the Committee against Torture

T

he Committee against Torture (CAT) conducted an inquiry on Lebanon pursuant to article 20 of the Convention against Torture from May to November 2012. During the process, the Committee conducted a visit to Lebanon to visit 20 detention centres in different parts of the country and to meet public authorities as well as representatives of international and local civil society organizations. In the course of the visit, the Committee received a significant number of credible and consistent allegations of recent and past acts of torture and ill-treatment, and gathered strong forensic evidence corroborating the alleged victims’ testimony. Of the 216 detainees interviewed during the mission, 99 stated that they had been subjected to acts of torture by law enforcement officials, especially members of Internal Security Forces (ISF) and military intelligence services. Almost all of the reported cases had occurred during arrest or the initial phase of detention, especially during interrogation sessions. Many of the detainees interviewed assumed that verbal and physical violence was standard procedure in relation to detainees. In the case of Lebanon, the Committee concluded that, in accordance with its definition of systematic practice of torture and its past practice, torture is, and has been, systematically practised in Lebanon, especially in the context of investigation and for the purpose of obtaining confessions. The Committee further identified some specific areas of concern, including prolonged solitary confinement, shortcomings in the practical implementation of the right to a lawyer, lack of

independent medical examinations, dysfunctional criminal justice system, impunity for perpetrators and conditions of detention, which it described as cruel, inhuman and degrading and even amounting to torture in some cases. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, torture is practised ‘systematically’ when it is apparent that the torture cases reported have not occurred fortuitously in a particular place or at a particular time, but are seen to be habitual, widespread and deliberate in at least a considerable part of the territory of the country in question. Torture may in fact be of a systematic character without resulting from the direct intention of a Government. It may be the consequence of factors which the Government has difficulty in controlling, and its existence may indicate a discrepancy between policy as determined by the central Government and its implementation by the local administration. Inadequate legislation which in practice allows room for the use of torture may also add to the systematic nature of this practice. The summary and findings of the inquiry, as well as the recommendations directed to the State by the Committee, are contained in the Committee’s annual report to the UN General Assembly (A/69/44, paras. 100 -115 and Annex XIII). Lebanon responded to the findings and conclusions of the Committee in January 2014. The reply is available on the OHCHR website at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/ Inquiries.aspx (A/69/44, Annex XIII paras. 42 to 51).

12



Liberty and Security: A New General Comment on Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) General Comment No. 35 concerns Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which covers the liberty and security of person. It codifies the Committee’s work over the past three decades on the matter to give State officials, legal practitioners, human rights monitors and civil society a full understanding of the Committee's interpretation.

Human Rights Committee members and Secretary with former High Commissioner, Navi Pillay, during 111th session July 2014 in Geneva © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

I

n October 2014, the Human Rights Committee issued authoritative new commentary on an important issue in international human rights law: when and how is it justified to deprive a person of their liberty, and what obligations States have to prevent people from being unlawfully or arbitrarily detained.

The General Comment covers a wide range of issues under Article 9, including the definition of arbitrary detention and the procedural safeguards necessary for avoiding unlawful and arbitrary detention, such as the 48-hour standard for promptly bringing a criminal suspect before a judge, States’ duties to protect the right to deprivation of liberty by private persons or groups, and detention without criminal charge under security legislation in exceptional situations such as armed conflict. The General Comment was drafted over two years and discussed in public meetings. Before starting the process, the Committee had discussions with interested parties and over the course of the drafting period it received a substantial number of written submissions from civil society, States, lawyers, UN bodies, UN organisations and specialized agencies.

General Comment No. 35:

Q & A with Gerald Neuman, Member of the Human Rights Committee and Rapporteur of the General Comment new general comment No. 35 on liberty members of vulnerable groups, including children and Q .andThesecurity replaces general comment No. 8, persons with disabilities. safeguards

for

preventing

arbitrary

detention

of

which was adopted in 1982. Please share your views on some of the main developments on this issue Q. As indicated in the general comment, liberty and over the past three decades. security of person are precious for their own sake A. Since 1982, the work of the Human Rights Committee and also because deprivation of liberty and security has clarified many dimensions of the right to liberty and of person have historically been principal means for security of person. One central theme is that even when impairing the enjoyment of other rights. Could you detention is authorized by law, the deprivation of liberty help us to better understand the relationship of must be proportionate to the legitimate purposes that it article 9 with other articles of the Covenant? serves. The Committee has examined how procedural protections against arbitrary detention can also operate to protect prisoners against torture in detention. The right to security of person has come to be understood as a right to protection against physical or mental injury, both within and outside the context of detention. Protection against arbitrary detention plays an important role in situations of armed conflict, where human rights law and other international law rules reinforce each other. In addition, the Committee has spelled out

A. Detaining people for reasons that violate freedom of expression, or assembly, or association, or religion, or their right to privacy, is arbitrary and violates article 9. The procedural protections under article 9, including rights to judicial review, therefore serve to safeguard other freedoms, and to protect human rights defenders against reprisals. Article 9 sets rules for all forms of detention, and not only for the judicial proceedings that are regulated by article 14 of the Covenant.

13



CEDAW and CRC join forces to provide guidance on eliminating harmful practices affecting women and girls

year, 10 million girls are forced or coerced into E very marriage. Between 85 and 114 million women and

girls, most of whom live in Africa, the Middle East,and Asia, have undergone female genital mutilation. In many countries, girls and women also continue to suffer other harmful practices, such as crimes committed in the name of so-called honour, polygamy, extreme dietary restrictions, virginity testing, and body modifications. Regularly confronted with these practices during the examination of State reports, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) decided to jointly issue a comprehensive interpretation of the States’ obligations to prevent and eliminate harmful practices. It was the first time in the history of the Treaty Body system that two Committees have done this and united their voice towards the same aim. On 3 November 2014, after years of work, their joint General Recommendation/General Comment was adopted. In it, the Committees set out detailed criteria for determining harmful practices, and describe the causes and manifestations. They call for a holistic approach to tackling such practices, backed by appropriate legislation, political will and accountability. The General Comment also highlights the need for coordinated strategies, including awareness-raising measures and appropriate training for all relevant frontline professionals to prevent, identify and respond to incidents of harmful practices.

© Marmalade Film and Media

The General Comment makes it clear that States are under the obligation to send a clear message condemning all forms of harmful practices and have to ensure the availability of effective remedies and an end to impunity. In line with their well-established jurisprudence on the minimum age of marriage, both committees insist on the necessity to establish a minimum legal age of marriage for girls and boys, with or without parental consent, at 18 years. Stressing the fact that harmful practices are frequently justified by invoking social or religious customs and values often embedded in patriarchal cultures and traditions, they highlight the key role which should be played by communities, including traditional and religious authorities, in challenging and changing attitudes that underlie, justify and perpetuate those practices. Finally, both Committees underline the need for women and girls to be equipped with the necessary skills and competencies to assert their rights, including making autonomous and informed decisions and choices about their own lives and insist on the importance of education and in engaging men and boys in creating an enabling environment that supports the empowerment of women and girls. Read more CEDAW/C/GC/31/CRC/C/GC/18 http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Downl oad.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2FC%2FGC%2F31%2FCRC %2FC%2FGC%2F18&Lang=en 14



First two General Comments of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Equal recognition before the law and accessibility

I

n 2014, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) adopted its first two General Comments, on articles 12 and 9 of the Convention, with a view to clarifying these provisions and providing practical guidance to States parties on how to implement them. General Comment No.1 on the right to equal recognition before the law clarifies that legal and mental capacity are two distinct concepts and that, under article 12, perceived or actual deficits in mental capacity must not be used as justification for denying legal capacity. It further makes it clear that the removal of legal capacity as a result of considering a person’s decision-making skills to be deficient amounts to discriminatory denial of legal capacity.

11th session of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, March 2014 © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

The General Comment stipulates that States parties should refrain from denying persons with disabilities their legal capacity and, furthermore, provide support to persons with disabilities in the exercise of their legal capacity, and in doing so, respect persons with disabilities’ rights, autonomy, will and preferences. It provides that “support” encompasses a broad range of measures, including peer support, measures relating to universal design and accessibility, the development and recognition of non-conventional methods of communications, and advance planning, all of which allow persons with disabilities to state their will and preferences in case they are not able to communicate their wishes and preferences to others. Safeguards must be incorporated in a system of support so as to ensure that the person’s rights, will and preferences are respected. However, when, after significant efforts have been made, it is not practicable to determine the will and preferences of an individual, the “best interpretation of will and preferences” should replace decisions based on the “best interest” of persons with disabilities. In this case, the will and preferences of persons with disabilities are substituted by the decision-making of a guardian. State parties are required to repeal regimes of substituted decision-making and replace them by supported decision-making regimes which give primacy to a person’s autonomy, will and preferences. The Committee established a set of key elements that

regimes of supported decision-making should fulfil. The practice of denial of the legal capacity of persons with disabilities and their detention in institutions against their will, either without their consent or with the consent of a substitute decision-maker constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty violating articles 12 and 14 of the Convention. The second general comment of the Committee calls upon States parties to address accessibility in all its complexity, encompassing the physical environment, transportation, information and communication, and services. Persons with disabilities should have equal access to all goods, products and services that are open or provided to the public in a manner that ensures their effective and equal access and respects their dignity. The denial of access should be considered a discriminatory act, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a public or private entity. Accessibility should be provided to all persons with disabilities, regardless of the type of impairment, and should especially take into account the gender and age perspectives for persons with disabilities. Article 9 of the Convention clearly enshrines accessibility as the precondition for persons with disabilities to live independently, participate fully and equally in society, and have unrestricted enjoyment of all their human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with others. The Committee also insisted that the strict application of universal design to all th new goods, products, 11 session of the Committee on the facilities, technologies Rights of Persons with Disabilities March 2014 © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby and services should ensure full, equal and unrestricted access for all potential consumers, including persons with disabilities. Article 9 also obliges States parties to identify and eliminate obstacles and barriers to accessibility and to develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of national standards for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public. To read more: General Comment no 1 CRPD/C/GC/1 General Comment no 2 CRPD/C/GC/2 15



The UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture will support 190 projects in 81 countries in 2015

T

other mechanisms relating to prevention and prohibition of torture enhanced.

Earlier this year the Board had revised its policies and procedures to make the grant-making process more effective and transparent and project proposals were screened in line with the new strategy. Project applications are now competitively reviewed, financial support is time-bound and the geographical balance of projects is considered. The Board also strengthened its cooperation with OHCHR’s field operations as well as

To make a donation to the Fund: http://donatenow.ohchr.org/torture/

he Board of Trustees of the UN Fund for Victims of Torture decided in October 2014 to fund 190 projects amounting to a total of US$ 6.3 million in the year of 2015. Thanks to the Fund, direct assistance and rehabilitation will be provided to victims of torture and their family members in 81 countries in all regions. The Board further decided to set aside US$ 1 million to rapidly respond to emergency calls for funding in the course of the year.

For the 2016 Call of Application, which will be open at the beginning of 2015, and for the Emergency Application process, the Board has identified the following countries as priorities: Philippines, South Sudan, Sudan, Honduras, Brazil, Hong Kong, Libya, Nicaragua, and Yemen. In addition, the Fund will renew its Special Call on Ukraine and the Middle East, including Syria and Iraq, and will continue to prioritise the Central African Republic.

For more information, visit us at: http://ohchr.org/torturefund

Lebanese NGO RESTART helps torture victims from Syria with the support of the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture

A

grantee of the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, RESTART specializes in the medical and psychological rehabilitation of victims of torture. It provides torture victims, with highly specialized treatment at its centres in Tripoli and Beirut since the beginning of the conflict in Syria. As of 2015, RESTART will also assist Iraqi refugees. The video clip below shows the change RESTART is making in the lives of torture victims.  Click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akOBViY0B_A&feat ure=youtu.be

16



UN celebrates 30th anniversary of Convention against Torture “All States should ratify the Convention”

implementation of the Convention, including the use of unprecedented brutal violence by non-State armed groups to target ethnic and religious groups. He encouraged the Committee against Torture to continue to make the Convention relevant to new forms of torture and ill-treatment, including gender-based and domestic violence. Claudio Grossman, the Committee’s Chairperson, highlighted that the absolute prohibition of torture was a norm of customary law and called on all States to ratify the Convention against Torture. The first panel discussion on the universal ratification of the Convention counted with the participation of Felice Gaer, Vice-Chair of CAT; Juan Mendez, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Carsten Staur, Permanent Representative of Denmark to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Emmanuel Decaux, Chairperson of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances and Mathew Sands, Legal Adviser, Association for the Prevention of Torture. Ibrahim Salama, Director, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, High Commissioner, Claudio Grossman, Chairperson of the Committee agains Torture © Webcast Treaty Bodies organized from NGOs

O

n 4 November 2014, the Committee against Torture commemorated the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In his message, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon regretted that torture continued to plague the world with a devastating impact on individuals and societies. Torture had no place in the society the UN was striving to build, he said. States had a duty to protect, not oppress people. The Secretary-General further underlined the crucial role of civil society in fulfilling the objectives of the Convention against Torture. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein noted continuing challenges to the

The second discussion was held on the implementation of the Convention by States parties with the participation of Essadia Belmir, Vice-Chair of CAT; Mohamed Aujjar, Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Milos Jankovic, Member of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture; Mauro Palma, former President of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture; and Gerald Staberock, Secretary-General of the World Organization Against Torture. The discussions were webcasted (click here) and followed by twitter. More information about the 30th anniversary is available at the OHCHR website. Click here for News event http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx? NewsID=15249&LangID=E#sthash.SmUUIJf0.dpuf Webcast http://www.treatybodywebcast.org/cat-53rd-session-30thanniversary/

17



Lebanon: Combatting torture requires political will and systemic change

I

t is time for Lebanese society to stop tolerating widespread violence, from the home to militia checkpoints to places of detention. That was the common view of participants at a roundtable discussion organized by OHCHR Regional Office for the Middle East in Beirut. The event took place shortly after the publication of the summary of the Committee against Torture’s inquiry (CAT) on torture cases in Lebanon. Participants discussed a wide range of measures – legislative, administrative and policy – to be undertaken by the State authorities and civil society, and the different roles played by each of them in preventing torture. Participants also examined draft laws that provide for the criminalization of torture and for the establishment of a national human rights institution, which would be designated as a national preventive mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OP-CAT) that Lebanon ratified in 2008. Both drafts were developed in cooperation with the Regional Office, members of the Parliament and civil society and are awaiting Parliament’s approval. Participants called for strong political will to bring a systemic change to prevent torture, for adequate

oversight and monitoring, and for accountability for those who perpetrate acts of torture and ill-treatment. They stressed that no acts of torture and ill treatment should be justified by the security challenges Lebanon is facing. The roundtable discussion was part of long-standing efforts by OHCHR’s Regional Office in Beirut to assist the Government in preventing and addressing widespread practices of torture and ill-treatment – from developing a code of conduct for security officers over drafting legislation and supporting the missions of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and the UN Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture, to developing a National Plan of Action for Human Rights. “Lebanon has committed to preventing and prohibiting torture and ill-treatment and to holding perpetrators accountable by ratifying the CAT and its optional protocol. However, the country still faces challenges in discharging its duties in that respect,” said Regional Representative Abdel Salam Sidahmed “OHCHR’s Regional Office stands ready to support Lebanon in ending the practice of torture, a tragic legacy from the Civil War, and to help it restore its reputation as a country that respects the rule of law and the physical integrity of its detainees.”

National Human Rights Commission in Sudan empowered to actively engaged with the Treaty Bodies

F

rom 1 to 5 November 2014, the National Commission for Human Rights of Sudan (NCHRS) organized, with the technical and financial support of OHCHR, UNDP-Sudan and the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), a training workshop on the international human rights mechanisms in Khartoum for its members and staff. Selected representatives of civil society organisations (CSOs) were also invited. The NCHRS, a constitutionally entrenched national human rights institution (NHRI), is mandated to monitor the realization of the rights and freedoms as set out in the Constitution as well as the regional and international instruments ratified by Sudan, to prepare reports thereon, and to cooperate with the international and regional human rights mechanisms as well as CSOs. However, the level of understanding of and engagement of the NCHRS with such mechanisms, particularly with the Treaty Bodies, has been lacking. Therefore, the training aimed at providing the participants with skills and tools to engage with the UN human rights mechanisms, the Treaty Bodies in particular, and best

practices thereon, and proved instrumental in filling the existing gaps in terms of knowledge and technical expertise and paving the way for the NCHR and CSOs to strategically engage with the mechanisms. The workshop presented participants with substantive information on the treaty body reporting procedure and complaint procedure with a specific focus on the admissibility of cases to the Treaty Bodies. It also provided practical guidance to the NHRIs and CSOs on how to take part in the work of the Treaty Bodies. Participants also learned about the overall architecture of international human rights laws and mechanisms. As an immediate outcome of the training, participants developed a roadmap that specified concrete activities to be undertaken by the NCHRS and CSOs to enhance their participation in the work of the Treaty Bodies. This includes the assessment of Sudan’s reporting status to the Treaty Bodies, monitoring of and advocacy for the State’s compliance with its treaty obligations, and making timely submissions to the Treaty Bodies in future sessions. 

18

OHCHR OHCHR -- HUMAN HUMAN RIGHTS RIGHTS TREATIES TREATIES DIVISION DIVISION


Migrant Workers' Rights training for civil society representatives from Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa promote standards, effective engagement with the UN mechanisms, the role of trade unions and building wider alliances, future collaboration and networking, and finally, promotion of the ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW) and the 25th anniversary of its adoption.

O

HCHR attended the Migrant Workers' Rights Capacity Building Workshop which was held on 2 – 3 November in Dubai, organized by the Diplomacy Training Program (affiliated with the Faculty of Law of the University of New South Wales in Australia) and Migrant Forum Asia. The workshop brought together about 30 participants from civil society organizations, trade unions and the media in the Asia-Pacific and MENA region as well as representatives of international organizations, such as ILO and OHCHR. The workshop covered a number of topics relating to discussions on challenges for migrant workers advocacy and implementation of human rights and labour rights, promoting international standards and their implementation, building strategic collaboration to

During the workshop, participants learned about the CMW and the work of the Committee on Migrant Workers as well as other relevant human rights treaties, including ICCPR, ICESCR, CAT, CRC and CEDAW. Participants also actively discussed how to effectively engage with the treaty bodies throughout the reporting process by proving input to the State party report, proving written and oral information to the treaty bodies (also discussed best practices in this regard), assisting States parties with implementing recommendations, following-up recommendations of the Committee and progress on implementation by the State party for the next periodic report. Part of the second day of the workshop was devoted to the discussion on the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the CMW and the decision to launch a calendar of civil society events starting on 18 December 2014 and running through 18 December 2015, including the idea of having simultaneous events, as well as establishment of a web platform whereby all civil society actors could upload information on their activities, photos, videos and testimonies.

19



Malta: «Progress in preventing torture and ill-treatment but more needs to be done,» says the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture

M

alta has made progress in preventing the torture and ill-treatment of people deprived of their liberty by setting up two national monitoring bodies in line with its treaty obligations, but more needs to be done, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) said at the end of a visit to the country in October. Four members of the SPT visited Malta from 6 to 9 October 2014 to provide advice and technical assistance to the monitoring bodies, known as National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs), and to the State party. “We acknowledge the first step the Maltese authorities have taken towards preventing torture and ill-treatment by ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) and designating two monitoring bodies, such as the Board of Visitors of the Prisons and the Board of Visitors for Detained Persons,” said delegation head Mari Amos. “But through our meetings with different stakeholders, we have seen that significant work needs to be done to make these bodies fully independent and effective in line with OPCAT and other relevant international standards,” she added. “A key way to increase the independence and effectiveness of monitoring is to raise awareness of

what OPCAT requires regarding the role and functioning of NPMs. Such awareness-raising should take place among different sectors, including the authorities and the members of these bodies themselves,” Ms. Amos said. During their visit, the Subcommittee members conducted joint visits to the Corradino Correctional Facility and the Safi Detention Centre. The delegation also met government officials, the Ombudsman, the Police Board, the Commissioner for Mental Health and Older Persons, the Commissioner for Children, Chairpersons of relevant parliamentary standing committees, non-governmental organisations and United Nations representatives. The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture will submit separate confidential reports containing its observations and recommendations to the Government of the Republic of Malta and to the Maltese NPMs. Members of the SPT delegation to the Republic of Malta: Ms. Mari Amos, Mr. Hans-jörg Viktor Bannwart, Ms. June Lopez Paguadan and Ms. Aneta Stanchevska. 

States Parties to OP-CAT elect new members to SPT

I

n October 2014, the meeting of States parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) elected 13 members to the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT). They will replace the members whose term expires on 31 December 2014.

Seven current members were re-elected: Ms. Mari AMOS (Estonia) Mr. Arman DANIELYAN (Armenia) Ms. Aisha Shujune MUHAMMAD (Maldives) Ms. Catherine PAULET (France) Mr. Emilio GINÉS SANTIDRIÁN (Spain) Ms. Aneta STANCHEVSKA (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)

Six candidates were newly elected: Ms. Marija DEFINIS-GOJANOVIC (Croatia) Mr. Roberto Michel FEHÉR PÉREZ (Uruguay) Ms. Lorena GONZÁLEZ PINTO (Guatemala) Mr. Gnambi Garba KODJO (Togo) Ms. Radhia NASRAOUI (Tunisia) Ms. Nora SVEAASS (Norway)

Mr. Felipe Andrés VILLAVICENCIO TERREROS (Peru)

20



Interview with Jaime Marchan Romero Outgoing Member and former Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

“We have witnessed a true democratization of human rights” True democracy means respecting all human rights. No restriction on the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, can be justified by economic growth and social improvement as envisaged by populist and authoritarian regimes. Only full respect for human rights is a solid foundation for a sustainable democracy. Q. Your work on the Committee led to the adoption of a General Comment on cultural rights. What motivated you to have this focus and what is your perspective on cultural rights: where we are and where we should move to?

Jaime Marchan Romero © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

have been a CESCR member for 20 years, Q .aYou period which has seen vigorous attempts led by the Committee, to remove the artificial boundary between economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights. What are the most important changes you have seen through your interaction with States parties, private and public institutions, and civil society? And what more needs to be done? A. One of the most significant events was the adoption in 2008 of the Optional Protocol to the Internationl Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It definitively confirmed that economic, social and cultural rights have the same legal value and enjoy the same protection as civil and political rights. Another notable change is that States parties are no longer the only actors. International organizations, civil society, public and private institutions and the right-holders themselves are more actively involved in the system, so one can speak of a true democratization of human rights. Although there is an advanced monitoring of compliance with human rights obligations now, the system must achieve a more systematic level of implementation. That remains pending. Q. How do you see the current multiple political crises around the world, including the so-called the Arab Spring and its aftermath, from a perspective of economic social and cultural rights? What are the links between these political crises and economic social and cultural rights? A. In any movement of political protest, like the "Arab Spring", there is an underlying human rights agenda.

A. As a writer, culture has always been central to my thinking. Explaining the profound meaning of culture as a human right was my main motivation at the time of writing General Comment No. 21 on the right of everyone to take part in cultural life, on behalf of by the Committee. A key contribution in this area was the protection of the cultural rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. These rights are now understood in their double aspect: individual rights and collective rights. Culture will play an increasingly important role for a better understanding of the diversity of the world in the dialogue among civilizations on a global scale. The concept of culture also implies a culture of human rights. Q. Which achievements have brought you, as a member and former Chair, satisfaction? A. The Committee has effectively positioned economic, social and cultural rights on the international agenda. In just twenty years, the Committee managed to advance the perception of these rights as justiciable rights. Today, violations of these rights can be claimed and international redress obtained. Through its various General Comments, the Committee has helped to clarify its normative content and the legal nature of State obligations in this matter. This has greatly enriched the ethical and legal consciousness of States, societies and individuals. The Committee was a leader in recognizing the importance of civil society as a new actor in the global system of human rights. It was also a leader in identifying the legal responsibility of States for the activities of businesses and corporations. Despite these advances, there are still massive violations of human rights in all regions of the world, so further efforts are necessary. I had the privilege of being a founding member of the Committee for twenty-seven years. I learned everything I know about human rights from the Committee and it has shaped my consciousness and commitment to human rights for ever.

21



Interview with Christine Chanet, outgoing Member and former Chair of the Human Rights Committee Q. Over the past 27 years, you served the Human Rights Committee as member and Chairperson (1997–1998 and 2005–2006), while at the same time working full-time as a lawyer in France, where you were also a judge of the Supreme Court. How did you manage to combine these roles? What were the challenges and what motivated you to overcome them?

influence, to the recognition of its jurisprudence as a source of international law, including by the International Court of Justice which has repeatedly recognized the work of the Human Rights Committee, particularly in the case of Dialo in 2012. I am also pleased about having

A. It was a great challenge to hold several occupations at the same time, as Judge and then Section Dean of the French Court of Cassation, and as member and twice President of the Human Rights Committee, and there was only one way to respond to this challenge: hard work and organization. Why fulfil these two functions? I combined both functions to trigger the cross-fertilization of international human rights law and national law by providing the experience and the judicial technique to the Human Rights Committee and by encouraging national courts to apply the treaty bodies’ jurisprudence more often and more thoroughly. Q. Apart from your commitment to the Committee, you have also served with other UN human rights mechanisms, including as Special Rapporteur on human rights in Cuba and with the International FactFinding Mission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories mandated by the Human Rights Council in 2012. What was your experience with other mechanisms and what value does the treaty body system add to the work of other mechanisms? A. My experience of studying the human rights situation in Cuba or in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in accordance with procedures established by Human Rights Council, has allowed me to acquaint myself with other mechanisms with broader means that allow for more comprehensive work within a team. What better to help the Human Rights Council in its tasks but treaty body recommendations which inform the Universal Periodic Review and the fact-finding or investigation missions conducted by independent experts?

Christine Chanet, during the 100th Session and Anniversary of the Human Rights Committee in October 2010 Palais des Nations Geneva © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

started discussions with the International Law Commission that led to its recognition of the role of treaty bodies with respect to reservations by the treaty bodies and, even more importantly, to have made the international community accept the impossibility of withdrawing from the two founding Covenants. Q. What are your impressions of the Human Rights Committee as you are leaving after many years of service? What change would you like to see in the work of the Committee and the treaty bodies in the future?

A. My first wish for the future of the Human Rights Committee is that this treaty body becomes more visible, not only in international courts and universities but within the national jurisdictions. To this effect, new technologies, video and a revamped website, should be used. The Q. In your view, what were the main achievements of Committee should continue to grow and improve its the Human Rights Committee during your mandate? procedures to make them more pedagogical and impactful. A. I am very happy to have contributed for 27 years to the development of the Human Rights Committee and its

22


NewsletterNo No.1825/ Oct. / October Newsletter - Nov.- -December Dec. 20122014

LATEST TREATY SIGNATURES, RATIFICATIONS AND ACCESSIONS

October - November - December 2014 OP-ICESCR 

OP-CAT

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Accession by Niger (07 November 2014)

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment   

OPSC-CRC

Ratification by Finland (08 October 2014) Accession by Niger (07 November 2014) Accession by Morocco (24 November 2014)

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography 

OPAC-CRC

Ratification by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (10 November 2014)

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict  

OPIC-CRC

Ratification by Dominican Republic (14 October 2014) Ratification by Ghana (9 December 2014)

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights to the Child on a communications procedure  

Signature by France (20 November 2014) Signature by Ukraine (20 November 2014)

H.E. Ms. Laurence Rossignol, Secretary of State of France for the Family, Elderly and Autonomy for the signature of the OPIC-CRC on 20 November 2014 © UN/photo

H.E. Ms. Liudmyla Denisova, Minister for Social Policy of Ukraine for the signature of the OPIC-CRC on 20 November 2014 © UN/photo

23



Status of ratification of international human rights instruments (As of 10 December 2014)

To find out which countries have ratified the international human rights treaties: http://indicators.ohchr.org/ For information on the status of ratification and signature by States of UN human rights treaties, as well as reservations and declarations: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&lang=en An overview of the ratification status is also available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx

24



KINDLY NOTE THAT ANY DOCUMENT AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE FOR OHCHR SHOULD BE SENT TO [email protected]

LATEST STATE PARTY REPORTS RECEIVED OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2014

AFRICA

Burkina Faso

CED

Report CED/C/BFA/1 (07/10/2014)

Common Core Document

HRI/CORE/NAM/2014 (14/11/2014)

CERD

13th-15th periodic report CERD/C/NAM/13-15 (13/10/2014)

ICESCR

Initial report E/C.12/NAM/1 (13/10/2014)

ICCPR

2nd periodic report CCPR/C/NAM/2 (13/10/2014)


HRI/CORE/TZA/2014 (25/11/2014)

CEDAW

7th-8th periodic report CEDAW/C/TZA/7-8 (10/11/2014)

Namibia

United Republic of Tanzania

EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND CENTRAL ASIA Albania

CEDAW

4th periodic report CEDAW/C/ALB/4 (24/11/2014)

Azerbaijan

CAT

4th periodic report CAT/C/AZE/4 (5/11/2014)

Czech Republic

CEDAW

6th periodic report CEDAW/C/CZE/6 (10/11/2014)

Cyprus

ICESCR

6th periodic report E/C.12/CYP/6 (15/10/2014)

Malta

CRPD

Initial report CRPD/C/MLT/1 (10/11/2014)

Slovenia


HRI/CORE/SVN/2014 (31/10/2014)

The Netherlands

CEDAW

6th periodic report CEDAW/C/NDL/6 (28/10/2014)

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

CRPD

Initial report CRPD/C/MKD/1 (6/10/2014)

Turkey

CEDAW

7th periodic report CEDAW/C/TUR/7 (26/11/2014)

25


NewsletterNo No.1925/ Jan. / October 2014 Newsletter - Feb.- -December March 2013

KINDLY NOTE THAT ANY DOCUMENT AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE FOR OHCHR SHOULD BE SENT TO [email protected]

LATEST STATE PARTY REPORTS RECEIVED OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2014

NORTH AFRICA AND MIDDLE EAST Kuwait

ICCPR

3rd periodic report CCPR/C/KWT/3 (28/10/2014)

Israel

CAT

5th periodic report CAT/C/ISR/5 (17/11/2014)

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Bhutan

CRC

3rd-5th periodic report CRC/C/BTN/3-5 (28/10/2014)

Mongolia

CEDAW

8th–9th periodic report CEDAW/C/MNG/8-9 (6/11/2014)

CAT

3rd periodic report CAT/C/PHL/3 (25/11/2014)

ICESCR

5th-6th periodic report E/C.12/PHL/5-6 (25/11/2014)

CRPD

Initial report CRPD/C/PHL/1 (25/11/2014)

CEDAW

4th-5th periodic report CEDAW/C/VUT/4-5 (17/10/2014)


HRI/CORE/VUT/2014 (14/11/2014)

Philippines

Vanuatu

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Costa Rica

ICESCR

5th periodic report E/C.12/CRI/5 (24/10/2014)

Haiti

CEDAW

8th-9th periodic report CEDAW/C/HTI/8-9 (22/10/2014)

26


NewsletterNo No.1825/ Oct. / October Newsletter - Nov.- -December Dec. 20122014

HELP THE TREATY BODY SYSTEM ENGAGE WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION ! Raise awareness with country-based constituencies about upcoming State party reviews by treaty bodies - Encourage partners to provide information to relevant treaty bodies - Facilitate and encourage the implementation of treaty body recommendations -

Treaty body

Committee Secretary

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [email protected]

Ms. Gabriella Habtom [email protected]

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) [email protected]

Ms. Maja Andrijasevic-Boko [email protected]

Human Rights Committee (HRCttee) [email protected]

Ms. Kate Fox [email protected]

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) [email protected]

Mr. Jakob Schneider

Committee against Torture (CAT) [email protected]

Mr. Patrice Gillibert [email protected]

Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) [email protected]

Mr. Joao Nataf [email protected]

Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) [email protected]

Ms. Allegra Franchetti [email protected]

Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) [email protected]

[email protected]

Mr. Bradford Smith [email protected]

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) [email protected]

Mr. Jorge Araya [email protected]

Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED) [email protected]

Ms. Maria Giovanna Bianchi [email protected]

Annual meeting of the Treaty Bodies Chairpersons [email protected]

Ms. Birgit Van Hout [email protected]

Treaty body based communications and urgent actions [email protected]

27


Newsletter No No.18 25/ /Oct. October Newsletter - Nov.- December - Dec. 20122014

THIS NEWSLETTER … Is issued on a quarterly basis to provide information about the work of the treaty bodies … Is available on the treaty bodies’ webpage on the OHCHR website: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/Newsletter.aspx … We welcome your views ! Contact us at: [email protected]

TOOLS AND LINKS … Webpage on treaty body strengthening: http://www2.ohchr.org/English/bodies/HRTD/index.htm … Treaty Body Documentation Database (TBDB): a document management system that centralizes all documents issued by and submitted to the treaty bodies http://tbinternet.ohchr.org … Universal Human Rights Index (UHRI): a user-friendly search engine to access all recommendations from treaty bodies, special procedures and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR): http://uhri.ohchr.org/ … Civil Society Section mailing-list: subscribe to email updates about human rights treaty bodies and other UN human rights activities: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/CivilSociety.aspx … UN Treaty Body Webcast by a coalition of NGOs supporting Treaty Bodies: watch the treaty bodies sessions live http://www.treatybodywebcast.org/ and also access treaty bodies webcast archives http://www.treatybodywebcast.org/category/webcast-archives/

OHCHR ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Facebook

facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights

Twitter

twitter.com/unrightswire

YouTube

youtube.com/UNOHCHR

Google+

gplus.to/unitednationshumanrights

Storify

storify.com/UNrightswire

Flickr

flickr.com/photos/unhumanrights

Tumblr

united-nations-human-rights.tumblr.com/

CONTACT [email protected] 28