United Nations

A/50/44


General Assembly

Distr. GENERAL  

[26 July 1995]

ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH


Report of the Committee
against Torture
General Assembly
Official Records of the Fiftieth Session
Supplement No. 44 (A/50/44)

NOTE
Symbols  of  United  Nations  documents  are  composed  of  capital  letters
combined with figures. Mention  of such a symbol  indicates a reference to a
ISSN 1020-170X
--[Original:  English]

CONTENTS

  Paragraphs  Page

I.  ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS .....................1 - 201

  A.  States parties to the Convention .................  1 - 21

  B.  Opening and duration of the sessions .............  3 - 41

  C.  Membership and attendance ........................  5 - 81

  D.  Solemn declaration by a member of the Committee ..   92

  E.  Officers .........................................      102

  F.  Agendas ..........................................  11 - 122

  G.  Working methods of the Committee relating to its
    functions under article 22 of the Convention .....  13 - 153

  H.  Staff resources ..................................  16 - 204

II.  ACTION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ITS FORTY-NINTH
  SESSION ..............................................21 - 255

  A.  Annual report submitted by the Committee against
    Torture under article 24 of the Convention .......  21 - 225

  B.  Effective implementation of international
    instruments on human rights, including reporting
    obligations under international instruments on
    human rights .....................................  23 - 255

III.  SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES UNDER
  ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION .........................26 - 436

  Action taken by the Committee to ensure the submission

  of reports ...........................................26 - 436

IV.  CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES
  UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION ...................44 - 1829

  Chile ................................................52 - 6110

  Peru .................................................62 - 7311

  Monaco ...............................................74 - 7913

  Liechtenstein ........................................80 - 8514

  Czech Republic .......................................86 - 9414

 CONTENTS (continued)

  Paragraphs  Page

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ...............................95 - 10416

  Morocco ..............................................105 - 11517

  Netherlands ..........................................116 - 13118

  Mauritius ............................................132 - 14520

  Italy ................................................146 - 15821

  Jordan ...............................................159 - 18223

V.  ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 20 OF THE
  CONVENTION ...........................................183 - 18826

VI.  CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF
  THE CONVENTION .......................................189 - 20127

VII.  AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMITTEE  202 - 20329

VIII.  FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE .....................204 - 20930

IX.  ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ITS
  ACTIVITIES ...........................................210 - 21231

Annexes

I.  List of States which have signed, ratified or acceded to the
  Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
  Treatment or Punishment as at 5 May 1995 .........................32

II.  Membership of the Committee against Torture (1995) ...............36

III.  Status of submission of reports by States parties under article 19
  of the Convention as at 5 May 1995 ...............................37

IV.  Country rapporteurs and alternate rapporteurs for each of the
  reports of States parties considered by the Committee at its
  thirteenth and fourteenth sessions ...............................42

V.  Decisions of the Committee against Torture under article 22 of the
  Convention .......................................................43

VI.  Amended rules of procedure .......................................75

VII.  List of documents for general distribution issued for the
  Committee during the reporting period ............................77

I.  ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS


A.  States parties to the Convention

1.   As at 5  May 1995, the  closing date of  the fourteenth  session of the
Committee against  Torture, there were 88  States parties  to the Convention
against  Torture  and  Other  Cruel,  Inhuman   or  Degrading  Treatment  or
Punishment.  The  Convention   was  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly   in
resolution  39/46  of  10  December  1984   and  opened  for  signature  and
ratification in New  York on 4 February 1985.   It entered  into force on 26
June  1987 in accordance with the provisions  of its article 27.   A list of
States  which have signed,  ratified or  acceded to  the Convention together
with an indication of  those that have made  declarations under articles  21
and 22 of the Convention is contained in annex I to the present report.

2.  The text of the declarations, reservations or objections made by  States
parties  with  respect   to  the  Convention  are  reproduced  in   document
CAT/C/2/Rev.3.


B.  Opening and duration of the sessions

3.  The Committee against Torture has held  two sessions since the  adoption
of its last annual  report.  The  thirteenth and fourteenth sessions of  the
Committee  were held  at the United  Nations Office at  Geneva from 7  to 18
November 1994 and from 24 April to 5 May 1995, respectively.

4.   At its  thirteenth session  the Committee  held 18  meetings (190th  to
207th meeting) and at its fourteenth session  the Committee held 19 meetings
(208th to 226th meeting).   An account of the deliberations of the Committee
at  its thirteenth  and fourteenth  sessions  is  contained in  the relevant
summary records (CAT/C/SR.190-226).


C.  Membership and attendance

5.   In accordance with article 17, paragraph 6,  of the Convention and rule
13  of the Committee's rules of procedure, Mr. Hassib Ben Ammar, by a letter
dated 6  January 1995,  informed the  Secretary-General of  his decision  to
cease his  functions as  a member  of the  Committee.   By a  note dated  31
January 1995,  the Government  of Tunisia informed the  Secretary-General of
its decision to appoint,  subject to the approval of the States parties, Mr.
Habib  Slim to  serve for  the remainder  of  Mr. Ben  Ammar's term  on  the
Committee, which will expire on 31 December 1995.

6.  Since none of the States parties to the Convention responded  negatively
within the  six-week period  after having  been informed  by the  Secretary-
General of the  proposed appointment, the Secretary-General considered  that
they had approved the  appointment of Mr. Slim as a member of the Committee,
in accordance with the above-mentioned  provisions.  The list of the members
of  the Committee in  1995, together  with an indication of  the duration of
their term of office, appears in annex II to the present report.

7.  All  the members attended the thirteenth  session of the Committee.  The
fourteenth session of the  Committee was attended by all the members, except
Mr. Hugo Lorenzo, who was not authorized to travel by the United Nations  on
the  grounds of incompatibility between his present  status of international
civil servant and that of member of the Committee.

8.    The  Committee,  through  its  Chairman, addressed  a  letter  to  the
SecretaryGeneral of  the United  Nations  in  which it  stated that  such  a
decision  seriously interfered  with the  activities  of the  Committee  and
asked him  to reconsider it immediately.   Unfortunately,  the Committee had
not received a reply by the end of its fourteenth session.

D.  Solemn declaration by a member of the Committee

9.  At the  208th meeting, on  24 April 1995, the newly appointed  member of
the  Committee, Mr. Habib  Slim, made  the solemn  declaration upon assuming
his duties, in accordance with rule 14 of the rules of procedure.


E.  Officers

10.   The following  members of  the Committee acted as  officers during the
reporting period:

  Chairman:  Mr. Alexis Dipanda Mouelle

  Vice-Chairmen:  Mr. Peter Thomas Burns
                  Mr. Fawzi El Ibrashi
                  Mr. Hugo Lorenzo

  Rapporteur:  Mr. Bent SFrensen


F.  Agendas

11.   At its  190th meeting,  on 7 November 1994,  the Committee adopted the
following  items  listed  in   the  provisional  agenda   submitted  by  the
SecretaryGeneral  in  accordance with  rule  6  of  the  rules of  procedure
(CAT/C/27) as the agenda of its thirteenth session:

  1.  Adoption of the agenda.

  2.  Organizational and other matters.

  3.Submission  of  reports  by  States  parties  under  article  19  of the
Convention.

  4.Consideration of  reports submitted by States  parties under article  19
of the Convention.

  5.Consideration  of   information  received  under   article  20  of   the
Convention.

  6.Consideration of communications under article 22 of the Convention.

12.   At its  208th meeting,  on 24 April  1995, the  Committee adopted  the
following  items  listed   in  the  provisional  agenda  submitted  by   the
Secretary-General in  accordance  with rule  6  of  the rules  of  procedure
(CAT/C/30) as the agenda of its fourteenth session:
     1.  Adoption of the agenda.

   2.Solemn  declaration  by  a member  of  the  Committee  appointed  under
article 17, paragraph 6, of the Convention.

   3.Organizational and other matters.

   4.Submission  of  reports by  States  parties  under  article  19 of  the
Convention.

   5.Consideration  of reports submitted by States parties  under article 19
of the Convention.

   6.Consideration  of  information   received  under  article  20  of   the
Convention.

   7.Consideration of communications under article 22 of the Convention.

   8.Future meetings of the Committee.

   9.Action by the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session:

    (a)Annual report  submitted by  the Committee  under article  24 of  the
Convention;

    (b)Effective  implementation   of  international  instruments  on  human
rights, including reporting  obligations under international instruments  on
human rights.

  10.  Amendments to the rules of procedure of the Committee.

  11.  Annual report of the Committee on its activities.


G.  Working methods of the Committee relating to its
functions under article 22 of the Convention

13.  During its thirteenth session,  the Committee considered possible  ways
to make  its  methods  of  work under  article  22  of the  Convention  more
effective.

14.   In the  light of  recent communications received,  in particular  with
regard to article  3 of the Convention, the  Committee was of the view  that
it  was   necessary  to  appoint  from  among  its  members  inter-sessional
rapporteurs who would take urgent action  on new communications submitted to
the  Committee and  report  on any  action taken  to  the Committee  at  the
beginning  of its subsequent session.  In this connection, the Committee, on
16 November 1994, adopted the following decision:

  "The Committee against Torture,

  "Noting  the  increasing number  of  new  communications  submitted  under
article 22 of the Convention,

  "Noting  also that,  in many  cases,  the  authors of  communications make
requests for  interim measures of protection,  in accordance  with rule 108,
paragraph 9, of the Committee's rules of procedure,

   "Considering that the  Committee's present methods of work do not give it
the required  flexibility to deal expeditiously  with the  processing of new
communications, particularly in the inter-sessional period,

  "Decides:

  "1.  That any  member of the Committee may act as a special rapporteur for
a new communication, with the following mandate:

  "(a)  To examine the communication received by  the Committee and to  take
whatever  action might  be necessary pursuant  to rule 108,  paragraphs 1, 5
and 8, of the Committee's roles of procedure;

  "(b)   To  issue requests  under rule  108, paragraph 9,  of the  rules of
procedure;

  "2.   That, at  the beginning  of each  session, members  having acted  as
special rapporteur shall  inform the Committee concerning action taken under
rule 108."

15.   Pursuant to this decision,  the Committee also  amended rules 106  and
108 of its rules of procedure, as indicated  in chapter VII, paragraph  202.
The text  of rules  106 and  108, as  amended, appears  in annex  VI to  the
present report.


H.  Staff resources

16.   The Committee  discussed this  issue at  its 225th  meeting, on  4 May
1995.

17.  The Committee was of the view  that the greater complexity of  its work
and more intensive pace  of its operations - resulting from the increase  in
the number of States  parties to the Convention,  the new cycle  of periodic
reports  submitted by States  parties, the  increasing amount of information
received  under   the  inquiry   procedure  and   the   growing  number   of
communications submitted under the individual communication procedure -  had
added  significantly   to  the   workload  of   the  Secretariat   providing
substantive servicing to the Committee.

18.  The Committee recalled that,  in accordance with article  18, paragraph
3, of  the Convention,  the Secretary-General  of the  United Nations  shall
provide the necessary staff and facilities  for the effective performance of
the functions of the Committee.

19.  The Committee underlined that recommendations concerning the  provision
of  adequate  Secretariat  resources  for human  rights  treaty  bodies  had
already  been  made by  the  persons chairing  such  bodies  in  the "Vienna
statement of the international  human rights treaty bodies" of June 1993  1/
and,  most recently,  in  the  report of  their fifth  meeting, held  at the
United Nations Office at Geneva from 19 to 23 September 1994. 2/

20.   The Committee  therefore requests  the Secretary-General  to take  the
necessary steps to  ensure a substantial increase  in the staff assigned  to
service  the  Committee in  order to  enable it  to perform  effectively the
functions entrusted to it under the Convention.
II.  ACTION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ITS FORTY-NINTH SESSION


A.  Annual report submitted by the Committee against
Torture under article 24 of the Convention 

21.  The  Committee considered this agenda item  at its 225th meeting,  held
on 4 May 1995.

22.   The Committee took note  of General Assembly  resolution 49/177 of  23
December  1994 and  Commission  on Human  Rights resolution  1995/37 A  of 3
March  1995 on the status of  the Convention.   The Committee took note also
of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995 33 on the question  of a draft
optional protocol to the Convention.


B.  Effective implementation of international instruments
     on human rights, including reporting obligations under
international instruments on human rights       

Thirteenth session

23.   At the 207th meeting,  held on 18 November  1994, the Chairman of  the
Committee,  who had participated  in the  fifth meeting  of persons chairing
the human rights treaty bodies, provided  information on the conclusions and
recommendations of that meeting.

Fourteenth session

24.  The Committee had before it the report of the fifth meeting of  persons
chairing  the human  rights treaty  bodies, 3/  General Assembly  resolution
49/178  of  23 December  1994  and  Commission  on  Human Rights  resolution
1995/92 of 8 March 1995.

25.  The Committee took note of the above-mentioned report and resolutions.
 III.  SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES
 UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION

Action taken by the Committee to ensure the submission of reports

Thirteenth session

26.   The Committee,  at its  190th and  206th meetings,  held on  7 and  17
November 1994, considered the status of  submission of reports under article
19 of the Convention.  The Committee had before it the following documents:

  (a)  Notes by the Secretary-General  concerning initial reports of  States
parties which  were due  from 1988  to 1994  (CAT/C/5, 7,  9, 12,  16/Rev.1,
21/Rev.1 and 24);

  (b)   Notes by the  Secretary-General concerning  second periodic  reports
which were due from 1992 to 1994 (CAT/C/17, 20/Rev.1 and 25).

27.  The  Committee was informed that, in addition to the eight reports that
were scheduled for consideration by the  Committee at its thirteenth session
(see chap.  IV, para.  44), the  Secretary-General had  received the  second
periodic  report of  Italy (CAT/C/25/Add.4),  the second periodic  report of
the  Netherlands (CAT/C/25/Add.1  and  2) and  additional  information  from
Greece, whose  second periodic report had  been considered  by the Committee
at its twelfth session. 4/

28.   The Committee  was  also informed  that  the  revised version  of  the
initial report of Belize,  requested for 10  March 1994 by the Committee  at
its  eleventh session, had not yet been received in spite of a reminder sent
by the Secretary-General in June 1994.

29.  In  accordance with rule  65 of the Committee's rules  of procedure and
its   decisions,   the   Secretary-General   continued   sending   reminders
automatically to those States parties whose  initial reports were more  than
12 months overdue, and subsequent reminders every six months.

30.   Furthermore, the  Committee was  informed that,  before its thirteenth
session, the  Secretary-General had  sent a  tenth  reminder to  Togo and  a
ninth reminder to Uganda, whose initial reports were  due in 1988; a seventh
reminder to Guyana, whose  initial report was due  in 1989; a fifth reminder
to Brazil and a sixth reminder to Guinea, whose  initial reports were due in
1990; a fourth  reminder to  Malta and Somalia,  whose initial reports  were
due in  1991; second reminders to  Jordan, Venezuela,  Yemen and Yugoslavia,
whose  initial  reports were  due in  1992;  and  first reminders  to Benin,
Bosnia and  Herzegovina, Cape  Verde, Latvia  and Seychelles, whose  initial
reports were due in 1993.

31.  With  regard to States  parties whose  initial reports  were more  than
four or five years overdue, namely  Brazil, Guinea, Guyana, Togo and Uganda,
the Committee deplored the fact that, in spite of several reminders sent  by
the  Secretary-General and letters  or other  messages from  its Chairman to
their  respective  Ministers  for  Foreign  Affairs,  those  States  parties
continued not to  comply with the obligations  they had freely assumed under
the Convention.  The Committee stressed that it had  the duty to monitor the
Convention and that the non-compliance of a  State party with its  reporting
obligations  constituted   an  infringement   of  the   provisions  of   the
Convention.   The Committee  also decided to  request Brazil  and Guinea  to
submit both  the initial  and the second  periodic reports in  one document.
It had  already requested  Guyana, Togo  and Uganda  to do  so, at  previous
sessions.

32.   The Committee  noted with satisfaction  that following  a request  for
technical assistance in preparing reports made  by the Government of  Uganda
in February  1994  and  the recommendations  made by  the  Committee at  its
twelfth session  in  that regard,  a  government  official from  Uganda  had
participated  in an  international  course specifically  aimed  at  training
government officials in the reporting obligation  system, which was held  at
the International Training  Centre of the International Labour  Organization
at Turin,  Italy, in November  1994, within the framework  of the fellowship

programme of the Centre for Human Rights.

33.  In addition,  the Committee noted with  satisfaction that, in  response
to  a request  for technical  assistance in  preparing reports  made by  the
Government of Croatia in March 1994  and the Committee's recommendations  on
the  subject, a government  official from  Croatia had  also participated in
the training course at Turin.

34.   In accordance  with  the decision  adopted  by  the Committee  at  its
seventh  session, the  Chairman, at the Committee's  request, discussed with
the  representative  of  Malta,  whose  report  was  more  than  three years
overdue, the difficulties  that prevented  that State  party from  complying
with its reporting obligations under the Convention.

35.   With regard  to second periodic  reports, the  Committee was  informed
that,  before its thirteenth  session, the  Secretary-General had sent third
reminders  to Afghanistan,  Austria,  Belize,  Bulgaria, Cameroon,  Denmark,
France, Luxembourg,  the Philippines,  the Russian  Federation, Senegal  and
Uruguay, whose reports were due  in 1992 but had not  yet been received; and
a second reminder to  Colombia and a first reminder to Turkey, whose  second
periodic reports were due in 1993.

Fourteenth session

36.   At  its 210th  meeting, held  on 25  April  1995, the  Committee again
considered  the status  of submission  of reports  under article  19 of  the
Convention.  In addition to the documents listed  in paragraph 26 above, the
Committee had before  it two notes by the Secretary-General:  one concerning
initial  reports to be submitted  by States parties  in 1995 (CAT/C/28); the
other on second periodic reports to be submitted  by States parties in  1995
(CAT/C/29).

37.   The Committee was informed that, in addition to  the five reports that
were scheduled for consideration by the  Committee at its fourteenth session
(see  chap. IV, para.  46), the  Secretary-General had  received the initial
report  of  Armenia  (CAT/C/24/Add.4 and  the  second  periodic  reports  of
Denmark (CAT/C/17/Add.13), Senegal (CAT/C/17/Add.14) and the United  Kingdom
of  Great  Britain and  Northern  Ireland  (CAT/C/25/Add.6).    He had  also
received  additional information  requested by  the Committee  from  Germany
(ninth  session)  Morocco and  Peru  (thirteenth  session)  and  Switzerland
(twelfth  session) during  the consideration  of their  respective  reports.
The revised version of the initial report of  Belize, requested for 10 March
1994 by the Committee at its eleventh session  (see para. 28 above), had not
yet been received.

38.   The Committee  was informed  also about  the reminders which  had been
sent  by the  Secretary-General before  its  fourteenth  session.   It noted
that, in spite  of 11  reminders sent  to Togo,  11 reminders  to Uganda,  8
reminders to Guyana, 7  reminders to Guinea  and 6 reminders to Brazil,  the
initial reports  of those  States parties had  not yet been  received.   The
Committee once again strongly deplored the  attitude of those State  parties
which persisted  in  not complying  with  the  obligations they  had  freely
assumed under the Convention.

39.   The  Committee  also  noted that  the  initial  reports of  Malta  and
Somalia, which were due in 1991,  had not yet been received in spite of five
reminders to each of those States parties.

40.  Furthermore, the Committee was informed that second reminders had  been
sent by  the  Secretary-General to  Croatia, Estonia,  Venezuela, Yemen  and
Yugoslavia, whose initial  reports were  due in 1992,  and to Benin,  Bosnia
and  Herzegovina, Cape Verde,  Latvia and  Seychelles whose  initial reports
were  due in  1993.    A first  reminder had  been sent  to  Cambodia, whose
initial report was also due in 1993.

41.   With regard  to second  periodic reports, the  Committee was  informed

that  first reminders had  been sent  by the Secretary-General  to China and
Tunisia, whose reports were due in 1993.

42.   The  Committee  again  requested  the  Secretary-General  to  continue
sending  reminders  automatically to  those  States  parties  whose  initial
reports were more  than 12 months overdue and subsequent reminders every six
months.

43.  The status of submission of  reports by States parties under article 19
of the  Convention as  at 5  May 1995, the  closing date  of the  fourteenth
session of the Committee, appears in annex III to the present report.
IV.  CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES
   PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION


44.   At its  thirteenth and  fourteenth sessions,  the Committee considered
initial  reports  submitted by  eight  States  parties  and second  periodic
reports submitted by four States  parties under article 19,  paragraph 1, of
the Convention.  At  its thirteenth session, the Committee devoted 12 of the
18 meetings held to the consideration  of reports (see CAT/C/SR.191-198  and
Add.2, 201-204  and Add.2). The  following reports, listed  in the order  in
which  they  were  received  by  the  Secretary-General,   were  before  the
Committee at its thirteenth session:

  Chile (second periodic report)  CAT/C/20/Add.3
  Peru (initial report)  CAT/C/7/Add.16
  Monaco (initial report)  CAT/C/21/Add.1
  Czech Republic (initial report)  CAT/C/21/Add.2
  Mauritius (initial report)  CAT/C/24/Add.1
  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (second periodic report)  CAT/C/25/Add.3
  Morocco (initial report)  CAT/C/24/Add.2
  Liechtenstein (initial report)  CAT/C/12/Add.4

45.  The Committee  agreed, at the  request of the Government concerned,  to
postpone   the  consideration   of   the  initial   report   of   Mauritius.
Subsequently,  the Government of  Mauritius submitted  a new  version of the
report.

46.   At its fourteenth session,  the Committee devoted 8 of the 19 meetings
held to  the  consideration of  reports  submitted  by States  parties  (see
CAT/C/SR.210-215, 218 and 219).  The following  reports, listed in the order
in which  they  were received  by  the  Secretary-General, were  before  the
Committee at its fourteenth session:

  Netherlands (second periodic report)  CAT/C/25/Add.1 and 2
  Italy (second periodic report)  CAT/C/25/Add.4
  Guatemala (initial report)  CAT/C/12/Add.5
  Jordan (initial report)  CAT/C/16/Add.5
  Mauritius (initial report)  CAT/C/24/Add.1 and 3

47.  The Committee  agreed, at the request  of the Government  concerned, to
postpone  the  consideration of  the  initial  report  of  Guatemala to  its
fifteenth session, in November 1995.

48.   In accordance with rule 66 of the rules of procedure of the Committee,
representatives  of all  the reporting  States  were  invited to  attend the
meetings of the Committee at which their reports were examined.  All of  the
States  parties  whose  reports  were  considered  by   the  Committee  sent
representatives  to  participate in  the  examination  of  their  respective
reports.

49.  In  accordance with the decision taken  by the Committee at its  fourth
session, 5/  country rapporteurs and  alternate rapporteurs were  designated
by the Chairman, in  consultation with the members  of the Committee and the
Secretariat,  for  each of  the  reports  submitted  by  States parties  and
considered by  the Committee at its thirteenth and fourteenth sessions.  The

list of the abovementioned  reports and the names of the country rapporteurs
and their alternates  for each of  them appear in  annex IV  to the  present
report.

50.   In  connection with its  consideration of reports,  the Committee also
had before it the following documents:

  (a)  Status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman  or
Degrading Treatment or  Punishment, and reservations and declarations  under
the Convention (CAT/C/2/Rev.3);

  (b)    General guidelines  regarding  the  form  and  contents of  initial
reports  to  be  submitted  by  States  parties  under  article  19  of  the
Convention (CAT/C/4/Rev.2);

  (c)   General  guidelines regarding  the  form  and contents  of  periodic
reports  to  be  submitted  by  States  parties  under  article  19  of  the
Convention (CAT/C/14).

51.  In accordance with the decision taken by the  Committee at its eleventh
session, 6/ the following sections,  arranged on a  country-by-country basis
according to  the sequence followed by the Committee in its consideration of
the  reports, contain  references to  the  reports  submitted by  the States
parties and  to the  summary records  of the  meetings of  the Committee  at
which the reports were  considered, as well  as the text of conclusions  and
recommendations  adopted  by  the  Committee  with  respect  to  the  States
parties' reports considered at its thirteenth and fourteenth sessions.

Chile

52.    The  Committee  considered  the   second  periodic  report  of  Chile
(CAT/C/20/Add.3) at its  191st and 192nd meetings,  held on 8 November  1994
(CAT/C/SR.191 and  SR.192 and Add.2),  and adopted the following conclusions
and recommendations.


A.  Introduction

53.  The Committee thanks the Government of  Chile for the timely submission
of  its  second  periodic  report  and   for  the  frank  and   constructive
clarifications provided by the Chilean delegation in its oral report.

54.  In general, the report is in  conformity with the guidelines laid  down
by the Committee for presenting reports.


B.  Positive aspects

55.  The  Committee takes due note of  the political will of the  Government
of  Chile to  guarantee  respect for  human rights  in  the context  of  the
transition from a dictatorship to a democratic regime.

56.  The Committee notes with satisfaction that the  Government is promoting
a  series  of  important  changes,  both  in  procedure  and  in  the  basic
legislation, which will help to prevent the practice of torture.

57.  It also regards as positive the  implementation of programmes aimed  at
fully compensating those who have suffered from violations of human rights.

  C.  Subjects of concern

58.   The Committee  notes  with  concern the  existence of  a  considerable
number of complaints of  torture and ill treatment  at the hands  of various
law enforcement services,  especially the Carabineros and the  Investigatory
Police, which have not  met with an effective response, with the authors  of
these acts being duly brought to trial.

59.  The Committee  also considers that  some aspects of the legislation  in
force,  such as  the  rules  of  the  criminal  prosecution system  and  the
subjection of civilians to military jurisdiction, are not  helpful as far as
the prevention of torture is concerned.


D.  Recommendations

60.  In a  spirit of collaboration, the  Committee suggests the  adoption of
the following measures:

  (a)  An in-depth  review of procedure, especially as regards police powers
of  detention  and  the  right  of  the  detainee  to  free  access  to  and
communication with  family members and legal  advisers and  a physician whom
he trusts;

  (b)   The  advisability of  explicitly  abolishing  those rules,  such  as
automatic obedience, which are not compatible with the Convention;

  (c)   Making  the security  forces  subordinate  to the  civil authorities
responsible for  public safety and  the abandonment of  all vestiges of  the
legislation enacted by the military dictatorship;

  (d)   The advisability  of making  special  provision for  the offence  of
torture,  as  described  in article  1  of  the  Convention,  and  making it
punishable by a penalty appropriate to its seriousness;

  (e)   The  possibility of  withdrawing  the  existing reservation  to  the
Convention and  making  declarations to  the  effect  that the  State  party
recognizes the  competence of the  Committee in  the circumstances described
in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.

61.   The Committee  again expresses its  appreciation to the  Government of
Chile for  its  readiness  to  engage in  dialogue  and  in the  search  for
solutions and is grateful  for the supply of the legislation which has  been
enacted and that which will be enacted in the future.

Peru

62.  The Committee considered the  initial report of Peru  (CAT/C/7/Add.16),
which should have been  submitted in 1989, at its 193rd and 194th  meetings,
held on 9 November  1994 (CAT/C/SR.193 and 194  and Add.2), and  adopted the
following conclusions and recommendations.


A.  Introduction

63.    The  Committee  appreciates  the   presence  of  a  highly  qualified
delegation, as well as the clarifications  and explanations supplied in both
the written and oral reports.
  B.  Positive aspects

64.   The  Committee  notes the  intention expressed  by  the  delegation to
submit all the reports required by international human rights  organizations
and to respond to all their requests.

65.   The Committee takes  due note of  the intensive campaign  to make  the
armed forces and the police more aware of the need to respect human rights.

66.   The Committee  is pleased  to note  the approval of  various items  of
legislation,  such  as  that  permitting  procurators  to  visit  places  of
detention in  areas where  a  state  of emergency  has been  declared,  that
providing for  greater flexibility in the  procedures relating to  terrorism
and those which establish new bodies for protecting human rights.

C.  Subjects of concern

67.  One  cause for serious  concern is the large number  of complaints from
both  non-governmental   organizations   and   international   agencies   or
commissions indicating that torture is being used extensively in  connection
with the investigation  of acts of terrorism  and that those responsible are
going unpunished.

68.  The Committee points out that the  legislation intended to repress acts
of  terrorism  does not  meet the  requirements of  international agreements
concerning a  fair, just and impartial trial with minimum safeguards for the
rights of the accused (for  example, "faceless" judges,  serious limitations
on the right of  defence, lack of  opportunity to take proceedings before  a
court, extension of the period of incommunicado detention, etc.).

69.   The Committee  is also  concerned by  the subjection  of civilians  to
military jurisdiction and  by the fact that,  in practice, the competence of
the  military  courts  is  being  extended  as  regards  cases of  abuse  of
authority.


D.  Recommendations

70.   The  Committee is  aware of  the  serious  difficulties which  Peru is
experiencing because  of the terrorist attacks,  which are  to be condemned,
and hopes that it will succeed in overcoming them.

71.   Despite the  determination stated  by the  delegation of Peru,  in the
Committee's opinion, the legislative and administrative measures adopted  in
order to comply  with the Convention have  not been effective  in preventing
acts of torture, as required by article 2, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

72.   At  the same  time, the  requirements of  articles 12  and  13  of the
Convention concerning the need for a  prompt and impartial investigation  of
all complaints of torture are not being met.

73.   Nevertheless,  taking into  consideration the intentions  expressed by
the delegation  and the  fact that the  Government has available  to it  the
means necessary to eradicate the scourge  of torture, the Committee suggests
the adoption of, among others, the following measures:

   (a)  The procedure relating to terrorist offences should  be reviewed for
the purpose  of establishing  a prosecution  system which  is effective  but
which preserves  the independence  and impartiality  of the  courts and  the
right of  defence, with the elimination  of so-called  "faceless trials" and
the holding of detainees incommunicado;

  (b)  The military courts should be regulated  to prevent them from  trying
civilians  and  to  restrict their  jurisdiction  to  military  offences, by
introducing the appropriate legal and constitutional changes;

  (c)  The  Judicature Council and the  Ombudsman should start  operating as
soon as possible;

  (d)   The activities  of the  procurators' offices  should be strengthened
and  they should  be  provided  with the  means necessary  to  perform their
functions;

  (e)   The  possibility of  making  the declarations  provided for  in  the
Convention  in the circumstances  described in articles 21  and 22 should be
analysed;

  (f)  Consideration should be given to  defining torture as an  independent
offence punishable by a penalty appropriate to its seriousness;

  (g)  The efforts to educate  medical and law-enforcement personnel,  civil

and military, should be  intensified, as should the  programmes for the full
rehabilitation of victims.

Monaco

74.  The Committee considered the  initial report of Monaco (CAT/C/21/Add.1)
at  its 195th and  196th meetings,  held on 10 November  1994 (see CAT/C/195
and  196   and   Add.2),  and   adopted   the   following  conclusions   and
recommendations.


A.  Introduction

75.   The Committee  thanks the Government  of Monaco for  its report,  even
though  it  is  very brief  and  not  in  conformity  with  the  Committee's
guidelines.    It  also  listened with  interest  to  the  oral  report  and
clarifications  presented  by the  Monegasque  delegation.    The  Committee
wishes to thank the delegation  for its replies and for the spirit of  open-
minded cooperation in which the dialogue was conducted.


B.  Positive aspects

76.   The Committee  appreciates the  determination of  Monaco to  guarantee
respect for and the  protection of human  rights through its accession to  a
number of international and regional instruments  for the promotion of  such
rights.

77.   The Committee noted with  satisfaction and sets  special store by  the
fact  that  no  governmental  or  non-governmental  body  has  affirmed  the
existence  of cases  of  torture  within the  meaning  of article  1 of  the
Convention.


 C.  Recommendations

78.  The Committee  hopes that a  definition of torture as envisaged  in the
Convention will be incorporated in the legislation of Monaco.

79.    The  Committee  also  hopes  that the  next  periodic  report,  to be
submitted by  Monaco together  with the  core document  relating to  general
information on  the State party, will be in conformity  with the Committee's
guidelines regarding the submission of reports.

Liechtenstein

80.    The   Committee  considered  the   initial  report  of  Liechtenstein
(CAT/C/12/Add.4) at its 195th  and 196th meetings, held on 10 November  1994
(see  CAT/C/195 and 196  and Add.2),  and adopted  the following conclusions
and recommendations.


A.  Introduction

81.    The  Committee  thanks  the   Government  of  Liechtenstein  for  its
comprehensive  report.  It  also listened  with interest to  the oral report
and extensive clarifications  presented by the delegation of  Liechtenstein.
The  Committee wishes to  thank the  delegation for its replies  and for the
spirit of openness and cooperation in which the dialogue was conducted.


B.  Positive aspects

82.    The  Committee  appreciates the  determination  of  Liechtenstein  to
guarantee  respect  for  and  the  promotion  of  human  rights  through its
accession without reservations  to a  number of  international and  regional

instruments for the promotion of such rights.

83.  The Committee notes with satisfaction that  the policy of prevention of
torture and  other cruel, inhuman or  degrading treatment  or punishment was
successful and sets special  store by the fact that no governmental or  non-
governmental body has  affirmed the existence of cases of torture within the
meaning of article 1 of the Convention.


C.  Recommendations

84.   The Committee hopes that  the Liechtenstein  authorities will continue
their  successful efforts  to prevent  the  instances  of torture  and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in  the territory of the
State party.

85.  The  Committee, while awaiting answers to  some of the questions  which
were  raised during  the consideration  of the  report, hopes  also that the
authorities of  Liechtenstein will  expeditiously finalize  the drafting  of
the law  concerning the granting of asylum to ensure  the prompt application
of article 3 of the Convention.

Czech Republic

86.   The Committee  considered the  initial report  of  the Czech  Republic
(CAT/C/21/Add.2) at its 197th  and 198th meetings, held on 11 November  1994
(see CAT/C/SR.197 and 198 and Add.2),  and adopted the following conclusions
and recommendations.


A.  Introduction

87.   The Czech Republic  transmitted its report  within five  months of its
due date,  which is  quite timely.   The  Committee notes with  satisfaction
that the Czech Republic has adopted  most of the protections available under
the Convention and has developed its own institutions  to give effect to its
obligations under the Convention.

88.  The initial report was not accompanied  by the core document  providing
general information  on the  State party,  as requested  in the  Committee's
guidelines, but apart  from this, it met  all the reporting  requirements of
the Convention.


B.  Positive aspects

89.   The Committee  is pleased  to recognize  that the  Czech Republic  has
adopted a  definition of torture  which is close  to that  in the Convention
and  has taken the  steps necessary  to ensure  that it  is a crime  in that
country.

90.   The Committee also notes  that in the Czech Republic all the necessary
democratic  institutions  and  safeguards  are  in   place  to  ensure   the
implementation of the Convention.

91.  The Committee also takes note of  the expeditious and effective way  in
which the Czech authorities have dealt  with allegations of abuse  by police
and  prison   officers,  have   set  up   a  system   of  compensation   and
rehabilitation and take their educational responsibilities seriously.

92.  The Czech  Republic is a good  example of a democratic  State that  has
taken its commitments under the Convention  seriously, and this is reflected
in its institutions and practices.


C.  Subjects of concern

93.   There are  no serious  matters currently  of concern to  the Committee
regarding implementation by the Czech Republic of the Convention.


D.  Conclusions and recommendations

94.   Even though the Czech Republic has not declared  in favour of articles
21 and  22 and maintains its  reservation on article  20 of the  Convention,
the Czech delegation explained that this was due  to the weight of  business
in the  legislative and executive fields  and in no way  reflects a lack  of
political will  to remedy  the situation.   The Committee is  confident that
the Czech Republic  will move to  reform its  situation in  this regard  and
looks forward to its second periodic report.

 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

95.  The Committee considered the second periodic report of the Libyan  Arab
Jamahiriya (CAT/C/25/Add.3)  at its  201st and  202nd meetings,  held on  15
November  1994  (see  CAT/C/SR.201  and  202  and  Add.2),  and  adopted the
following conclusions and recommendations.


A.  Introduction

96.   The Libyan  Arab Jamahiriya  submitted its report in  a timely manner.
The contents of the  report were enhanced by a valuable introduction by  the
Libyan delegation.


B.  Positive aspects

97.  The Committee  notes with satisfaction that the Libyan Arab  Jamahiriya
has met its reporting requirements under the Convention.

98.   The  Committee also  notes with  satisfaction that  the terms  of  the
Convention  have been  generally incorporated  in  the  domestic law  of the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and, in particular, that the State party has  defined
a separate crime of torture.


C.  Matters of concern

99.    The  Committee is  concerned  that  in  the  Libyan  Arab  Jamahiriya
incommunicado  detention continues to  create conditions  which may  lead to
violations of the Convention.

100.   The Committee is also  concerned that allegations  of torture in  the
State  party  continue   to  be  received  from  reliable   non-governmental
organizations  which have  provided well-founded  information in  connection
with other monitoring activities of the Committee.


D.  Recommendations

101.   The Committee  recommends that  the Libyan  authorities guarantee the
free access of a person deprived  of his liberty to a lawyer, to a doctor of
his choice and to his relatives at all stages of detention.

102.   The Libyan Government  should continue to  fight against torture  by:
(i)  sending clear  messages and instructions  to that effect  to its police
and providing educational programmes to them;  (ii) ensuring that those  who
commit the offence of torture are prosecuted in accordance with the law.

103.  The Committee encourages the Libyan Government to  consider making the
declarations provided for under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.

104.  Finally, the  Committee looks forward  to the next report and  invites
the Government  of the  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya  to submit to  it replies  in
writing to those questions which have remained unanswered.

 Morocco

105.     The   Committee   considered   the  initial   report   of   Morocco
(CAT/C/24/Add.2) at its 203rd and 204th meetings,  held on 16 November  1994
(CAT/C/SR.203 and 204 and Add.2), and  adopted the following conclusions and
recommendations.


A.  Introduction

106.   The Committee  thanks  the State  party  for  its report,  which  was
submitted  on time  and in conformity  with the Committee's  guidelines.  It
also thanks the  State party for its sincere cooperation in the constructive
dialogue conducted  with the Committee.   It  takes note of  the information
submitted in both the written and oral reports.


B.  Positive aspects

107.  The Committee  expresses its appreciation of  the efforts made  by the
State  party in connection  with the  revision of  the Constitution  and the
laws  and regulations  with a  view  to ensuring  that the  country's  legal
system  conforms to the provisions  of the Convention.  These efforts appear
to express  a real determination to  establish the  necessary conditions for
the promotion and protection of human rights and to prevent the practice  of
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

108.   It welcomes  the establishment of  a ministry  responsible for  human
rights.


C.  Subjects of concern

109.    The  Committee  is  nevertheless  concerned  about  the  allegations
received  from various non-governmental organizations concerning torture and
ill  treatment, said  to be  practised  in various  places of  detention, in
particular in  police  stations.   The  Committee  is also  concerned  about
certain  shortcomings  relating  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  preventive
measures  taken  to  combat  torture,  in  particular  the  half-heartedness
displayed in  pursuing inquiries and bringing the authors of acts of torture
before  the courts, whose  independence must  be preserved.   This situation
creates  the impression that  such offences  can be  committed with relative
impunity, an  impunity prejudicial to the  application of  the provisions of
the Convention.  The fact that the  Convention has not yet been published in
the Official Journal is also a cause of concern.


D.  Recommendations

110.  The Committee  recommends that the State  party provide for  all forms
of torture  in  its  penal  legislation so  that  all  the elements  of  the
definition of  that offence  contained in  article 1  of the Convention  are
fully covered.

111.   The Committee  also recommends that,  for the  greater protection  of
persons arrested,  the State  party establish procedures for  the systematic
and effective monitoring of interrogation methods and practices,  especially
on  all police  premises, to  give effect  to the  commitments undertaken in
accordance with article 11 of the Convention.

 112.  The  Committee further recommends that  the State party continue  its
efforts  with  a   view  to   further  reforming   the  penal   legislation,

particularly  as regards  prison administration  and the duration  of police
detention  in  cases  involving  breaches  of  internal  or  external  State
security.   The State party should instigate and  press forward with serious
inquiries  into  the  actions  of  police   officials  for  the  purpose  of
establishing whether or not acts of torture have been committed and, if  the
results of these investigations are positive,  bring the authors before  the
courts.   At  the same time,  it should  draw up and  pass on to  the police
clear and  precise  instructions prohibiting  all  acts  of torture  or  ill
treatment.

113.   The  State party  should  intensify  the education,  information  and
training programmes called for by article 10 of  the Convention, for all the
officials concerned.

114.  The Committee recommends that the State  party take all the  necessary
measures  to  ensure  the  effective  application   of  article  14  of  the
Convention,  so  that  victims  of  torture  may  be  fully  compensated and
rehabilitated.  Finally, the Committee recommends  that the State party have
the Convention published forthwith in the Official Journal.

115.   The Committee,  which appreciates  Morocco's ratification  of most of
the  human  rights  covenants  and  conventions,  hopes  that  the  Moroccan
Government will withdraw the reservations entered  with regard to article 20
and  make the  declarations  provided for  in  articles  21  and 22  of  the
Convention.  The Committee  also hopes to obtain  written replies to all the
questions  raised, in particular  those concerning  the persons  reported by
various non-governmental  organizations as having  disappeared or as  having
been detained.

Netherlands

116.    The  Committee  considered  the   second  periodic  report  of   the
Netherlands (CAT/C/25/Add.1,  2 and 5) at its 210th and 211th meetings, held
on  25  April  1995  (CAT/C/SR.210  and  211),  and  adopted  the  following
conclusions and recommendations.


A.  Introduction

117.  The Kingdom of  the Netherlands submitted its  three reports (European
part of the Kingdom, Antilles and Aruba) partly on time.

118.   The  Committee thanks  the  three  respective Governments  for  their
comprehensive  reports.   The  reports  were  not  accompanied  by the  core
document providing  general information on the  State party,  as required in
the  Committee's guidelines (CAT/C/14),  but apart  from this,  they met all
the reporting requirements of the Convention.

119.    The  Committee  listened with  interest  to  the  oral  reports  and
clarifications of the representatives of the three parts of the Kingdom.

120.   The Committee wishes to  thank the delegation for its reports and for
the spirit of openness and cooperation in which the dialogue was conducted.


 B.  Positive aspects

121.    The  Committee notes  with  satisfaction  that  it  has  received no
information about alleged perpetration of torture in any of the three  parts
of the Kingdom.

122.  The  Committee also notes that both  Antilles and Aruba are  preparing
special laws  to  incorporate fully  the  provisions  of the  Convention  in
domestic law.

123.   The Committee  also notes  with satisfaction that,  according to  the

oral information given, force  - physical or pharmacological  - is no longer
used in connection with the expulsion of asylum seekers.


C.  Subjects of concern

124.  With regard to  the European part of the  Kingdom of the  Netherlands,
the Committee has questions about the  way in which compensation  provisions
apply in practice.

125.  With  regard to the Netherlands Antilles  and Aruba, the Committee  is
concerned that the new penal legislation appears not to  be in force yet and
thus  it is not  clear whether the provisions of  the Convention are part of
the domestic law.

126.    With  regard,  in  particular,  to  the  Netherlands  Antilles,  the
Committee is concerned about the severeness  and the relatively high  number
of  cases  of police  brutality  which  are  described  in the  Government's
report,  as  well as  by  information  provided  to  the  Committee by  non-
governmental organizations.   The Committee is particularly concerned  about
the apparent failure of the  Netherlands Antilles authorities to investigate
fully and deal with such cases.

127.   With regard, in particular,  to Aruba, the  Committee recognizes that
conditions  in detention places  are far  from being  satisfactory and notes
that the Government has acknowledged that it is aware of this situation.


D.  Recommendations

128.   The  Netherlands  Antilles and  Aruba should  give  high  priority to
speeding  up  the  procedure  for  the  adoption  of  the  act  which   will
incorporate the provisions of the Convention in domestic law.

129.  The  Netherlands Antilles should take strong  measures to bring to  an
end  the ill treatment  which reportedly  occurs in  police stations  and to
ensure  that  such allegations  are speedily  and properly  investigated and
that those who may be found guilty of acts  of ill treatment are prosecuted.
In this regard,  the Committee  would appreciate  receiving data  concerning
the number  of investigations by  the public  prosecutor and the  outcome of
them.

130.   Aruba  should  take  steps to  change  the situation  with regard  to
conditions  in police  and prison  premises  and  especially to  shorten the
period of 10 days in police custody which is allowed under the law.

131.  Finally, the  Committee is pleased that the Netherlands has agreed  to
provide in  writing additional information in  response to  the questions on
the  compensation for victims of torture which were raised by the Committee.
The  Committee would  also appreciate  receiving additional  information  on
whether  or   not  the  public  prosecutor  initiated  an  investigation  to
prosecute General Pinochet when he was on  the territory of the  Netherlands
and therefore under its  jurisdiction.  If the answer is yes, the  Committee
would like to know on what grounds the investigation was initiated.

Mauritius

132.     The   Committee  considered   the  initial   report   of  Mauritius
(CAT/C/24/Add.1 and  3) at its 212th  and 213th meetings,  held on 26  April
1995  (CAT/C/SR.212  and  213), and  adopted the  following  conclusions and
recommendations.


A.  Introduction

133.   The  Committee thanks  the Government  of Mauritius  for its  report,

submitted within an appropriate period and  prepared in accordance with  the
Committee's guidelines.

134.  In addition,  it followed with interest  the oral presentation and the
clarifications  provided.   It also wishes  to thank the  delegation for its
replies  and  the  open  spirit of  cooperation  in which  the  dialogue was
conducted.


B.  Positive aspects

135.   The Committee welcomes the  efforts by the  State party  in regard to
reviewing  the  Constitution,  laws  and  regulations  to  ensure  that  the
country's judicial  system  is in  conformity  with  the provisions  of  the
Convention.

136.  These efforts seem to reflect a  genuine will to create the  requisite
conditions  for the  promotion and  protection of  human rights  and also to
prevent the practice of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

137.   It welcomes  the existence  of an  ombudsman and  the possibility  of
using the habeas corpus procedure.


C.  Subjects of concern

138.  The Committee is none the less  concerned at allegations received from
some  non-governmental organizations about acts of torture and ill treatment
which are said to be practised on police premises.

139.   The Committee is  also concerned  about certain  inadequacies in  the
adoption  of suitable  measures  for  the purpose  of  officially  combating
torture,  particularly  the  timidity  shown  in  conducting  inquiries  and
promptly bringing the perpetrators of such acts before the courts.

140.  This situation  gives the impression of  comparative impunity for  the
perpetrators  of  these offences,  impunity that  is  detrimental to  proper
implementation of the provisions of the Convention.


 D.  Recommendations

141.  The Committee  recommends that the State  party should make efforts to
incorporate  the  provisions of  the  Convention  in  domestic  law for  the
purposes of adopting and applying domestic enforcement measures.

142.   The Committee  also recommends that the  State party, with a  view to
ensuring broader protection of persons  under arrest, should effectively set
up  machinery for  systematic monitoring  of  all  police premises,  to give
effect  to  the  commitments  undertaken  pursuant  to  article  11  of  the
Convention.

143.  The Committee  also recommends that the State party should pursue  its
efforts  to undertake  further  legislative reforms,  more  particularly  in
regard to  prison administration, periods of police custody and the right to
be attended by a doctor or to be visited by a family member.

144.   The Committee recommends  that the State  party should  undertake and
press  on with  inquiries into  all  actions  by police  officers, inquiries
capable  of determining whether  acts of torture have  taken place and, when
the  findings of the  investigations prove  positive, bring the perpetrators
before the  courts on the  one hand, and  order and transmit  to the  police
precise and clear instructions to prevent any act  of torture, on the other.
It  recommends that  the State  party  should  step up  information training
programmes for all personnel referred to in article 10 of the Convention.

145.  Lastly, the  Committee recommends that the State party should take all
the requisite measures to ensure effective  implementation of article 14  of
the Convention  for the purpose of  full compensation  and rehabilitation of
the victims of torture or their dependants.

Italy

146.    The  Committee  considered  the  second  periodic  report  of  Italy
(CAT/C/25/Add.4) at  its 214th and  215th meetings,  held on  27 April  1995
(CAT/C/SR.214  and   215),  and  adopted   the  following  conclusions   and
recommendations.


A.  Introduction

147.   The  Committee appreciates the  submission of the  periodic report of
Italy and  expresses its  thanks for a  good oral presentation.   It  notes,
however,  that the  report does  not  properly  comply with  the Committee's
guidelines  for this  kind of  report  (CAT/C/14),  especially in  regard to
providing data and replies requested previously.   In addition, the  general
report was  not accompanied by basic data on the State party, as required by
the  guidelines.   The  Committee was  none  the  less able  to engage  in a
constructive dialogue with the delegation that met many of its concerns.


B.  Positive aspects

148.  The  Committee welcomes Italy's  firm commitment to the  protection of
human rights, as reflected in  the signing of many agreements, both regional
and universal.

 149.   It also  notes  that  a very  constructive step  has been  taken  in
authorizing  the   publication  of  the  report  prepared  by  the  European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture further to a visit to Italy.

150.    The significant  increase  in  Italy's  contribution  to the  United
Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture is very gratifying.

151.  Also  encouraging are the  provisions of  Law No.  296, pertaining  to
work  by prisoners, the  new alternative  measures to  imprisonment, such as
house arrest, and  the rules of  Law No. 492,  relating to  the transfer  of
prisoners.

152.   Lastly, the State party  is to be  congratulated on fully  abolishing
the death penalty.


C.  Factors and difficulties impeding implementation

153.  Like the  Human Rights Committee, this Committee notes something of  a
tendency to  discriminatory treatment  by sectors  of the  police force  and
prison  warders with  regard  to  foreigners, entailing  violation of  their
rights.  Furthermore, the existence  of a  large number  of public officials
involved in acts of corruption is not a positive contribution.


D.  Subjects of concern

154.   The Committee  notes with  concern the  persistence of  cases of  ill
treatment in prisons by  police officers.  It  even notes a  dangerous trend
towards some racism,  since the victims are either from foreign countries or
belong to minorities.

155.   Non-governmental organizations  of proven  reliability have  informed
the  Committee of  a series of  serious acts of  torture, and in  some cases
deaths, of detainees.   The penalties  on the  members of the forces  of law

and order are not commensurate with the seriousness of these acts.

156.   Similarly, a  matter of  some concern  is the  number of  unconvicted
prisoners,  the overcrowding in prisons and the  suspension, even temporary,
of humanitarian rules on the treatment of prisoners.


E.  Recommendations

157.  The Committee suggests that the State party should:

  (a)  Continue to examine the possibility of  including in its criminal law
the concept of torture set out in the Convention;

  (b)  Better  guarantee the right of a victim of torture  to be compensated
by the State and to provide some programme of rehabilitation for him;

  (c)   Monitor  effective  compliance with  safeguards  during  preliminary
custody, especially access to a doctor and legal counsel;

  (d)  Make sure that complaints of ill  treatment and torture are  promptly
and effectively investigated  and, where appropriate, impose an  appropriate
and effective penalty on the persons responsible;
    (e)   Establish more training programmes for law-enforcement and medical
personnel.

158.    The Committee  also  asks  to  be sent  the  legal  texts that  were
requested, together with the remaining information  asked for by members  of
the   Committee   (results   of   ongoing   trials,   statistics,   judicial
organization,  etc.) and hopes  that the  next periodic  report will discuss
all the measures adopted.

Jordan


A.  Introduction

159.      The   Committee   considered   the   initial  report   of   Jordan
(CAT/C/16/Add.5)  at  its  218th  and 219th  meetings,  held on  1  May 1995
(CAT/C/SR.218  and  219),  and has  adopted  the  following  conclusions and
recommendations.

160.  The Committee  thanks the Government  of Jordan for its report,  which
was due in 1992, for the  core document (HRI/CORE/1/Add.18/Rev.1)  providing
general  information   on  the  State  party   and  for  the   comprehensive
explanations presented by the delegation.

161.   It  notes  that  the  report  is  not  in full  conformity  with  the
guidelines  established by  the Committee  (CAT/C/4/Rev.2).   It  also notes
that  the report does  not contain  sufficient information  on the effective
implementation of the provisions of the Convention.

162.   However,  the presence  of  a  high-level delegation  which  provided
additional   information  enabled   the  Committee   to  obtain   a   better
understanding of  the situation in Jordan  with regard to the application of
the Convention on its territory.


B.  Positive aspects

163.    The  Committee  welcomes  the   positive  steps  undertaken  by  the
Government of Jordan towards the application  of the Convention,  especially
the lifting of the  state of emergency  and the abolition of martial  law in
April  1992, the release of  political prisoners and the  institution of the
right to  appeal fully against  awards and decisions  of the State  Security
Court in questions of both fact and law.

164.  The Committee  notes also with satisfaction  the new Political Parties
Act  of  October  1992,  the  new   law  on  press  and   publications,  the
ratification by  Jordan of the  Convention on the  Rights of  the Child, the
creation of a national commission for human rights and the establishment  in
Jordan  of sections  of the Arab  Organization for Human  Rights and Amnesty
International, which  illustrate the  positive steps  and trend towards  the
promotion of human rights in  general and towards the  implementation of the
Convention against Torture, in particular.


C.  Subjects of concern

165.  The Committee notes that  the Jordanian Constitution does  not contain
specific   provisions  as   to   the  relationship   between   international
conventions and domestic laws.  Accordingly, there is a need to  incorporate
the Convention  in the  legal system  of Jordan  to ensure  its correct  and
prompt application.
  166.   The Committee  is  concerned that  the  definition  of the  act  of
torture as specified by  article 1 of the  Convention is not incorporated in
Jordanian legislation.   Current Jordanian criminal  law does  not cover all
cases of torture and ill treatment, as provided for in the Convention.

167.   The Committee  is deeply concerned  that a number  of allegations  of
torture  have  been made  since  Jordan  acceded  to the  Convention.   Such
allegations  appear  to  be  rarely  subjected  to  independent and  partial
investigations.   The Committee  is further  concerned that  during 1993 and
1994 political detainees were sentenced to  death or imprisonment in  trials
before the  State  Security Court  on  the  basis of  confessions  allegedly
extracted after torture.

168.    The  Committee  regrets  that   the  headquarters  of  the   General
Intelligence Department has been recognized as  an official prison, that the
armed forces officers are granted the  capacity of public prosecutors,  that
they  have  the  capacity  of  detaining  suspects  incommunicado,   whether
military persons  or civilians,  until the  end of  their interrogation  for
periods of up  to six months, and that  detainees are deprived of access  to
judges, lawyers or doctors.

169.   The Committee expresses concern  about the  continuing application of
the death  penalty, as well as  corporal punishment,  which could constitute
in itself a violation in terms of the Convention.

170.   The  Committee is  also  concerned that  there are  allegations  that
individuals have  been expelled  from Jordan  to countries  where there  are
substantial grounds  for believing  that they  would be  in danger of  being
subjected to torture in contravention of article 3 of the Convention.

171.  The Committee notes that there does not seem to  be in the State party
any  comprehensive programme  of education  for  members  of the  police and
security forces,  dealing with  Jordan's obligations  under the  Convention.
Similarly, no specific educational programmes for medical personnel  appears
to be in place.  These programmes would  be useful, in particular given  the
fact that so many refugees from other countries are located in Jordan.


D.  Recommendations

172.   The Committee  recommends that  the State  party review  its position
concerning articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.

173.   The  Committee  expects the  State party  to undertake  the necessary
legal  measures to ensure  the incorporation  of the  Convention in national
legislation and to ensure its prompt and effective application.

174.   The Committee  urges the  State party  to consider  making torture  a
specific criminal  offence.  In  addition, it suggests that  the State party

further  strengthen measures to  protect the rights of detainees, especially
their  access to  judges, lawyers  and doctors  of their  choice.   It  also
recommends that the State party  promptly investigate allegations of torture
and  ill  treatment  and  ensure  that  appropriate  penalties  are  applied
whenever such  offences are committed; prevent  the commission  of such acts
through efforts  to ensure  the stricter observance of  regulations relating
to the  treatment of  detainees  and  offenders; and  reduce the  length  of
preventive detention, taking  into account its  principle of  presumption of
innocence and the complexity of investigation.

 175.    The   Committee  expects  the  Jordanian  authorities  to  consider
abolishing exceptional  courts such as the  State security  courts and allow
the  ordinary  judiciary  to  recover  full  criminal  jurisdiction  in  the
country.

176.  The Committee expects that  the detention and interrogation  functions
will be separated and  that the supervision of any detention centre will  be
effectively carried out by officials rather than those  who are in charge of
the detention centres.

177.    The Committee  expects  Jordan  to review  its  policy  relating  to
corporal punishment.

178.    The  authorities should  follow procedures  which  would effectively
ensure that  no one  is expelled  to a  country where there  are substantial
grounds for  believing that  he would  be in  danger of  being subjected  to
torture.

179.    The Committee  expects  also  that  educational  programmes will  be
started as a  matter of urgency for  law enforcement and  medical personnel,
focusing on the obligations  laid down in the Convention and on how evidence
of  torture may  be recognized.   In  the case  of medical  personnel,  such
educational  programmes should  include methods  for the  rehabilitation  of
victims of torture.

180.   The  Committee stresses  that further  measures  should  be taken  to
ensure that the provisions  of the Convention are  made more widely known to
the public.

181.   The Committee recommends that  the Jordanian  authorities ensure that
the report submitted  by the State party and  the comments of the  Committee
are  disseminated  as  widely  as  possible   in  order  to  encourage   the
involvement  of all sectors  of society  concerned in  the implementation of
human rights.

182.    The  Committee  would  appreciate   receiving  in  the  next  report
information on these matters, as well as replies to the questions raised  by
the Committee which have remained unanswered.
V.  ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONVENTION


183.   In accordance with article 20, paragraph 1, of the Convention, if the
Committee receives  reliable  information which  appears  to  it to  contain
wellfounded indications  that torture is  being systematically practised  in
the territory of a  State party, the Committee shall invite that State party
to cooperate  in the  examination of the  information and, to  this end,  to
submit observations with regard to the information concerned.

184.  In accordance with rule 69 of the Committee's  rules of procedure, the
Secretary-General shall  bring to the attention of the Committee information
which is,  or appears  to be,  submitted for  the Committee's  consideration
under article 20, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

185.   No information shall be  received by the  Committee if  it concerns a
State  party which,  in accordance  with  article 28,  paragraph 1,  of  the
Convention, declared  at the  time of  ratification of or  accession to  the

Convention  that  it did  not  recognize  the  competence  of the  Committee
provided  for  in article  20,  unless  that  State  party has  subsequently
withdrawn  its reservation in  accordance with  article 28,  paragraph 2, of
the Convention.

186.  The Committee's work under article 20  of the Convention commenced  at
its fourth  session and has  continued at  its subsequent sessions.   During
those  sessions  the  Committee  devoted  the  following  number  of  closed
meetings to its activities under that article:

          Sessions                              Number of closed meetings

  Fourth  4
  Fifth  4
  Sixth  3
  Seventh  2
  Eighth  3
  Ninth  3
  Tenth  8
  Eleventh  4
  Twelfth  4
  Thirteenth  3
  Fourteenth  4

187.  In  accordance with the provisions of  article 20 and  rules 72 and 73
of the rules  of procedure, all documents  and proceedings of the  Committee
relating  to  its  functions  under  article   20  of  the  Convention   are
confidential  and  all the  meetings concerning  its proceedings  under that
article are closed.

188.    However,  in  accordance  with  article  20,  paragraph   5  of  the
Convention, the  Committee,  at its  172nd  meeting,  on 19  November  1993,
publicly announced  that, after consultations with the State party concerned
in April  1993, it  had decided, on  9 November 1993,  to include a  summary
account of the results of the proceedings relating to its inquiry on  Turkey
in its annual report to the States parties and to the General Assembly. 7/
VI.  CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION   


189.  Under  article 22 of the Convention  against Torture and Other  Cruel,
Inhuman or  Degrading Treatment  or Punishment,  individuals who claim  that
any  of their rights  enumerated in  the Convention have been  violated by a
State  party and  who have  exhausted  all  available domestic  remedies may
submit communications  to the Committee  against Torture for  consideration.
Thirty-six out of 88  States that have acceded to or ratified the Convention
have  declared  that they  recognize  the  competence  of  the Committee  to
receive  and consider  communications under  article  22 of  the Convention.
Those  States  are:    Algeria,  Argentina,  Australia,  Austria,  Bulgaria,
Canada,  Croatia,  Cyprus,   Denmark,  Ecuador,  Finland,   France,  Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein,  Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands,  New
Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal,  Russian Federation, Slovakia,  Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden,  Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia,  Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela  and
Federal Republic  of Yugoslavia (Serbia and  Montenegro).  No  communication
may  be considered  by the  Committee if  it concerns  a State party  to the
Convention  that has not  recognized the  competence of the  Committee to do
so.

190.   Consideration of  communications under  article 22  of the Convention
takes  place  in  closed  meetings  (art.  22,  para.  6).    All  documents
pertaining to the  work of the Committee  under article 22 (submissions from
the parties and other working documents of the Committee) are confidential.

191.   In carrying out  its work  under article  22 of  the Convention,  the
Committee may be  assisted by a working group of  not more than five of  its
members,  which  submits recommendations  to  the  Committee  regarding  the

fulfilment  of the conditions  of admissibility of communications or assists
it in any  manner which the Committee may decide  (rule 106 of the rules  of
procedure  of the  Committee).  At  its  thirteenth session,  the  Committee
decided  to amend the rules  of procedure, in  order to  make it possible to
designate special  rapporteurs  from among  its  members  to assist  in  the
handling  of communications.   This  allows  the  Committee to  expedite the
processing  of communications  by taking  procedural decisions  (under  rule
108) during intersessional periods.

192.  A communication  may not be declared admissible unless the State party
has  received   the  text  of  the  communication  and  has  been  given  an
opportunity to furnish  information or observations concerning the  question
of  admissibility,  including information  relating  to  the  exhaustion  of
domestic  remedies  (rule  108, para.  3).    Within  six  months  after the
transmittal to the State  party of a decision  of the Committee  declaring a
communication admissible,  the State  party  shall submit  to the  Committee
written   explanations   or   statements   clarifying   the   matter   under
consideration and the remedy, if any, which has been taken by it (rule  110,
para. 2).   In cases that  require expeditious  consideration, the Committee
has decided  to  invite  the States  parties  concerned,  if  they  have  no
objections  to  the admissibility  of  the  communications,  immediately  to
furnish their observations on the merits of the case.

193.  The Committee concludes examination  of an admissible communication by
formulating  its  Views  thereon  in  the  light  of  all  information  made
available  to it by the complainant and  the State party.  The  Views of the
Committee  are  communicated  to the  parties  (art.  22, para.  7,  of  the
Convention and rule 111  of the rules  of procedure of the Committee,  para.
3) and are  made available  to the general public.   Generally, the text  of
the  Committee's   decisions  declaring  communications  inadmissible  under
article 22 of  the Convention are  also made public  without disclosing  the
identity  of the  author of  the  communication,  but identifying  the State
party concerned.

194.   Pursuant to rule 112 of  its rules of  procedure, the Committee shall
include in its annual report a summary of  the communications examined.  The
Committee may also include  in its annual report the text of its Views under
article 22,  paragraph 7,  of the Convention  and the text  of any  decision
declaring a communication inadmissible.

195.    During the  time  covered  by  the  present  report (thirteenth  and
fourteenth  sessions)  the  Committee had  19 communications  before  it for
consideration  (Nos. 6/1990,  10/1993,  11/1993, 12/1993,  13/1993, 14/1994,
15/1994,  16/1994, 17/1994,  18/1994,  19/1994, 20/1994,  21/1995,  22/1995,
23/1995, 24/1995, 25/1995, 26/1995 and 27/1995).

196.   At  its thirteenth  session, the  Committee  adopted  its Views  with
regard to communication No.  15/1994 (Khan v. Canada).  The Committee  found
that,  in the specific circumstances  of the author's case, the expulsion of
the author to  Pakistan would violate Canada's obligation under article 3 of
the Convention not to expel or return a person  to another State where there
are substantial grounds for  believing that he  would be in danger of  being
subjected to torture.   The text of the  Views is  reproduced in annex V  to
the present report.

197.   Also at its thirteenth  session, the  Committee declared inadmissible
communication No. 10/1993  (A.E. & C.B.  v. Spain),  for failure to  exhaust
domestic  remedies, since  the allegations  of torture  were  under judicial
investigation.  The Committee  further declared inadmissible  communications
Nos.  17/1994 (X v. Switzerland) and 18/1994 (Y v. Switzerland) because they
lacked the  minimum substantiation  that would  render them  compatible with
article 22 of the Convention.  The text of these decisions is reproduced  in
annex V to the present report.

198.  The Committee decided to  suspend the consideration of  communications
Nos. 11/1993  and 12/1993, awaiting the  outcome of a reconsideration by the

State party concerned of  the authors' requests  to be allowed to remain  in
its territory, as  they claim to be in danger of being  subjected to torture
in case of forced return to their country of origin.

199.    At its  fourteenth session,  the  Committee adopted  its Views  with
regard to communication No. 6/1990  (Parot v. Spain).   On the basis of  the
information provided  by  the  parties,  the Committee  found  that  Parot's
complaint that he  had been tortured upon arrest  had in fact been  examined
and rejected by the judicial authorities  during the criminal trial  against
him.    Consequently, the  Committee  concluded  that  no  violation of  the
Convention had been shown.  The text of  the Views is reproduced in  annex V
to the present report.

200.   Also at its fourteenth  session, the  Committee declared inadmissible
communications  Nos.   22/1995  (M.A.  v.   Canada)  and  24/1995  (A.E.  v.
Switzerland),  for  failure  to  exhaust  domestic  remedies.    Both  cases
concerned  article  3  of  the  Convention.    The  Committee  also declared
inadmissible communication  14/1994 (B.M'B.  v. Tunisia), as  it found  that
the  author  had not  sufficiently  justified  his  acting  on the  victim's
behalf.   The text of the decisions  is reproduced in annex V to the present
report.

201.   The Committee decided to  suspend the  consideration of communication
No. 19/1994, awaiting the outcome of  a review procedure pending  before the
relevant domestic authorities.
VII.  AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMITTEE


Thirteenth session

202.  At a private meeting, held on 17 November 1994, the Committee  adopted
amendments  to  rules   106  and  108  of   its  rules  of  procedure   (see
CAT/C/3/Rev.1), which concerned the designation of special rapporteurs  from
among its members to  assist it in  the handling of communications  received
under article 22 of the Convention.   The text of the amended  rules appears
in annex VI to the present report.

Fourteenth session

203.  The Committee held  a preliminary discussion on  further amendments to
its rules  of procedure at  a private meeting on 28 April  1995.  It decided
to resume  consideration of this item at its fifteenth  session, in November
1995.
VIII.  FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE


204.   In accordance  with rule 2 of  its rules of procedure,  the Committee
shall normally  hold two regular  sessions each year.   Regular sessions  of
the  Committee  shall be  convened  at dates  decided  by the  Committee  in
consultation with  the Secretary-General, taking  into account the  calendar
of conferences as approved by the General Assembly.

205.   As the calendar of  meetings held within  the framework of the United
Nations is submitted  by the Secretary-General on  a biennial basis for  the
approval  of the  Committee on  Conferences  and  the General  Assembly, the
Committee took decisions on the schedule of its  meetings to be held in 1996
and 1997.

206.  At its  225th meeting,  on 4 May 1995,  the Committee decided to  hold
its regular sessions for the next biennium at  the United Nations Office  at
Geneva on the following dates:

    Sixteenth session                    29 April to 10 May 1996
    Seventeenth session                  11 to 22 November 1996
    Eighteenth session                   28 April to 9 May 1997
    Nineteenth session                   10 to 21 November 1997

207.  In addition,  the Committee recalled  that, in accordance with rule  1
of its rules of procedure, it should hold meetings as might  be required for
the satisfactory performance of its functions.

208.  The Committee  expressed concern at the lack of time available  during
its two  annual regular meetings  to cope with  the great  complexity of its
work  and the intensive pace  of its operations  resulting from the increase
in  the number  of  States  parties to  the  Convention, the  new  cycle  of
periodic  reports submitted  by States  parties,  the increasing  amount  of
information received under the inquiry procedure  and the growing number  of
communications submitted under the individual communications procedure.

209.  The  Committee therefore decided  to request  the General Assembly  to
authorize the  Secretary-General to schedule  an additional regular  session
of one week's duration each year, beginning in 1996.
IX.  ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ITS ACTIVITIES


210.  In accordance  with article 24 of  the Convention, the Committee shall
submit an  annual report on its activities to the States  parties and to the
General Assembly.

211.  Since the Committee holds its second regular session of each  calendar
year in  late November,  which coincides  with the  regular sessions  of the
General Assembly, the Committee  decided to adopt its  annual report at  the
end of  its  spring session  for  appropriate  transmission to  the  General
Assembly during the same calendar year.

212.  Accordingly,  at its  225th and 226th  meetings held  on 4  and 5  May
1995,  the Committee considered  the draft report  on its  activities at the
thirteenth  and fourteenth  sessions (CAT/C/XIV/CRP.1  and Add.1-10).    The
report, as  amended in  the course  of the  discussion, was  adopted by  the
Committee unanimously.   An  account of the  activities of the  Committee at
its fifteenth session (13-24  November 1995) will be  included in the annual
report of the Committee for 1996.


Notes

  1/  A/CONF.157/TBB/4, paras. 8 and 9.

  2/  See A/49/537, annex, para. 45.

  3/  A/49/537, annex.

  4/   See Official  Records of  the General  Assembly, Forty-ninth Session,
Supplement No. 44 (A/49/44), paras. 148-158.

  5/   Ibid., Forty-fifth Session, Supplement  No. 44  (A/45/44), paras. 14-
16.

  6/   Ibid., Forty-ninth  Session, Supplement  No. 44  (A/49/44), paras. 12
and 13.

  7/  Ibid., Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 44A (A/48/44/Add.1).
ANNEX I

List of States which have signed, ratified or acceded to
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
 or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as at 5 May 1995 


     Date of receipt
    of the instrument
      of ratification
     State  Date of signature    or accession  

Afghanistan   4 February 1985   1 April 1987
Albania      11 May 1994 b/
Algeria a/  26 November 1985  12 September 1989
Antigua and Barbuda    19 July 1993 b/
Argentina a/   4 February 1985  24 September 1986
Armenia    13 September 1993 b/    
Australia a/  10 December 1985   8 August 1989
Austria a/  14 March 1985  29 July 1987
Belarus  19 December 1985  13 March 1987
Belgium   4 February 1985  
Belize    17 March 1986 b/
Benin    12 March 1992 b/
Bolivia   4 February 1985
Bosnia and Herzegovina     6 March 1992 c/
Brazil  23 September 1985  28 September 1989
Bulgaria a/  10 June 1986  16 December 1986
Burundi    18 February 1993 b/
Cambodia    15 October 1992 b/
Cameroon    19 December 1986 b/
Canada a/  23 August 1985  24 June 1987
Cape Verde     4 June 1992 b/
Chile  23 September 1987  30 September 1988
China  12 December 1986   4 October 1988
Colombia  10 April 1985   8 December 1987
Costa Rica   4 February 1985  11 November 1993
Croatia a/     8 October 1991 c/
Cuba  27 January 1986
Cyprus a/   9 October 1985  18 July 1991
Czech Republic     1 January 1993 c/
Denmark a/   4 February 1985  27 May 1987
Dominican Republic   4 February 1985
     Date of receipt
    of the instrument
      of ratification
     State  Date of signature    or accession  

Ecuador a/   4 February 1985  30 March 1988
Egypt    25 June 1986 b/
Estonia    21 October 1991 b/
Ethiopia    14 March 1994 b/
Finland a/   4 February 1985  30 August 1989
France a/   4 February 1985  18 February 1986
Gabon  21 January 1986  
Gambia  23 October 1985  
Georgia    26 October 1994 b/
Germany  13 October 1986   1 October 1990    
Greece a/   4 February 1985   6 October 1988
Guatemala     5 January 1990 b/
Guinea  30 May 1986  10 October 1989
Guyana  25 January 1988  19 May 1988
Hungary a/  28 November 1986  15 April 1987
Iceland   4 February 1985
Indonesia  23 October 1985
Ireland  28 September 1992
Israel  22 October 1986   3 October 1991
Italy a/   4 February 1985  12 January 1989
Jordan    13 November 1991 b/
Latvia    14 April 1992 b/
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya    16 May 1989 b/
Liechtenstein a/  27 June 1985   2 November 1990
Luxembourg a/  22 February 1985  29 September 1987
Malta a/    13 September 1990 b/
Mauritius     9 December 1992 b/
Mexico  18 March 198523 January 1986
Monaco a/     6 December 1991 b/
Morocco   8 January 1986  21 June 1993

Namibia    28 November 1994 b/
Nepal    14 May 1991 b/
Netherlands a/   4 February 1985  21 December 1988
New Zealand a/  14 January 1986  10 December 1989
Nicaragua  15 April 1985
     Date of receipt
    of the instrument
      of ratification
     State  Date of signature    or accession  

Nigeria  28 July 1988
Norway a/   4 February 1985   9 July 1986
Panama  22 February 1985  24 August 1987
Paraguay  23 October 1989  12 March 1990
Peru  29 May 1985   7 July 1988
Philippines    18 June 1986 b/
Poland a/  13 January 1986  26 July 1989
Portugal a/   4 February 1985   9 February 1989
Republic of Korea     9 January 1995 b/
Romania    18 December 1990 b/
Russian Federation a/  10 December 1985   3 March 1987
Senegal   4 February 1985  21 August 1986
Seychelles     5 May 1992 b/
Sierra Leone  18 March 1985
Slovakia    29 May 1993 b/
Slovenia a/    16 July 1993 b/
Somalia    24 January 1990 b/
South Africa  29 January 1993
Spain a/   4 February 1985  21 October 1987
Sri Lanka     3 January 1994 b/
Sudan   4 June 1986
Sweden a/   4 February 1985   8 January 1986
Switzerland a/   4 February 1985   2 December 1986  
Tajikistan    11 January 1995 b/
The Former Yugoslav Republic of
  Macedonia    12 December 1994 c/
Togo a/  25 March 1987  18 November 1987
Tunisia a/  26 August 1987  23 September 1988
Turkey a/  25 January 1988   2 August 1988    
Uganda     3 November 1986 b/
Ukraine  27 February 1986  24 February 1987
United Kingdom of Great Britain
  and Northern Ireland d/  15 March 1985   8 December 1988
United States of America d/  18 April 1988  21 October 1994
Uruguay a/   4 February 1985  24 October 1986
Venezuela a/  15 February 1985  29 July 1991
     Date of receipt
    of the instrument
      of ratification
     State  Date of signature    or accession  

Yemen     5 November 1991 b/
Yugoslavia a/  18 April 1989  10 September 1991

                       

  a/   Made the declaration under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.

  b/   Accession.

  c/   Succession.

  d/   Made the declaration under article 21 of the Convention.
ANNEX II

Membership of the Committee against Torture

(1995)


  Country of  Term expires
Name of member  nationality  on 31 December

Mr. Peter Thomas BURNS  Canada  1995
Mr. Alexis DIPANDA MOUELLE  Cameroon  1997
Mr. Fawzi EL IBRASHI  Egypt  1995
Mr. Ricardo GIL LAVEDRA  Argentina  1995
Mrs. Julia ILIOPOULOS-STRANGAS  Greece  1997
Mr. Hugo LORENZO  Uruguay  1995
Mr. Mukunda REGMI  Nepal  1997
Mr. Habib SLIM  Tunisia  1995
Mr. Bent SFRENSEN  Denmark  1997
Mr. Alexander M. YAKOVLEV  Russian Federation  1997
ANNEX III

Status of submission of reports by States parties under article 19
of the Convention as at 5 May 1995


A.  Initial reports

Initial reports due in 1988 (27)

  Date of entry  Initial report
State party    into force     date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Afghanistan  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  21 January 1992  CAT/C/5/Add.31
Argentina     26   June   1987     25   June   1988     15   December   1988
CAT/C/5/Add.12/Rev.1
Austria  28 August 1987  27 August 1988  10 November 1988  CAT/C/5/Add.10
Belarus  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  11 January 1989  CAT/C/5/Add.14
Belize  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  18 April 1991  CAT/C/5/Add.25
Bulgaria  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  12 September 1991  CAT/C/5/Add.28
Cameroon   26 June  1987  25 June 1988   15/2/89 & 25/4/91  CAT/C/5/Add.16 &
26
Canada  24 July 1987  23 July 1988  16 January 1989  CAT/C/5/Add.15
Denmark  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  26 July 1988  CAT/C/5/Add.4
Egypt  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  26/7/88 & 20/11/90  CAT/C/5/Add.5 & 23
France  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  30 June 1988  CAT/C/5/Add.2
German Democratic
  Republic      9  October  1987      8  October  1988    19  December  1988
CAT/C/5/Add.13
Hungary  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  25 October 1988  CAT/C/5/Add.9
Luxembourg    29   October  1987    28  October   1988    15  October   1991
CAT/C/5/Add.29
Mexico  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  10/8/88 & 13/2/90  CAT/C/5/Add.7 & 22
Norway  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  21 July 1988  CAT/C/5/Add.3
Panama    23  September   1987    22  September   1988    28   January  1991
CAT/C/5/Add.24
Philippines  26 June 1987   25 June 1988  26/7/88 & 28/4/89  CAT/C/5/Add.6 &
18
Russian  Federation    26  June 1987    25  June  1988     6  December  1988
CAT/C/5/Add.11
Senegal  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  30 October 1989  CAT/C/5/Add.19
        (Replacing Add.8)
Spain  20 November 1987  19 November 1988  19 March 1990  CAT/C/5/Add.21
Sweden  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  23 June 1988  CAT/C/5/Add.1
Switzerland  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  14 April 1989  CAT/C/5/Add.17
Togo  18 December 1987  17 December 1988
Uganda  26 June 1987  25 June 1988
Ukraine  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  17 January 1990  CAT/C/5/Add.20
Uruguay  26 June 1987  25 June 1988  6/6/91 & 5/12/91  CAT/C/5/Add.27 & 30

Initial reports due in 1989 (10)

  Date of entry  Initial report
State party    into force     date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Chile  30 October 1988  29 October 1989  21/9/89  & 5/11/90  CAT/C/7/Add.2 &
9
China   3 November 1988    2 November 1989    1 December 1989  CAT/C/7/Add.5
& 14
Colombia      7   January  1988      6  January  1989    24/4/89  &  28/8/90
CAT/C/7/Add.1 & 10
Czech and Slovak
  Federal  Republic   6  August 1988    5  August 1989  21/11/89  & 14/5/91 
CAT/C/7/Add.4 & 12
Ecuador  29 April 1988   28 April 1989  27/6/90  & 28/2/91   CAT/C/7/Add.7 &
11 & 13
        & 26/9/91
Greece   5 November 1988   4 November 1989   8 August 1990  CAT/C/7/Add.8
Guyana  18 June 1988  17 June 1989
Peru   6 August 1988   5 August 1989    9/11/92 & 22/2/94  CAT/C/7/Add.15  &
16
Tunisia  23 October 1988  22 October 1989  25 October 1989  CAT/C/7/Add.3
Turkey   1 September 1988  31 August 1989  24 April 1990  CAT/C/7/Add.6

 Initial reports due in 1990 (11)

  Date of entry  Initial report
State party    into force     date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Algeria  12 October 1989  11 October 1990  13 February 1991  CAT/C/9/Add.5
Australia     7  September  1989     6 September  1990   27/8/91  &  11/6/92
CAT/C/9/Add.8 & 11
Brazil  28 October 1989  27 October 1990
Finland    29  September  1989    28  September  1990    28  September  1990
CAT/C/9/Add.4
Guinea   9 November 1989   8 November 1990
Italy  11 February 1989  10 February 1990  30 December 1991  CAT/C/9/Add.9
Libyan Arab
  Jamahiriya  15 June 1989  14 June  1990  14/5/91 & 27/8/92   CAT/C/9/Add.7
& 12/Rev.1
Netherlands    20  January 1989   19  January 1990   14/3,  11/9 &  13/9/90 
CAT/C/9/Add.1-3
Poland  25 August 1989  24 August 1990  22 March 1993  CAT/C/9/Add.13
Portugal  11 March 1989  10 March 1990   7 May 1993  CAT/C/9/Add.15
United Kingdom of
  Great Britain and
  Northern Ireland    7  January 1989    6  January 1990   22/3/91-30/4/92  
CAT/C/9/Add.6,10 & 14

Initial reports due in 1991 (7)

  Date of entry  Initial report
State party    into force     date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Germany  31 October 1990  30 October 1991   9 March 1992  CAT/C/12/Add.1
Guatemala     4  February  1990      3  February 1991      2  November  1994
CAT/C/12/Add.5
Liechtenstein     2  December  1990     1  December 1991     5  August  1994
CAT/C/12/Add.4
Malta  13 October 1990  12 October 1991
New Zealand   9 January 1990   8 January 1991  29 July 1992  CAT/C/12/Add.2
Paraguay  11 April 1990  10 April 1991  13 January 1993  CAT/C/12/Add.3
Somalia  23 February 1990  22 February 1991

Initial reports due in 1992 (10)

  Date of entry  Initial report
State party    into force     date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Croatia   8 October 1991   7 October 1992
Cyprus  17 August 1991  16 August 1992  23 June 1993  CAT/C/16/Add.2
Estonia  20 November 1991  19 November 1992
Israel   2 November 1991   1 November 1992  25 January 1994  CAT/C/16/Add.4
Jordan     13  December  1991     12  December  1992     23  November   1994
CAT/C/16/Add.5
Nepal  13 June 1991  12 June 1992   6 October 1993  CAT/C/16/Add.3
Romania  17 January 1991  16 January 1992  14 February 1992  CAT/C/16/Add.1
Venezuela  28 August 1991  27 August 1992
Yemen   5 December 1991   4 December 1992
Yugoslavia  10 October 1991   9 October 1992

Initial reports due in 1993 (8)

  Date of entry  Initial report
State party    into force     date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Benin  11 April 1992  10 April 1993
Bosnia and
  Herzegovina   6 March 1992   5 March 1993
Cambodia  14 November 1992  13 November 1993
Cape Verde   4 July 1992   3 July 1993
Czech Republic      1  January  1993   31  December  1993    18  April  1994
CAT/C/21/Add.2
Latvia  14 May 1992  13 May 1993
Monaco   5 January 1992   4 January 1993  14 March 1994  CAT/C/21/Add.1
Seychelles   4 June 1992   3 June 1993

 Initial reports due in 1994 (8)

  Date of entry  Initial report
State party    into force     date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Antigua and Barbuda  18 August 1993  17 August 1994
Armenia  13 October 1993  12 October 1994  20 April 1995  CAT/C/24/Add.4
Burundi  20 March 1993  19 March 1994
Costa Rica  11 December 1993  10 December 1994
Mauritius       8  January  1993      7  January  1994    10/5/94  &  1/3/95
CAT/C/24/Add.1 & 3
Morocco  21 July 1993  20 July 1994  29 July 1994  CAT/C/24/Add.2
Slovakia  28 May 1993  27 May 1994
Slovenia  15 August 1993  14 August 1994

Initial reports due in 1995 (6)

  Date of entry  Initial report
State party    into force     date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Albania  10 June 1994   9 June 1995
Ethiopia  13 April 1994  12 April 1995
Georgia  25 November 1994  24 November 1995
Namibia  28 December 1994  27 December 1995
Sri Lanka   2 February 1994   1 February 1995
United States
  of America  28 December 1994  27 December 1995
B.  Second periodic reports*

Second periodic reports due in 1992 (26)

  First supplementary
        report
State party       date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Afghanistan  25 June 1992
Argentina  25 June 1992  29 June 1992  CAT/C/17/Add.2
Austria  27 August 1992
Belarus  25 June 1992  15 September 1992  CAT/C/17/Add.6
Belize  25 June 1992
Bulgaria  25 June 1992
Cameroon  25 June 1992
Canada  23 July 1992  11 September 1992  CAT/C/17/Add.5
Denmark  25 June 1992  22 February 1995  CAT/C/17/Add.13
Egypt  25 June 1992  13 April 1993  CAT/C/17/Add.11
France  25 June 1992
Hungary  25 June 1992  23 September 1992  CAT/C/17/Add.8
Luxembourg  28 October 1992
Mexico  25 June 1992  21 July 1992  CAT/C/17/Add.3
Norway  25 June 1992  25 June 1992  CAT/C/17/Add.1
Panama  22 September 1992  21 September 1992  CAT/C/17/Add.7
Philippines  25 June 1992
Russian Federation  25 June 1992
Senegal  25 June 1992  27 March 1995  CAT/C/17/Add.14
Spain  19 November 1992  19 November 1992  CAT/C/17/Add.10
Sweden  25 June 1992  30 September 1992  CAT/C/17/Add.9
Switzerland  25 June 1992  28 September 1993  CAT/C/17/Add.12
Togo  17 December 1992
Uganda  25 June 1992
Ukraine  25 June 1992  31 August 1992  CAT/C/17/Add.4
Uruguay  25 June 1992

Second periodic reports due in 1993 (9)

   Second periodic
       report
State party      date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Chile  29 October 1993  16 February 1994  CAT/C/20/Add.3
China   2 November 1993
Colombia   6 January 1993
Ecuador  28 April 1993  21 April 1993  CAT/C/20/Add.1
Greece   4 November 1993   6 December 1993  CAT/C/20/Add.2
Guyana  17 June 1993
Peru   5 August 1993
Tunisia  22 October 1993
Turkey  31 August 1993





_________________________

  *   By decision  of the  Committee at  its seventh,  tenth and  thirteenth
sessions,  those States parties  which had  not yet  submitted their initial
report due in 1988,  1989 and 1990, namely  Brazil, Guinea, Guyana, Togo and
Uganda, have  been  invited  to submit  both  the  initial  and  the  second
periodic reports in one document.
Second periodic reports due in 1994 (11)

   Second periodic
       report
State party      date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Algeria  11 October 1994
Australia   6 September 1994
Brazil  27 October 1994
Finland  28 September 1994
Guinea   8 November 1994
Italy  10 February 1994  20 July 1994  CAT/C/25/Add.4

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya  14 June 1994  30 June 1994  CAT/C/25/Add.3
Netherlands  19 January 1994  14/4/94, 16/6/94 &  CAT/C/25/Add.1, 2 & 5
      27/3/95
Poland  24 August 1994
Portugal  10 March 1994
United Kingdom of Great
  Britain and Northern
  Ireland   6 January 1994  25 March 1995  CAT/C/25/Add.6

Second periodic reports due in 1995 (7)

   Second periodic
       report
State party      date due  Date of submission      Symbol

Germany  30 October 1995
Guatemala   3 February 1995
Liechtenstein   1 December 1995
Malta  12 October 1995
New Zealand   8 January 1995
Paraguay  10 April 1995
Somalia  22 February 1995


ANNEX IV

Country rapporteurs and alternate rapporteurs for each of
the reports of States parties considered by the Committee
at its thirteenth and fourteenth sessions


A.  Thirteenth session

Report  Rapporteur  Alternate

Chile:
  second periodic report
  (CAT/C/20/Add.3)  Mr. Gil Lavedra  Mr. Lorenzo

Czech Republic:
  initial report
  (CAT/C/21/Add.2)  Mr. Burns  Mr. Yakovlev

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya:
  second periodic report
  (CAT/C/25/Add.3)  Mr. SFrensen    Mr. Burns

Liechtenstein:
  initial report
  (CAT/C/12/Add.4)  Mr. El Ibrashi    Mr. Yakovlev

Monaco:
  initial report
  (CAT/C/21/Add.1)  Mr. El Ibrashi    Mrs. Iliopoulos-Strangas

Morocco:
  initial report
  (CAT/C/24/Add.2)  Mr. Dipanda Mouelle  Mr. SFrensen

Peru:
  initial report
  (CAT/C/7/Add.16)  Mr. Gil Lavedra    Mr. Lorenzo


B.  Fourteenth session

Report  Rapporteur  Alternate

Italy:
  second periodic report
  (CAT/C/25/Add.4)  Mr. Gil Lavedra    Mrs. Iliopoulos-Strangas

Jordan:
  initial report
  (CAT/C/16/Add.5)  Mr. El Ibrashi    Mr. Burns

Mauritius:
  initial report
  (CAT/C/24/Add.1 & 3)  Mr. Dipanda Mouelle  Mr. Regmi

Netherlands:
  second periodic report
  (CAT/C/25/Add.1 & 2)  Mr. SFrensen  Mr. Yakovlev
--Annex V

Decisions of the Committee against Torture
under article 22 of the Convention


A.  Thirteenth session

Communication No. 10/1993

Submitted by:  A. E. M. and C. B. L. (parents of the alleged victims)

Alleged victims:        J. E. and E. B.

State party:  Spain

Date of communication:  2 February 1993

  The  Committee  against  Torture, established  under  article  17  of  the
Convention  against Torture and  Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment,

  Meeting on 14 November 1994,

  Adopts the following:


Decision on admissibility

1.  The  authors of the  initial communication  are A. E.  M. and C. B.  L.,
citizens of Spain  residing in Santurce in  the Basque province, writing  on
behalf  of their son J. E. and his wife E. B., who are currently detained at
the  Spanish prisons  of  Orense and  Albacete, respectively.   By  power of
attorney of 31 December  1993, Mr. E. authorized his  parents to act  on his
behalf and on behalf of his wife.

The facts as submitted by the authors:

2.1   The authors,  who reside  in the  same  apartment complex  as did  the
alleged victims,  claim that  on 29  January 1992,  at six  in the  morning,
members of the  Spanish police  blew up  the door of  J. E.'s apartment  and
arrested him and his wife in  their bedroom.  J. E. was taken to the Guardia
Civil  in  Bilbao and  later Madrid  and kept  incommunicado for  five days,
during which  he  was allegedly  subjected  to  torture and  ill  treatment,
including  beatings to the  head, electrical  shocks to  the head, testicles
and other parts of the body.  His head was allegedly  put into a plastic bag
until he had almost  been asphyxiated.   His wife remained in the  apartment
while  the  police  officers  carried  out  a  search,  which  lasted  until
approximately 9.30 in  the morning, at  which time  she too  was taken  into

custody.  Upon arrival  at the police station,  she was allegedly hooded and
left in  a room for a  long period of  time, she was undressed  by force and
handcuffed.  On  30 January she and her husband were driven to Madrid, where
beatings  and  electric  shocks  allegedly  continued  during  96  hours  of
intermittent  interrogation.   As  a  consequence of  the  maltreatment  her
menstrual period commenced two weeks ahead of time,  but she was not allowed
to  clean herself. Meanwhile  Mr. E.  was allegedly hung upside  down from a
lamp, until he  lost consciousness,  and a  Guardia Civil  officer forced  a
revolver barrel into  his mouth and  shot, without a  bullet.   Psychotropic
drugs were  allegedly administered  to him with  his food,  with the  result
that he started to hallucinate.

2.2   With regard to the  exhaustion of domestic remedies, it is stated that
the alleged victims made  reference to the alleged  tortures when they  were
brought before Judge I. M.  C.  It is reported that  once J. E.  removed his
shoe  in front of  the judge in order  to show the black  points left by the
instruments  utilized  when administering  electric  shocks.    The  authors
appeal  to the Committee  against Torture  with the  specific complaint that
the competent  judicial authorities in Spain,  in particular  the judges and
forensic experts, have  failed to  investigate the alleged violations,  thus
permitting the torturers to operate with impunity.

2.3  During the period  of detention of the alleged victims and of 14  other
persons  in Bilbao, an  official of  the World  Organization against Torture
wanted to visit them, but permission was reportedly denied.

2.4   On 12 November 1993 Mr. E. was allegedly subjected to ill treatment at
Orense prison.  An official investigation is in progress.

State party's observations:

3.1  By  submissions of  1 September,  17 December 1993,  24 January and  19
April 1994,  the State party argues  that the  communication is inadmissible
under article 22, paragraph  5 (b), of  the Convention, because the  authors
have not  exhausted domestic  remedies.   The  State party  states that  the
authors have  seven lawyers and  that they did  not file  any complaint with
the Spanish authorities,  as provided for under  Spanish law.  However,  the
State party submits  that Spanish courts  started ex officio investigations,
even  if the  alleged victims did  not do so.   An ex  officio investigation
into the  possible ill  treatment of  Mrs. E.  was conducted under  case No.
205/92, including through  the examination of contemporary medical  reports.
The Juzgado  de Instruccion No.  44 invited Mrs.  E. to  participate in this
judicial  investigation, but  she  declined.   The  investigation failed  to
reveal any  misconduct on the part  of the Guardia Civil  and was closed  in
January 1993.

3.2   With regard to  the alleged  ill treatment of  Mr. E.  on 12  November
1993, the  State party  submits  that Mr.  E.  filed  a complaint  with  the
Juzgado de Guardia  de Leon on 27 November  1993, 15 days after the  alleged
events.   The matter  is currently  under judicial  investigation under  No.
865/93.  The State party forwards copies of the relevant documents.

3.3  As a further ground  for inadmissibility, the State party refers to the
authors'  submission  to  the  effect  that  the  same  complaint  had  been
forwarded to  the European  Commission of Human  Rights and to  the European
Committee for  the Prevention of Torture,  both in  Strasbourg.  Examination
by these  bodies would render  the communication  inadmissible under article
22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention.

3.4   The  State party  denies the  allegations that  Mr. and  Mrs. E.  were
subjected to torture or  ill treatment upon their  arrest in January 1992 or
subsequently  during their detention.   It submits copies  of the reports of
the medical doctors who examined them every day  during the first five  days
of detention, as well as subsequent reports.

 Author's comments:

4.1   With regard to the  simultaneous submission of  the same matter to two
European instances of investigation or settlement,  the authors claim not to
know  whether those bodies are currently investigating the  cases of Mr. and
Mrs. E.

4.2  With regard to the exhaustion of  domestic remedies, the authors  refer
to  the  cases  No.  205/92  concerning  Mrs.  E.,  before  the  Juzgado  de
Instruccion No. 44  of Madrid and No. 113/92  concerning Mr. E., before  the
Juzgado de Instruccion  of Alcala de  Henares, and Nos.  482/92 and  211/94,
before the Juzgado de Instruccion No. 40 of Madrid.  The authors claim  that
the investigations  are not being conducted with due diligence.  With regard
to  the  closing  of the  investigation  in  case  No.  205/92,  Mrs. E.  is
endeavouring to  obtain a formal notification  with a view  to reopening the
case.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee:

5.1    Before considering  any  claims  contained  in  a communication,  the
Committee against Torture must decide whether or  not it is admissible under
article 22 of the Convention.

5.2   The Committee has ascertained, as  it is required  to do under article
22, paragraph 5  (a), of the Convention, that  the same matter has not  been
and  is   not  being  examined  under  another  procedure  of  international
investigation or settlement.

5.3  Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of  the Convention precludes the Committee
from  considering  any communication  unless  it  has ascertained  that  all
available domestic remedies have been exhausted.   The authors concede  that
two  matters   are  currently   under  judicial   investigation  in   Spain.
Accordingly,  the Committee  finds  that  the  requirements  of  article  2,
paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have not been met.

6.  The Committee therefore decides:

  (a)  that the communication is inadmissible;

  (b)  that this decision may be reviewed under  rule 109 of the Committee's
rules of procedure upon receipt of a written  request by or on behalf of the
alleged victims  containing information to the  effect that  the reasons for
inadmissibility no longer apply;

  (c)  that  this decision shall be communicated  to the authors  and to the
State party.


[Done in English, French,  Russian and Spanish, the  English text being  the
original version.]
Communication No. 15/1994

Submitted by:    Tahir Hussain Khan [represented by counsel]

Alleged victim:  The author

State party concerned:  Canada

Date of communication:  4 July 1994

  The  Committee  against  Torture, established  under  article  17  of  the
Convention against  Torture and Other  Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment,

  Meeting on 15 November 1994,

  Having  concluded   its  consideration  of   communication  No.   15/1994,
submitted to  the Committee against Torture  by Mr. Tahir Hussain Khan under

article  22 of the  Convention against  Torture and Other  Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

  Having taken  into account  all information made  available to  it by  the
author of the communication, his counsel and the State party,

  Adopts its Views under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention.


1.   The  author of  the communication,  dated  4 July  1994, is  Mr.  Tahir
Hussain Khan, of  Kashmiri origin,  citizen of Pakistan, currently  residing
in  Montreal, Canada.  He claims to be a victim of  a violation of article 3
of the  Convention against  Torture and  Other Cruel,  Inhuman or  Degrading
Treatment or Punishment by Canada.  He is represented by counsel.

The facts as submitted by the author:

2.1  The author, who was born on  14 August 1963 in Baltistan, Kashmir, left
Pakistan on 1 July 1990, out of fear for his personal security.   He arrived
in Canada on 15 August 1990 and requested a residence  permit on the grounds
that he  was a refugee.   The Immigration and Refugee  Board of Canada heard
the  author on  14 January  1992 and  concluded  that the  author was  not a
refugee  within  the  meaning  of  the  Refugee  Convention.    The author's
subsequent motion  for leave  for judicial  review was  refused on  17 April
1992  by  a  judge of  the  Federal  Court.  No  further  effective judicial
recourse is said to exist.

2.2  The  author's request to be allowed to stay in  Canada for humanitarian
reasons was  refused by  the immigration authorities  on 10 May  1994.   The
author's removal to Pakistan was ordered to be effectuated on 17 July 1994.

3.1  The author, who  is a professional cricket player,  is an active member
of the Baltistan Student Federation and  supports the Baltistan movement  to
join  Kashmir.   The Baltistan  Student  Federation  is associated  with the
Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front.   According to the author, the Baltistan
area is historically part  of Kashmir but currently  claimed by Pakistan  as
part  of Pakistan.   He claims  that Pakistan has denied  the inhabitants of
Baltistan their  full  political rights  and  that  the area  is  completely
militarized.  The Pakistani authorities  violently repress the  movement for
civil rights and independence and individual  activists are persecuted.   In
this  context,  the  author  states  that   a  friend  and  co-activist  was
assassinated in August 1992.

3.2     The  author   submits  that   he  fears   persecution  from  Islamic
fundamentalists,  the  Pakistan  Inter-Service  Intelligence  (ISI)  and the
Government of  Pakistan because of his  membership in  the Baltistan Student
Federation (BSF).   He states  that he was a local  leader and organizer for
the  BSF  in  Rawalpindi,  and  that  he  organized  many  demonstrations to
publicize the goals of his organization.  He claims that he was arrested  on
several  occasions and accused  of being  an Indian agent.   In 1987, he was
arrested by the ISI at the offices of the BSF in Skurdu, together with  four
other  BSF leaders.   They were  taken to the  police station in  Skurdu and
kept  in a  special ISI  section.    The author  alleges that  he and  those
arrested  with him were hung from  the ceiling by their hands  with rope and
badly  beaten.    After  a  week   of  maltreatment  (cold  showers,   sleep
deprivation, being placed on ice-blocks), the author was released on bail.

3.3  On another  occasion, in April 1990,  the author, together with others,
was arrested  after leading a demonstration for the BSF in  Karachi.  He was
taken to jail in  Hyderabad, where he was  beaten and subjected  to electric
shocks.  He  also alleges that  he was cut  on his back  and that  chemicals
were applied to  the cuts, which caused him  severe pain.  After two  weeks,
he was released on bail and told to appear before the Court on 7 July 1990.

3.4   A letter, dated  27 July 1994,  from a medical  doctor at the  Hopital
SaintLuc in Montreal  affirms that the  author has  marks and  scars on  his

body which correspond with the alleged torture.

The complaint:

4.1   The author claims that  the Canadian authorities  did not address  the
central facts  of his case in the decision not to recognize him as a refugee
and that his claim was not justly dealt with.

4.2  The author, who  is now in charge of the  BSF overseas, claims  that he
cannot return to Pakistan,  because he risks persecution and attacks on  his
life.   He claims  that he  will be immediately arrested  at the airport, be
detained and  tortured.  In  this context, the  author refers  to reports by
Amnesty International  and Asia  Watch and  claims that  evidence exists  of
systematic  torture by  Pakistani authorities.    He attaches  a  supporting
affidavit  by   a   Kashmir  human   rights  lawyer,   who  testifies   that
demonstrations  organized by  the  Baltistan Student  Federation  have  been
repressed  by Pakistani  authorities  and that  its leaders  are at  risk of
being arrested or killed.   He also attaches  a copy  of a letter, dated  15
August 1994, from the Baltistan Student Federation,  in which the author  is
advised to  remain in Canada, since the circumstances under  which an arrest
warrant was issued against him are still prevailing.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee:

5.   On 15 July 1994, the communication was  transmitted to the State party,
with a request that  the author should not be expelled before the  Committee
would  have  communicated  its decision  under  rule  108 of  the  rules  of
procedure.  In reply,  the State party,  by submission of 2 September  1994,
requested the  Committee to examine the  communication on  the merits during
its  next session  in November  1994.   For  this  purpose, the  State party
agreed not to contest the admissibility of the communication.

 State party's observations:

6.1  In its submission, dated  3 October 1994, the State party states that a
post-claim risk-assessment,  conducted in  September 1994,  resulted in  the
conclusion that Mr. Khan  would not face a  danger to life, extreme sanction
or  inhumane treatment, should he be returned to Pakistan.   In the light of
this  finding and  in the light  of the  need to  process a  large number of
refugee claims in Canada  in a timely fashion,  the State party requests the
Committee  to examine  the merits  of  the  communication at  its thirteenth
session.   It confines its  observations to the merits  of the communication
only.

6.2  The State  party begins by explaining the refugee determination process
in Canada,  as applied  to Mr.  Khan, prior  to amendments made  in February
1993.   The refugee determination process was composed  of two separate oral
hearings,  both  of  which  were  held  before  independent,  quasi-judicial
administrative tribunals. In both  these hearings, claimants  had the  right
to  be  represented  by  counsel  of their  choice,  and  were afforded  the
opportunity   to  present   evidence,   crossexamine  witnesses   and   make
representations.   If either  member of  a two-member  panel which conducted
the initial  hearing  determined that  there  was  some possible  basis  for
success in  the claim for  refugee status, the  claim proceeded  to a second
oral hearing  before the  Refugee Division  of the  Immigration and  Refugee
Board.   At the  second oral hearing,  two members of  the Refugee  Division
examined whether  the claimant met  the definition  of "Convention refugee".
The claim would succeed,  if either member  of the panel was satisfied  that
this was  the case.  Leave to appeal a negative  decision before the Federal
Court of  Appeal could be  asked and was granted if  the claimant could show
that  there was  a  "fairly  arguable case"  or  a "serious  question to  be
determined".   If  leave  was  granted  and the  Court  rendered a  negative
decision, leave  could  be sought  to  challenge  this decision  before  the
Supreme Court of Canada.

6.3  The State party submits that the  United Nations High Commissioner  for

Refugees has praised Canada's refugee protection  system as being "among the
very best in the world".

6.4  The State party states that outside  the framework of the refugee claim
process,  the Immigration  Act  allows to  determine  whether  circumstances
exist  which   warrant  the   granting  of  permanent  resident   status  to
individuals for humanitarian and  compassionate reasons.  All failed refugee
claims before February 1993 were automatically  considered for this purpose.
Guidelines  have been  developed to  assist immigration  officers in  making
this determination.  The  guidelines include an assessment  of the risk to a
person  who may not  be a  "Convention refugee", but may  none the less face
maltreatment abroad.

6.5  After the amendments to  the Immigration Act, which came  into force on
1  February 1993,  the Act  provides  for  a post-claim  risk-assessment for
those  individuals who are  found not  to be Convention refugees  but face a
risk of serious harm  should they be returned to their country of origin.  A
person is allowed to stay in Canada if he, upon removal, would be  subjected
to an objectively  identifiable risk to his  life, of extreme  sanctions, or
of  inhumane treatment.   In the  risk-assessment process  claimants have an
opportunity to  make written  submissions on the  risks they  would face  if
removed from Canada.  A post-claim  determination officer reviews also other
relevant material,  such as the claimant's  immigration file, material  from
the Refugee Division hearing and country  specific information.  If  a post-
claim determination  officer  comes  to  the conclusion  that  removal  from
Canada would subject  a person to the risk  identified above, he is  allowed
to  apply  for permanent  residency.   A  negative  decision is  subject  to
judicial  review  proceedings, with  leave, before  the Federal  Court Trial
Division, and  from there  to the Federal  Court of Appeal  and the  Supreme
Court of Canada.

6.6   After  two non-governmental  experts had  prepared a  study, in  April
1994, in  which concerns were expressed about the post-claim risk-assessment
process  (in  particular  with  regard  to  the  low  acceptance  rate), the
Minister  of   Citizenship  and  Immigration   announced  specific   interim
measures.  Instructions were issued with regard to  a broader application of
the regulatory criteria.  It was under these criteria and instructions  that
Mr. Khan's case was recently reviewed.

7.1   As  to Mr.  Khan's case,  the State  party states  that  he  was first
interviewed by immigration officials on 9 August 1990.  He declared that  he
had entered Canada illegally  from the United States,  and that he  had left
Pakistan  on  1 July  1990.   On  18  September  1990, the  author  signed a
Statutory Declaration in which he claimed  political refuge.  An interpreter
was present at that  occasion. He informed the immigration officer about his
political activities and stated that he  had received several threats.   The
author  was then referred to an immigration inquiry  to determine his status
in Canada.

7.2  At the inquiry, the author made his claim  for refugee status under the
procedures set out in the Immigration Act.   On that occasion, he  described
his political  activity  and alleged  two  instances  of detention,  one  in
November  1987 and  the second in  March 1990.   After  a hearing  on 24 May
1991, the  author's claim  was  found to  have  a  credible basis  and  thus
referred to the  Refugee Division for a full  oral hearing.  At the hearing,
on 29 August 1991,  the author was  represented by a lawyer;  interpretation
was provided.  The State party submits that  the information provided by the
author at the hearing  was inconsistent with that  provided by him  earlier.
Furthermore,  the   oral  testimony   is  said  to   have  been   internally
inconsistent.  Although numerous opportunities were  given to the author  to
clarify  these inconsistencies, the  State party  submits that the testimony
remained  self-contradictory.   Consequently,  in  its  decision,  dated  14
January 1992, the  Refugee Division  determined that  the author  was not  a
refugee  and that  his oral  testimony had  been fabricated.    The author's
leave  to appeal  was dismissed by the  Federal Court of Appeal  on 22 April
1992.

7.3  The State  party emphasizes that in  no instance during the proceedings
in determination of  his refugee claim,  the author  or his counsel  alleged
ill treatment or torture  during the claimed periods  of detention, nor  did
they allude to future fear of torture.

7.4  After the author's  leave to appeal had been dismissed, he was informed
that  he should leave Canada on or before 23 May 1992.  The author failed to
do so.  After the  author failed to report  to the immigration office  on 16
September 1992, as  requested, a warrant  for his  arrest was  issued.   The
author  was arrested  on  21  September 1992,  and on  23 September  1992, a
deportation order  was issued against  him.  He remained  in detention until
the  scheduled day  of  his removal,  8 October  1992.    On that  date, his
scheduled  removal  was  delayed  because  of  his  violent  and  aggressive
behaviour, which made it inappropriate to  proceed with the removal  without
escort officers.

7.5    On  27  October  1992,  the  author's  presence  was  required  at  a
preliminary hearing in respect of charges  of assault against him, following
a  fight  in  a  bar  in  March  1992.    Under paragraph  50(1)(a)  of  the
Immigration Act, the  author could not  be removed from  Canada until  after
these charges were resolved.   On 29 October  1992, the author  was released
from detention,  awaiting the  outcome of the  trial against him,  which was
scheduled for 25 February 1993.

 7.6  On 30  December 1992, counsel for the author requested the exceptional
granting of resident status on humanitarian  and compassionate grounds.  The
State  party emphasizes that this  request was mainly based on his community
involvement in Quebec  and on the  unstable situation in Pakistan,  and that
no  materials were  filed demonstrating  a personal  risk for  the author of
torture  or maltreatment, if  he were  to be  returned to  Pakistan.   On 29
January 1993, the application was refused.

7.7   On  25 February  1994, the  author  was  convicted of  assault causing
bodily  harm  and  sentenced   to  one  year  probation   and  a  $90  fine.
Consequently,  his departure from  Canada was  scheduled for  17 March 1994.
On 15 March  1994, the author  was arrested  while attempting  to enter  the
United States  illegally and  contrary to  the conditions  imposed upon  him
after his release from detention. On 16 March 1994, he was ordered  detained
for removal purposes.   According to the  State party, the author threatened
Immigration officers, saying that he  could not be held responsible for what
might  happen to escort officers who  would take him back to  Pakistan.  His
removal was delayed and the author remained in detention.

7.8  On 15 April 1994, counsel for the author made another humanitarian  and
compassionate  application.  This  application was  refused on  10 May 1994.
The State party submits  that the author  could have applied to the  Federal
Court if he felt that the  review had been  unfair, but he failed to do  so.
Instead,  counsel  made  additional  humanitarian and  compassionate  review
submissions, without however submitting the requisite  processing fee.  As a
result, the application was not considered.  The State party states that  in
the  materials submitted  by counsel,  no reference  was made  to the author
having been previously ill treated in Pakistan.

7.9  On  15 June 1994,  counsel brought  an application  before the  Refugee
Division for  reconsideration of  the author's  refugee claim.   On 18  June
1994,  the application was denied.   No attempt  was made  by counsel or the
author to challenge this decision.

7.10   On 4 July  1994, the author  was released from detention.  The  State
party  submits that  it  had been  agreed  that  the  author would  get  the
opportunity  to arrange  his voluntary  departure  to  a country  other than
Pakistan.  It was agreed  that he would leave Canada voluntarily by 15  July
1994, and that, failing that, removal to Pakistan  would proceed on 17  July
1994.

7.11     After  having  been  informed  that  the  author  had  submitted  a

communication  to the  Committee against  Torture, the State  party arranged
for a review  of the author's  case by  a post-claim determination  officer.
It  is submitted  that the  post-claim  determination officer  evaluated the
materials  filed by the author's counsel (including  the materials submitted
to the Committee), the author's Personal  Information Form, the decision  of
the  Refugee  Division  as  well  as   other  materials  obtained  from  the
Documentation  Centre  of  the  Immigration  and  Refugee  Board  (including
reports from Amnesty  International, Asia Watch  and newspaper  clippings on
the  situation of the Northern  Territories in Pakistan).   The officer also
relied on  research done  by the  staff of  the Documentation Centre.  On 19
September 1994,  the author was  informed that a negative  decision had been
reached.  The  officer concluded that  the author  was one  of thousands  of
residents  in Northern  Pakistan who  advocate  a  change in  the status  of
Kashmir, that the  Government of Pakistan had supported secessionist  groups
and that  therefore no reasons existed  why the  Pakistani authorities would
be  interested in the author.  Moreover, the officer doubted the credibility
of the  author's story, since he  commenced his refugee  claim in 1990,  but
did not allege torture until 1994.

8.1    The State  party  refers  to  the Committee's  Views  in  respect  of
communication No. 13/1993  (Mutombo v.  Switzerland), and  submits that,  in
determining whether  article 3 of  the Convention  against Torture  applies,
the  following considerations are  relevant:   (a) the  general situation of
human rights in a  country must be taken into  account, but the existence of
a  consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass  violations of human rights
is not in and of itself determinative; (b) the individual concerned must  be
personally at risk of being subjected  to torture in the country to which he
would return; and  (c) "substantial grounds" in  article 3(1) means that the
risk  of the  individual being  tortured if  returned is  a "foreseeable and
necessary consequence".   The State party submits  that it examined  each of
these  elements and  that  it came  to the  conclusion  that  no substantial
grounds existed for  believing that the author would  be in danger of  being
subjected to torture.

8.2  The  State party submits that, although  the human rights situation  in
Pakistan is of  concern, this does  not mean  that a  consistent pattern  of
gross, flagrant or mass  violations of human rights  exists.  As regards the
northern part of  Pakistan, the materials  examined by immigration officials
show that the  political status of  the Northern Territories has  never been
resolved.   In  theory,  it  is disputed  territory  and it  has never  been
represented  in  the  Pakistan  National  Assembly.    In  practice,  it  is
administered  as  Pakistani  territory.   The Jammu  and  Kashmir Liberation
Front  (JKLF),  to  which  the  Baltistan  Student  Federation is  allegedly
associated, is  one of the numerous  militant organizations  that operate in
the Kashmir  region  of  both  India and  Pakistan,  some of  whom  advocate
independence while others advocate accession to  Pakistan.  The State  party
submits  that JKLF  was  founded in  1964 and  that  it is  responsible  for
numerous acts  of terrorism, including  summary executions, kidnappings  and
bomb explosions.

8.3  As to the question whether the author personally faces a risk of  being
subjected to torture if returned to Pakistan,  the State party submits  that
there are significant inconsistencies in the  statements made by the  author
during the  various proceedings.   For instance,  the dates  of arrests  and
length  of  detentions  given by  the  author at  several  occasions are  at
variance with each  other, as are  the reasons  given for  his arrest.   The
State party contends that these  inconsistencies impact significantly on the
veracity of the author's story and the credibility of his claims.

8.4  In this context, the State party  refers to the finding of  the Refugee
Division, whose members  had the benefit of  conducting an oral hearing with
the author, that the author's  testimony was largely fabricated.   The State
party submits that "it is a  widely acknowledged principle of  international
law,   recognized  in  the  practice  of  international  tribunals  (and  in
particular human  rights  treaty  bodies which  have authority  to  consider
individual  communications)  that the  findings  of  national  tribunals  on

matters  of  fact  and   domestic  law  should   not  be  disturbed  by   an
international  body".   It states  that  the  Committee should  therefore be
extremely hesitant to alter findings of fact by the Refugee Division.

8.5   As regards  the medical evidence  submitted by the  author, the  State
party emphasizes that  this was not  produced until July 1994,  although the
refugee claim  dates  from  1990.    It  further states  that  the  evidence
confirms that the author has various scars, but that there is no  indication
that these  scars are the  result of  torture or  that they could  have been
caused by  other events  in the  author's life,  such as his  sports career.
The State  party  states that  the medical  evidence was  considered in  the
post-claim  risk-assessment,  but  that  the  author's  failure  to  produce
medical evidence in proceedings before the Canadian  tribunals deprived them
of the  opportunity to  test this  evidence.   The State  party argues  that
there was no reason why the author could not have advanced  this evidence in
previous proceedings of competent tribunals and  submits that the issue  was
directly relevant to the determination made by the Refugee Division.  It  is
argued that  the generally applicable principles  relating to the  reception
of new evidence militate strongly against the  Committee accepting it now as
a basis for overriding the prior findings of the Canadian tribunals.

8.6  The State  party contends that the  available evidence does not support
the author's  claim that  he  personally is  sought after  by the  Pakistani
authorities.  The  State  party  submits  that  the  author's   secessionist
activities  are pursued  by  thousands of  others  in  his  region with  the
support  of Pakistan.  It is  moreover argued that there is no evidence that
the  Baltistan  Student Federation,  of  which  the  author  allegedly is  a
leader,  is the  target of  Pakistani repression.   The State  party further
points  out that, although the  author alleges that  there is an outstanding
warrant for his arrest, he does not identify  the charge or actions on which
that warrant  is  based.   The  State  party  moreover  indicates  that  the
author's  family  continues  to  live  in  Pakistan  unharmed  and   without
harassment.

8.7   In  this  context, the  State  party  submits that  article  3 of  the
Convention should  not be  interpreted to  offer protection  to persons  who
voluntarily place themselves at  risk.  "In other words, Mr. Khan should not
be able to invoke  article 3 on the basis that he might again participate in
the activities  of  a  militant organization  and be  subject  to the  risks
associated with the violent activities such  organizations use and in  turn,
face.   [...]   The  important point  is that  currently Mr.  Khan  does not
attract any particular attention in Pakistan and his return  by Canada would
not pose a risk."

8.8  In conclusion, the State party submits  that the evidence presented  by
the author  is insufficient to demonstrate  that the risk  of being tortured
is a "foreseeable and necessary" consequence of his return to Pakistan.   In
this context,  the State party  submits that the  supporting affidavit by  a
lawyer  from  Pakistan  was  from a  member  of  JKLF,  itself  a  terrorist
organization with  a particular  interpretation of  the Kashmiri  situation.
No sufficient evidence has been  submitted which shows that the author's BSF
activities render  him  a target  of  the  Pakistani  authorities.   On  the
contrary, the  documentation available suggests  that the author's  militant
activities were  in fact common  in the north  of Pakistan  and supported by
the Government.

Counsel's comments and State party's clarification:

9.1    In  his  comments, dated  26  October  1994,  on  the  State  party's
submission,  counsel claims that it  is clear that the real circumstances of
the author's  case have never been fairly  examined by the  State party.  He
refers  to  the  documentation  submitted  to  the  Committee,  among  which
information   indicating   that  already   eight   activists   for   Kashmir
independence had been killed by Pakistani supporters and that  a bomb attack
had taken place against one of the JKLF leaders, and claims that there is  a
great deal  of documentary  evidence of  repression against  those who  want

independence  for  Kashmir.    He  also  refers  to  the  earlier  submitted
affidavit by  a Kashmir human rights  lawyer, at present  a refugee claimant
in Canada, who corroborates the author's story.

 9.2  In particular, counsel submits that there is a great deal of  evidence
of  systematic torture  by the  Pakistani authorities.   He states  that the
Pakistan  Human Rights Commission's  annual report  refers to the prevalence
of death  by torture and torture with impunity by the police.  Other reports
support this finding.

9.3  Counsel concedes that the  Canadian refugee claim determination  system
is good on paper, but argues that even in a good system,  mistakes are made.
In this context, he  emphasizes that the Canadian  system does not allow for
an appeal on the merits, but  only for an appeal (with  leave) on matters of
law. Because  of this, there  is no possibility  to correct  errors on facts
and the system  has been criticized  for that.  Counsel refers  to a report,
dated December 1993,  on the Immigration and Refugee Board, which shows that
serious problems exist.   He adds  that it  is known  among refugee  lawyers
that  the  problems  with  the  Board  in  Montreal  are  more  serious than
elsewhere, because of the incompetence of board members.  He claims that  it
is clear from  reading the decision  of the  Refugee Board  in the  author's
case  that the basis  of his claim  has not been  examined.   He claims also
that  the  transcript  of   the  hearing  shows  that  the  author  and  his
representative  were constantly  interrupted in  their presentation  of  the
case,  and that there was no examination of what  had happened to the author
in Pakistan.   Instead, the members of  the Board focused on  contradictions
in the dates of events.

9.4   Counsel submits that from  early 1991 to early  1993, less  than 1 per
cent of refused  refugees were given status  in Canada under  the post-claim
riskassessment process.  After severe criticism,  the system was amended and
new  regulatory criteria  were established.   However,  counsel states  that
these new  criteria were still applied  by the same deportation officers who
had refused everybody before.   He claims  that the recent figures (0.3  per
cent acceptance rate  in 1993) show  that the  new system is  a farce.   For
this reason, the Government  called for a further  report (see above,  para.
6.6).     This  report  condemned   incompetence,  unwillingness  to   apply
international  human  rights  standards   and  bureaucratic  opposition   to
treating people fairly.  It  stated that post-claim  risk-assessments should
not be made  by deportation agents,  but by  other officials.  It  is stated
that the recommendations  of the  report have  not been  implemented by  the
Government.

9.5   Counsel  claims that  the post-claim  decision in  the author's  case,
dated 10  May 1994,  show all  the shortcomings  established by the  report,
since the grounds in favour of protecting the author were not examined.

9.6  Council claims that the  alleged inconsistencies and contradictions  in
the  author's  evidence and  submissions are  not  such that  they make  his
testimony unreliable.   He states that  the author  has submitted sufficient
evidence  to corroborate his story.   As regards  the State party's argument
that  no  evidence of  previous  torture  was  submitted  before July  1994,
counsel points out that  the author was in detention from mid-March to  July
1994 and  that the medical examination  was conducted  immediately after his
release.   As  to  the State  party's claim  that the  author was  given the
opportunity to find a third country, counsel states  that he is not aware of
such an offer.

9.7  As  regards the review conducted  by the State  party after  July 1994,
counsel argues  this was  not an  independent review.   He  states that  the
review  was done  by a  low-level  administrative  official working  for the
enforcement side of Immigration Canada.  He further states that there is  no
evidence that this  officer examined the situation  in Azad Kashmir  and the
Northern  Areas of Pakistan.   In  this context, counsel points  out that he
made submissions  on 15 September 1994,  and that the  decision is dated  19
September 1994.   In  the decision,  no reference  is made  to the  evidence

submitted.   Counsel argues  that the  decision is  based on wrong  grounds:
(a)  it  states  that  Pakistan  supports  groups which  want  independence:
according  to  counsel, Pakistan  is  strongly  opposed to  the independence
movement and wants Kashmir  to become part  of Pakistan; (b) it states  that
the author has no  profile that is different from thousands of other  people
in his area:  counsel submits that there  is evidence (newspaper pictures, a
police report, a video, an affidavit)  which shows him to be a leader in the
Baltistan Student Federation; (c) it states  that the author never mentioned
torture  before 1994:    according to  counsel, this  is  untrue,  since the
author earlier made reference  to being "so  weak that my family was  scared
to see  me", to Pakistan being  governed under torture,  and to having  been
beaten in the police station.

9.8   Counsel agrees generally  with the interpretation  given by  the State
party to  the application  of article  3 of  the Convention.   He  contends,
however, that it  is an exaggeration to say that torture must be a necessary
and  foreseeable consequence.   He argues  that substantial  grounds clearly
exist to  fear that  the author,  who is a  student leader  of the  Kashmiri
independence  movement and has  been its  representative in  Canada, will be
subjected to torture.  Counsel refers to a report  of Amnesty International,
which states that  "torture, including rape, in  the custody of the  police,
the paramilitary and the armed forces  is endemic, widespread and systematic
in  Pakistan".   He  contests  the  State  party's view  that  there  is  no
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or  mass violations of human rights in
Pakistan,  and  submits  that  the  situation   in  the  northern  areas  is
particularly bad.  In  this context, counsel refers to testimonies given  by
human  rights activists to the  United Nations Commission on Human Rights in
March 1994.

9.9  Counsel  contests the State party's view  that the JKLF  is a terrorist
organization,  and claims that  there is  no evidence of use  of violence by
the JKLF in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.  He submits that the party is  widely
recognized  to  be the  most  popular  political  party  in both  Indian-and
Pakistanoccupied Kashmir.   He submits that  the vast  majority of Kashmiris
today support independence for their country.   He claims that the Pakistani
authorities are repressing everyone who advocates independence.

9.10   To support the argument  that the author  will risk  torture upon his
return to  Pakistan, counsel submits an  arrest warrant,  dated 12 September
1990, against the author,  apparently related to an incident on 6 June 1990,
in  which  the author,  referred to  in  the  accompanying police  report as
"President Baltistan  Student Federation, Rawalpindi",  led a  demonstration
in Rawalpindi to demand  constitutional rights for  Baltistan and criticized
the Government.   He  also claims  that the  author's brother  has fled  the
country  and now lives  in England,  whereas the author's  parents have left
Baltistan  and now  live in  Azad  Kashmir.  Counsel further  refers to  the
medical  evidence,  and  argues  that,  if   the  State  party  doubts   its
conclusions, it should have conducted an examination by its own experts.

9.11  Counsel concludes  that there is sufficient evidence to show that  the
author is personally sought after  by the Pakistani authorities.   He argues
that  the author should  not be sent back to a  country where his life is in
danger.  He claims  that the evidence shows that the author faces  immediate
detention and torture on his return.

10.  In  reaction to counsel's submission, the  State party argues that  the
central issue before the Committee is  not the general operation of Canada's
refugee determination system, but  whether the author  has established  that
he is personally at risk  of being subject to torture  in Pakistan upon  his
return.

Decision on admissibility and examination of the merits:

11.    Before considering  any  claims  contained  in  a communication,  the
Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible  under
article 22  of the  Convention.   The Committee  has ascertained,  as it  is

required  to do under  article 22,  paragraph 5(a), of  the Convention, that
the  same matter  has  not been  and is  not  being examined  under  another
procedure  of international  investigation  or settlement.    The  Committee
notes  that  the  State   party  has  not  raised  any  objections  to   the
admissibility of the communication and that  it has requested the  Committee
to proceed to an examination of the merits.   The Committee finds  therefore
that no  obstacles  to the  admissibility  of  the communication  exist  and
proceeds with the consideration of the merits of the communication.

12.1    The  Committee  notes  that  both  parties  have  made  considerable
submissions with regard to the fairness  of the refugee claim  determination
system  and  the  post-claim  risk-assessment  procedures.    The  Committee
observes that  it is  not called  upon to  review the  prevailing system  in
Canada in general,  but only to examine whether  in the present case  Canada
complied with its  obligations under the Convention.   Nor is the  Committee
called upon  to determine whether the  author's rights  under the Convention
have  been  violated  by  Pakistan, which  is  not  a  State  party  to  the
Convention.  The issue before the Committee is  whether the forced return of
the author to Pakistan would violate the  obligation of Canada under article
3 of  the Convention  not to expel  or to return  a person to  another State
where  there are  substantial grounds  for  believing that  he would  be  in
danger of being subjected to torture.

12.2  Article 3 reads:

"1.  No State  party shall expel, return ('refouler') or extradite a  person
to  another State where there  are substantial grounds for believing that he
would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

"2.  For  the purpose of  determining whether  there are  such grounds,  the
competent authorities  shall take into  account all relevant  considerations
including,  where applicable,  the existence  in  the  State concerned  of a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."

  The Committee must decide, pursuant to  paragraph 1 of article  3, whether
there are  substantial  grounds for  believing that  Mr.  Khan  would be  in
danger  of being  subject to  torture.   In  reaching this  conclusion,  the
Committee must take  into account  all relevant considerations, pursuant  to
paragraph 2 of  article 3, including  the existence of a  consistent pattern
of gross,  flagrant or  mass violations  of human  rights.   The aim  of the
determination, however,  is to  establish whether  the individual  concerned
would be personally  at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to
which  he would  return.    It follows  that the  existence of  a consistent
pattern of gross, flagrant  or mass violations of human rights in a  country
does not  as such  constitute  a sufficient  ground for  determining that  a
person would  be in danger of being subjected to torture  upon his return to
that  country;  additional   grounds  must  exist  that  indicate  that  the
individual concerned  would be personally at  risk.   Similarly, the absence
of a consistent pattern  of gross violations  of human rights does not  mean
that  a person cannot  be considered  to be in danger  of being subjected to
torture in his specific circumstances.

 12.3  The Committee notes that  the author of the present  case has claimed
that he was a local leader of the Baltistan Student Federation,  that he has
twice been  tortured by Pakistani police and military, that he was scheduled
to appear before a  Court upon charges related  to his political activities,
and  that he will face arrest and torture if he  were to return to Pakistan.
In support of his claim, the author presented,  among other documentation, a
medical  report which does  not contradict  his allegations.   The Committee
notes  that some of the author's claims and corroborating evidence have been
submitted  only after  his  refugee claim  had been  refused by  the Refugee
Board  and  deportation  procedures  had  been  initiated;  the   Committee,
however,  also notes  that this  behaviour is  not  uncommon for  victims of
torture.  The  Committee, however, considers  that, even if  there could  be
some  doubts about the  facts as adduced by the  author, it must ensure that
his security  is not endangered.   The Committee notes  that evidence exists

that  torture is  widely practised in Pakistan  against political dissenters
as well as against common detainees.

12.4    The  Committee  considers  therefore   that  in  the  present   case
substantial grounds exist for believing that  a political activist like  the
author would  be in danger of being subjected to torture.  It notes that the
author has produced a  copy of an arrest warrant against him, for organizing
a  demonstration and for  criticizing the  Government, and  that moreover he
has submitted  a copy  of  a letter  from  the  President of  the  Baltistan
Student  Federation, advising  him that  it would  be dangerous  for him  to
return  to  Pakistan.   The  Committee  further notes  that  the author  has
adduced  evidence that  indicates that  supporters  of independence  for the
northern areas and Kashmir have been the targets of repression.

12.5   Moreover, the  Committee considers  that, in  view of  the fact  that
Pakistan is not a party  to the Convention, the author would not only be  in
danger of being subjected to torture, in the  event of his forced return  to
Pakistan, but  would no  longer  have  the possibility  of applying  to  the
Committee for protection.

12.6  The Committee therefore concludes  that substantial grounds exist  for
believing that the author  would be in danger  of being subjected to torture
and, consequently, that the  expulsion or return  of the author to  Pakistan
in the  prevailing circumstances would constitute  a violation  of article 3
of the  Convention against  Torture and  Other Cruel,  Inhuman or  Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.

13.  In the  light of the above, the Committee  is of the view that, in  the
prevailing circumstances, the State party has  an obligation to refrain from
forcibly returning Tahir Hussain Khan to Pakistan.


[Done in  English, French, Russian  and Spanish, the English  text being the
original version.]

Communication No. 17/1994

Submitted by:  X [name deleted]

Alleged victim:         The author

State party:  Switzerland

Date of communication:  22 August 1994

  The  Committee  against  Torture,  established under  article  17  of  the
Convention against Torture  and Other Cruel,  Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment,

  Meeting on 17 November 1994,

  Adopts the following:


Decision on admissibility

1.   The author  of the  communication is  X, a  Zairian citizen,  currently
residing in  Switzerland.  He claims  to be a victim  of a violation by  the
Swiss  authorities of  article 3  of  the Convention  against Torture.    He
submits the communication on his own behalf and on that of his companion.

The facts as submitted by the author:

2.1  The author, who was  born in 1964, states that he has been a member  of
the  Union pour la democratie et le progres social (UDPS) since 1986.  Since
a close relative was  in charge of the UDPS  in his hometown, the author was

entrusted  the task of  distributing invitations for illegal meetings, which
were usually held at the house  of a family member.  Because of his age, the
author himself almost never attended these meetings.

2.2  In  January 1988, the author attended  a public gathering organized  by
the UDPS.  When military police arrived to  disperse the meeting, the author
fled to his  parents' house.  There  he learned that  his relative  had been
arrested.  The  next morning, at 5.30 a.m.,  police arrived at the  author's
house and  detained him.  The  author claims that the  police took him to  a
room to be tortured,  in order to  make him disclose the names of  those who
attended the meetings in  his relative's house.  When the author refused  to
comply, he was accused of conspiracy against the  Republic.  In the  evening
of  the fifth  day  of  detention, the  author was  released, thanks  to the
intervention of a friend of his brother.

2.3   After having  stayed with a  friend for  a brief period  of time,  his
brother drove him  to another  town, where he  stayed with another  brother.
About a  year later,  the  author,  through his  brother, obtained  a  false
passport and boarded  an Air  Zaire plane  for Rome.   After his arrival  in
Rome, the author sought help to go across the border with Switzerland.

2.4   Upon arrival in  Switzerland, the author, in  February 1989, requested
recognition  as  a refugee.    He  was  heard by  the  Office  cantonal  des
demandeurs d'asile  in Geneva,  in  May 1989.    In  July 1992,  the  Office
federal  des  refugies  rejected  his  request.    The  author's  appeal was
rejected  by the  Commission suisse  de  recours en  matiere d'asile  et  de
renvoi  in May 1994.   The  author and  his companion were  ordered to leave
Switzerland before or on  30 August 1994, failing which he would be returned
to Zaire.  In August 1994, his permit was extended until 30 September 1994.

2.5   The author  further states  that he was  joined by  his girlfriend  in
November 1991, that they are well integrated in society, and that they  have
found employment.

The complaint:

3.1   The  author argues that  he owes  his life to  having fled Zaire.   He
claims  that he  cannot go back  to Zaire without  endangering his security.
He argues that,  since he does not  possess proper identification papers, he
will be immediately arrested on arrival  and, since he is known  as a member
of  the UDPS,  he  will  be kept  in  detention and  probably  subjected  to
torture.  He states  that in Zaire a  consistent pattern of  gross, flagrant
or mass violations of  human rights exists,  and that for this reason  alone
the  Swiss  authorities should  refrain  from  returning  him.   He  further
submits that the simple fact of applying for  asylum is considered in  Zaire
as a subversive act.

3.2  Pending  the Committee's decision on  the merits of his  communication,
the author  requests the Committee to  request Switzerland,  under rule 108,
paragraph 9, of  the Committee's  rules of procedure,  not to implement  the
expulsion order against him and his companion.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee:

4.1    Before considering  any  claims  contained  in  a communication,  the
Committee against Torture must  decide whether or not it is admissible under
article 22 of the Convention.

4.2   The Committee  has examined  the claims  submitted by  the author  and
observes  that  his  account lacks  the  minimum  substantiation that  would
render the  communication  compatible  with  article 22  of  the  Convention
against  Torture  and  Other  Cruel,  Inhuman   or  Degrading  Treatment  or
Punishment.

5.  The Committee against Torture therefore decides:

  (a)  that the communication is inadmissible;

  (b)   that this  decision shall  be communicated  to the  author and,  for
information, to the State party.


[Done  in English, French, Russian  and Spanish, the  English text being the
original version.]

Communication No. 18/1994

Submitted by:  Y [name deleted] [represented by counsel]

Alleged victim:         The author

State party:  Switzerland

Date of communication:  16 September 1994

  The  Committee  against  Torture,  established  under  article 17  of  the
Convention against Torture and Other  Cruel, Inhuman or  Degrading Treatment
or Punishment,

  Meeting on 17 November 1994,

  Adopts the following:


Decision on admissibility

1.   The author  of the  communication is  Y, a  Zairian citizen,  currently
residing in Switzerland.   He claims to be  a victim  of a violation by  the
Swiss authorities  of article 3  of the Convention  against Torture.   He is
represented by counsel.

The facts as submitted by the author:

2.1  The author, who was  born in 1963,  lived in the north of Zaire,  until
1983. His father  was arrested in  1968 for  political reasons  and kept  in
detention  for five years,  until his  death in  1973.  In  1983, the author
moved  for professional  reasons to  another town,  where  he lived  with an
older cousin.  After President Mobutu, on 24  April 1990, had announced  the
end of the one-party  system, the author joined the Union pour la democratie
et le progres  social (UDPS), the opposition party.   On 30 April 1990,  the
UDPS organized  a peaceful  demonstration in Kinshasa,  which was  violently
dispersed  by  the  police.    Many  more  clashes  between  members of  the
opposition movement  and government forces followed,  and in  June 1990, the
author  was  arrested  together  with  other  demonstrators,  after   having
participated in a demonstration against the Government.

2.2  The author submits that he was  kept in detention in a prison camp.  He
was  allegedly  ill treated,  beaten and  threatened.    After a  month, the
author was transferred to the military  offices in town.  He then managed to
escape with  the help  of a military  officer, who  was of  the same  ethnic
background  as the author.  After having  been in hiding in  a village, with
friends of his cousin, he boarded  an Air Zaire plane for Rome, with a false
passport which had been  furnished by his cousin.   After arrival  in Italy,
he sent the passport back  to his cousin, as agreed.  Some Africans in  Rome
helped  him cross  the border  with Switzerland,  where he  arrived in  late
August 1990.

2.3   Upon  arrival in  Switzerland, the  author requested  recognition as a
refugee.  In  July  1992,  the  Office  federal  des  refugies  rejected his
request,  because the demonstration  of June  1990, during  which the author
allegedly was arrested,  had never been reported;  this gave rise to  doubts
about the  authenticity of  the author's account.   The author's  appeal was

rejected  by the  Commission  suisse  de recours  en matiere  d'asile  et de
renvoi in May 1994.   The Commission considered that the author's story  had
little credibility, given  inter alia the fact that  he had not been able to
describe in detail his place of detention and  that he had not furnished any
documentary evidence  in  support of  his  personal  claim. The  author  was
ordered to leave Switzerland before or on 30  August 1994, failing which  he
would be returned to Zaire.

2.4  In  January 1994, the author was joined  by his daughter, who was  born
in Zaire in 1987.  In Switzerland, the author began a relationship with  Ms.
Y; a daughter  was born in June 1994.   Because of  the birth, the expulsion
was deferred to the end of September 1994.

The complaint:

3.1   The  author  argues  that the  political  situation in  Zaire has  not
improved and that  President Mobutu continues to terrorize the country.  His
family members  still in  Zaire  have  informed him  that the  human  rights
situation in the country  is bad and that  there is practically no political
opposition left.   The author submits  that he fears  for his security,  and
points out  that at  least  one asylum  seeker,  who  had been  returned  by
Belgium to Zaire in  April 1990, had  been arrested upon return and  beaten,
and subsequently disappeared.   The author also  states that his cousin  has
told him not to return to Zaire, because of the risks involved.

3.2    The author  claims  that  his forced  return  to  Zaire would  be  in
violation of article  3 of the  Convention.   In this context, he  refers to
the  Committee's Views in communication No. 13/1993, Mutombo v. Switzerland,
where the Committee concluded that a  consistent pattern of gross,  flagrant
or mass violations  of human rights  existed in  Zaire.   The author  argues
that  his family  background  as  well  as  his  personal  experience  as  a
political opponent in  Zaire, make it predictable  that he will be  arrested
upon  arrival in Zaire,  and consequently  be subjected  to maltreatment and
torture.  In this  context, he submits that an article recently published in
Zaire attributed certain political opinions to him.

3.3  Pending  the Committee's decision on  the merits of his  communication,
the author  requests the Committee to  request Switzerland,  under rule 108,
paragraph 9, of  the Committee's  rules of procedure,  not to implement  the
expulsion order against him.

3.4   It is stated that the same matter has not  been submitted to any other
procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee:

4.1    Before considering  any  claims  contained  in  a communication,  the
Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible  under
article 22 of the Convention.

4.2   The Committee  has examined  the claims  submitted by  the author  and
observes that  his  account  lacks  the minimum  substantiation  that  would
render  the  communication compatible  with  article  22  of the  Convention
against  Torture  and  Other  Cruel,  Inhuman  or  Degrading  Treatment   or
Punishment.

5.  The Committee against Torture therefore decides:

  (a)  that the communication is inadmissible;

   (b)   that this  decision shall  be communicated  to the  author and  his
counsel and, for information, to the State party.


[Done in English,  French, Russian and Spanish,  the English text being  the
original version.]

--B.  Fourteenth session

Communication No. 6/1990

Submitted by:  Ms. Irene Ursoa Parot

Alleged victim:  Henri Unai Parot

State party concerned:  Spain

Date of communication:  13 October 1990

Date of decision on admissibility:  26 April 1994

  The  Committee  against  Torture,  established  under article  17  of  the
Convention against Torture and  Other Cruel, Inhuman  or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment,

  Meeting on 2 May 1995,

  Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 6/1990,  submitted
to  the Committee against  Torture on  behalf of Mr. Henri  Unai Parot under
article  22 of the  Convention against  Torture and Other  Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

  Having taken  into account  all information made  available to  it by  the
author of the communication and by the State party,

  Adopts  the  following  views  under  article  22,  paragraph  7,  of  the
Convention. 1/

1.  The  author of  the communication  is Irene Ursoa  Parot, a resident  of
France. She  submits the communication on  behalf of her brother, Henri Unai
Parot, a  French citizen  born in  Algiers.  Mr.  Parot is  a member of  the
Basque separatist  organization  ETA, and  is  serving  a sentence  of  life
imprisonment  in Spain.   She  claims that  her  brother is  a victim  of  a
violation  by  Spain of  the  Convention  against Torture,  without  however
specifying the provisions of the Convention alleged to have been violated.

Facts as submitted by the author:

2.1  Henri Parot was arrested  in Seville on 2 April  1990 after an exchange
of gunfire with  the Guardia Civil which had  stopped his car.   The Guardia
Civil claimed that his car was carrying 300 kilograms of amonal, to be  used
to blow  up the  police  headquarters of  Seville.   The Audiencia  Nacional
found him  guilty of participation in  terrorist acts,  murder and attempted
murder and, on different  counts, sentenced him to  consecutive terms of  30
years' imprisonment.

2.2  The author, in a submission dated 13 October  1990, states that she has
learned the  following  from  her  brother:    he was  interrogated  at  the
headquarters of the Guardia  Civil in Seville  until the early morning of  3
April 1990; in the course of the interrogation  he was tortured.  On 3 April
1990,  he was  transferred to  Madrid,  where the  interrogation  continued;
allegedly, a  special unit of the Guardia Civil normally stationed in Basque
territory  participated   in  this  interrogation,   with  the  purpose   of
administering  "expert"  torture.   The  interrogation  continued  for  five
entire days, during which he was not allowed to eat or sleep.
  2.3   Among the tortures  allegedly inflicted on  her brother, the  author
mentions:

  -placing of plastic  bags over his head, so  as to provoke a sensation  of
suffocation.  This allegedly was repeated some 20 times;

  -constant beatings, not administered  too hard so as not to leave  visible
marks;

  -injection of an unknown substance by means of a syringe;

  -putting him  into a  straightjacket, followed  by suspending  him by  his
hair.

2.4  Henri Parot's family  has been able to witness  the physical results of
the torture on him -  loss of hair, loss of  weight, permanent exhaustion  -
and  the  psychological  sequelae,  manifested  by   a  state  of   profound
depression.  Furthermore,  he is  said  to  suffer  from  periodic bouts  of
amnesia, in particular in respect of the first five days of his detention.

2.5  On 7 April 1990, Mr. Parot was  brought before the examining magistrate
of  the Juzgado Central  de Instruccion  No. 4 of the  Audiencia Nacional of
Madrid.  At the conclusion of his statement before  the judge, he complained
of torture he had suffered  at the hands of the  Guardia Civil.   During the
hearing he was assisted by a lawyer who had been retained by his family.

2.6  On  10 April 1990, Mr. Parot  was transferred to  the prison of Herrera
de  la Mancha.   On  11  April, he  was again  brought before  the Audiencia
Nacional of  Madrid to testify before  a French magistrate  to whom he  also
complained about the ill treatment.

2.7   As to prison conditions,  it is claimed that  during his detention  at
the Carabanchal prison in  Madrid from 7 to 10 April 1990, the prison guards
prevented him from sleeping by refusing to switch off  the light in his cell
or  by continuously banging against his cell door.  At the prison of Herrera
de la  Mancha, he  was kept  incommunicado  most of  the time.   The  prison
doctor  made him sign  a statement  certifying that he had  not suffered any
form of torture  or ill treatment.   For  20 days, Mr.  Parot was kept in  a
cell close  to the office  of the Guardia  Civil, whose  occupants sought to
scare him by  firing shots outside his cell  and by threatening to kill  him
or  members of  his family.   On  17  April,  when taking  a shower,  he was
allegedly severely beaten by a  group of masked men, said  to be members  of
the Guardia  Civil.  On 8 June 1990, Mr. Parot was transferred to the prison
of  Alcala-Meco in  Madrid, so  as  to  facilitate the  hearings before  the
examining magistrate of the Audiencia Nacional.

2.8   By  letter  of  10 May  1993, Mr.  Parot confirms  that he  wishes the
Committee against  Torture to  examine his  allegations of  torture and  ill
treatment was presented in the communication prepared by his sister.

2.9  In  a further submission,  dated 20  August 1993,  the author  provides
precise information about the complaints of  torture and ill treatment  made
by or on behalf of Mr.  Parot.  This includes a complaint made by the author
during  the hearing  before  the  investigating magistrate  of  the  Juzgado
Central de Instruccion No.  4 of the  Audiencia Nacional in April 1990,  and
25  complaints made  during the  trial  before  the Audiencia  Nacional, the
first on 4 December 1990 and the last complaint on 4  June 1993.  She states
that her brother received a visit  on 28 May 1991, at  the prison of Alcala-
Meco, by  an investigating  magistrate of Alcala-de-Henares,  who asked  him
formally whether he wished to  maintain his complaints; Mr. Parot replied in
the affirmative.

Prior decisions taken by the Committee:

3.1   The  Committee  against Torture  initially examined  communication No.
6/1990 during its  seventh session in  November 1991.   It considered  that,
since  the  author had  conceded  that  an  investigation  into Mr.  Parot's
allegations had  been opened  by an investigating  magistrate of  Alcala-de-
Henares,  domestic remedies  had not been  exhausted.  On  12 November 1991,
the Committee therefore declared the communication inadmissible. 2/

3.2   During its  ninth  session, in  1993, the  Committee had  before it  a
request from  the author to reopen  the consideration  of the communication,
because no investigation had yet been  conducted by the Spanish authorities.
The Committee  decided to appoint  one of its members  as Special Rapporteur

to examine the request.   The Special Rapporteur  approached the State party
for  its comments,  which were  placed  before  the Committee  at its  tenth
session.   The  Committee subsequently  decided  to  ask Mr.  Parot  himself
whether he  wished the  Committee to  examine his  case and to  request more
precise information about the complaints filed with the Spanish  authorities
regarding his  torture (see paras. 2.8 and  2.9 above).  On the basis of the
information received,  the Committee,  acting pursuant  to rule  109 of  its
rules of  procedure, decided, on 18  November 1993, to  set aside its  prior
decision of 12 November  1991 and to reopen  its consideration of  the case.
It  further  decided to  request  the  State  party  to provide  information
relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication.

Information submitted by the State party and the author's comments thereon:

4.1  By a submission  of 11 February 1994, the  State party claims  that the
communication  is  inadmissible.    It  submits  that,  notwithstanding  the
author's statement, inquiries made of the  seven tribunals of first instance
in Alcala-de-Henares give no indication of  any complaint of torture  lodged
by Mr. Parot.

4.2   The State party denies  that any ill  treatment of Mr. Parot has taken
place.  It  states that  Mr.  Parot  received  regular  visits from  medical
doctors during his detention by the Guardia Civil in Seville and Madrid  and
later in prison and  that no reference to ill  treatment or torture is to be
found in  the medical  reports.   Similarly,  the investigating  magistrates
before whom  Mr. Parot  appeared did  not report  any visible  signs of  ill
treatment  or torture.   Although  Mr. Parot  mentioned  at  the end  of the
hearing  before  the investigating  judge  of  the  Fourth  Tribunal of  the
Audiencia Nacional on 7  April 1990, that he had been subjected to  torture,
the  investigating  judge  did  not  find  sufficient  reason  to  order  an
investigation  into the  allegations, taking  the medical  information  into
account and seeing  that Mr.  Parot did  not show any  signs of having  been
subjected to  torture or  ill treatment.   The State party  states extensive
examination of  all the relevant records  shows that  Mr. Parot subsequently
did  not formally  request an  investigation  of  the alleged  ill treatment
during the first days of his detention.

4.3   The State  party claims that  the information provided  by the  author
about the  complaints made by  or on behalf  of her  brother was excessively
vague.  It  contends that it is the policy of ETA members,  their family and
their lawyers to submit complaints at random  to all kinds of  international
organizations.   It submits  that Mr.  Parot has  filed numerous  complaints
with the authorities in charge of the prison system (Juzgados de  Vigilancia
Penitenciara) about  alleged deficiencies in  prison services, showing  that
he knows how  to use the  available complaint  procedures, but  that he  has
never submitted a complaint about torture or ill treatment.

4.4  The State  party submits that  the only  complaints filed on behalf  of
Mr. Parot are two  identical complaints filed  by Mr. Parot's wife in  April
and May  1991 and  relating to rumours  that prison personnel  had tried  to
hire a prisoner  to kill ETA  members in  prison.   Similar complaints  were
filed  by  other family  members of  ETA  prisoners.   An  investigation was
opened, following  which the judge of  Tribunal No.  7 of Alcala-de-Henares,
on 9 March  1993, ordered the  suspension of  the proceedings,  for lack  of
evidence.

4.5   The  State party  concludes  that  the communication  is inadmissible,
because it  is not based  on true facts,  because it is  not related to  the
Convention against Torture, and because the  domestic remedies have not been
exhausted.

5.1  In her comments (dated 24 March 1994) on the State party's  submission,
the author  submits that she has  difficulty in  finding precise information
regarding  the  investigation ordered  by  an  examining magistrate  of  the
Tribunal  of Alcala-de-Henares  and that  the  State party  is in  a  better
position  to  provide  this  information.   She  states  that early  in  the

afternoon of 28 May 1991, her  brother was visited in the  prison of Alcala-
de-Henares  by  a female  examining  magistrate  (juez  de  guardia) of  the
Tribunal.  According to the author, the magistrate  refused to give her name
and  asked  Mr. Parot  whether  he  wished to  maintain  his  complaints  of
torture.   After he  replied affirmatively,  his complaint  was written down
that  same afternoon  and read  to  Mr. Parot,  who then  signed it,  in the
presence of a lawyer appointed  by the magistrate.  No  copy of the  written
complaint was furnished to Mr.  Parot.  This is said  to be in  violation of
Spanish law.

5.2   As to  the State  party's contention that the  medical reports did not
show that  Mr. Parot had  been ill treated  or tortured,  the author replies
that the torture inflicted upon her  brother was not "medieval torture", but
torture  not leaving  obvious traces  on the  body.   She affirms  that  her
brother did not denounce the ill treatment to  the medical doctors who  came
to visit him, out of fear of retaliation by the Guardia Civil.

The Committee's admissibility decision:

6.1  During its twelfth session,  the Committee considered the admissibility
of the  communication.  It ascertained that the same matter had not been and
was   not  being   examined  under   another  procedure   of   international
investigation.  It noted that  the assertion that on 7 April 1990 Mr.  Parot
had complained  about  ill treatment  and torture  before the  investigating
magistrate had not been challenged.  The Committee  considered that, even if
these attempts to engage available domestic  remedies may not have  complied
with procedural formalities prescribed by law, they left  no doubt as to Mr.
Parot's wish to have the allegations  investigated.  The Committee concluded
that,  in  the  circumstances,  it  was  not  barred  from  considering  the
communication.

6.2    Accordingly,  the Committee  decided  on  26  April  1994,  that  the
communication  might raise  issues  under the  Convention,  especially  with
regard  to the  lack  of  investigation by  the State  party of  Mr. Parot's
allegations.

 The State party's observations on the merits and author's comments:

7.1   By a  communication of 29 November 1994,  the State party submits that
the  case  of  Mr.  Parot  was  brought  to  the attention  of  the  Special
Rapporteur on Torture of the United Nations  Commission on Human Rights, who
addressed a  request for information  to the State  party.   The State party
indicates that, after it  had provided information, the case was closed  and
no reference to  the case was made by  the Special Rapporteur in his  report
to the Commission on Human Rights.

7.2  The State  party further contends that  the communication submitted  to
the Committee  on behalf of Mr. Parot  is extremely vague.  It notes that no
details  are  provided about  the  alleged  complaint  before  the judge  in
Alcala-de-Henares, and  it expresses its perplexity  that the Committee,  in
those circumstances,  has declared  the communication  admissible.  In  this
context,  it recalls that Mr. Parot is "one of the greatest criminals of the
century", that  he was the  leader of a  commando of  the ETA, and  that his
false allegations have  received disproportionate attention, to the  benefit
of the ETA and in discrimination of other citizens.

7.3  As to the  merits of the communication, the State party indicates  that
Mr. Parot has shown to  be very familiar  with the justice system in  Spain,
since  he has  filed numerous  complaints  about  prison conditions,  all of
which have  been dealt  with, but  that he  never filed  a formal  complaint
about ill treatment or  torture.  The State party maintains that the members
of the ETA are under instruction systematically to claim hat they have  been
subjected to  torture and  ill treatment.   The  State party  adds that  the
judge at  the preliminary  inquiry did  not observe  any injuries  requiring
investigation.  The State  party claims that, if the allegations would  have
been true,  Parot's lawyer would certainly  have requested the judge to have

this evidence referred to  the competent judge  for investigation.  In  this
context,  the State party  points out  that Parot's  lawyers never submitted
any complaint of maltreatment in detention.  Moreover,  the State party adds
that  one of Parot's lawyers,  on 22 June  1990, did  file a complaint about
Parot  having been insulted and  beaten during transport within Madrid.  The
State party argues  that it is  inconsistent, if the allegations  were true,
to file an official complaint  of one incident and not  to file a  complaint
of torture and maltreatment upon arrest.

7.4   The  State party  further states  that  Mr. Parot  was examined  by  a
medical  doctor on  a  number of  occasions during  his  detention.   It  is
submitted that the first  medical examination took  place at a quarter  past
midnight  on 3 April  1990, and that only two  minor bruises were found, and
that Mr. Parot stated that he  had not been subjected to ill treatment.  The
second examination  took place also  on 3 April  1990, after  his arrival in
Madrid, and  again on  5, 6 and  7 April  1990.  The  State party  transmits
copies of the medical  reports and concludes that no signs of ill  treatment
were recorded.

7.5  The State party  points out that, during this  period, Mr. Parot  never
complained about torture or  maltreatment in any of the statements he  made.
The State  party points out  that, while making these  statements, Mr. Parot
was at all times in  the presence of his State-appointed lawyer.  The  State
party encloses a declaration made by  a lawyer who represented  Parot during
the first days  of his detention, stating that  he was not  aware of any ill
treatment  or torture  having  been inflicted  on  Parot and  that,  on  the
contrary,  Parot  appeared to  be in  good  health and  made his  statements
freely.

 7.6  With  regard to the  appearance before  the investigating  judge on  7
April 1990,  the State  party submits  that the  judge stated on  7 November
1994 that  during the  hearing Mr. Parot  showed no sign  of being  nervous,
tired or  exhausted, and  that  no complaint  was  made  by the  lawyer  who
represented him.  The State  party further  refers to  the judgement by  the
Audiencia  Nacional, dated  18 December  1990,  in  which the  allegation of
maltreatment made by  Parot during the hearing on  7 April 1990 is found  to
be  without merit.    The  judge considered  that  none of  the five  State-
appointed  lawyers,  who   were  alternating  to  assist  Parot  during  the
interrogations, observed  any irregularity, that  the medical reports  refer
only  to bruises caused  at the  time of Parot's arrest  (the judge recalled
that Parot  was  arrested after  having  fired  15  shots at  the  policemen
present and that  they had to  use force to arrest him),  that Parot himself
had declared to  the medical doctor  who examined  him that  he was not  ill
treated  which  declaration  had not  been  denied, that  he  only made  the
allegation at the  hearing at the  end of  his statement,  after a  specific
question from his lawyer, and, finally,  that the allegations conflict  with
the observations of the judge at the hearing.

7.7   With  regard to  the  claim  that Mr.  Parot was  visited by  a female
examining  magistrate in  the  prison  of Alcala-de-Henares  who  asked  him
whether he wished to maintain  his complaint about ill  treatment, the State
party submits  that  a  (male)  investigating magistrate  visited  Parot  in
prison  on 18  May 1991,  for  the  purpose of  notifying him  of the  order
initiating criminal  proceedings against him and  hearing his  answer to the
charge, and that Parot,  having waited for his lawyer to arrive, stated that
his  statements  had   been  obtained  through   torture.  The  State  party
emphasizes  that  this  claim  cannot  be  seen  as  a  formal complaint  of
maltreatment, and  that a  similar claim  had already  been ruled on  by the
Audiencia  Nacional in  the same  preliminary investigation  on 18  December
1990 (see above).

7.8   Finally, the State party  points out that  the written conclusions  of
counsel for Mr. Parot, regarding the  preliminary proceedings on 20  January
1992 make no reference to ill treatment.  In its  judgement of 18 June 1993,
the Juzgado Central de  Instruccion finds that Mr. Parot does not appear  to
have been subjected to ill treatment.

8.1  In her comments, dated  27 January 1995, the author  contests the State
party's claim that  she is an instrument of the ETA, and  maintains that she
addressed a  communication to  the Committee  only out  of  concern for  the
wellbeing of her brother.  She states that  those persons who claim to  have
seen her  brother during the first  days of his  detention and who  maintain
that  they  did   not  observe  any  sign  of  ill  treatment  are  actually
accomplices in  the torture. She denounces  as propaganda  the State party's
statement that  ETA members  are under  instruction to  make allegations  of
torture.

8.2.  The author  further states that any vagueness in her statements is due
to  the fact that she lives in France, which  makes contact with her brother
and his lawyers difficult.

8.3   With  regard to the  visit to the  prison on  28 May  1991, the author
states that  she never denied that  a male  investigating magistrate visited
her brother in prison  on that  day, but adds that  on the same day  another
visit was made  by a judge of the  Juzgado No. 3 de Alcala-de-Henares,  Mrs.
Isabel Fernandez,  upon request by the  tribunal of  first instance (Juzgado
de  instruccion) No. 2 of  Manzares, to whom Parot  officially complained of
torture.

 8.4  She explains that research in Manzares has shown that a complaint  was
made on 21  and 28 April 1990  on behalf of Parot  to the tribunal  of first
instance No. 1 of Manzares about  Parot's detention incommunicado and  about
an  incident during which  Parot was beaten while on  his way to the shower.
On 16 May 1990, Parot made a statement  in prison, confirming the complaints
made on his  behalf. A medical certificate  stated that Parot showed bruises
on the right  arm and leg. Furthermore, on 11 May 1990, an investigation was
opened  by  the tribunal  of first  instance  No.  2 of  Manzares, following
detailed charges  made by Parot  before a  judicial commission  that he  was
tortured upon his arrest.   On 10 January 1991, the two investigations  were
joined.   On 21 May 1991, the Juzgado No. 3  of Alcala-de-Henares received a
request to hear Parot  on the matter,  and the magistrate interviewed  Parot
in prison  on  28  May  1991.    The  author claims  that  in  the  end  the
investigating  magistrate of tribunal No. 2 of Manzares  decided to file the
case,  and to decide  only on  the complaint related to  the shower incident
and stating  that Parot's declarations did  not show  any criminal liability
of known persons.

8.5   The author states that  her brother was never informed  of the outcome
of the investigation and has not received copies of  the relevant documents.
She contends that this has made it difficult for her  to verify the facts in
the case.

8.6   The  author expresses surprise  at the  statement made  by one  of the
Stateappointed    lawyers   who   were   present    during   her   brother's
interrogations.  The author contests the  truthfulness of the State lawyer's
statement  and explains that Spanish law allows  detention incommunicado for
up to five  days of persons suspected  of terrorism, excluding assistance of
a  freely chosen  lawyer and  requiring  the  presence of  a State-appointed
lawyer during the making  of statements.   According to the author, the  law
also precludes contact in private between the detainee and the lawyer.   She
therefore concludes that it is questionable that Parot met with the  lawyer,
only to  tell him  that he  had been  well treated.   In  this context,  she
affirms that her brother  denies having had a private meeting with a  lawyer
during his detention.

Consideration of the merits:

9.    The  Committee  considered  the  communication in  the  light  of  all
information made available to it  by the parties, in accordance with article
22, paragraph 4, of the Convention.

10.1     By its  decision of  26 April  1994, the  Committee held  that  the
communication  was  formally  admissible,  as  it  raised  the  question  of

possible  responsibility  of  the  State  party  under  article  13  of  the
Convention, which provides as follows:

  "Each State  party shall  ensure that any  individual who  alleges he  has
been  subjected to torture  in any territory under  its jurisdiction has the
right  to  complain  to,  and  to have  his  case  promptly and  impartially
examined by, its competent authorities ..."

10.2    In  the case  under consideration  the author  of the  communication
states that,  on 7 April  1990, on concluding  his statement before  Juzgado
Central  de  Instruccion  No. 4  of the  Audiencia  Nacional of  Madrid, her
brother Henri  Parot complained  that he  had been  tortured by the  Guardia
Civil on the days immediately following  his arrest, and that this complaint
was never considered by the authorities of the State party.

 10.3     The State  party has  denied that  the alleged ill  treatment took
place and has  stated that Mr. Parot's  allegations were investigated by the
prison and court authorities with negative results.

10.4   The Committee notes that, in principle, article  13 of the Convention
does not  require the  formal submission of a  complaint of torture.   It is
sufficient for  torture only  to have  been alleged  by the  victim for  the
state to  be under  an obligation  promptly and  impartially to examine  the
allegation.

10.5     It  is the  Committee's view  that the  State party  considered and
rejected  the allegation of torture made by Mr. Parot in the above-mentioned
statement  of 7 April 1990.   The judgement of the Audiencia  Nacional of 18
December 1990  dealt expressly with  the said  complaint and rejected  it on
the basis of  the five medical  examinations that  were carried  out at  the
time of the alleged torture and the statements made by Parot himself to  the
Seville medical  examiner, which  statements were never  denied (see  paras.
7.5 and 7.6 above).

10.6    The Committee considers  that where complaints  of torture are  made
during court proceedings it  is desirable that they  be elucidated by  means
of  independent proceedings.   Whether  or  not such  action is  taken  will
depend  on the  internal legislation  of the State  party concerned  and the
circumstances of the specific case.

10.7      There  are  no  grounds  for  Mr.  Parot  or  the  author  of  the
communication to challenge the procedure followed in this case  by the State
party, since not only did Mr. Parot have  the benefit of full assistance  by
counsel during the trial but he also made frequent exercise of his right  to
make  other  charges and  complaints,  which  were  also  considered by  the
authorities of the State.

11.  The Committee against Torture therefore concludes that the State  party
did  not violate the rule laid  down in article  13 of the Convention and it
considers that, in the light of the information submitted to it, no  finding
of violation of any other provision of the Convention could be made.


[Done  in Spanish, French,  English and  Russian, the  Spanish version being
the original.]


Notes

  1/   In accordance with  rule 104 of  the Committee's  rules of procedure,
Mr.  Hugo  Lorenzo   did  not  take  part   in  the  consideration  of  this
communication or in the decision concerning it.

  2/  CAT/C/7/D/6/1990, decision on admissibility dated 12 November 1991.

Communication No. 14/1994

Submitted by:  B. M'B. [name deleted]

Alleged victims:  Faisal Barakat and family

State party:  Tunisia

Date of communication:  29 March 1994

  The  Committee  against  Torture,  established  under  article 17  of  the
Convention against Torture and Other  Cruel, Inhuman or  Degrading Treatment
or Punishment,

  Meeting on 5 May 1994,

  Adopts the following:


Decision on admissibility

1.   The  author  of  the communication  is  B. M'B.,  a Tunisian  national,
currently residing  in France  with  the status  of political  refugee.   He
submits the  communication on  behalf of  the  late Faisal  Barakat and  his
family.   He  claims  that  they are  victims  of violations  by Tunisia  of
articles  2, paragraph  1, 11,  12, 13  and 14,  of the  Convention  against
Torture.

The facts as submitted by the author:

2.1    The  author  states  that  the  alleged  victim,  Faisal  Barakat,  a
university student  in Tunisia,  was arrested in  the morning  of 8  October
1991 by  members of the  Intelligence Brigade of the  Nabeul National Guard.
Upon his arrest, he  was reportedly beaten  and towards noon he was  brought
to the quarters of the Brigade  where his "hands and feet  were bound and he
was suspended between two chairs on a big stick, with  his head down and the
soles of his feet  and his buttocks showing, in which is commonly called the
'roast  chicken' position.  The  blows and screams continued from then until
nightfall, when  officers threw  him out  into the  corridor after  bringing
another  prisoner  into  the  office.  Faisal  Barakat  was  in a  very  bad
condition and seemed to be dying.   The officers nevertheless prohibited the
30  or so prisoners present,  including his own brother,  Jamel, from giving
him assistance.  One half hour later, he seemed to have died."

2.2   On 17  October 1991,  the victim's  father was taken  to Tunis  by the
Chief  of the Traffic Police; he was informed that his son had died in a car
accident.   At the Charles Nicole Hospital, he was asked to identify his son
among the  many corpses in  the mortuary.  He noted that  his son's face was
disfigured and difficult to recognize.   He was not allowed to see the  rest
of the body.  He was  made to sign  a statement in which he recognized  that
his son  was killed in an  accident; at that time,  his other son Jamel  was
still  in  prison,  allegedly  as  a  hostage  to  prevent  his  father from
denouncing the circumstances of Faisal's death.  At the  funeral, the police
carried the coffin and supervised the ceremony; the coffin remained closed.

2.3   The author  submits  several medical  reports, based  on the  official
autopsy report, concluding that the victim died as  a result of the  torture
described above.
  2.4  The author asks the Committee to request Tunisia  to take measures to
protect  the  physical, moral  and  economic  security  of  his family,  the
victim's family and the witnesses and their families.

2.5   Finally,  the author  states  that  the International  Secretariat  of
Amnesty International in London has accepted  to provide evidence in support
of his communication.

2.6   By letters of 12 September 1994, 8 October 1994 and 26 April 1995, the
author expresses  concern over the safety  of witnesses  who reportedly have
been detained and questioned by Tunisian  authorities in connection with the
communication before the Committee.  Moreover,  members of the author's  and
the victim's families have been allegedly subjected to intimidation.

The State party's information:

3.1   By submissions of 9  August, 10 November 1994  and 18 April 1995,  the
State   party  denies   the  author's   allegations  and  claims   that  the
communication is inadmissible,  invoking rule  107 of the Committee's  rules
of procedure  and arguing that communications  must be  presented by victims
or  their representatives,  properly  designated  and  authorized.    It  is
contended that Mr.  B. M'B. has  not been  duly authorized by the  family to
present a claim before the Committee.

3.2   Moreover, the State  party argues that  it appears  that the author is
acting as a representative of Amnesty  International, and that he  therefore
has no standing under article 22 of the Convention.

Admissibility considerations:

4.1    Before considering  any  claims  contained  in  a communication,  the
Committee against Torture must decide whether  or not it is admissible under
article 22 of the Convention and its rules of procedure.

4.2   Article 22, paragraph  1, of the  Convention stipulates  that "a State
party to this Convention may at any time declare under this  article that it
recognizes  the  competence   of  the  Committee  to  receive  and  consider
communications from or on behalf of  individuals subject to its jurisdiction
who claim to be  victims of a  violation by a State party of  the provisions
of the Convention" (emphasis added).

4.3   Rule  107,  paragraph  1 (b),  of the  Committee's rules  of procedure
provides: "...  The  communication should  be  submitted  by the  individual
himself or by his  relatives or designated representatives  or by others  on
behalf  of an alleged  victim when  it appears that the  victim is unable to
submit  the  communication  himself,  and the  author  of  the communication
justifies his acting on the victim's behalf".

4.4   The  Committee has  examined  the  author's  arguments and  the  State
party's  objections  concerning  the  issue  of  standing  for  purposes  of
admissibility.  The Committee  finds that at this  stage, the author has not
submitted sufficient  proof to establish  his authority to act  on behalf of
the victim.

5.  The Committee therefore decides:

  (a)  That the communication is inadmissible;

   (b)  That the Committee may receive and  consider a new communication  on
this matter submitted by  any author, provided  that his standing to act  on
behalf of the alleged victim is properly established;

  (c)  That  the State party should be  again requested, as expressed in the
Committee's  decision of 21 April  1994, to ensure  that no  harm is done to
the author's family, the alleged victim's  family or the witnesses and their
families;

  (d)   That this  decision shall be communicated  to the author and  to the
State party.


[Done  in English, French, Russian  and Spanish, the English  text being the
original version.]

Communication No. 22/1995

Submitted by:  M. A. [name deleted] [represented by counsel]

Alleged victim:  The author

State party:  Canada

Date of communication:  14 December 1994

  The  Committee  against  Torture,  established  under  article 17  of  the
Convention against Torture and Other  Cruel, Inhuman or  Degrading Treatment
or Punishment,

  Meeting on 3 May 1995,

  Adopts the following:

Decision on admissibility

1.   The author of the communication is M. A., an Iranian citizen, currently
in  detention in Canada, who claims to be a victim  of a violation by Canada
of article 3 of the Convention against Torture.

2.   The  author  arrived in  Canada on  14  October  1991, and  was granted
refugee status on 24  May 1992.  However, following indications that he  was
actively  working for the  Iranian secret service, he  was declared a threat
to Canadian security and no longer has a right to remain in the country.

3.  The  author is in the  process of challenging the  decision by way  of a
reasonableness hearing  before a  judge of  the Federal  Court.  He  is also
challenging  the relevant  legislation before  the Constitutional  Court  of
Canada.

4.  Article 22,  paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the  Committee
from  considering  any  communication from  an  individual,  unless  it  has
ascertained  that  the  individual  has  exhausted  all  available  domestic
remedies;   this  rule  does  not  apply  if  it  is  established  that  the
application  of  domestic  remedies  has   been  or  would  be  unreasonable
prolonged or  would be unlikely  to bring  effective relief. In  the present
case,  the author has  invoked this exception,  arguing that  the chances of
success are  almost non-existent, in view of the prior  jurisprudence by the
Courts and  the process governing the  reasonableness hearing.   However, in
the circumstances  of the  instant case,  the Committee  considers that  the
author  has not shown  the existence  of special  circumstances which should
absolve  him from  exhausting domestic  remedies.    In this  connection the
Committee observes  that, in principle, it  is not within  the scope of  the
Committee's  competence to  evaluate the  prospects  of success  of domestic
remedies, but  only whether they are  proper remedies  for the determination
of the author's claims.

5.  The Committee against Torture therefore decides:

  (a)  That the communication is inadmissible;

  (b)   That this  decision shall  be communicated  to the  author and,  for
information, to the State party.

[Done in English,  French, Russian and Spanish,  the English text being  the
original version.]
  Communication No. 24/1995

Submitted by:  A. E. [name deleted] [represented by counsel]

Alleged victim:  The author

State party:  Switzerland

Date of communication:  20 February 1995

  The  Committee  against  Torture, established  under  article  17  of  the
Convention against  Torture and Other  Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment,

  Meeting on 2 May 1995,

  Adopts the following:

Decision on admissibility

1.  The author  of the communication is  a Nigerian citizen,  born in  1972,
who entered  Switzerland from  Italy in  1994, and  who has been  ordered to
leave  the country following  the dismissal  of his  application for refugee
status.   The author  claims that  his return to  Nigeria would  make him  a
victim of  a violation  of article  3 of  the Convention against  Torture by
Switzerland.

2.    Before  considering  any  claims  contained  in  a  communication, the
Committee against Torture must  decide whether or not it is admissible under
article 22 of the Convention.

3.  The author's request for recognition as a refugee was refused  on 20 May
1994.  His appeal against this  decision was dismissed on 5 October 1994. On
8 December 1994, the  author requested review  of the decision on the  basis
of  new documentary evidence, but  declined to pursue  the remedy because he
found the costs too high and doubted that he would be successful.

4.  Article 22,  paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the  Committee
from  considering  any  communication  from  an individual,  unless  it  has
ascertained  that  the  individual  has  exhausted  all  available  domestic
remedies;  this  rule  does  not  apply   if  it  is  established  that  the
application  of  domestic  remedies  has  been  or  would  be   unreasonably
prolonged  or  would  be  unlikely  to   bring  effective  relief.  In   the
circumstances  of this case, the Committee finds that the State party should
have an  opportunity to evaluate the  new evidence  before the communication
is submitted for examination under  article 22 of the Convention.  Moreover,
on  the basis of  the information  available, the  Committee cannot conclude
that the fee  required prevented the  author from exhausting  the remedy  or
that the review would be a priori ineffective.

5.  The Committee therefore decides:

  (a)  That the communication is inadmissible;

  (b)   That this  decision shall  be communicated  to the  author and,  for
information, to the State party.

[Done in English,  French, Russian and Spanish,  the English text  being the
original version.]
  ANNEX VI

Amended rules of procedure


  The  text of  rules  106 and  108, amended  by  the Committee  during  its
thirteenth session, reads as follows:


"Establishment of a working group and designation
of special rapporteurs

Rule 106

1.  The Committee may,  in accordance with rule 61,  set up a  working group
to meet shortly  before its sessions, or at any other convenient  time to be
decided by the  Committee in  consultation with  the Secretary-General,  for
the  purpose of  making  recommendations  to  the  Committee  regarding  the
fulfilment of  the conditions of admissibility  of communications laid  down
in article 22 of  the Convention and assisting  the Committee in  any manner
which the Committee may decide.

2.  The  working group  shall not  comprise more  than five  members of  the
Committee.  The working  group shall elect its own officers, develop its own
working methods and apply  as far as possible the  rules of procedure of the
Committee to its meetings.

3.   The Committee may designate special rapporteurs  from among its members
to assist in the handling of communications."


"Additional information, clarifications and observations

Rule 108

1.  The  Committee or  the working  group established  under rule  106 or  a
special  rapporteur designated  under rule  106, paragraph  3, may  request,
through the  Secretary-General, the State party  concerned or  the author of
the  communication to submit  additional written information, clarifications
of  observations  relevant   to  the  question   of  admissibility   of  the
communication.

2.  Requests referred to in paragraph 1 of this  rule which are addressed to
the State party shall be accompanied by the text of the communication.

3.  A  communication may not be declared  admissible unless the State  party
concerned has received the text of the communication  and has been given  an
opportunity to furnish information  or observations as provided in paragraph
1  of  this  rule,  including  information  relating  to  the  exhaustion of
domestic remedies.

4.   The  Committee  or the  working group  may  adopt a  questionnaire  for
requesting such additional information or clarifications.

5.  The  Committee or the working group  or a special rapporteur  designated
under rule 106, paragraph 3, shall indicate a time-limit  for the submission
of such  additional information  or clarification  with a  view to  avoiding
undue delay.

6.  If the time-limit is not respected  by the State party concerned  or the
author of a communication, the Committee or the working group may decide  to
consider the  admissibility of the communication  in the  light of available
information.

7.  If the State party concerned disputes the contention of the author of  a
communication that all available  domestic remedies have been exhausted, the
State party is required to give details of the  effective remedies available
to the alleged victims  in the particular circumstances  of the case  and in
accordance  with  the  provisions of  article 22,  paragraph  5 (b),  of the
Convention.

8.   Within such  time-limit as  indicated by  the Committee or  the working
group or a  special rapporteur designated under  rule 106, paragraph 3,  the
State party or the author of a communication  may be afforded an opportunity
to  comment on any  submission received  from the other party  pursuant to a
request  made under the present  rule.  Non-receipt  of such comments within
the established  time-limit should, as a  rule, not  delay the consideration
of the admissibility of the communication.

9.  In the course of  the consideration of the question of the admissibility

of  a  communication,  the  Committee  or  the working  group  or  a special
rapporteur  designated under rule  106, paragraph  3, may  request the State
party to take steps  to avoid possible irreparable  damage to the  person or
persons who claim to be victim(s) of the  alleged violation.  Such a request
addressed to  the State  party does  not imply  that any  decision has  been
reached on the question of the admissibility of the communication."

95-22291 (E)   310895--*9522291*ANNEX VII

List of documents for general distribution issued for the
Committee during the reporting period


A.  Thirteenth session

Symbol  Title

CAT/C/7/Add.16  Initial report of Peru

CAT/C/12/Add.4  Initial report of Liechtenstein

CAT/C/20/Add.3  Second period report of Chile

CAT/C/21/Add.1  Initial report of Monaco

CAT/C/21/Add.2  Initial report of Czech Republic

CAT/C/24/Add.1  Initial report of Mauritius

CAT/C/24/Add.2  Initial report of Morocco

CAT/C/25/Add.1  Second periodic report of the Netherlands

CAT/C/25/Add.2  Second periodic report of the Netherlands:  Antilles

CAT/C/25/Add.3  Second periodic report of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

CAT/C/25/Add.4  Second periodic report of Italy

CAT/C/27  Provisional agenda and annotations

CAT/C/SR.190-207     Summary  records  of  the  thirteenth  session  of  the
Committee


B.  Fourteenth session

CAT/C/12/Add.5  Initial report of Guatemala  

CAT/C/16/Add.5  Initial report of Jordan

CAT/C/24/Add.3  Initial report of Mauritius

CAT/C/25/Add.5  Second periodic report of the Netherlands:  Aruba

CAT/C/28Note by the Secretary-General listing initial reports due in 1995

CAT/C/29Note by  the Secretary-General listing  second periodic reports  due
in 1995

CAT/C/30Provisional agenda and annotations

CAT/C/SR.208-226    Summary  records  of  the  fourteenth  session  of   the
Committee

 

This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.

Date last posted: 18 December 1999 16:30:10
Comments and suggestions: esa@un.org