CAT hears replies from Tajikistan

Press release issued by CAT notes that responding to questions raised by Committee members the delegation of Tajikistan, led by Sherkhon Salimzoda, Prosecutor-General of Tajikistan, said that places of detention were monitored and pre-trial detention situations were assessed on a regular basis.  While the overall responsibility lay with the procurator’s office, the ombudsman was also involved in the prevention of torture and non-governmental organizations and the media also took part in visits.  Authorities had taken measures to develop institutional and legal measures to ensure the rapid treatment of allegations of torture, the delegation said, pointing in particular to changes in the proceedings of the special court, the ombudsman and other offices.

The delegation of Tajikistan consisted of representatives from the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Council of Justice, the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Department of the Executive Office of the President, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Justice and the Permanent Mission of Tajikistan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee’s concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Tajikistan will be issued towards the end of the session, which concludes on 23 November.

The delegation of Tajikistan, in particular, said it was pleased to hear that the Committee felt the country had made progress in combating torture.  Tajikistan would continue to further improve its legislative base as well as its institutional mechanisms to combat torture.  The delegation had taken good note of the Committee’s concern regarding the weak sanctions for torture – five years of imprisonment – and that no access to a lawyer was provided until a person was accused.

Article 143-1 of the Criminal Code provided criminal responsibility for harsh treatment and actions which belittled the dignity of a person, with sanctions ranging from two to five years.  However, the article made no delimitation of degrading acts, harsh treatment and torture.  The delegation went on to say that according to a decree issued in 2012 by the Supreme Court, factual detention should be seen as deprivation of a person’s ability to move freely – that included detention or enforcement to go or remain somewhere.  Deprivation of liberty was counted from the time when a person was taken into detention.  As per an instruction of the Prosecutor-General, detainees were informed of their rights to medical and legal assistance.

Responding to the Committee’s query about the possible signing and ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, the delegation said a Government working group had been set up to this effect.  However, at the moment Tajikistan was not ready to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol due to financial difficulties, as explained to the Human Rights Council last year.

Tajikistan had made efforts in terms of training.  It had published a handbook on the role of the procurator’s office and methods of torture with assistance from the Danish human rights institution, regular courses on ways to identify torture had been held in Tajikistan, and 30 staff of the procurator’s office had been trained abroad in 2011.  The President’s office had also conducted more than 50 seminars over the past two years and authorities had established a hotline and a website allowing citizens to report police violence.

Places of detention were monitored through a national system and conditions in pre-trial detentions were assessed on a regular basis.  While the overall responsibility lay with the procurator’s office, the ombudsman was also involved in the prevention of torture.  The ombudsman was entitled to visits without prior notification and preventing him from doing so carried criminal responsibility.  Non-governmental organizations and the media also visited prisons on a regular basis.  Just recently, a place of detention in Dushanbe had been visited and a civil society organization which combated torture had monitored psychiatric institutions and hospitals to document cases of torture.  Military premises were assessed by a special body which ensured that the requirements of the charter of armed forces were being met.  Hazing among the armed forces was indeed a problem in Tajikistan, the delegation said, adding that this was the case in most countries.  Sanctions had been imposed and the military procurator had set up a hotline to eradicate this practice.  As a result of this and other measures, hazing in the military had been decreasing.

Authorities were taking measures to develop institutional and legal measures to ensure that allegations of torture were rapidly investigated.  The delegation pointed in particular to changes in the proceedings of the special court, the ombudsman and other offices responsible for considering complaints.  These complaints were made through sealed envelopes, making it impossible for prison staff to read the complaints.

The delegation did not think that it was correct that one doctor had had to examine 34 potential victims of torture in one hour.

Commenting on the administration of justice, the delegation emphasized that Tajikistan had taken practical measures to ensure human rights and freedoms since it had gained independence.

On the comment made by the Committee about courts not reacting to allegations of torture, the delegation said there were examples where courts had recognized torture.  According to the Criminal Code, judges must immediately look at allegations of torture.  Otherwise a court was not impartial, which led to the cancellation of sentences.  If force was used or if suffering was inflicted during the pre-trial detention phase, confessions could not be used in court.  In looking at criminal cases, courts took into account all relevant aspects to ensure that lawful and valid decisions were handed down, the delegation reassured.

The Criminal Code provided for appropriate conditions of detention for juveniles, the delegation reassured.  Psychologists must be brought in, juveniles must have access to representatives, and a lawyer must take part in all activities.  Punishments were also commensurate for juveniles: when a juvenile carried out a crime for the first time, he or she would not be given a prison sentence, and fines were much lower than for adults.

Turning to torture against juveniles, the delegation said three cases of torture against minors had been recorded this year and the culprits had been sanctioned.  To prevent this phenomenon from happening, changes had been made to the proceedings of the Ministry of the Interior and a special service had been set.  In accordance with the Criminal Code, crimes against minors were recognized as an aggravated circumstance, and this was governed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Tajikistan had ratified in 2003.  In order to set the situation right in this sphere, Tajikistan had adopted a number of legal and sub-legal texts on sanctioning harsh treatment and on difficult family circumstances.

The delegation stressed that the policy of Tajikistan was directed towards improving procedures, ensuring the protection of human dignity and combating torture through various measures.  Tajikistan was ready to work and hoped that together they could bring the work in the country in line with international standards aiming to humanize society.

Asia-Plus

COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS EXAMINATION OF REPORT OF TAJIKISTAN

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the second periodic report submitted by Tajikistan on how it implements the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 

Introducing the report, Sherkhon Salimzoda, Prosecutor General of Tajikistan, said the country had tried to guarantee the respect of human rights ever since its independence.  After a five-year civil war which killed 150,000 people and prompted more than 1 million to become refugees, several years were needed to stabilize the situation in the country. Today, Tajikistan was equipped with various structures protecting human rights and efforts were ongoing, as highlighted by the successful reform programme strengthening the role of the judiciary.  Tajikistan had also amended several laws, notably enshrining liability for different kinds of torture in the Criminal Code.  Tajikistan was trying to fulfil all conditions to provide for human rights to the utmost degree and would continue to try to create an appropriate atmosphere for all. 

Nora Sveaass, the Committee Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, said the Committee had credible information suggesting that hazing in the military was a problem, that deaths and suicides occurred, and that insights seemed to be blocked.  What steps would be taken to tackle this situation and ensure that no human rights abuses happened in the army?  The Rapporteur noted that substantial resources and time had been committed towards training police officers.  However, there was a general acceptance of torture and ill-treatment, with police officers assuming that torture and other excessive techniques were necessary for effective law enforcement.

George Tugushi, the Committee Co-Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, noted positive steps in introducing new legislation, pointing in particular to the adoption of the new Criminal Procedural Code and the June 2012 decree of the Supreme Court.  Despite numerous changes, serious legislative flaws persisted, serving as grounds for the systemic practice of torture.  The Criminal Code for instance envisaged five years of imprisonment for torture, which was neither commensurate with torture nor aligned with the Convention. 

Committee Experts asked a number of in-depth questions, including whether Tajikistan intended to transform the moratorium on the use of the death penalty into abolition, whether there were any high security prisons in Tajikistan and whether isolation was used as punishment in detention facilities.  They also wondered what Tajikistan’s position was with regards to the ratification of the Optional Protocol of the Convention against Torture and whether there was a procedure for habeas corpus.

The delegation of Tajikistan consisted of representatives from the Prosecutor General, the Council of Justice, the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Department of the Executive Office of the President, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Justice and the Permanent Mission of Tajikistan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The next public meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it will hear the replies of Senegal, which presented its third periodic report to the Committee on Tuesday, 6 November. The Committee will hear the replies of Tajikistan at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 8 November.

Report of Tajikistan

The second periodic report of Tajikistan can be read via the following link: CAT/C/TJK/2.

Presentation of the report of Tajikistan

SHERKHON SALIMZODA, Prosecutor General of Tajikistan, introducing the report, said the country had tried to guarantee the respect of human rights ever since its independence.  However, during the first year of its independence Tajikistan had faced internal and external resistance and a five-year civil war had killed 150,000, while more than 1 million people had become refugees.  Following the national concord achieved in 1997, several years were needed to stabilize the situation in the country.  It also took a long time to disarm armed groups and allow for the return of refugees.  In the post-conflict phase, certain forces wished to set up a communist Government, while others were in favour of an Islamic State.  Most people however opted for a democracy based on compliance with human rights and human rights and freedoms had therefore been established in the Constitution as the highest value.

Tajikistan was equipped with various structures protecting human rights, the delegation said, pointing in particular to the human rights ombudsman and a procuracy which was answerable only to the President and the Parliament.  Efforts were ongoing, as highlighted by the successful reform programme strengthening the role of the judiciary in bolstering human rights and the visits of various Special Rapporteurs.  In order to ensure that people’s rights were being upheld, citizens were also being received every Saturday by leaders of ministries and departments.

Explaining the Tajik legislation, the delegation said the prohibition of torture was a constitutional standard in the country.  Pursuant to the Constitution, Tajikistan recognized international instruments as part and parcel of its domestic law.  If there was a conflict between the two, the international texts held true.  Following the submission of its first report, Tajikistan had also amended several laws, notably by enshrining liability for different kinds of torture in the Criminal Code and ensuring the adversarial nature of criminal procedures.   Torture of detainees was strictly prohibited and the law on detainees also protected people in custody from any kind of ill-treatment, with other issues such as intimidation being at the centre of authorities’ attention.  Important aspects of safety were being provided for in the law on state protection to those involved in court proceedings.

As far as the media was concerned, the President had issued a decree to ensure that journalists could investigate cases of torture and the article of the criminal code dealing with slander had been removed.  In implementing the Committee’s recommendations, Tajikistan had also introduced a new article in the Criminal Code to bring it in line with the Constitution.  Officials who issued instructions for torture to be carried out could now be brought to justice, and attempts to use torture were considered criminal acts.

When presenting its Universal Periodic Review to the Human Rights Council recently, Tajikistan had adopted several recommendations relating to torture, which it had undertaken to implement for the period 2012 – 2016.  The Special Rapporteur on Torture had also visited Tajikistan in May this year, commending the efforts of the authorities to improve custody conditions and noting legislative progress.

In February 2011, the Tajik Security Council had addressed issues of law enforcement and had publicly condemned torture and similar methods.  Also last year, the President had spoken on the upholding of human rights and stressed the importance of eliminating torture and inhuman treatment.  There had been a special discussion on countering torture last year, resulting in the establishment of a working group on the prevention of torture which included staff from several Government bodies.  The working group had been working closely with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and had held training throughout the country.

When it came to the Criminal Procedural Code, via an instruction involving the prosecutor’s office and the Ministry of Justice, there were now special instructions on custody and detention.  Custody cells in Dushanbe had a video system which turned on as soon as a person arrived.  Efforts were being made to extend this practice to facilities in other parts of the country.

In concluding, the delegation underscored that Tajikistan had undertaken significant efforts to fight torture.  It was trying to fulfil all democratic norms and conditions to provide for human rights to the utmost degree.  The country’s legislation enshrined all foundations to defend human rights and freedoms.  The law provided for human rights to be upheld not only when someone was being detained, but whenever someone came in contact with officials.  Many decrees had been handed down, many ministries and agencies were part of the criminal system, and all they did stemmed from the Criminal Procedural Code.  Tajikistan would continue to try to create an appropriate atmosphere for all.

Questions from Rapporteurs on Tajikistan

GEORGE TUGUSHI, Committee Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, noted positive steps in introducing new legislation, pointing in particular to the adoption of the new Criminal Procedural Code and the June 2012 decree of the Supreme Court.

Despite numerous changes, serious legislative flaws persisted, which served as grounds for the systemic practice of torture.  The Criminal Code for instance envisaged five years of imprisonment for torture, which was neither commensurate with torture nor aligned with the Convention.  Also, the law on amnesty granted wide discretion to authorities in reducing and expanding sentences.

Another issue was safeguards.  These should certainly be put in place by legislation, but the main issue was that they should be implemented in practice, said Mr. Tugushi.  He was also concerned that, according to article 91.1 of the amended Criminal Procedural Code, suspects were not entitled to procedural safeguards until they were registered.

The delegation had pointed out that international law was directly applicable in Tajikistan.  He therefore would like to hear about cases where the courts had directly applied the Convention in considering alleged acts of torture?

The Rapporteur pointed out that torture often took place while people were being held by the police, not only in detention facilities, wondering whether long term holding by the police after remand was still taking place in Tajikistan.  Also, confessions obtained under torture were allegedly still being used.  Could the delegation provide more information on this issue?

There seemed to be issues related to article 3 of the Convention, cases of asylum seekers and the Minsk Convention, the Rapporteur went on to say.  Apparently there were no safeguards to prevent the extradition of persons to countries where they risked being subjected to torture or inhumane treatment.  Also, could the delegation say more about the so-called statute of limitations in Tajik legislation?

NORA SVEAASS, Committee Co-Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, wondered how often provisions of treaties ratified by the State party were in fact being invoked by Tajik courts.  Also, following the Universal Periodic Review, Tajikistan said it would consider issuing a standard invitation to Special Procedures – would such a standing invitation be issued?

The Committee had credible information suggesting that hazing in the military was a problem, that deaths and suicides occurred, and that insights seemed to be blocked.  Could the delegation inform the Committee about steps that would be taken to tackle this situation and ensure that no human rights abuses happened in the army?  Also, what action was envisaged to investigate such abuses when they did happen, to hold perpetrators to account and to provide redress to those affected?

It would be helpful to know more about the mandate and the budgetary situation of the ombudsperson, Ms. Sveaass went on to say, asking whether the ombudsperson was allowed to undertake unrestricted monitoring of all places of detention.

The Committee had been informed that health personnel were asked to assess a large number of persons in a very short period of time.  The examination and interview of 34 victims of torture by medical experts had been completed in one hour, noted Ms. Sveaass, underlining that this gave rise to serious limitations.

The Co-Rapporteur noted that substantial resources and time had been committed towards training police officers.  But there seemed to be too much general acceptance of torture and ill-treatment, with police officers assuming that torture and other excessive techniques were necessary for effective law enforcement.  Could the delegation clarify whether police had been trained on the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials?  And did the Government plan on holding further police training activities focused on interactive methods?

According to the State party, investigations into causes of death in custody were carried out by the prosecuting authority.  However, the Committee had been informed that little progress had been made in investigating such cases and that families faced chronic barriers when trying to access information about the circumstances of deaths.  Could the delegation provide further information on this?

Questions by Committee Members

An Expert wished to know whether the International Committee of the Red Cross was granted unconditional access to places of deprivation of liberty in Tajikistan.  The report of the State party, issued two years ago, only stated that a working group had been established to revise the agreement with the Red Cross.  Could the delegation provide updated information on this subject?

Regarding prison conditions, the report indicated that punishment cells had recently been enlarged.  But it did not provide the actual dimensions, the space open to actual light, whether there were ventilation and hygienic services, and for which crimes and for how long persons were placed in such cells.

Non-governmental organizations asserted that minors were being treated as adults, a Committee member said.  This ran counter to provisions for treating juvenile delinquencies; there needed to be developments along these lines.  And what were the results of the work carried out to assess whether the treatment of minors was in accordance with international standards, another Expert inquired.

A Committee member recognized Tajikistan’s efforts to tackle torture but said the Committee was interested above all in what was actually happening in the country.  In that regard the situation was far from being positive overall.  Could the delegation provide specific cases of proceedings against judges, for instance, and explain why proceedings had been undertaken, what the modalities were and what happened in the end?  The report also talked about officers punished for abuse of authority against detainees but it provided no information about redress to victims.

Experts also asked a number of other questions, inter alia including whether Tajikistan intended to transform the moratorium on the use of the death penalty into abolition, whether there were any high security prisons in Tajikistan and whether prisons where detainees were being detained in secret existed.  Committee members also wished to know whether isolation was used as punishment in detention facilities, what Tajikistan’s position was with regards to the ratification of the Optional Protocol of the Convention against Torture, and whether there was a procedure for habeas corpus.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT12/035E

COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS REPLIES OF TAJIKISTAN

8 November 2012

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the replies of Tajikistan to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Responding to questions raised by Committee members on Wednesday, 7 November, the delegation of Tajikistan, led by Sherkhon Salimzoda, Prosecutor General of Tajikistan, said that places of detention were monitored and pre-trial detention situations were assessed on a regular basis.  While the overall responsibility lay with the procurator’s office, the ombudsman was also involved in the prevention of torture and non-governmental organizations and the media also took part in visits.  Authorities had taken measures to develop institutional and legal measures to ensure the rapid treatment of allegations of torture, the delegation said, pointing in particular to changes in the proceedings of the special court, the ombudsman and other offices.

The delegation of Tajikistan consisted of representatives from the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Council of Justice, the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Department of the Executive Office of the President, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Justice and the Permanent Mission of Tajikistan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee’s concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Tajikistan will be issued towards the end of the session, which concludes on 23 November.

The Committee’s next public meeting will be at 10 a.m. on Friday, 9 November when the Committee will consider the fifth periodic report of the Russian Federation (CAT/C/RUS/5).

Response of the Delegation of Tajikistan

In response to questions raised by Committee members on Wednesday, 7 November, the delegation of Tajikistan said it was pleased to hear that the Committee felt the country had made progress in combating torture.  Tajikistan would continue to further improve its legislative base as well as its institutional mechanisms to combat torture.  The delegation had taken good note of the Committee’s concern regarding the weak sanctions for torture – five years of imprisonment – and that no access to a lawyer was provided until a person was accused.

Article 143 of the Criminal Code provided criminal responsibility for harsh treatment and actions which belittled the dignity of a person, with sanctions ranging from two to five years. However, the article made no delimitation of degrading acts, harsh treatment and torture.  The delegation went on to say that according to a decree issued in 2012 by the Supreme Court, factual detention should be seen as deprivation of a person’s ability to move freely – that included detention or enforcement to go or remain somewhere.  Deprivation of liberty was counted from the time when a person was taken into detention.  As per an instruction of the Prosecutor General, detainees were informed of their rights to medical and legal assistance.

Responding to the Committee’s query about the possible signing and ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, the delegation said a Government working group had been set up to this effect.  However, at the moment Tajikistan was not ready to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol due to financial difficulties, as explained to the Human Rights Council last year.

Tajikistan had made efforts in terms of training.  It had published a handbook on the role of the procurator’s office and methods of torture with assistance from the Danish human rights institution, regular courses on ways to identify torture had been held in Tajikistan, and 30 staff of the procurator’s office had been trained abroad in 2011.  The President’s office had also conducted more than 50 seminars over the past two years and authorities had established a hotline and a website allowing citizens to report police violence.

Places of detention were monitored through a national system and conditions in pre-trial detentions were assessed on a regular basis.  While the overall responsibility lay with the procurator’s office, the ombudsman was also involved in the prevention of torture.  The ombudsman was entitled to visits without prior notification and preventing him from doing so carried criminal responsibility.  Non-governmental organizations and the media also visited prisons on a regular basis.  Just recently, a place of detention in Dushanbe had been visited and a civil society organization which combated torture had monitored psychiatric institutions and hospitals to document cases of torture.  Military premises were assessed by a special body which ensured that the requirements of the charter of armed forces were being met.  Hazing among the armed forces was indeed a problem in Tajikistan, the delegation said, adding that this was the case in most countries.  Sanctions had been imposed and the military procurator had set up a hotline to eradicate this practice.  As a result of this and other measures, hazing in the military had been decreasing.

Authorities were taking measures to develop institutional and legal measures to ensure that allegations of torture were rapidly investigated.  The delegation pointed in particular to changes in the proceedings of the special court, the ombudsman and other offices responsible for considering complaints.  These complaints were made through sealed envelopes, making it impossible for prison staff to read the complaints.

The delegation did not think that it was correct that one doctor had had to examine 34 potential victims of torture in one hour.

Commenting on the administration of justice, the delegation emphasized that Tajikistan had taken practical measures to ensure human rights and freedoms since it had gained independence.  The first Constitution, whose eighteenth anniversary was yesterday, recognized human rights and freedoms as the highest value, stating that life in dignity could not be violated.  To guarantee justice, the Constitution provided for an independent judiciary.  In adopting the new Constitution, the aim was to improve the judicial system further and enhance its role in defending human rights and freedoms.  This was notably done by creating a constitutional court, together with civilian courts and administrative courts, and by increasing the salaries of judges.  And the results were there, the delegation said.  In 2006, the State had looked at more than 30,000 cases and four years later, in 2010, that number had almost quadrupled to more than 118,000 cases.  Citizens turned to courts to defend their labour rights and their familial and economic rights, and to counter administrative violations of their rights.  In addition, the newly adopted Criminal Code enshrined the adversarial principle, so the legal basis for defence rights existed.

On the comment made by the Committee about courts not reacting to allegations of torture, the delegation said there were examples where courts had recognized torture.  According to the Criminal Code, judges must immediately look at allegations of torture.  Otherwise a court was not impartial, which led to the cancellation of sentences. If force was used or if suffering was inflicted during the pre-trial detention phase, confessions could not be used in court.  In looking at criminal cases, courts took into account all relevant aspects to ensure that lawful and valid decisions were handed down, the delegation reassured.

The Criminal Code provided for appropriate conditions of detention for juveniles, the delegation reassured.  Psychologists must be brought in, juveniles must have access to representatives, and a lawyer must take part in all activities.  Punishments were also commensurate for juveniles: when a juvenile carried out a crime for the first time, he or she would not be given a prison sentence, and fines were much lower than for adults.

Turning to torture against juveniles, the delegation said three cases of torture against minors had been recorded this year and the culprits had been sanctioned.  To prevent this phenomenon from happening, changes had been made to the proceedings of the Ministry of the Interior and a special service had been set.  In accordance with the Criminal Code, crimes against minors were recognized as an aggravated circumstance, and this was governed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Tajikistan had ratified in 2003. In order to set the situation right in this sphere, Tajikistan had adopted a number of legal and sublegal texts on sanctioning harsh treatment and on difficult family circumstances.  

The delegation stressed that the policy of Tajikistan was directed towards improving procedures, ensuring the protection of human dignity and combating torture through various measures.  Tajikistan was ready to work and hoped that together they could bring the work in the country in line with international standards aiming to humanize society.

Follow-Up Questions from Experts

GEORGE TUGUSHI, Committee Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, said nobody neglected the progress Tajikistan had made, notably in increasing the independence of judges. While it was important for the Committee to assess legislation, it also wished to evaluate the empirical practice, how legislation translated into practice.

The delegation had given a number of convincing answers.  However, one of the issues which must still be addressed was linked to the Criminal Procedural Code which provided that evidence obtained under torture was “invalid” – but “invalid” did not mean “inadmissible”.  Mr. Tugushi was also concerned that no measures were prescribed for courts when they were confronted with evidence obtained under torture.

The Rapporteur said if he was not mistaken, the moment when deprivation of liberty was legally established in Tajikistan was when a person was brought into the facility.  However, safeguards should apply as soon as a person remained with the police.  His or her rights should also be explained at that very moment.

Reacting to the delegation’s comments about visits to detention facility, the Rapporteur said he had not heard much about visits to police facilities even though in his experience torture and ill-treatment primarily took place in police custody. Furthermore, the fact that non-governmental organizations and the media were taking part in visits did not mean that these were effective.  What was very important when undertaking such visits was their preventive nature, which required access without prior notification, and that medical experts were also on board.

Mr. Tugushi said the lack of funding should not be a reason not to accede to the Optional Protocol of the Convention, which offered the possibility of a timeframe.  Also, it was commendable that Tajikistan had a moratorium on the death penalty – would it now consider abolishing it?

NORA SVEAASS, Committee Co-Rapporteur for the report of Tajikistan, said she understood that there was a good system for logging complaints, notably through closed envelops, but wondered whether this was a routine practice in all institutions, also in psychiatric hospitals, and whether there had been any threats to people who forwarded complaints.

Likewise, the Committee had been informed that some people who wanted to present information to the Special Rapporteur on Torture had been threatened, which was of grave concern to the Committee.

Ms. Sveaass underlined the importance of medical checks and follow-ups in detecting acts of torture, referring to the Istanbul Protocol.

The Co-Rapporteur further said it was important to look ahead, but it was also important to look back.  In this sense it was important that reparation be provided to the civil victims of acts of torture committed during the phase of violence from 1995 to 1999.

Other Experts said it was not entirely clear to them why the association of young lawyers had been forced to end its activities and what the exact competence of military courts was.

A Committee member expressed concern at the incidents of 5 and 6 November about which the BBC had reported.  Apparently prisoners had been transferred from one penitentiary facility to another without being informed of the reasons for the transfer and some detainees had been beaten up upon arrival at the new centre.

Response by the Delegation

In response to these questions and comments and others, the delegation said there was no distinction between “invalid” and “inadmissible” as far as evidence obtained under torture was concerned.  Evidence obtained through torture was indeed considered invalid.  Allegations of torture would be verified by the judge by hearing both sides on the basis of adversarial procedures.  If the judge came to the decision that the evidence was indeed obtained through torture, the accused person would be released and provided with compensation.

Twelve hours for notifying relatives was the maximum time, the delegation clarified.  This did not mean that officers waited for that time before informing the family.  The rule was that this must be done immediately but no later than 12 hours.

As for the time of deprivation of liberty, it was indeed the time of factual taking into deprivation that held true and courts could also investigate what occurred during preliminary detention.

There were laws regarding violations perpetrated by military servicemen and such cases were being dealt with by military courts.  However, these military courts worked much the same as civil courts.

A great deal of work had been done to abolish the death penalty and Tajikistan had been one of the first States in Central Asia which had announced a moratorium on the death penalty in 2004.  However, when the decision had been announced, an overwhelming majority of the population did not agree.  Tajikistan was an Islamic country, its laws and customs were based on Islamic religion and many people did agree with the abolition of the death penalty.  In recent years, however, the discussion was not as heated.  The Government had formed a working group and Tajik society was gradually moving in the direction of abolishing the death penalty altogether.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT12/038E