HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
consideration of reports submitted by states parties UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
MADAGASCAR
Information received from Madagascar on the implementation of the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/MDG/CO/3)
[3 March 2009]
Introduction
1.In response to the recommendations made by of the Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations (CCPR/C/MDG/CO/3) following consideration of the third periodic report of Madagascar on the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR/C/MDG/2005/3), the Malagasy Government has:
Undertaken a review of its legislation to bring its National Human Rights Commission back into operation (I)
Implemented the new law limiting the duration of remand detention in order to remedy the situation in respect of cases of long-term detention (II) and increase the resources provided to the Ministry of Justice so that it can fulfil its functions effectively (III)
I.RELAUNCHING THE OPERATION OF THE NATIONALHUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
2.In order to implement paragraph 7 of the Committee’s concluding observations, requesting that the State party should take measures in accordance with the Paris Principles, the Malagasy Government adopted Act No. 2008-012 of 17 July 2008 establishing the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), enacted and published in Official Journal No. 3218 of 27 October 2008 (pp. 7681 to 7686).
3.This reform has led to the following innovations:
(a)The replacement of the decree establishing the CNDH by an act which reflects the Malagasy Government’s wish to involve the parliament in restarting the work of the Commission;
(b)The shift from a decree to an act fosters a legal environment that is more stable and conducive to the sustainability of the CNDH;
(c)Incorporation of the basic provisions of the Paris Principles;
(d)Provisions relating to the independence of the CNDH, the possibility of investigating cases of human rights violations and the Commission’s organizational structure, including pluralist entities, have been incorporated in the act.
4.Before this matter was referred to parliament, meetings were convened with the participation of:
Church representatives
Members of the Office of the Ombudsman
Non-governmental human rights organizations
Former members of the CNDH
5.Relevant views that are in line with the Paris Principles have been incorporated in the act.
6.A multi-year plan, backed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), provided for resumption of the work of the CNDH, with Government support for the process of appointing and training future members, lobbying for adequate financial resources and fostering decentralization by setting up regional offices.
7.The appointment process is currently under way.
II. MEASURES TO STOP AND PREVENT THE CYCLICAL REAPPEARANCE OF LONG-TERM DETENTIONS AND TO PUNISH DELINQUENT OFFICIALS
8.Pursuant to paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Committee’s concluding observations, the Malagasy Government has adopted a substantive solution by way of the adoption and implementation of Act No. 2007-021 of 30 July 2007, amending and supplementing certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to remand detention and limiting the period thereof.
A. Limiting the period of remand detention
9.In relation to the preliminary judicial investigation:
(a)Maximum period of detention on remand for ordinary offences (article 3, paragraph 1 of Act No. 2007-021): “Without prejudice to the provisions of article 334, the period of validity of the committal order issued by an investigating judge or the chamber, provided for in article 223 bis, as well as that of the arrest warrant issued by the investigating judge in cases where the accused has been apprehended, is six (6) months for ordinary offences, and eight (8) months for serious offences”;
(b)Maximum period of detention on remand for serious offences (article 3, paragraph 1 of Act No. 2007-021): “Without prejudice to the provisions of article 334, the period of validity of the committal order issued by an investigating judge or the chamber provided for in article 223 bis, as well as that of the arrest warrant issued by the investigating judge in cases where the accused has been apprehended, is six (6) months for ordinary offences, and eight (8) months for serious offences”;
(c)T ime-limit for p rocessing by the Indictment s Chamber (article 3, paragraph 2 of Act No. 2007-021): “In the case of an order for transfer to the Indictments Chamber, the said Chamber must give a ruling within twelve (12) months of the date of the order”;
(d)Limitation of the writ of capias (article 3, paragraph 2 of Act No. 2007-021): “In the cases covered by articles 238, 290, 291 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to committal orders by the public prosecutor, transfer orders, committal orders by the investigating judge and writs of capias, the period of validity of the writ of capias is limited to thirty (30) months from the date of writs, subject to immediate enforcement”.
B. Penalties applicable to delinquent officials
10.According to article 5 of Act No. 2007-021 of 30 July 2007, amending and supplementing certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to remand detention: “Judges, registrars and government officials shall incur liability in case of non-compliance, whether wilful or resulting from simple negligence, of the time-limits provided for in the present Code, including those applicable to remand detention.”
III . TRENDS IN THE BUDGET OF THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (2006-2008)
A. Trends in the operational budget
2006 |
Rate of change 2006-2007 |
2007 |
Rate of change 2007-2008 |
2008 |
|
Salaries |
19 692 559 000 |
27.80% |
25 184 810 000 |
22.15% |
30 764 745 000 |
Total 1 |
19 692 559 000 |
25 184 810 000 |
30 764 745 000 |
||
Operations ( excluding salaries ) |
|||||
Judiciary |
5 706 556 000 |
54.80% |
8 838 410 000 |
0.82% |
8 911 253 000 |
of which: Criminal Justice Funds (FJC) |
868 800 000 |
245.30% |
3 000 000 000 |
0% |
3 000 000 000 |
P risons |
1 559 900 000 |
252.40% |
5 497 605 000 |
2.16% |
5 616 775 000 |
of which: “ F ood products ” |
698 900 000 |
269.10% |
2 579 665 000 |
35.67% |
3 500 000 000 |
C ompensation |
2 045 152 000 |
46.60% |
3 000 000 000 |
55.50% |
4 665 000 000 |
Legal and Registry Service Training College (ENMG)/Prison Administration Training College ( ENAP) |
680 000 000 |
361.40% |
3 138 000 000 |
0.02% |
3 137 371 000 |
Total 2 |
11 559 308 000 |
77.12% |
20 474 015 000 |
9.06% |
22 330 399 000 |
Grand total (1 + 2) |
31 251 867 000 |
53.80% |
45 658 825 000 |
16.53% |
53 095 144 000 |
B. Trends in the investment budget
Internal financing |
|||||
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
|||
Establishment and further development of courts and tribunals |
1 500 000 000 |
20% |
1 800 000 000 |
23.90% |
2 230 202 000 |
Internal security |
1 500 000 000 |
20% |
1 800 000 000 |
100.60% |
3 611 420 000 |
C oordination programme support |
150 000 000 |
-33.30% |
100 000 000 |
65.30% |
165 375 000 |
Strengthening of monitoring capacity |
200 000 000 |
0% |
200 000 000 |
33.70% |
267 590 000 |
Audit court |
|||||
Public Investment Programme (PIP), R egion |
905 382 000 |
||||
Total |
3 350 000 000 |
16.41% |
3 900 000 000 |
84.10% |
7 179 969 000 |
External financing |
|||||
0 |
500 000 000 |
1 511 732 000 |
|||
Grand total |
34 601 867 000 |
44.60% |
50 058 825 000 |
23.42% |
61 786 845 000 |
-----