Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT)

A case submitted by TRIAL International to the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) shows just how vulnerable opponents of Burundi’s government are.

Emmanuel (real name withheld) joined an opposition party when Burundi’s former president, Pierre Nkurunziza, was still in power. Under Nkurunziza’s rule, human rights defenders, journalists, and members of the opposition (both real and perceived) suffered countless acts of violence.

Among these, torture was, sadly, a common way to stifle dissent. Emmanuel experienced this first-hand when he was stopped and forcibly taken to a detention facility infamous for being a torture hotspot.

For a week, the victim was subject to the worst forms of abuse during interrogations. He had no access to legal or medical help and was not even able to contact his family, who had no idea where he was.

 

Persecuted to this day

After a week, Emmanuel was released on the condition that a ransom be paid. Once relieved from it, he fled abroad. Unfortunately, his safety is far from guaranteed and he still suffers from the sequelae of the torture. One of Emmanuel’s tormentors was even granted new responsibilities.

Pierre Nkurunziza is no longer the president of Burundi and his successor, Evariste Ndahishimiye, has promised to improve the human rights situation and the fight against impunity. As it stands, however, Emmanuel is yet to get justice.

Find out more about the political changes in Burundi

In light of the crimes Emmanuel suffered and his current difficulties, TRIAL International has brought the case to the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT). The procedure is underway.

Aimable and Emery both suffered a sadly similar fate: victims of torture by Burundian authorities in 2006 and 2007, they were forced into exile to survive. Following many years of legal battles alongside TRIAL International, the decisions of the UN Committee against Torture finally brought them justice (in January 2018 and January 2017 respectively). Emery and Aimable (real names withheld) share their experience, between satisfaction and frustration.

 

TRIAL International: What was your initial reaction when you were made aware of the decision of the Committee against Torture? 

Emery: “The legal battle was lengthy and the waiting period for the judgment was very trying. When the lawyer informed me of this decision, I became very emotional. It was truly a moment of relief to see an international body recognize and condemn the shameful treatment I have suffered.”

Aimable: “Despite my impatience, I have always trusted international bodies. Upon hearing the favorable ruling, I felt a great sense of relief and a renewed sense of hope. The date of the decision will long be engraved in my mind.” 

 

What are you awaiting now?

Emery: “The court decision that recognizes the injustice I suffered is a partial victory, as I need to be compensated. At least symbolically: I will never reclaim my former body. I struggle on a daily basis for the survival of my family and it is not easy to consider projects when you are in exile.”

Aimable: “I expect compensation from the State of Burundi. It is difficult to conceive of plans for the future when one lives in miserable conditions, without any resources, in anguish and grief, far from one’s loved ones. I also expect appropriate sanctions for the perpetrators in order to prevent any possible future violations.”

 

Your everyday life therefore remains challenging…

Emery: “My health has still not recovered and I have lost my job, which was my only source of income. I was forced to flee, and after my departure, it was my wife’s turn to be threatened and persecuted. My family’s safety was not guaranteed: my wife joined me in exile and we continued to be persecuted.”

Aimable: “The attacks I have suffered have had catastrophic consequences for me and my family. We were all forced into exile. My wife died in 2008 due to poor living conditions and stress. My children and I are refugees in different countries, we still suffer from terrible anxieties and nostalgia.”

 

Closing remarks?

Emery: “I have always had faith in international justice. This decision restores a sense of hope and I wish that one day I will obtain reparation for the physical and moral suffering that has been inflicted upon me.”

Aimable: “To all victims awaiting reparation, I send a message of hope and encouragement. This judgment comforted me and renewed my sense of hope.”

Press release
For immediate release

 

ACAT, OMCT and TRIAL International express their dismay over the decision of the Tunis Court of Appeal in the Rached Jaïdane case.

This judgment seems to sound the death knell for transitional justice in that the acts of torture suffered by Rached Jaïdane in 1993, and during the 13 years of imprisonment that followed, are considered to fall outside of the prescription period. Following this case, hundreds, even thousands, of victims of the Bourguiba and Ben Ali eras may see their torturers shielded from justice.

Moreover, the Court of Appeal judgment flagrantly contravenes the Convention against Torture, and the decision of the Committee Against Torture reached last October, following a complaint filed by Rached Jaïdane. In its decision, the Committee had strongly condemned Tunisia for multiple violations of the Convention and had asked the state to resume the investigation and prosecute Rached Jaïdane’s torturers for offenses reflecting the seriousness of the acts.

Finally, the Court of Appeal’s judgment casts serious doubt on the Tunisian authorities’ repeated commitment to eradicate the torture phenomenon. The fight against impunity is essential not only for victims’ recovery but also for the prevention of torture. The decision in the Jaïdane case, shielding the torturers from justice, sends the message that perpetrators of serious human rights violations can continue to act with impunity.

ACAT, OMCT and TRIAL International call on the Tunisian authorities to make good this mistake and take all necessary measures to comply with their international commitments by implementing the decision of the Committee Against Torture.

 

Case summary:

In 1993, Rached Jaïdane, a university teacher in France, went to Tunisia to attend his sister’s wedding. On July 29, State Security agents arrested him at his home without a warrant. There followed 38 days of incommunicado detention and torture at the Ministry of the Interior under the direct supervision of top officials of Ben Ali’s security regime. Rached Jaïdane was questioned about his alleged links with a leader of the Islamist party, Ennahda, living in exile in France. Subject to beatings, he ended up signing confessions without reading them in which he notably admitted having incited an attack against Ben Ali’s party. After 3 years of judicial investigation conducted by an enforcement judge, Rached Jaïdane was sentenced to 26 years in prison following a 45-minute trial. He was released in 2006, after 13 years of torture and ill-treatment in Tunisian prisons.

 

The story of Rached Jaïdane is emblematic of the Tunisian torture system, which the post-revolution governments promised to leave behind by bringing justice to the victims. And yet…

Just after the revolution, Rached Jaïdane brought an action for torture. The investigation was sloppy. The indescribable torture he suffered was labelled as a simple offense of violence, punishable by up to five years imprisonment. This was on the grounds that the crime of torture did not exist in the penal code at the time of the events. Nevertheless, many other options were available to the judge to classify the acts as a crime.
The trial was constantly postponed. The verdict was delivered in April 2015: the prescription period had expired! The events were considered too old. The representative faces of the torture system walked free.
The decision of the Committee Against Torture, issued following a complaint lodged by ACAT and TRIAL International, went against this verdict. It was heavy with meaning and demands regarding the Tunisian justice system. While reminding Tunisia of the “obligation (…) to hand down appropriate sentences to the perpetrators of torture in view of the seriousness of the acts”, the Committee:

• indicated that the Tunisian justice system could in no way retain the prescription period as it did in the Jaïdane case;
• required, in cases where judges could not legally classify acts of torture committed prior to 1999 (date of criminalization of torture in the Penal Code), that they retain a classification reflecting the seriousness of the acts and allowing prosecution.

A clear call to break with practices of impunity that, beyond the pain they inflict on the victims, give carte blanche to the Tunisian security forces which continue today to resort to torture and ill-treatment.

Tomorrow, on the 13 December, the Tunis Court of Appeal will deliberate on the fate of the torturers of Rached Jaïdane, who was arrested and tortured in 1993 and during his 13 years of imprisonment. On 11 September, the Committee against Torture condemned Tunisia for violating the Convention against Torture by ensuring the impunity of Rached Jaïdane’s torturers. The decision of the Court of Appeal will reveal whether Tunisia intends to keep its promises of justice and turn the page on its dark hours.

In 1993, Rached Jaïdane, a university teacher in France, went to Tunisia to attend his sister’s wedding. On 29 July, state authorities arrested him at home without a warrant. He was then kept for 38 days in secret detention and torture at the Ministry of the Interior under the direct supervision of top officials of Ben Ali’s security regime. Rached Jaïdane was questioned about his alleged links with a leader of the Islamist party Ennahda, who lives in exile in France.

After being physically attacked, he ended up signing confessions, without even reading them, in which he admits having prepared an attack against the party of Ben Ali. After 3 years of judicial investigation conducted by a juge aux ordres*, Rached Jaïdane was sentenced to 26 years in prison after a 45-minutes trial. He was released in 2006 after enduring 13 years of torture and ill-treatments in Tunisian prisons.

The story of Rached Jaïdane is emblematic of the Tunisian torture system, which the post-revolution governments promised to bring closure to by dispensing justice to the victims. And yet …

Just after the revolution, Rached Jaïdane files a complaint for torture. The investigation is botched. The indescribable tortures he suffered are described as a simple violence offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment on the grounds that the crime of torture did not exist in the penal code at the time of the events. Yet, many other options were available to the judge to qualify the crime’s facts.

The trial has been postponed on multiple occasions. The verdict falls in April 2015: prescription! The facts are considered too old. Those representing the torture machine get off scot-free.

Through this judgment, the Tunisian justice not only destroyed Rached Jaïdane’s hopes of justice, but also, more generally, swept away the repeated pledge to bring justice to the victims of Bourguiba and Ben Ali.

A decision strongly condemned by the Committee against Torture, who asked in particular Tunisia to resume the investigation and prosecute the torturers of Rached Jaïdane for offences reflecting the gravity of the facts.

 

* “judge responsible for supervising the distribution of the proceeds of sale between the mortgages or other preferential creditors” – The Council of Europe French-English Legal Dictionary – F. H. S. Bridge

 

Contact Media :

ACAT (Action des chrétiens pour l’abolition de la torture) : Mariam Chfiri, mariam.chfiri@acatfrance.fr ; +33 (0)1 40 40 40 24/ +33 (0)6 28 75 47 94

OMCT (Organisation mondiale contre la torture): Camille Henry, ch@omct.org; +216 27 842 197

 

Mrs. A. (real name withheld) was raped during the war. Now she is stuck between unenforced compensation and stringent statutes of limitation, leaving her effectively powerless to access reparation. TRIAL International is taking a case to the UN Committee Against Torture.

In 1993, Mrs A. was raped by a member of the Republika Srpska army. As a result, she became pregnant and had to undergo an abortion. Despite the trauma, she battled through the Bosnian justice system until, two decades later, her assaulter was found guilty of war crimes.

In addition to 8 years of imprisonment, his sentence required him to pay a 30’000 BAM (approximately 18’000 USD) reparation to the victim.

This was a victory not just for Mrs A., but also an important precedent in BiH: before her, only one wartime victim had been awarded compensation during criminal proceedings.

The money would have been a boon for Mrs A., who has been diagnosed with permanent personality disorder symptoms and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. In addition to its symbolic weight, the compensation money could have improved her precarious financial and health conditions.

 

A battle ends, another begins

Yet Mrs A. never received a penny and the sentence was never enforced. The perpetrator had no property or asset registered in his name and was unable to pay his due.

In such cases, many States would have the obligation to step in and compensate the victim instead, but Bosnian law remains very vague. In the past, TRIAL International has posited that BiH was bound by similar standards – to no avail so far.

But there is even worst news: even initiating a distinct civil case against the authorities would not help her obtain compensation. Due to stringent statutes of limitation, her claim would be considered time-barred. She therefore has no effective remedy and cannot enforce her right to compensation –  including the means for a full rehabilitation.

 

A failure of the State

To overcome this domestic deadlock, TRIAL International is bringing the case before the United Nations Committee Against Torture. It contends that BiH is failing to its obligations under the Convention Against Torture to provide full and effective reparations to victims.

“Our demands are twofold” summarizes Adrijana Hanušić Bećirović, TRIAL’s Senior Legal Advisor in BiH. “We want BiH to abolish the statutes of limitations for civil proceedings, and to step in when perpetrators cannot compensate their victims. Those two measures are a minimum for survivors to access reparation.”

 

The UN Committee Against Torture has condemned Tunisia for the abuses inflicted on Rached Jaïdane, and accuses the State of having violated the Convention Against Torture by leaving these deeds unpunished. A fundamental decision in a context where transitional justice stalls and is jeopardized by a government keen to sweep past crimes under the carpet.

In the months following the January 2011 revolution, Tunisian authorities have ceaselessly repeated that “the time for justice had come”. Victims tortured under the reigns of Bourguiba and Ben Ali were invited to file complaints, with the guarantee that no statute of limitation would stand in their way. In spite of that, the quasi-total impunity six years later is proof of the authorities’ will to bury the facts with botched trials and fallacious legal maneuvers.

The case of Rached Jaïdane – with whom the Committee has just sided against the Tunisian justice system – is a perfect case in point.  A University lecturer suspected of having plotted an attack, he was arrested in 1993, tortured and condemned to 26 years imprisonment after a 45-minutes trial. Freed in 2006, he waited for the revolution to file his complaint. Supported by the OMCT’s direct assistance program SANAD and by ACAT, Rached was faced with a botched inquiry and an endlessly adjourned trial. In April 2015, the verdict came in: the judges found that that the facts fell under the statute of limitation and released the accused. Only Ben Ali received a five-year sentence as a result of a legal incoherence.

With this judgment, the Tunisian judiciary not only annihilated Rached Jaïdane’s hopes for justice, but more generally threw a led blanket on the crimes of the past that thousands of his countrymen endured.

The Committee Against Torture rendered its decision following a complaint filed by ACAT and TRIAL International. It goes against this verdict and has significant implications for the Tunisian judiciary. While reminding Tunisia of “the obligation (…) to impose on the authors of torture penalties proportionate to the gravity of their act”, the Committee:

• Indicates that the Tunisian judiciary cannot uphold the statute of limitation as it has done in the Jaïdane case;
• Demands that, should the judges be unable to legally qualify the torture committed before 1999 (when the crime was inserted in the Criminal Code), a qualification be found reflecting the gravity of the deeds and allowing prosecution.

This is a clear call to end the impunity that both inflicts sufferings to the victims and gives a blank check to Tunisian security forces, which continue to frequently resort to torture and ill-treatments.

ACAT, the OMCT and TRIAL International call on the Tunisian state to honor its international obligations and take all necessary measures to enact the decision rapidly. Rached Jaïdane hopes it will “finally restore the truth. This decision is a first victory against impunity and the first step in the long way towards my rehabilitation. I hope that the Committee will help be recover my rights and condemn my torturers.”

 

ACAT (Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture)

OMCT (World Organization Against Torture)

TRIAL international

Read also:
Rached Jaïdane : victim of torture

The government’s proposal to criminalize torture is riddled with loopholes, as illustrated in the fictitious case of human rights defender Bilash.

 Nepal acceded to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1991, thereby committing itself to criminalizing torture, preventing its occurrence and redressing victims.

Until today, the country failed to fulfill this obligation. Torture has been, and still is, committed on an alarming scale in Nepal. Since 2000, almost 1’000 complaints have been registered by the National Human Rights Commission – given the procedural hurdles to file a case, odds are the real figure is much higher.

Now, finally, an Anti-Torture Draft Bill (“Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (Control) Bill”) is being discussed in Parliament. A blazing victory? Not quite.

Proposed Bill is welcome but incomplete

While the Bill is definitely a step in the right direction, its standards fall well short of those recommended by the UN Committee Against Torture.

This is not an obscure legal matter of standards: in its present state, the Bill contains so many loopholes that countless victims would be left out of its scope, effectively denied access to justice.

The Draft Bill’s shortcomings can be illustrated in very concrete terms using the fictitious case of Bishal*. While the following example is purely fictional, it is realistic enough to illustrate the difficulties actual victims could face if the Bill were adopted in its present state.

Tortured in his own house

Bishal is a human rights defender in Kathmandu. He regularly writes for a local newspaper, openly criticizing the government. He has been in the authorities’ line of sight for a while.

One afternoon, three local policemen knock on Bishal’s door. As soon as he opens, they force their way in and lock the door behind them. They start insulting Bishal, calling him a traitor; then one policeman slaps him, and the violence quickly escalates to punches and thrashing with their truncheon. The beating continues for an hour. Before losing consciousness, Bishal hears them threatening to harm his family.

When he regains consciousness, he is at the hospital. His wife has found him lying in a pool of blood and brought him there immediately. He stays in medical care for two months, receiving expensive treatments that his family can barely afford. Because Bishal cannot work in his state, they must both survive on her wife’s meagre salary.

Too little time for victims…

For another month after leaving the hospital, Bilash is too scared to report his torture. But finally, his wife convinces him to report his aggression. If he does not, she fears the policemen will keep bullying him.

But at the police station, Bilash is told that he is too late: the statute of limitations provides a 90 days delay to file a torture case. Bilash argues that he was wounded and scared and could not come sooner, but the authorities are categorical: over 90 days after the crime occurred, the perpetrators simply fall through the mesh.

Let’s now change the scenario slightly: Bilash recovers faster and makes it to the police station within the imparted time. When the authorities require him to state the “period and reason held in detention”, he is taken aback: he was beaten in is house, not detained. But the law only provides for torture charges in detention, and without information on said detention, the complaint cannot go through. In this scenario too, Bilash is unable to seek justice.

Let’s change once again the story: Bilash is arrested by the policemen and immediately brought to prison and beaten up there. The next day, he is drop off in front of his house, where his wife finds him and calls an ambulance. The victim recovers fast enough to file his case in time. He also provides information on his detention, and so his case is successfully registered and proceeds to a trial.

… too few consequences for criminals

Bilash hopes that his persecutors will go to jail and never be able to harm him again. But in the courtroom, the sole punishment the policemen receive is a 500’000 rupee fine (approximately 5’000 USD). Bilash is shocked that no prison sentence is pronounced, but the judge has indeed the right to punish torture with a simple fine instead.

Bilash at least hopes that the court will grant him reparations. He has been unable to work since his attack, and costly medical checkups still drain his finances. He also suffers from sleeping disorders and lack of concentration, leading his neighbors to gossip and distance themselves. Bilash’s fear that the police may hurt him again is relentless.

But the judges only grant Bilash a compensation of 500’000 rupees (approximately 5’000 USD). It is the highest possible sum, yet it is not enough to cover his loss of income nor the medical fees – let alone make up for his pain, humiliation and trauma. Outside of the sum of money, there is no sign of the broader range of reparations, including psychological care and legal and social services.

 Not too late to turn the tide

With the Anti-Torture Draft Bill currently under discussion before the Nepalese parliament, this grim outcome can still be spared to real victims.

This week, TRIAL and four other NGOs have submitted a report to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The report detailed the Bill’s aforementioned shortcomings, and many others.

“We encourage the Special Rapporteur to share our concerns to the Nepalese government”, says Helena Rodríguez-Bronchú Carceller, Head of the Nepal program at TRIAL International. “We also urge the Nepalese Parliament to bear these concerns in mind when discussing the Draft Bill.”

A recent decision of the Committee against Torture confirmed that States must do much better than vague promises to uphold their obligations.

When a human rights complaint is filed before an international mechanism, most States claim that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies (that is, try all legal avenues at the domestic level) and that the case should hence be declared inadmissible. The State usually argues that investigations are ongoing and that had the applicant waited a bit longer, he or she would have received justice.

Other formalistic arguments are often invoked, for instance that investigations on human rights violations could only be launched if a complaint is formally lodged before domestic judicial authorities. However, there are many reasons that may prevent a victim from doing so, from material obstacles to fear of reprisals. In some cases, even when the applicant does tries to report a violation, authorities refuse to register the report or do not acknowledge receipt through a stamp, later pretending that the complaint was never lodged.

These arguments are so often invoked that if the Committee against Torture (CAT) accepted them, its workload would dry up and the victims’ quest for justice and redress would be doomed.

In a case brought before the CAT by TRIAL International and its partner NGO, Morocco pulled exactly those tired old strings. The Committee responded* with a resounding reminder that lip service to ending torture is not enough to escape its scrutiny.

 

Formal complaints are not a prerequisite

Firstly, the CAT clarified that a formal complaint from the victim, Omar N’Dour, was not required for the authorities to initiate investigations. Since there were reasonable grounds to believe that he had been subjected to torture (he showed a judge and a prosecutor the marks on his body), Morocco was under the obligation to thoroughly investigate his allegations, regardless of procedural considerations.

Moreover, M. N’Dour was tortured in custody, meaning that the events lay wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities. The Committee reminded Morocco that in such cases, proving the occurrence of the crime does not rest on the victim alone. Authorities cannot simply wave the allegations away, but must provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of their own.

 

Effective relief for the victim

Finally, Morocco’s judicial remedies, though existent, did not meet the Committee’s standards of efficiency. Over six years after the crime, no investigation has ever led to the identification of the perpetrators. The CAT declared that this was a reasonably long time for the victim to seek justice and redress and a higher level.

This is the CAT’s second decision on the subject concerning Morocco and comes as a strong reminder that it is high time for the State to live up to its promises: prompt, independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigations must be launched and those responsible must be prosecuted and sanctioned. Procrastination or formal excuses will not be accepted and the CAT will not refrain from assessing the responsibility of the State.

* This decision only regards the admissibility of the complaint. In the next months, arguments on the merits will be submitted by the parties and the CAT will then subsequently issue its decision on the alleged violations themselves.

 

Burundi must put an end to ethnic violence and the use of force against protesters, and report in October on its fight against impunity, the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT) concluded after a special review of the country.

In its Concluding Observations, the Committee called on Burundi to ensure the protection of citizens belonging to the “ethnic minority” by refraining from any public statement that could exacerbate ethnic tensions or incite hate. It called on Burundi to ensure its security forces used non-violent methods to control protests, and to drop any reprisals against dissenting civil society members.

It also urged the State to conduct impartial investigations into any allegations of killings, enforced disappearances and sexual violence at the hand of its security forces and the Imbonerakure militia. Finally, the Committee demanded the investigation of suspected mass grave sites and the exhumation, analysis and identification of any bodies found there.

“The CAT has sent the Government a very strong message that the world is watching,” said Dieudonné Bashirahishize, Vice-President of the East Africa Law Society and chairman of the coalition of lawyers of victims of international crimes (CAVIB). “Burundian authorities need to stop disregarding human rights and start collaborating with its civil society and the international experts.”

Reprisals instead of answers

Shortly after the examination, four eminent lawyers were threatened with being disbarred for denouncing rampant abuse before the experts: Vital Nshimirimana, Chair of Forum pour la Conscience et le Renforcement de la Société Civile (FORSC) and President of the campaign “Halte au troisième mandat”, Armel Niyongere, Dieudonné Bashirahishize and Lambert Nigarura.

The CAT made explicit mention of this episode and urged the authorities to drop this request.

Following up on the clampdown

Following the authorities’ no-show halfway through the session, it also invited the Government to report back by October. Hinting at Burundi’s lack of cooperation, the Committee gave the State two months to follow up  and provide it with enough information to assess whether or not it had honored its obligations under the Convention Against Torture, invoking the “interrupted dialogue” and “exceptional and urgent character” of this special review.

These recommendations come as Burundi has been witnessing serious human rights violations since the controversial re-election of President Pierre Nkurunziza’s to a third term in April last year. After a failed coup attempt, a violent crackdown quashed mass protests, prompting the CAT to request that the State submits a special report on how it is fighting torture and ill treatment in the country.

After Israel and Syria, Burundi was the third country the UN torture watchdog has ever asked, pursuant to Article 19, paragraph 1 of the Convention, to submit a special report ahead of the scheduled four years. 

Read more on Burundi’s no-show before the CAT

Read more on the NGO’s alternative report on Burundi

An op-ed by Pamela Capizzi

Burundi deserted its examination before the United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT) midway. One can only regret this missed opportunity for an open and honest dialogue.

The CAT’s 58^th session has been remarkable in many respects. Firstly, the experts decided to examine Burundi in a special procedure  – this had only happened twice in the past, for Israel and Syria. And secondly, because of the Burundian delegation’s unprecedented coup de theatre.

On 28 July, the CAT’s session opened with the traditional statement from the State before the experts started their questions. Those were numerous, detailed and clearly also drawn from the report civil society had submitted earlier this summer. This report, to which TRIAL International participated, documented the severe and ongoing human rights violations in the country.

Since April 2015, Burundi has been the theatre of widespread violence against political opponents and civil society. The current president’s bid for a third mandate ignited an important wave of protest that was violently repressed, quickly escalating to a crisis that resulted in hundreds of deaths and over 270’000 displaced (UN sources).

Walking away from the UN table

On the second day of the examination, Burundi’s answers to the experts’ questions were greatly expected. The delegation failed to show up altogether.

While several States have declined to attend CAT examinations, it is to our knowledge the first time that delegates leave the procedure halfway through.

A note addressed to the Chair expressed Burundi’s surprise that questions were based on the NGOs’ report. State delegates expected the discussion to revolve around fewer issues and subsequently required more time “to check the allegations against Burundi and deliberate on the appropriate measures to adopt”.

It is deeply regrettable that the Burundian government declined to engage with the international community. United Nations examinations are the occasion for a State to address its shortcomings, make its voice heard, in collaboration with – not against – civil society and qualified experts.

NGOs are crucial to report abuse, and the CAT’s thorough use of their report proved their legitimacy. It is disappointing that Burundian representatives interpreted this move as an affront, rather than the opportunity for dialogue it was.

Burundi’s behavior before the CAT, as well as its recent refusal to allow UN police officers component to be deployed in its territory, is a threat to future cooperation. We hope that the government will reconsider its position and further engage in a constructive dialogue with (its) civil society and international community – or its civilian population will be paying the heaviest price.

 

Pamela Capizzi, Legal Adviser
@PamelaCap1

 

 

Geneva, 26 July 2016 – A coalition of Burundian NGOs[1], with the support of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT), TRIAL International, the Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) and DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project) have submitted a report condemning a resurgence in extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and cases of torture.

During the 58^th session of the United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT) from 25 July to 12 August, Burundi will exceptionally be examined by experts of the CAT following the deterioration of the human rights situation in the country, triggered by a deep-rooted political crisis affecting the country since 2015.

Civil society has provided experts with an alternative report describing the alarming situation in the country since its last review by the CAT in 2014, and in particular the worsening situation in light of the 2015 political crisis. The report documents numerous violations of the Convention, such as the increased use of torture, poor treatment during arbitrary arrests and detention, and a significant increase in extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances.

The signatories are also deeply concerned by the lack of investigations into these violations and by the culture of impunity prevailing throughout the country.

The recommendations of the report call on the Burundian government to put a stop to these violations, to prosecute those responsible, and to guarantee compensation for victims.

The report is available in French and English.

The review of Burundi can be followed live at www.treatybodywebcast.org (10:00 CET on 28 July; 15:00 CET on 29 July).

 

[1]The coalition is composed of the following Burundian NGOs: l’Action des Chrétiens pour l’Abolition de la Torture au Burundi (ACAT Burundi), l’Association Burundaise pour la Protection des Droits Humains et des Personnes Détenues (APRODH), la campagne SOS-Torture / Burundi, le Collectif des Avocats des Victimes de Crimes de Droit International (CAVIB), la Coalition Burundaise pour la Cour Pénale Internationale (CB-CPI), le Forum de la Société civile pour le Monitoring des Elections (COSOME), le Collectif pour la Promotion des Associations des Jeunes (CPAJ), le Forum pour la Conscience et le Développement (FOCODE), le Forum pour la Conscience et le Renforcement de la Société Civile (FORSC), la Ligue Burundaise des Droits de l’Homme (Ligue ITEKA) et le Réseau des Citoyens Probes)