Summary Records - CAT - Cyprus - CAT/C/SR.546 (2002)

Distr.

GENERALCAT/C/SR.546
28 November 2002
Original: ENGLISH

Summary Record of the public part* of the 546th meeting: Cyprus, Venezuela. 28/11/2002.

CAT/C/SR.546. (Summary Record)

Convention Abbreviation: CAT

COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
Twenty-ninth session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE PUBLIC PART* OF THE 546th MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 22 November 2002, at 10 a.m.

Chairman: Mr. BURNS

CONTENTS

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER
ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION (continued)
Conclusions and recommendations concerning the third periodic report of Cyprus
Conclusion and recommendations concerning the second periodic report of Venezuela
ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS
CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

The meeting was called to order at 10.05 a.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 4) (continued)

Conclusions and recommendations concerning the third periodic report of Cyprus (continued) (CAT/C/54/Add.2; CAT/C/XXIX/Misc.7)

1. At the invitation of the Chairman, the members of the delegation of Cyprus took places at the Committee table.

2. Mr. EL MASRY, Country Rapporteur, read out the Committee's conclusions and recommendations concerning the third periodic report of Cyprus (CAT/C/54/Add.2), which were contained in document CAT/C/XXIX/Misc.7. The sole paragraph in the section entitled "Subjects of concern" should be redrafted to read: "Although there is a generally positive trend regarding the treatment of detained persons by the police, there exist some cases of ill-treatment that require the authorities to remain vigilant."

3. Mr. VIKIS (Cyprus) assured the Committee that his Government would endeavour to act upon all the matters that had been brought to its attention.

4. The members of the delegation of Cyprus withdrew.

The meeting was suspended at 10.15 a.m. and resumed at 10.30 a.m.

Conclusions and recommendations concerning the second periodic report of Venezuela (continued) (CAT/C/33/Add.5; CAT/C/XXIX/Misc.6/Rev.1)

5. At the invitation of the Chairman, the members of the delegation of Venezuela took places at the Committee table.

6. Mr. GONZÁLEZ POBLETE, Country Rapporteur, read out the Committee's conclusions and recommendations concerning the second periodic report of Venezuela (CAT/C/33/Add.5), which were contained in document CAT/C/XXIX/Misc.6/Rev.1.

7. Ms. BELISARIO MARTÍNEZ (Venezuela) said that her Government wished to cooperate as fully as possible with the Committee, whose conclusions and recommendations would provide valuable guidance to the Venezuelan authorities during the current period of revolutionary changes. The Committee's concern would be relayed to the appropriate authorities as soon as possible. She assured the Committee that fuller written replies would be made available in due course, and promised that, in its current efforts to bring the Caracas metropolitan police force under central control, the Government would not lose sight of the Committee's recommendations.

8. The members of the delegation of Venezuela withdrew.

The public part of the meeting was suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 12.10 p.m.

ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS (agenda item 2) (continued)

Reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention to be considered at the thirtieth session

9. The CHAIRMAN read out a draft list of the seven reports to be considered at the thirtieth session, in chronological order of submission, with the corresponding Rapporteurs and Alternate Rapporteurs.

10. Ms. GAER suggested that the Committee might give thought to breaking the chronological order of submission of reports and considering, as a priority, any initial reports that were five years or more overdue. Accordingly, three countries included in the list read out by the Chairman might be replaced by Latvia, Cambodia and Yemen, which fell into that category.

11. Mr. MAVROMMATIS said that he agreed with Ms. Gaer in principle, as he had always had misgivings about the criterion of chronological order. He also felt that priority should be given to reports submitted by countries posing specific problems. Perhaps a combination of criteria could apply.

12. The CHAIRMAN said that a compromise would be appropriate. He would be unhappy to see Turkey removed from the list since that country had not submitted a report for some 10 years. He suggested replacing Croatia, seventh in the list, by Latvia. Although it was right to give priority to initial reports, that criterion could not be adopted as an absolute. Where it was sensible in given cases, chronological order should be respected, as that was what States had come to expect.

13. Ms. GAER felt that Cambodia should be given top priority, in the light of the specific situation of that country. It could replace Slovenia, third in the chronological list and a country posing relatively few problems; moreover the Committee had received its previous report only two years earlier. She therefore suggested that, in accordance with previous practice, Croatia should be kept in reserve in case another country dropped out.

14. Mr. RASMUSSEN suggested that it might be possible to consider the reports submitted by two countries posing relatively few problems, such as Iceland and Slovenia, on the same day, which would enable the Committee to consider a total of eight reports.

15. The CHAIRMAN warned that such a practice would suggest that the Committee was making invidious comparisons between countries. Countries regarded as "problematic" would inevitably draw conclusions from that. He was, however, convinced that Cambodia should be included in the list for the following session, both because it was submitting its initial report and in the light of the country's history.

16. Mr. MARIÑO MENENDEZ, referring to the three criteria already mentioned - chronological order of submission, initial reports and the human rights situation in the country, suggested that priority should be given to those countries which met all three criteria, followed by those meeting two. He mentioned the special difficulties that Colombia was facing, regardless of the fact that it was submitting its third report.

17. The CHAIRMAN expressed reservations about setting new rules for the procedure and urged flexibility. He proposed that Cambodia, rather than Latvia, should be included in the list and that Croatia should be kept in reserve. He volunteered to be Rapporteur for Croatia with Mr. Yu Mengjia as the Alternate Rapporteur.

18. Mr. YU Mengjia, agreeing to that, asked whether it would not be better to have a French-speaking rapporteur for Cambodia since French tended to be the second language of Cambodians.

19. The CHAIRMAN said that his personal experience in Cambodia was that officials spoke English and he confirmed that Cambodia's report would be drafted in English.

20. Ms. GAER, maintaining that priority should always be given to initial reports, agreed to the compromise, with the proviso that if any countries dropped out, initial reports should always be considered in their stead.

21. Mr. EL MASRY said that, on the contrary, so-called "difficult" countries should not be held "in reserve" because, when those countries were called, the Committee had insufficient time to consider the report and NGOs had little time to prepare their contribution.

22. Mr. MAVROMMATIS suggested that the important issue of the backlog of reports facing the Committee should be one of the questions addressed by the Working Group on the Optional Protocol. He hoped that the Working Group would put forward possible solutions to enable the Committee to reduce that backlog, for example by requesting shorter introductions to each country report.

23. Mr. EL MASRY suggested that, if any country dropped out, the Rapporteur and Alternate Rapporteur assigned to that country would automatically become the Rapporteur and Alternate Rapporteur for the country "in reserve", which would then be considered.

24. The CHAIRMAN suggested that, at the thirtieth session, the Committee should consider the reports submitted by Belgium, Moldova, Slovenia, Azerbaijan, Iceland, Turkey and Cambodia, with Croatia in reserve. The country rapporteurs would, respectively, be Mr. Camara, Mr. Rasmussen, Mr. Yakovlev, Ms. Gaer, Mr. El Masry, Mr. Mariño Menendez and himself. The alternate country rapporteurs would, respectively, be Mr. Mavrommatis, Mr. González Poblete, Mr. Yu Mengjia, Mr. Yakovlev, Mr. Mavrommatis, Mr. Rasmussen, and Mr. Yu Mengjia. If any country dropped out, that country's rapporteurs would become the rapporteurs for Croatia.

25. It was so decided.

Consultation with the International Law Commission (ILC) concerning reservations

26. The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee had been invited by the International Law Commission to take part in a short discussion on the effect of reservations on human rights treaties. The discussion was scheduled to take place for two or three hours during the following session of the Committee. He suggested that the Committee should respond positively to the invitation, and that those members who were international lawyers, Mr. Mavrommatis, Mr. Mariño Menendez, Mr. Yakovlev, Mr. Camara and himself, should take part in the discussion.

27. Ms. GAER asked whether those taking part in the discussion would be representing their personal views or the views of the Committee, and whether others could take part as well.

28. The CHAIRMAN said that they would be participating in their personal capacity, and that any Committee member would be welcome to join in the discussion.

Time limitation for oral presentation of reports

29. Ms. GAER proposed that the Committee should adopt a rule according to which the time allotted to delegations for the presentation of their countries' reports should not exceed a certain length. Moreover, such introductions should contain only new information, such as follow-up to events to which the reports referred or descriptions of more recent developments.

30. The CHAIRMAN supported Ms. Gaer's proposal. Oral presentations should not exceed 20 minutes.

31. It was so decided.

Untimely publication of summary records

32. Ms. GAER proposed that the Committee should express its concern at the untimely publication of summary records, in particular those appearing in French, and should request the Secretariat to convey its concern to the appropriate officials.

33. It was so decided.

Translation of conclusions and recommendations

34. Ms. GAER, noting that the conclusions and recommendations were not always translated in a timely manner into certain languages, in particular Russian, said that the Committee should request that efforts be made to facilitate the translation of such documents, especially in the cases of countries whose delegations required them immediately. She had noted, for instance, that the delegation of Uzbekistan had not been able to read the conclusions and recommendations in Russian.

35. Ms. RUEDA CASTAÑON (Secretary of the Committee) said that, previously, the conclusions and recommendations had been translated only for the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly. Recently that practice had been modified, and they were now published as separate documents in the four official languages of the Committee immediately following each session.

Lack of rapporteurial oversight of article 22 cases

36. Ms. GAER, noting that the new system for the handling of article 22 cases did not make provision for a rapporteur for each case, expressed concern at the lack of oversight of the cases and the case load as a whole.

37. The CHAIRMAN said that under the new system the Committee members had little opportunity to keep abreast of developments in each case, and that it was much harder to obtain a general overview of the volume of article 22 cases.

38. Mr. RASMUSSEN proposed that the Committee should request that the Petitions Team produce a flowchart describing the development of all article 22 cases so that the Committee would have a general overview. The Committee would thus have an idea of the workload for its following session.

39. Mr. GONZÁLEZ POBLETE underscored the need for rapporteurs to receive information in a timely manner and in their languages. In the past he had had great difficulty in obtaining the information he needed, especially for the follow-up to article 22 decisions. He requested that documentation for the article 22 cases for the following session should be forwarded to the members of the working group in their languages about two weeks prior to its first meeting so that the members could arrive prepared.

40. The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Committee was limited in its planning of article 22 cases, as timing was dependent on submission of information by the parties, in particular the complainants. Nonetheless, Mr. Rasmussen's proposal for a flowchart or general overview of the cases pending would be very useful. It would be logical for the chairperson of the working group to take on responsibility for seeking information on the workflow and reporting to the Committee, as the follow-up rapporteur would not be in a suitable position to do so.

Authorization for the working group on overdue reports to contact permanent missions

41. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Committee should authorize Mr. Mariño Menendez and Mr. Rasmussen, as members of the working group on overdue reports, to approach the permanent missions of the States that they considered to have the greatest reporting backlogs, with a view to offering the Committee's assistance in bringing their reporting up to date.

42. It was so decided.

Adoption of the procedure for lists of issues

43. Mr MARIÑO MENENDEZ asked whether the Secretariat would prepare lists of issues for the States submitting their reports at the following session.

44. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Committee should agree in principle to adopt a procedure for issuing lists of issues for States submitting their reports. The best procedure would be to continue with the existing scheme through the thirtieth session, with a view to putting a system in place for the thirty-first session.

45. It was so decided.

Length of recommendations and follow-up procedures

46. Ms. GAER, noted that the Committee had begun issuing increasingly lengthy lists of recommendations. She pointed to the need to prioritize issues so as to reflect their urgency and provide the State party with guidance in taking remedial action.

47. The Committee must also decide how to respond when a State party reported back after the follow-up procedure. For example, should the State party's report be public or private, and should the Committee's consideration of it take place with a delegation present?

CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

48. After the customary exchange of courtesies, the CHAIRMAN declared the session closed.

The meeting rose at 12.45 p.m.