Note: The 46 States parties do not include the 62 States having achieved signature or succession to signature, but not having achieved ratification of, or accession or succession to, the OPCAT.

Annex II

Members of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture

Expiration of Term

Ms. Silvia Casale December 2012

Mr. Mario Luis CoriolanoDecember 2012

Ms. Marija Definis GojanovićDecember 2010

Mr. Zdenek HajekDecember 2012

Mr. Zbigniew LasocikDecember 2012

Mr. Hans Draminsky Petersen December 2010

Mr. Victor Manuel Rodriguez-Rescia December 2012

Mr. Miguel Sarre IguinizDecember 2010

Mr. Wilder Tayler SoutoDecember 2010

Mr. Leopoldo Torres BoursaultDecember 2010

Mr. Rodriguez-Rescia is the current President of the SPT, with Messrs Coroliano and Petersen as Vice Presidents, as from February 2009. From February 2007 to February 2009, Ms Casale was President of the SPT, with Messrs Petersen and Rodriguez-Rescia as Vice Presidents.

Annex III

Visits carried out in 2008-2009

1.First periodic visit to Benin: 17-26 May 2008

Places of deprivation of liberty visited by the delegation:

Police facilities

(a)Police stations

Commissariat Central de Cotonou

Commissariat Central de Porto-Novo

Commissariat de police de Dantokpa

Commissariat de police de Dodji

Commissariat d’arrondissement de Ouando

(b)Gendarmeries

Compagnie de Gendarmerie de Cotonou - Brigade Territoriale de Godomey

Brigade de Gendarmerie de Zogbodomey

Brigade Territoriale et de Recherches de Porto-Novo

Brigade Territoriale et de Recherches de Bohicon

Brigade de Gendarmerie de Séhoué

Prisons

Prison civile de Cotonou

Prison civile d’Akpro-Missérété

Prison civile d’Abomey

Other institutions

Palais de Justice d’Abomey

2.First periodic visit to Mexico: 27 August-12 September 2008

Places of deprivation of liberty visited by the delegation:

Police facilities

In the Federal District:

National Federal Preventive Custody Unit Federal Agency for Holding Cells (Calle Liverpool)Agency No. 50

In Jalisco:

Ministry of Public Security, holding cellsPreventive-custody unit, 2750 Avenida Cruz del Sur Office of the State Attorney-General (Calle 14)Principal holding unit, Municipal Police

In Nuevo León:

State Investigation Agency, Office of the Attorney-General (“Gonzalito”)Alamey Municipal Police

In Oaxaca:

Municipal Preventive Police Office of the Attorney-General, holding cellsElite Police Force (preventive custody)

Prisons

In the Federal District:

Oriente prison

In Mexico State:

Molino Flores Prevention and Social Rehabilitation Centre

In Jalisco:

Prevention and Rehabilitation Centre for WomenState of Jalisco Pretrial Detention Centre, Puente GrandePuente Grande Social Rehabilitation Centre

In Oaxaca:

Santa María Ixcotel prisonValles Centrales regional prison

Military establishments

Military prison No. 1, Federal District

Juvenile centre

Monterrey Secure Unit for the Rehabilitation of Juvenile Offenders Department for the Enforcement of Measures for Juveniles, Oaxaca Guardianship Council

Psychiatric facilities, with a focus on conditions

In Oaxaca

Annex to Zimatlán prison

Cruz del Sur psychiatric hospital

3.First periodic visit to Paraguay: 10-16 March 2009

Places of deprivation of liberty visited by the delegation:

Police facilities

Jefatura de Policía Metropolitana (Asunción):

Comisaría 3°

Comisaría 5°

Comisaría 9°

Comisaría 12°

Comisaría 20°

Comisaría de Mujeres

Jefatura de Policía Central:

Comisaría 1° de San Lorenzo

Comisaría 9° de Limpio

Jefatura de Policía Amambay:

Comisaría 3° de Barrio Obrero, Pedro Juan Caballero

Jefatura de Policía San Pedro:

Comisaría 8º de San Estanislao

Agrupación Especializada de la Policía Nacional

Prisons

Penitenciaria Nacional de TacumbúPenitenciaria Regional de Pedro Juan Caballero

Psychiatric facilities

Hospital Neuropsiquiátrico

Annex IV

Programme of the work of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture in the field for 2009

Visit to Paraguay :(first half of 2009)

Visit to Honduras:(second half of 2009)

Visit to Cambodia:(second half of 2009)

In-country engagement in Estonia:(during 2009)

Annex V

Participation of the members of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture in Optional Protocol-related activities

Africa

Southern African Region

Regional Conference on the OPCAT, organized by the Bristol University OPCAT Project with APT, FIACAT, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights. Cape Town, April 2008. (Silvia Casale, Zdenek Hajek, and Victor Rodriguez Rescia).

Americas

Central American Region

Regional Central American workshop on strategies and challenges of the ratification and implementation of the OPCAT. Tegucigalpa, Honduras, October 2008. (Hans Draminsky Petersen, Victor Rodriguez Rescia and Mario Coriolano).

International seminar on “The OPCAT and Federal States: Challenges and possible Solutions”, organized by the APT, CEJIL, la Secretaria de Derechos Humanos, Ministerio de Justicia, Seguridad y Derechos Humanos, Presidencia de la Nación, el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio Internacional y Culto, Presidencia de la Nación. Buenos Aires, September 2008. (Mario Coriolano, Miguel Sarre Iguinez and Patrice Gillibert, SPT Secretary).

Middle East and North Africa

Morocco

Regional conference on OPCAT, organized by the APT. February, 2009. (Silvia Casale).

Asia-Pacific

Cambodia

Workshop on OPCAT, organized by RCT. January, 2009. (Hans Draminsky Petersen).

Europe

OSCE region

OSCE seminar on monitoring. Ankara, May 2008. (Marija Definis Gojanovic and Zdenek Hajek).

Human Dimension Meeting on prevention of torture, death penalty and combating terrorism, organized by the OSCE/ODIHR. Warsaw, October 2008. (Zbigniew Lasocik).

OPCAT in the OSCE region: What it means and how to make it work. Regional conference organized by the Bristol OPCAT Project with the OSCE/ODIHR. Prague, November 2008. (Silvia Casale, Zdenek Hajek).

Kyrgyz Republic Civil Society Seminar organized by the European Union. Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, March 2009. (Zdenek Hajek).

Ireland

Roundtable meeting on the establishment of an NPM, organized by the Irish Human Rights Commission. Dublin, May 2008. (Hans Draminsky Petersen).

Poland

Lecture on prevention of torture for lawyers, organized by Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. Poland, October 2008. (Zbigniew Lasocik).

Republic of Moldova

Workshop for the Moldovan NPM, organized by the APT under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Chisinau, January 2009. (Zbigniew Lasocik).

Serbia

Seminar on prevention of torture in Serbia, organized by the Protector of Citizens of Serbia, the Council of Europe and the OSCE Mission for Serbia. Belgrade. March, 2009. (Marija Definis Gojanovic).

Spain

Inaugural Conference on Implementation of the National Preventive Mechanism. Barcelona, March 2009. (Silvia Casale).

Annex VI

Optional Protocol Contact Group

Amnesty International (AI)

Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT)

Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT)

Bristol University OPCAT project

Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (MDAC)

Penal Reform International (PRI)

Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims (RCT)

World Organization against Torture (OMCT)

Annex VII

Analysis of the Istanbul Protocol

Introduction

1.The Istanbul Protocol is a United Nations manual on medical and psychological documentation of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and its application in the process of investigation and legal proceedings in the context of the struggle against impunity and the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. The following presentation proceeds from the medical perspective.

2.Considering the validity and usefulness of the Istanbul Protocol as a soft law instrument, the SPT is of the view that States should promote, disseminate and implement the Protocol as a legal instrument to document torture cases of people deprived of their liberty through medical and psychological reports drafted under adequate technical standards. These reports can not only constitute important evidence in torture cases but, most importantly, they can contribute to the prevention of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture notes that it is crucial that doctors and other health professionals be effectively independent from police and penitentiary institutions, both in their structure - human and financial resources - and function - appointment, promotion and remuneration.

3.The SPT is of the opinion that since the Istanbul Protocol is a United Nations document, the provisions in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment must be a minimum standard for the definition of torture. Article 1 of the Convention states that “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted intentionally …”.

4.Thus, extension of the definition by e.g. adding that the victim’s life or function of vital organs must have been endangered is inappropriate.

5.The Istanbul Protocol gives detailed guidance for medical/psychological professionals for the best standard of the examination of a person who alleges to have been tortured or ill-treated.

6.The basic principle in the appraisal of the veracity of allegations of torture and ill-treatment is to inquire into:

(a)The medical history and the history of torture;

(b)The subjective state of health/presence of symptoms during torture and in the ensuing period of time; and

(c)Perform a profound medical and psychological examination, and if necessary refer the person to specialised examinations like various kinds of scans;

(d)In conclusion, the degree of concordance/agreement between those elements is determined.

7.The result of the medical/psychological examination can be graduated from, e.g.: exposure to torture beyond any reasonable doubt; high level of agreement; or partial agreement between the various categories of information - with or without objective signs of pathologies (physical and or mental); to disagreement.

8.However, a number of reservations should be taken into consideration, e.g., impaired memory of the victim and psychical inhibitions, ailments that are prevalent in many victims of torture.

9.The SPT notes that with the methods of torture normally used in times of peace, physical marks are most often unspecific or even absent. The presence, the nature and degree of severity of physical and psychological symptoms/illness after torture vary, depending not only on the nature of the torture, but also, e.g. on the physical and psychological constitution and background of the victim and the existence of co-morbidity.

10.Thus, the SPT is of the opinion that often existence of torture can neither be proved nor disproved through a medical/psychological examination carried out according to the Istanbul Protocol.

Contextualization of the Istanbul Protocol

11.In the fight against impunity the Istanbul Protocol is a useful tool in the appraisal of allegations of torture. The result of the medical/psychological examination is a piece of evidence together with other evidence.

12.The examination can never identify the torturers. This would rely on other evidence.

13.In a court case the judge may decide that the whole of the evidence is not sufficient to convict implicated officers.

14.The SPT notes that acquittal of an implicated officer does not necessarily mean that the statements of torture were false, but only that the whole of the evidence was not strong enough to lead to conviction. The decision of the judge is based on the sum of evidence on two levels:

Whether torture had happened

Whether the evidence was strong enough to convict particular persons

15.The SPT finds it necessary that judges, lawyers and public prosecutors who deal with cases of possible torture have basic knowledge of the principles of the Istanbul Protocol so that they can assess compliance of the examination with the principles of the Protocol and understand the conclusion of the medical/psychological examination and the basis for it.

16.However, the final conclusion of the examination should only be contested by medical/psychological experts with reference to objective deficiencies and errors.

17.Unless the medical/psychological experts conclude that there were gross disagreements between the various pieces of information, which could not be ascribed to e.g. the mental state of health of the complainant, a court acquittal of accused officers should never be taken as an indication that the allegations were false, only that the evidence was not sufficient to lead to conviction.

18.In the prevention of torture the Istanbul Protocol can be an important tool provided that it is contextualized to the daily activities of doctors working in places of risk, first of all those doctors who work in institutions where detainees are held during the first phase of the criminal investigation.

19.The United Nations Principle 24 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment of 1988states that “a proper medical examination shall be offered to a detainee or imprisoned person as promptly as possible after his admission to the place of detention”.

20.In many countries this principle is implemented. This routine medical examination should:

Be carried out according to a format

The format should include all the items below and should be filled in by the doctor with the consent of the detainee

A medical history

Allegations of exposure to recent violence and ill-treatment by the police or other persons

A description of present health/subjective symptoms at the time of examination; and

A thorough medical examination with an inspection of the whole surface of the body

On the basis of this the doctor should assess whether alleged torture/severe ill-treatment could have happened

21.In the examination and the assessment of the possibility of exposure to torture/severe ill‑treatment the medical doctor should have a proactive attitude.

22.The medical doctor working in police and detention facilities has a key role and should have training in the principles of documenting and reporting torture and ill-treatment.

23.There should be clear lines of command on when, how and to whom he should report cases of alleged torture and ill-treatment. The first step in the doctor’s reporting should be to send a copy of the report to his superior - with the consent of the detainee.

24.If no consent from the detainee exists, the doctor should take out any information that could identify the detainee and report to a central register, cited below.

25.The superior should decide - together with the general prosecutor - whether there are grounds for a disciplinary inquiry or a criminal investigation by independent bodies.

26.The superior should report the case and the decision to inquire or investigate to the ministry responsible for the police and to the central register.

27.Not only in cases of allegations of torture, but also in cases where the detainee have remarkable lesions or a high number of lesions without allegations of torture/ill-treatment, the doctor should note the detainee’s account of their origin in the medical file and send a copy of the medical file to his superior.

28.Such reports should be compiled in the data base below and classified as a case of violence of other than torture or of uncertain origin.

29.In all cases where the doctor assesses that torture or severe ill-treatment could have happened, the detainee should be offered a thorough medical/psychological examination by trained experts according to the Istanbul Protocol to take place within a time limit that permits the experts to assess superficial physical lesions possibly caused by torture/severe ill-treatment, i.e. within a week.

30.The SPT is of the opinion that all allegations of torture and severe ill-treatment, and cases of multi-traumatization of uncertain origin cited above, should be registered in a data base with information about - among other items:

Hour date and place of alleged ill-treatment

The security body implicated and if possible characteristics of involved officers

Place of apprehension and detention

Nature of the allegations

Most important findings and the conclusion of the medical examination by the doctor in the police facility

Most important findings and the conclusion of the expert medical/psychological examination

Details of an inquiry and the result hereof

31.The SPT is of the opinion that a proactive compliance with such a programme by doctors in police and detention facilities would have a considerable impact on preventing torture. The proactive attitude to examining cases of possible torture and ill-treatment should be made known to all police officers and the implementation would deter many officers from resorting to torture and ill-treatment.

32.A database as outlined would be a useful tool for the authorities to analyse the problem of torture including identifying risk factors, in order to better prevent torture and ill-treatment.

Final remarks

33.The SPT underlines that the number of complaints of torture is not a reliable indicator of the real prevalence of the problem. Complicated complaint procedures and risk of reprisals may diminish the number drastically.

34.The SPT notes that one of the objectives of torture is to break down the victim, e.g. to make him confess to a crime or to give information. It follows that most victims of torture do not have the necessary mental strength to enter into bureaucratic technicalities and lengthy procedures with interviews lasting several days. It also follows that the doctor working in police facilities apart from being proactive should always - on an informed basis - respect a possible victim of torture’s wish not to be referred to expert examination and an eventual wish to have information for the database sent in a manner that cannot identify the detainee directly.

35.In police custody a complainant should be safeguarded against direct reprisals from implicated officers through the maintenance of medical confidentiality.

36.In the system of justice the complainant should be safeguarded against reprisals, e.g. charges with defamation of authorities in case the medical/psychological examination fails to positively demonstrate exposure to torture beyond “any reasonable doubt” (see classification above).

-----