Committee against Torture

Forty-third session

Summary record of the first part (public)* of the 924th meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Friday, 20 November 2009, at 10 a.m.

Chairperson:Mr. Grossman

Contents

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention (continued)

Reports to be considered at the forty-fourth and forty-fifth sessions

Organizational and other matters (continued)

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

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention (continued)

Reports to be considered at the forty-fourth and forty-fifth sessions

The Chairperson invited the Secretary of the Committee to read out the list of State party reports to be considered at the Committee’s forty-fourth and forty-fifth sessions.

Mr. Nataf (Secretary of the Committee) said that the Committee would consider the following reports at its forty-fourth session from 26 April to 15 May 2010: the fifth periodic report of Austria, with Mr. Gallegos Chiriboga as First Country Rapporteur and Mr. Grossman as Second Country Rapporteur; the fourth periodic report of Cameroon, with Ms. Sveaass as First Country Rapporteur and Mr. Gaye as Second Country Rapporteur; the sixth periodic report of France, with Mr. Grossman as First Country Rapporteur and Ms. Belmir as Second Country Rapporteur; the second periodic report of Jordan, with Ms. Gaer as First Country Rapporteur and Mr. Gallegos Chiriboga as Second Country Rapporteur; the third periodic report of Liechtenstein, with Mr. Wang Xuexian as First Country Rapporteur and Ms. Kleopas as Second Country Rapporteur; the initial report of the Syrian Arab Republic, with Mr. Mariño Menéndez as First Country Rapporteur and Ms. Sveaass as Second Country Rapporteur; and the sixth periodic report of Switzerland, with Mr. Gaye as First Country Rapporteur and Mr. Mariño Menéndez as Second Country Rapporteur.

Ms. Belmir said that it would be helpful if the Committee had access to the jurisprudence of regional courts. As Second Country Rapporteur for France, for example, she wished to familiarize herself with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Chairperson said that the University of Utrecht regularly published a compendium of European jurisprudence.

Mr. Nataf (Secretary of the Committee) said that the Committee would consider the following reports at its forty-fifth session from 1 to 19 November 2010: the fourth to sixth periodic reports of Ecuador, with Mr. Grossman as First Country Rapporteur and Mr. Mariño Menéndez as Second Country Rapporteur; the third periodic report of Turkey, with Ms. Sveaass as First Country Rapporteur and Ms. Gaer as Second Country Rapporteur; the initial report of Ethiopia, with Mr. Gaye as First Country Rapporteur and Ms. Belmir as Second Country Rapporteur; the initial report of Ireland, with Mr. Gallegos Chiriboga as First Country Rapporteur and Ms. Kleopas as Second Country Rapporteur; the initial report of Mongolia, with Mr. Grossman as First Country Rapporteur and Ms. Kleopas as Second Country Rapporteur; the second periodic report of Cambodia, with Ms. Sveaass as First Country Rapporteur and Ms. Gaer as Second Country Rapporteur; and the second to fifth periodic reports of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Mr. Gallegos Chiriboga as First Country Rapporteur and Mr. Wang Xuexian as Second Country Rapporteur. The Committee would not discuss lists of issues for those reports at its forty-fourth session because they were all either initial reports or reports submitted under the new optional reporting procedure and prepared on the basis of the list of issues sent to the State party in advance.

Organizational and other matters (continued)

The Chairperson invited members to propose matters to be included in the agenda for the next session.

Ms. Sveaass said that the Committee regularly referred to the Istanbul Protocol on the investigation and documentation of torture and ill-treatment in its dialogue with States parties. She had been asked by Committee members to organize a meeting with experts on the Protocol. The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT) organized training programmes on the Protocol in many parts of the world. According to a member who had been involved in drafting the Protocol in the 1990s, the Council had just completed a training programme for 1,000 doctors, 70 judges and 1,000 prosecutors. The IRCT was willing to cover the costs of a visit to the Committee at its next session by a Turkish forensic physician to present its work and answer the Committee’s questions.

With regard to the assessment of the impact of training courses relating to the documentation of torture, she referred to a project involving the examination of medical files to ascertain whether any improvements had been recorded over the past five years.

The Chairperson expressed enthusiastic support for the proposal to invite a representative of the IRCT to meet the Committee. He would see whether the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights could also attend the meeting. The Istanbul Protocol was an extremely important instrument that provided clear guidelines for action by doctors, lawyers and other persons dealing with cases of torture and ill-treatment.

A discussion of the impact of training would also help the Committee to develop an assessment framework. On behalf of the Committee he thanked Ms. Sveaass for her initiatives.

The public part of the meeting rose at 10.25 a.m.