Committee against Torture

Sixtieth session

Summary record of the 1514th meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Monday, 24 April 2017, at 3 p.m.

Chair:Mr. Modvig

Contents

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

Second and third periodic reports of Bahrain (continued)

T he meeting was called to order at 3 p.m.

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

Second and third periodic reports of Bahrain (continued) (CAT/C/BHR/2 and 3; CAT/C/BHR/Q/3; CAT/C/BHR/QPR/2)

At the invitation of the Chair, the delegation of Bahrain took places at the Committee table.

Mr. Aldosari (Bahrain) said that Bahrain was a regional and international model in terms of economic, social and cultural rights. In 2016 it had ranked first in the Gulf region in the Heritage Foundation’s index of economic freedom, and in 2015 it had ranked 45th in the world as a whole in the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index. It had also ranked highly in 2015 in the women’s Economic Participation and Opportunity sub-index of the World Economic Forum. Women accounted for 15 per cent of the members of the Chamber of Deputies and the Shura Council, 9 per cent of the judiciary, 52 per cent of employees in the public sector and 32 per cent of employees in the private sector. The Government’s National Development Strategy (2015-2018) focused on the promotion of human rights in order to achieve welfare, development, security and justice in Bahrain.

The Kingdom was currently promulgating legislation aimed at protecting human rights, prohibiting torture and promoting equality. The King had issued a Royal Decree the previous day on the establishment of a sharia-based judicial committee composed of senior judges and clerics to draft a standard family code for the country’s Sunni and Shia citizens. New legislation governing the press and the electronic media and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals was also being enacted.

Regional terrorism and extremism posed major challenges for Bahrain. Life-threatening violence and terrorist acts undermined the country’s stability. For instance, a police officer had been killed and several others injured in an attack on the Reform and Rehabilitation Centre in Jaw Prison. Security personnel tasked with attending to the welfare of inmates had also been targeted.

Some NGOs exploited human rights issues to achieve narrow-minded political aims, adopting a reckless sectarian approach that jeopardized the enjoyment of human rights. For instance, none of those NGOs had condemned the incident in Jaw Prison and they had failed to support the promulgation of a new family code. Some of the NGOs that reported to the Committee lacked credibility and were not supported by Bahraini society, which disputed their allegations. Many of them had no representatives in Bahrain and adopted a dubious approach based on biased political and religious views. The Committee should therefore be wary of such groundless allegations.

Turning to the questions raised by the Committee, he said that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had not yet received an invitation from the legislative authorities to be forwarded to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Kingdom was currently implementing the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry pertaining to torture and would issue the invitation in light of developments in that regard.

With regard to allegations of impunity for acts of torture, he said that articles 208 and 232 of the Criminal Code defined the crime of torture and a Police Code of Conduct had been adopted with a view to prosecuting perpetrators of unlawful acts. Claims of torture or ill-treatment were investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman, the Commission for the Rights of Prisoners and Detainees, the Special Investigation Unit and the National Human Rights Institution. Five units in the Ministry of the Interior were tasked with preventing torture and ill-treatment: the Department of Internal Investigations, the Military Courts Department, the Inspector General, the Department of Legal Affairs, and the Department of Preventive Security. In addition, the Office of the Ombudsman had established a hotline for complaints. Such developments had generated awareness and confidence among the general public, and the allegations of impunity were totally unfounded.

Visits to detention facilities were conducted by the Commission for the Rights of Prisoners and Detainees, the Office of the Ombudsman, sentence enforcement judges, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the National Human Rights Institution. Bahrain had also signed a memorandum of understanding with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) concerning visits to reform and rehabilitation centres and pretrial detention facilities. The visits had led to recommendations concerning material and health-care aspects of the facilities, procedures for filing complaints, educational and training programmes, the construction of new facilities and the mounting of security monitoring cameras. Representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and Amnesty International had also visited the reform and rehabilitation centres.

Bahrain had benefited from international expertise in establishing protective mechanisms within its comprehensive monitoring system. It had also studied the Optional Protocol to the Convention with a view to establishing a national preventive mechanism and was currently considering its ratification. The Commission for the Rights of Prisoners and Detainees had been established on the basis of the criteria enshrined in the Optional Protocol.

With regard to the establishment of an additional body to receive individual complaints, such action depended on a State party’s voluntary declaration that it recognized the Committee’s competence under article 22 of the Convention.

The allegations concerning Mr. Matar and Mr. Ghuloom had been investigated, their statements had been heard, the witnesses had been questioned and both complaints had been dismissed for lack of evidence.

A Civil Settlement Initiative aimed at compensating victims of the events of February and March 2011 had been based on the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry. The amount of compensation had been determined by assessing the relationship between the offence committed and the damage suffered, including disability, without prejudice to the right of persons who rejected the settlement to resort to the civil courts.

Article 19 (d) of the Constitution strictly prohibited physical and mental torture and required coerced statements and confessions to be declared null and void. Article 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibited judges from basing their judgment on any statement made by accused persons or witnesses under coercion or intimidation. Article 5 of the Police Code of Conduct required law enforcement officers to respect the rights and interests of all citizens and residents, and to treat them with decency and impartiality and without discrimination on grounds of race, sex, religion, political beliefs or social status. Allegations that law enforcement officers used ill-treatment to obtain confessions were therefore unfounded.

The report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry contained 26 recommendations, including a comprehensive governmental reform programme and measures targeting security, the judiciary, the Public Prosecution Service, and employment, information and educational policies. The results achieved six years later demonstrated the seriousness and credibility of the Government’s action: about 4,600 dismissed employees had been reinstated; study grants had been restored to more than 500 students; more than 2,100 detainees had been released without charge; about 1,500 charges filed by national security courts had been dropped; 52 cases involving torture and ill-treatment had been referred to the criminal courts and disciplinary action had been taken in three cases; more than US$ 26 million had been allocated as compensation to victims; all destroyed places of worship had been rebuilt; more than 1,000 men and women had been recruited to the police force from all sectors of society, and millions of dollars had been allocated for the training of 5,000 police officers and 50 per cent of the judiciary. In addition, the Kingdom had established the Special Investigation Unit, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Office of the Inspector General in the National Security Agency, and the Commission for the Rights of Prisoners and Detainees. The definition of the offence of torture had been amended and the application of the statute of limitations thereto had been abolished. Special protection was provided for witnesses, experts and victims. The provisions governing the National Human Rights Institution had been amended to align it with the Paris Principles. According to Professor Cherif Bassiouni, the Chair of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, the objectives of the Commission had been achieved.

Social awareness had been enhanced by the introduction of human rights into educational curricula and the media, the establishment of the Human Rights Clinic in the University of Bahrain, and the establishment of a human rights diploma in the Royal Police Academy which had secured international recognition by the Edexcel examination board.

Mr. Al- Ma ’ awdah (Bahrain) said that the Government, when implementing the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, had sought the advice of the British Independent Police Complaints Commission in establishing the Office of the Ombudsman. A distinction had been drawn between complex complaints and simple complaints. The Department of Internal Investigations in the Ministry of the Interior examined simple complaints and the Office of the Ombudsman examined complex complaints. The Office was administratively and financially independent and never consulted any external body before taking its decisions. Decree No. 27 of 2012, which established the Office of the Ombudsman, granted it wide-ranging authority to seek evidence and documents and to question members of the law enforcement agencies or civil servants.

The Office had received 908 complaints in the year 2014/15, which represented an increase of 375 per cent compared with 2013/14. It had received 992 complaints in 2015/16 and 1,100 to date in 2016/17. The Ombudsman was entitled to receive complaints from citizens, residents or visitors to Bahrain against any person employed by the Ministry of the Interior. However, a large number of citizens applied to the Ombudsman for assistance rather than to lodge a complaint regarding an offence. The Office had therefore decided, with a view to gaining public trust, to establish a new service specializing in requests for assistance. Many of the persons seeking assistance requested additional visits to family members who had been arrested or imprisoned, for instance to ascertain whether medical services had been provided.

Mr. Aldosari (Bahrain) said that, as the Office of the Ombudsman did not have judicial powers, it forwarded allegations of torture or ill-treatment to the Public Prosecution Service, the courts of the Ministry of the Interior or the police. Of the 45 complaints mentioned in the State party’s reports, 1 had been sent to the Public Prosecution Service, 29 to the Special Investigation Unit and 15 to police courts. The Office of the Ombudsman did not have a doctor in residence, but it had signed a memorandum of understanding with the national medical body to provide for one if needed. Meanwhile, the Special Investigation Unit provided psychological assistance to victims when necessary, and had even called on the services of a psychiatric hospital to treat an individual in one particular case.

The Special Investigation Unit was responsible for investigating all alleged cases of death, torture and ill-treatment during the events of 2011. Thus far, it had referred 52 cases to the criminal courts, charging 101 members of the Public Security Forces, including 17 officers. The cases had included 9 deaths, 6 incidents of torture and 38 incidents of ill-treatment. Sentences ranging from one month to seven years of imprisonment had been issued in 25 cases, and 30 accused persons had been found innocent and released. The Unit had appealed against 20 verdicts and had sought to ensure as much fairness as possible. In cases where the Unit had obtained insufficient evidence, it had referred the complaints in question to the competent authorities so as to ensure disciplinary accountability.

All the cases associated with the Jaw Prison riots had been referred to the Special Investigation Unit, and a substantial number of investigations were under way. The doctors working on those cases had asked that the issuance of final reports should be postponed pending the issuance of their final decisions as to whether victims had suffered any permanent disability.

When the Office of the Ombudsman received a complaint of torture or ill-treatment that was backed by sufficient evidence, it forwarded the complaint directly to the Special Investigation Unit but continued to investigate its administrative aspects and to safeguard the alleged victim. In the event of a sufficiently substantiated allegation of torture or ill-treatment of a prison inmate by a member of the security forces, the security official in question was transferred to a unit having no contact with inmates until his case was decided upon.

Having determined that preventive mechanisms were the best approach to the matter, as provided for in the Optional Protocol to the Convention, Bahrain had established the Commission for the Rights of Prisoners and Detainees to conduct unannounced visits to prisons and temporary detention centres in order to report on the conditions therein. The Commission, whose membership included representatives of civil society organizations, had made 12 such visits in the previous two years.

Ms. Isa (Bahrain) said that torture perpetrated by State or non-State officials was an offence under the law. Under the Criminal Code, those found guilty of torture were punishable by a prison sentence of 3 to 15 years; the penalty was increased to life imprisonment in cases where torture resulted in death.

The increased threat of terrorism in the region had made it necessary to extend the jurisdiction of military courts. Previously, pursuant to article 105 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of such courts could be extended only under a state of emergency. Given the rise in terrorism, however, that article had been amended to allow for the extension of such jurisdiction without recourse to a state of emergency. As a result, illegal militias that committed acts of violence against the State could be brought to justice.

Persons who claimed to have been victims of torture could file complaints with the National Human Rights Institution. Under Act No. 26 of 2014, the Institution was competent to deal with complaints of violations and to refer them to the relevant authorities for follow-up.

Bahrain was in compliance with article 3 of the Convention, having acceded to the League of Arab States agreement on extradition, which prohibited the extradition of individuals accused of political offences. It was also committed to compliance with the relevant provisions of the Joint Security Agreement of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Legislation governing citizenship was fully in line with international standards. However, in the case of persons accused of terrorist acts, judges could, pursuant to the Act on the Protection of Society from Terrorist Acts, hand down sentences that affected citizenship.

The Supreme Judicial Council had created a legal body to review the sentences imposed in the context of the events of 2011. As a result of that review, 1,622 cases had been referred to the Public Prosecution Service and 334 persons had been released on grounds of freedom of expression. Thus, the judicial authorities had acted transparently and in line with international standards and had fully respected the rights of the accused. Details on the number of people detained in the context of the events of 2011 could be found on the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry Follow-up Unit website (www.biciunit.bh/en/home.html).

As stated in the second periodic report (CAT/C/BHR/2), Decree-Law No. 10 of 2001 and Decree-Law No. 56 of 2002 provided for amnesty only in respect of offences committed prior to their enactment, and compensation could only be provided within the context of those decrees.

With regard to the implementation of international conventions and their compatibility with domestic law, the Constitution gave international standards a status equal to that of domestic law, thereby avoiding any contradiction between international and domestic provisions.

Under article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, except in cases of emergency, the Public Prosecution Service was not authorized to question an accused person unless a lawyer was present. Moreover, legislation did not allow for corporal punishment.

The system of government was based on the separation of powers, and the Constitution upheld the independence of the judiciary. There was no possibility of interference with the proper functioning of the justice system; because the integrity of judges was the very foundation for rights and the law, guarantees had been established in respect of judges and sentencing. Judges could not run for political office and the judiciary was overseen by the Supreme Judicial Council, for which the establishment of an independent budget was sought through amendments that had been introduced.

Mr. Bunajma (Bahrain) said that the Department of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of the Interior had supervisory functions and was authorized to receive complaints and oversee the actions of other departments within the Ministry. The Ministry’s Department of Internal Investigations had adopted very progressive policies on the protection of human rights, and a department had been set up to ensure that national and international laws governing police work were enforced, including through the receipt of complaints. The Ministry took all necessary legal measures in connection with complaints.

All appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure that the fact that prisons were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior did not adversely affect the rights of persons deprived of liberty. Measures to enforce Act No. 18 of 2014 on correctional facilities, including inspections and register audits, were the responsibility of the Court of Cassation, the Attorney General, the President of the Court of Appeal and the sentence enforcement judge, in accordance with their respective areas of activity. It was worth noting that, under the Act, prisons were not places of punishment but, rather, of reform and rehabilitation. Accordingly, agreements had been signed with the Ministry of Education to provide education and vocational training to inmates with a view to helping them find employment upon release. Inmates were entitled to medical services and underwent regular check-ups. Where recommended by the prison doctor, an inmate could be referred for treatment to an external facility, either in-country or abroad. Prisoners could file complaints in person, via a hotline or through a complaint box; complaints were assessed and then forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman for legal action.

Following the attack on the Dry Dock Detention Centre and the ensuing escape of inmates and murder of a police officer, special security measures had been taken inside and outside the facility, including checkpoints restricting entry into and exit from the compound, in order to protect the population living in the surrounding area without undermining the rights of the inmates. Harsh penalties had been imposed on some of the individuals involved in the incident.

Ms. Abdulrahim(Bahrain) said that juvenile care homes were administered by a subdepartment of the Department of Women’s Corrections. Their purpose was to help juvenile delinquents overcome the factors that had led them to be in conflict with the law and to strengthen family relations. They provided a range of social, educational, medical, psychological and recreational services, and families were involved in the behaviour modification plan from the outset. Placement in a juvenile care home was a court-ordered measure. A new code on reformatory justice for children was being adopted in which the term “juvenile” referred to anyone under the age of 18, whereas, under the current definition, a juvenile was an individual between the ages of 7 and 15. An accused person’s age at the time of the offence was a mitigating circumstance that affected the severity of the penalty imposed. Juvenile offenders were segregated from adults in places of deprivation of liberty and had access to a complaint mechanism. The Ministry of the Interior engaged positively with civil society and had signed a memorandum of understanding with ICRC concerning visits to places of deprivation of liberty.

Ms. Albarduly (Bahrain) said that changes had recently been made in the women’s prison to address capacity issues. The prison included a canteen, workshops and a recreation room, as well as a separate area to house inmates with children. A social worker was on hand and, in follow-up to recommendations by the Ombudsman, staff were being trained in the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. The Ministry of the Interior had contracted a cleaning company to evaluate hygiene conditions, and a disease control committee made frequent visits. An inmate association had been set up. Despite the array of nationalities represented among the inmates, most spoke either Arabic or English; however, interpretation services were available for those who did not. Regarding the two cases involving alleged threats of rape, no complaint in that regard had been received from Zainab al-Khawaja and the allegation in the second case had been found to be groundless after the complainant had been assessed by a psychiatrist.

Mr. Bruni (Country Rapporteur) asked for an update on the status of the invitation to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Bahrain, in the light of the apparent confusion on the matter between the parliament and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Similarly, he wished to know what was delaying the invitation to the Special Rapporteur on torture, now that the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry had been implemented. Regarding the delegation’s laconic reply that allegations of torture were groundless, it would be useful to know why they had been deemed groundless, given that the Committee’s questions had been based on information from reliable sources, including the compilation prepared in connection with the universal periodic review (A/HRC/WG.6/27/BHR/2).

He would appreciate comments on reports that collective punishment had been meted out following the riots at Jaw Prison and the Dry Dock Detention Centre and on steps taken to address overcrowding, which had fuelled some of the incidents. It would be interesting to know the outcome of investigations initiated in response to complaints by persons deprived of liberty. Where did plans to ratify the Optional Protocol stand?

Ms. Belmir (Country Rapporteur), noting that a number of the delegation’s replies had been wholly unrelated to the questions raised, said that she would appreciate an answer to her question about minors and their involvement in terrorism. Regarding the report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, she would also appreciate insight into the declaration of a national security emergency, which appeared to have been interpreted in such a way as to permit the detention of individuals for an unlimited period of time; the denial of entry into the country to foreigners deemed to constitute a danger to public order, in violation of article 3 of the Convention; and the deportation of persons who had been rendered stateless after being stripped of their citizenship on the ground that they were a threat to national security.

Ms. Gaer said that she would be grateful for more information on the implementation of the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, an update on the whereabouts of the police lieutenant convicted for his involvement in the death of Hani Abdulaziz Abdullah and a response to the claim that the imprisonment of Nabeel Rajab was connected with the work of the NGO of which he was president, the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.

Ms. Racu said that the Committee would be grateful if the delegation could respond to and provide further information on reports of the torture and ill-treatment of human rights activists, journalists and NGO representatives, including Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, Nabeel Rajab, Nazeeha Saeed, Ahmed al-Arab and Abduljalil al-Singace.

Mr. Hani said that he wished to recall that, pursuant to article 24 (1) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, a State party could make a declaration postponing the implementation of its obligations under either part III or part IV of the Protocol and that, pursuant to article 24 (2), that postponement would be valid for a maximum of three years, after which it could be extended for an additional two years. The Committee remained concerned that the recent constitutional amendment relating to military courts would result in an increase in the number of civilians brought before such courts. With regard to non-refoulement, he noted that some of the provisions of the League of Arab States extradition agreement could be used as loopholes. He wished to know whether victims were represented on the committee that managed the National Fund for the Compensation of Victims. In that connection, there had been a number of cases, including those of Abdelwahab Hussain, Abduljalil al-Singace and Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, in which prisoners with serious medical conditions had been denied access to the necessary health care. The Committee would appreciate further information on the case of Mubarak bin Huwail, who had been acquitted on charges relating to torture and had subsequently been appointed to a senior position in the security forces.

Ms. Pradhan- Malla said that she wished to know whether the provisions of the Criminal Code that condoned acts of violence against women, for example articles 334 and 353, had been repealed, as had been recommended by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in relation to the third periodic report of Bahrain to that Committee (CEDAW/C/BHR/CO/3, para. 22). In addition, it would be helpful to learn whether domestic violence had been criminalized, whether a support system had been set up for victims and, if so, whether adequate provision had been made for shelters, legal aid and counselling, including for migrant workers.

The Chair, speaking in his capacity as an expert, said that he would appreciate more information on the independence of the Ombudsman. In addition, the Committee had concerns regarding the involvement of the Ministry of the Interior in the processing of complaints of torture. As detailed in paragraph 108 of the State party’s third periodic report (CAT/C/BHR/3), the Ombudsman was responsible for examining accused persons to check for signs of ill-treatment, despite not having the expertise to conduct such examinations, and complaints were discontinued if no signs of torture or ill-treatment were found, which violated the Istanbul Principles. He recommended that the procedure for filing complaints should be strengthened and that an examination, conducted by a qualified physician, should take place at an earlier stage.

The Committee was concerned that the compensation offered to victims of torture was insufficient. To ensure compliance with the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, consideration should be given to other types of reparation, especially rehabilitation. Furthermore, while the compensation offered to the victim depended on the severity of any disability that he or she had acquired, it should be noted that there were many other ways in which a person could be affected by torture or ill-treatment. He wished to know how reports of death in custody were dealt with and whether they were investigated independently of the Ministry of the Interior, and would be grateful for any relevant statistics in that regard.

Mr. Bruni said that he would appreciate clarification of the claim that the work of the Special Investigation Unit was based on the Istanbul Protocol. For example, it would be useful to learn whether its staff included medical doctors, whether it issued medical reports and, if so, for what purpose. He would also like additional information on the right of persons detained on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities to meet with a lawyer and to have a lawyer present during their interrogation.

The meeting was suspended at 5.30 p.m. and resumed at 5.40 p.m.

Mr. Aldosari (Bahrain) said that the legislative and executive authorities were separate. The legislative authorities had recently extended an invitation to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It should be noted that Navanethem Pillay, the former High Commissioner for Human Rights, had visited Bahrain. Measures would be taken to prepare for accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention in due course. Mr. Bassiouni, the Chair of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, had stated that the Commission’s objectives had been achieved. The recommendations contained in the Commission’s report were being implemented as planned. The imprisoned individuals mentioned earlier in the meeting had been convicted in a court of law following properly conducted judicial proceedings. None of them had been convicted for exercising their right to peaceful assembly or freedom of expression. The relevant cases had been handled in accordance with the procedures of ordinary criminal law and under media scrutiny.

Mr. Al Ma ’ awdah (Bahrain) said that the separation of powers between the Ombudsman and the Commission for the Rights of Prisoners and Detainees was equivalent to that between the Independent Police Complaints Commission and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, respectively, in the United Kingdom. It was based on the Istanbul Protocol. With regard to deaths in prison, he invited the Committee to consult the comprehensive information compiled by the Ministry of the Interior. The role of the Ombudsman was to coordinate the work of the various entities responsible for visiting prisons.

Ms. Isa (Bahrain) said that, even when a state of emergency was declared, the human rights safeguards provided by law remained in force. It had been proposed that article 353 of the Criminal Code, under which a rapist who married his victim could be pardoned, should be repealed, and the matter was currently under consideration. In certain circumstances, a person could be deprived of Bahraini nationality on the basis of a court order; such persons could nevertheless remain resident in the country. A person could be extradited under the League of Arab States extradition agreement on suspicion of an act classified as a crime in the requested State.

Mr. Aldosari (Bahrain) said that Mubarak bin Huwail had been acquitted in a court of law following properly conducted judicial proceedings. Reports of poor conditions and inadequate health-care provision in women’s prisons were inaccurate. Specialists had examined the cases of Abdulhadi al-Khawaja and Nabeel Rajab, and the Ombudsman had visited the prisons at which they were held and examined the health-care situation. The State had borne the cost of sending Nabeel Rajab’s medical records to Germany for re-examination. If medical services were not available in Bahrain, the State undertook to provide them abroad.

Mr. Bunajma (Bahrain) said that reports of regular incidents of unrest at Jaw Prison were inaccurate. One such incident had taken place on 10 March 2015 and had resulted in extensive damage to prison buildings and the injury of 104 prisoners and 141 officials. In 2016, two prisons had been attacked by terrorists, resulting in the escape of a number of prisoners. No disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on the affected prisoners. In fact, efforts had since been made to improve prison conditions.

Mr. Al Ma ’ awdah (Bahrain) said that, in accordance with the principles set forth in the Istanbul Protocol, the Special Investigation Unit had medical doctors on its staff. Persons who filed complaints of torture or ill-treatment were examined. If no signs of torture or ill-treatment were found, their complaints were handled in line with established procedure. If signs of torture or ill-treatment were found, their complaints were referred directly to the Special Investigation Unit to ensure that their injuries were documented by forensic physicians.

Ms. Isa (Bahrain) said that the National Fund for the Compensation of Victims set the rules governing the payment of compensation. In line with international standards, the Fund took into account the various ways in which victims suffered and gave consideration to physical, material and moral damage.

Mr. Aldosari (Bahrain), thanking the Committee members for their questions, said that, going forward, Bahrain would continue to cooperate with the Committee and strive to engage in constructive dialogue.

The meeting rose at 6 p.m.