Follow-up report; Substantive issues: torture torture prevention; [CAT: UNO-Antifolterkonvention, Übereinkommen gegen Folter; Convention contre la torture; Convenzione contro la tortura]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
United Nations CAT /C/75/3 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr.: General 7 December 2022 Original: English Committee against Torture Follow-up report on decisions relating to communications submitted under article 22 of the Convention * I.Introduction
1. The present report is a compilation of information on cases in which States parties and complainants have had at least one round of exchanges since the seventy-fourth session of the Committee against Torture in the framework of the Committee’s follow-up procedure on decisions relating to communications submitted under article 22 of the Convention. II.Communications Communication No. 477/2011 Aarrass v. Morocco (CAT/C/52/D/477/2011) Date of adoption of decision: 19 May 2014 Violations: Articles 2 (1), 11–13 and 15 Remedy: The Committee urged the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of transmittal of the decision, of the measures that it had taken in accordance with the observations set forth in the decision. The Committee said that the measures must include the initiation of an impartial and in-depth investigation into the complainant’s allegations of torture and that such an investigation must include the conduct of medical examinations in line with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol).
2. On 27 May 2022, the complainant’s counsel submitted a medico-legal evaluation of Ali Aarrass by the Independent Forensic Expert Group dated 26 April 2022. It was stated in the evaluation that the Group had prepared the report using internationally accepted medico-legal standards and the principles of investigation and documentation of torture set out in the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol). The Group had concluded that the evidence collected from the physical and psychological evaluations of Mr. Aarrass was highly consistent with Mr. Aarrass’ allegations of having received multiple blows, having been tied up with rope and having had his knees hit with items such as rocks during his detention. The Group had reviewed two prior medico-legal evaluations of Mr. Aarrass, conducted in Rabat in December 2011 and November 2014, and had found them to be flawed and unsatisfactory, with both failing to comply with accepted medico-legal standards.
3. The Independent Forensic Expert Group had recommended that Mr. Aarrass should receive psychological and psychiatric support in the future, beyond the course of his legal proceedings, to treat his post-traumatic stress disorder, to monitor his well-being and to detect the potential appearance of depression. It had said that a specific therapeutic follow-up to that end would be desirable, and that all reasonable steps should be taken to prevent any further delays in the delivery of justice and accountability in Mr. Aarrass’ case, as the lack of any acknowledgement that he was a victim of torture and the impunity of the perpetrators to date had severely inhibited Mr. Aarrass’ ability to begin the healing process.
4. On the basis of the medico-legal report of the Independent Forensic Expert Group, the complainant’s counsel sought reparation, including compensation, for Mr. Aarrass from the State party.
5. On 28 September 2022, the complainant’s counsel informed the Committee that a former so-called emir of the Mujahidin movement in Morocco, Abderrazak Soumah, had published a series of highly critical videos with regard to Mr. Aarrass. In the view of the counsel, higher authorities were probably behind his statements; proof of ongoing reprisals against Mr. Aarrass.
6. On 10 November 2022, the State party responded to a note verbale from the Committee dated 23 September 2022. The State party reiterated its previous observations and recalled that Mr. Aarrass had been released on 2 April 2020. In addition, it stated that it had provided all the information necessary to respond to the complainant’s allegations, which it considered as unfounded. Therefore, it considered that it had no further clarification to provide, and requested the Committee to close the follow-up relating to both the present communication and communication No. 817/2017 (see paras. 15–17 below).
7. The follow-up observations and comments demonstrated a patent lack of implementation of the Committee’s decision. The Committee reiterated its concern that the State party had continued to simply reiterate its previous submissions instead of providing observations in response to the follow-up comments by the complainants’ counsel dated 22 November 2019. The Committee therefore decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, and to consider further steps in the light of the counsel’s comments. In addition, in line with an earlier decision, the Committee would note the lack of implementation of the above decision in its annual report. Communication No. 606/2014 Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014) Date of adoption of decision: 15 November 2016 Violations: Articles 1 and 12–16 Remedy: The Committee urged the State party to: (a) provide the complainant with fair and adequate compensation, including the means for the fullest rehabilitation possible; (b) initiate a thorough and impartial investigation into the incidents in question, in full conformity with the guidelines of the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol), with a view to bringing those responsible for the victim’s treatment to justice; (c) refrain from any form of pressure, intimidation or reprisals likely to harm the physical and moral integrity of the complainant or his family, which would otherwise constitute a violation of the State party’s obligations under the Convention to cooperate with the Committee in good faith in the implementation of the provisions of the Convention, and to enable the complainant to receive visits from his family in prison; and (d) inform it within 180 days from the date of transmittal of the decision about the steps taken.
8. In comments dated 23 December 2020, the complainant informed the Committee that, by a final decision dated 25 November 2020 of the Moroccan Court of Cassation, a number of human rights defenders – including himself – had been given prison sentences ranging from 20 years to life. On 9 September 2019, the complainant’s wife contested the administrative decision that had prohibited her entry into Morocco, but the proceedings were allegedly still pending. The complainant submitted that he continued to be harassed in prison, as evidenced by the refusal of the prison administration to allow him to receive a 10-kg package containing books in January 2020. He recalled that refusal to give access to education and recreation and to allow contact with the outside world violated rules 63 and 105 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).
9. On 15 March 2021, the complainant’s comments were transmitted to the State party for observations, which were to be provided by 15 July 2021.
10. In a submission dated 10 November 2022, the State party reiterated its previous follow-up observations and stated that the complainant was being held in Kenitra prison and continued to enjoy all his rights. In particular, neither the complainant nor his wife or counsel had ever been the object of any form of reprisal or intimidation.
11. On 21 November 2022, the State party’s observations were sent to the complainant for comments, which were to be received by 21 January 2023.
12. The follow-up observations and comments again demonstrated a lack of implementation. The Committee therefore decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing and to consider further steps. Communication No. 812/2017 A., B. and C. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/71/D/812/2017) Decision adopted on: 21 July 2021 Violation: Article 3 Remedy: The Committee was of the view that the State party was required by article 3 of the Convention to reconsider the complainants’ asylum application in the light of its obligations under the Convention and the findings of the Committee. The State party was also requested to refrain from expelling the complainants while their asylum application was being reconsidered.
13. On 21 October 2022, the State party informed the Committee that, on 24 March 2022, the complainants had lodged a new request for asylum. On 25 May 2022, the State Secretariat for Migration had recognized the complainants as refugees and had granted them asylum.
14. The follow-up comments demonstrated full implementation, as the State party had granted asylum to the complainants. Therefore, the Committee decided to close the follow-up dialogue, with a note of satisfactory resolution. Communication No. 817/2017 Aarrass v. Morocco Date of adoption of decision: 25 November 2019 Violations: Articles 16 and 2 (1), read in conjunction with articles 1 and 11, and article 14 Remedy: The Committee invited the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the decision, of the steps it had taken to respond to its observations. Such steps were to include the return of the complainant to the group regime in a prison closer to his family, the opening of an impartial and thorough investigation into the complainant’s allegations, and the provision of full, adequate and fair compensation to the complainant for all the violations of the Convention that had been found and the consequences that they had had for the complainant.
15. On 28 September 2022, the complainant’s counsel informed the Committee that a former so-called emir of the Mujahidin movement in Morocco, Abderrazak Soumah, had published a series of videos in which he stated that Ali Aarrass, allegedly his ex-acolyte within the movement, was a dangerous person who had brought weapons into Morocco and whose allegations of torture were false. In the view of the counsel, higher authorities were probably behind such statements; proof of ongoing reprisals against Mr. Aarrass.
16. On 10 November 2022, the State party responded to a note verbale from the Committee dated 23 September 2022. The State party reiterated its previous observations and recalled that Mr. Aarrass had been released on 2 April 2020. In addition, it stated that it had provided all the information necessary to respond to the complainant’s allegations, which it considered as unfounded. Therefore, it considered that it had no further clarification to provide, and requested the Committee to close the follow-up relating to both the present communication and communication No. 477/2011 (see paras. 2–7 above).
17. The follow-up comments and observations demonstrated a lack of implementation of the Committee’s decision. The Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, together with the dialogue in relation to communication No. 477/2011. Communications Nos. 826/2017, 827/2017, 845/2017 and 846/2017 Bakay v. Morocco; Erdoğan v. Morocco; Onder v. Morocco; and Ayden v. Morocco (CAT/C/68/D/826/2017, CAT/C/66/D/827/2017, CAT/C/66/D/845/2017 and CAT/C/66/D/846/2017) Dates of adoption of decisions: 10 May 2019 and 4 December 2019 Violations: Article 3 Remedy: The Committee required the State party to refrain from extraditing the complainants to Turkey and consider the requests for their extradition in the light of its obligations under the Convention. Given that they had been in pretrial detention for more than two years, the State party was also under an obligation to release them. The Committee also required the State party to ensure that similar violations did not occur in the future by carrying out individual assessments of the real risk of torture and ill-treatment – including by taking into consideration the general human rights situation in the country of return – every time it considered an extradition request under an agreement or an extradition procedure.
18. On 10 November 2022, the State party informed the Committee that Ismet Bakay, Ferhat Erdoğan, Mustafa Onder and Elmas Ayden had been released from detention.
19. On 17 November 2022, the complainants’ counsel confirmed the information, mentioning that Mr. Bakay, Mr. Erdoğan, Mr. Onder and Mr. Ayden were no longer in Morocco.
20. The follow-up comments demonstrated full implementation, as the State party had refrained from extraditing the complainants and had released them from detention. Therefore, the Committee decided to close the follow-up dialogue, with a note of satisfactory resolution.