The Work of the Council of Europe's Torture Committee

Jim Murdoch¹

Full text available: PDF format ^*

I. The Torture Convention and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture

A. Introduction

For the most part, places of detention in Europe have ceased being places of state-authorized infliction of man's inhumanity to man. Yet physical conditions and institutional regimes of confinement of individuals continue to raise substantive and procedural human rights guarantees. The treatment of detainees, convicted prisoners and confined mental health patients provides a litmus test of the extent to which a State gives precedence to human dignity above practical considerations such as security and good order. Since 1945, several global and regional instruments have attempted to enhance the protection of those deprived of their liberty,² the most recent (and potentially most significant) of which is the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,³ now in force in 24 Member States of the Council of Europe,⁴ and shortly to be opened to States which are non-members for accession.⁵ The Committee for the Prevention of Torture (more usually referred to as the `Torture Committee' or as the `CPT') has published three annual reports, and it is now possible to offer an early and tentative assessment of its operational framework, its attempts at standard-setting, and the extent to which it complements or indeed challenges other Council of Europe initiatives such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Prison Rules. The article will not, however, go beyond this: in particular, it will not relate the Convention to other examples of regional or international instruments for the protection of prisoners. The focus will be distinctly European.

The task of the CPT is `to examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such persons' from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment,⁶ that is, in the words of the CPT, to strengthen `the cordon sanitaire that separates acceptable and unacceptable treatment or behaviour'.⁷ In this respect, `the Torture Committee' is somewhat a misnomer: the focus is upon all aspects of detention, not merely the most extreme which could amount to `torture'. And its operation modifies somewhat the description suggested by the French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, of the CPT as les casques bleus des droits de l'homme;⁸ this stresses its multinational composition but not its modus operandi which is more that of an undercover squad than a high-profile, front-line fighting unit. However, in the present international climate the description does perhaps unwittingly hint at a body charged with a vital task but one calling for more resources than have been provided for the full achievement of objectives.

Effectiveness is promoted by two fundamental and inter-related principles, cooperation and confidentiality. When ratifying the Treaty, States agree to a general duty to cooperate with the Committee in its work,⁹ and more particularly, to permit the Committee to visit `any place within its jurisdiction where persons are deprived of their liberty by a public authority',¹⁰ unless there are `exceptional circumstances' justifying the national authorities in making representations against a proposed visit.¹¹ Access implies unlimited access by members, experts and interpreters,¹² to any place of detention, unrestricted movement within any place of detention,¹³ free communication with any person whom it believes may be able to provide information¹⁴ (including the right to private interview with any detainee¹⁵), and the availability of whatever other information it requires to discharge its tasks.¹⁶ `Deprivation of liberty' for the CPT is any de facto restriction on the freedom of movement¹⁷ in contrast to the more restrictive interpretation taken in interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights,¹⁸ and thus the CPT will not consider the legal status of a `place of detention' unless its status is likely to affect the treatment of inmates, as in the case of a psychiatric institution.¹⁹

By and large, access has not posed major problems, although reports suggest that cooperation at ministerial or high civil-service rank invariably is better than that found at the prison or police station; and the greater the assistance at ministerial level, the greater the likelihood of positive reception in prisons or police stations. Obstructions such as delay or denial in according access²⁰ are put down to lack of awareness or understanding of the CPT, and annual reports continue to call for the dissemination of information on its aims and methods.²¹ The most serious challenge to date to the very principle of free access arose during the preparations for a visit²² when the issues were whether visa requirements could be imposed, and whether reasons for refusing entry to experts and other individuals assisting the CPT need be given.²³ Clearly this problem principally arises in the case of Turkey, which still has visa requirements for holders of British and Irish passports. Subsequent inter-governmental discussions led to a working compromise but no firm decision.²⁴

Visits and the subsequent reports to States are surrounded by confidentiality which also extends to any information obtained, discussions during meetings, and recommendations made,²⁵ subject to two exceptions. A State may request publication of the report and any comments it may have on the report,²⁶ and if a State refuses to cooperate or to improve matters in the light of recommendations made, the CPT may decide (after allowing the State the opportunity to make known its views) to make a public statement on the matter.²⁷ The only public statement to date concerned police detention conditions in Turkey, and followed two ad hoc visits in 1990 and 1991 and a periodic visit in 1992. The statement was agreed upon in the face of a direct request to suppress it, and after the views of the Turkish authorities were made known.²⁸ In releasing the statement, the CPT expressed regret at the State's continuing failure to take steps to implement recommendations to deal with the widespread infliction of torture.²⁹ Both the use of the ad hoc visit procedure and the public statement are likely to be infrequent and adopted only in the most exceptional circumstances, and can be taken as symptomatic of severe problems in the `ongoing dialogue' between the CPT and national authorities. The Turkish saga illustrates above all the CPT's nerve, and its ability to follow through its task. However, it may be an atypical experience, as the work of the CPT is likely to be routine, interrupted only rarely by the spectacle of high drama.

While initially confidentiality was deemed necessary to secure State cooperation, it has been the Member States themselves that have allowed light to be shed on the inner workings and thoughts of the CPT by generally agreeing to authorize publication of reports of visits. Had this not been so, then what such `routine' entails would only have been hinted at in annual reports,³⁰ and in various addresses and articles by members or experts.³¹ This general willingness to authorize publication of country reports was perhaps not envisaged by the framers of the Convention, but has been warmly welcomed by the CPT.³² To date, eight of the nine country reports for 1990 and 1991 (that is, all bar the Spanish) and two of the 1992 reports have been published.³³ In addition, several governmental responses have been made public, along with two follow up reports.³⁴ Is confidentiality in practice really necessary for cooperation? There may now be some moral pressure on States to authorize publication since otherwise there may be a suggestion that something particularly grim is being hidden. To be sure, publication of visit reports advances the CPT's aims in that information as to workings and approaches dispels the whiff of mystery and consequent suspicion which surrounds any organization whose workings are not properly understood; indeed, States may be prompted into taking action to pre-empt likely CPT criticism after reading what has been found in other countries. But should the Committee continue to wear a cloak of confidentiality, no matter how threadbare? The emphasis in the Convention fails to capture the current mood in prison services generally of encouraging outside awareness and understanding. On the other hand, it may be better to encourage any State which practises torture on a systematic basis to subject itself to CPT scrutiny; it may indeed be unwise for such a State to allow international investigation, but if it does so, is likely to find guarantees of confidentiality to its liking. It may be better to leave the question of publication of country reports to moral pressure rather than amendment by subsequent Protocol.

B. The CPT at Work

1. Human Resources

The considerable burden of visitation, reporting and supervision falls upon the membership of the CPT supported by ad hoc `experts', interpreters, and the permanent Secretariat. The issue of membership is considered more fully in an article which follows this one.³⁵ This has not been without controversy. Briefly, the issues have centred upon how to ensure an orderly renewal of membership as terms of office expire,³⁶ upon the form of decision-making,³⁷ and - more crucially - upon the quality of appointments to the Committee. The choice facing the drafters of the Convention was whether visits should be carried out by members whose appointments could be influenced by national authorities, or, whether they should be made by experts,³⁸ since the burden of visits would be time-consuming,³⁹ and it would be difficult to find members with necessary expertise.⁴⁰ Those proposing the former believed that this would help ensure State cooperation, and this consideration finally triumphed. Yet the tension between political expediency and functional efficiency has continued.

Most of the Committee's members have been male, leading the CPT to encourage the appointment of more women for their `psychological sensitivity and fair-mindedness'.⁴¹ Furthermore, just under half of the CPT's initial membership had reached their sixtieth birthday when appointed, although the schedule of visits demands a high degree of physical stamina to cope with the punishing schedule of visits which can last from early in the day to well into the night. More crucially, there is no easy way in practice to ensure that nomination or selection of individual members is restricted to those with the necessary occupational backgrounds, or that the collective composition of the Committee is genuinely multi-disciplinary. Some appointments have raised questions of ability and qualifications. Putting it bluntly, `analysis of the composition of [visiting delegations to countries] suggests that not all Torture Committee members are considered to be equally valuable to conduct inspections'.⁴² The CPT has called for more doctors and experts in penitentiary systems to be appointed,⁴³ although some greater degree of coordination of Member States' nominations seems to be in hand.⁴⁴ Occupational backgrounds are dominated by law, medicine, politics, and the civil service, although it has been questioned whether a public service background is really appropriate, bearing in mind the need to stress the independence and impartiality of membership.⁴⁵ This point, however, is met in other ways. A procedural rule designed to alleviate any appearance of bias provides that the `national' member does not take part in any visit to his own State.⁴⁶

Whatever the final intention of the drafters, the CPT has not been slow to make use of its power to appoint part-time `experts'⁴⁷ to assist with training, develop resource materials⁴⁸ and, more controversially, participate in visits. Here, the CPT seems uncertain as to their proper role: whether the giving of limited and restricted guidance to members,⁴⁹ or as near-equals and substitutes making good missing but necessary expertise, and thus extending the role of `expert' beyond that originally intended.⁵⁰ One expert has described his position as `ambiguous', with a `wide divergence between a strict interpretation of [the Convention] and the practice of the Committee' in that visiting delegations often make considerable use of experts, even to the extent of authorizing them to interview inmates alone.⁵¹ Up to three experts can accompany delegations whose median size (including members, experts and Secretariat staff) is only seven. Beyond deciding that, `as a rule', experts should not assist delegations visiting States of which they are a national,⁵² the issue has been left somewhat in limbo. It concerns means versus ends: the de facto expert-member is currently a vital ingredient in ensuring effectiveness. On the other hand, any development of a new corpus of standards governing places of detention by the CPT raises questions as to whose standards are in reality being applied, since the exact scope of expert influence is not clear. The CPT can claim neither the authority of a judicial body, as can the European Court of Human Rights, nor of a politically-responsive body, as can the Consultative Assembly and the Committee of Ministers in differing ways. It may still be important to disguise the substance of practice behind the legitimacy of form.

The Secretariat in these circumstances provides backbone to a disparate and constantly changing membership assisted by part-time experts. The rather low initial staffing level, comprising a Committee Secretary, an Administrative Official, and three support staff, was simply insufficient for the Committee to achieve effectiveness,⁵³ and lobbying has virtually doubled this provision.⁵⁴ Yet resources continue to lag behind requirements. A recurrent theme in all three annual reports has been the curtailment of the programme of visits because of a shortage of Secretariat personnel.⁵⁵ Furthermore, reports to countries are currently being transmitted some nine months after the conclusion of a visit, rather than within the target of six months, largely due to a `bottleneck of work' within the Secretariat.⁵⁶ The level of manpower has barely been sufficient to get the CPT up and running. The aim is to have each State receive a visit every two years,⁵⁷ with reports being forwarded within six months of each visit,⁵⁸ and follow-up reports and information to be forwarded to and considered by the CPT. This is fundamental if the continuous or `ongoing dialogue' between Committee and States is to be achieved, and the preventive nature of the work of the CPT is to succeed. In this, the position of the Secretariat is pivotal. The great risk is that the Committee does not proceed beyond the tasks of inspection and reporting: that it has no time to follow-up and to reflect. Yet it will have taken some four years (rather than the three first envisaged) to carry out the first round of visits to all Member States, and the dialogue with States through follow-up reports is but beginning. The decision not to appoint full-time experts and members is being felt most acutely. However, without additional resources Secretariat overload is on the cards.

2. Visits to Places of Detention

Visits to countries may either be periodic or ad hoc. Ad hoc visits are made if these `appear to [the CPT] to be required in the circumstances',⁵⁹ and thus give the Committee some flexibility in responding to situations which call for additional or prompt investigation. To date, two such visits have been made to Turkey, and one to Northern Ireland. Otherwise, there is little in the Convention to give guidance as to the carrying out of visits,⁶⁰ and initially there was some readiness to modify and to rewrite rules of procedure in the light of experience.⁶¹ The first schedule of visits was determined by drawing lots,⁶² but how countries will be chosen in future once the first round of visits has been completed in 1993 has still to be decided. With the exception of Hungary, the countries to be visited in 1994 have all been visited before. One of the intended visits is a follow-up visit to Turkey; another is a visit to the United Kingdom postponed from 1993. Notification to States has something of the form of a ritual. The countries to be visited are announced at the end of the preceding year⁶³ and made public by a press release which is intended to trigger the receipt of information from non-governmental organizations. The second, more formal, notification comes about two weeks before the start of the visit and contains details of the composition of the delegation and requests for meetings to be arranged. However, a deliberate attempt is made to retain an element of surprise, and the CPT will disclose the names of some of the institutions to be visited only a few days before arrival. The choice of establishment is likely to be determined by the particular issue or issues the CPT is pursuing at the particular time, and is certainly influenced by communications received from non-governmental organizations. The CPT's `staple diet' continues to be detentions in police custody and prisons, but the 1991 report gave notice that in future years its agenda will include detention of the mentally ill, aliens and minors,⁶⁴ and in 1992 health care services in prison were also examined.⁶⁵

Depending upon the size of the country, a visit will last between one and two weeks,⁶⁶ with the delegation consisting of between five and nine individuals drawn from the membership, experts and Secretariat staff, plus additional interpreters if required.⁶⁷

Visits start with meetings with ministers and high-ranking government officials, followed by discussions with relevant non-governmental organizations.⁶⁸ The delegation then splits up and visits separate places of detention but will meet up on a regular basis to share observations. The CPT is free to interview any persons deprived of their liberty in private, subject only to the right of national authorities to make representations against such interviews on grounds inter alia of medical condition or urgent interrogation relating to a serious crime.⁶⁹ How inmates are chosen to meet with delegations is not discussed in reports and practice obviously varies.⁷⁰ The CPT does not consider it acceptable to transfer certain detainees prior to an announced visit,⁷¹ and indeed it may be appropriate to arrange an ad hoc visit in order to interview a particular individual.⁷² Before departure, the delegation will hold a final series of meetings with ministers and officials at which `some tentative first impressions' are given.⁷³ Such observations are informal unless the CPT decides to `immediately communicate observations to the competent authorities'⁷⁴ as it has done on at least two occasions, where it deemed it necessary to highlight concern at holding conditions calling for urgent action.⁷⁵

The `common working tools' (that is information on institutions, practices, and techniques for conducting visits which the CPT is building up)⁷⁶ in part encourages the involvement of third parties and the promotion of an `ongoing dialogue' with State authorities. Several devices are utilized in drilling for knowledge. First, information can be requested from State authorities on places of detention⁷⁷ or in relation to other matters `necessary for the Committee to carry out its task',⁷⁸ and country reports invariably request further knowledge from State authorities on local procedures and practices and substantive law. These should perhaps be seen not as indications of lack of preparation or insufficient thoroughness during missions, but as attempts by it to prompt domestic investigation and dialogue with the CPT. Second, the CPT has the right `to communicate freely with any person whom it believes can supply relevant information'.⁷⁹ The extent to which persons deprived of their liberty make contact is not discussed in any of the annual reports, but the CPT has suggested in a country report that the authorities should consider adding the President of the CPT to the approved list of persons to whom prisoners' letters are to be forwarded without examination.⁸⁰ Finally, the CPT has established working relations with national human rights pressure groups and other international institutions.⁸¹ Each of these provides the CPT with fruitful sources of information,⁸² sources which are set to increase as knowledge and understanding of the CPT grows.⁸³

The CPT can also be used as a device for furthering the lot of detainees in indirect ways. Prison officers may voice criticisms of prison management while both groups in turn may target ministers and officials; and the government department responsible for prisons may find an adverse report from the CPT of assistance in promoting its case for greater funding. Indeed, visits from the CPT may be positively welcome.⁸⁴ The CPT appears to be willing to play along if this may improve conditions.⁸⁵

The end result is a kaleidoscope of impressions and observations which are pulled together into a report containing findings, requests for information, and recommendations for action. An outline report prepared by the delegation's head will be discussed before the delegation leaves the country, and responsibility for drafting the various sections will be allocated.⁸⁶ Here, again, the involvement and influence of the experts are likely to be as great as those of the members.⁸⁷ The report is expected to be completed without delay so that it can be discussed, finalized and adopted in a plenary session, thereby ensuring its transmission to national authorities within six months.⁸⁸ Thereafter, the `ongoing dialogue' is encouraged by requesting the State to give an account of any legislative and administrative measures and any implementation of recommendations made, through an interim report and then a final report within six and twelve months respectively.⁸⁹ It is perhaps too early a stage for any assessment of how States are responding in practice since so few of the follow-up reports have been published. However the CPT has expressed general satisfaction with these follow-up reports, which suggests that recommendations are being carefully studied.⁹⁰ In turn, the CPT will respond with its own observations⁹¹ although there does not seem to be any provision in the Convention permitting these comments to be made public.

^* The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is available at the Adobe Systems.

1 Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Glasgow, Scotland.

2 For example, the UN's Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and provisions contained in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights. Non-binding instruments include the UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, and the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. See generally N. Rodley, The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law (1987).

3 For the background to the Convention see Novak, `Die Europäische Konvention zur Verhütung der Folter: Regelmäßige Besuche von Haftanstalten durch Europäisches Komitee zur Vehütung der Folter ab 1989', 15 EuGRZ (1988) 537; Novak, `The Implementation of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture: Acts of the Strasbourg Seminar', 10 HRLJ (1989) 131 et seq; and K.P. Sommermann, Der Schutz der Menschenrechte im Rahmen des Europarates (1990).

4 As at November 4th 1993, the Convention has been ratified by Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Czechoslovakia signed the Convention at the end of 1992, but only a matter of days before it split into the Czech and Slovak Republics. The Committee of Ministers subsequently decided in June 1993 that these two States were to be regarded as signatories to the Convention as from January 1st 1993.

5 By virtue of Protocol No. 1, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 17, opened for signature in November 1993.

6 Art. 1. Under Arts. 6(1) and (2), the Committee draws up its own Rules of Procedure, meets in camera, and takes decisions by simple majority (with the quorum being equal to the majority of its members), except in relation to the making of a public statement on a State's failure to cooperate or take steps to improve detention conditions when a two-thirds majority is needed.

7 First General Report, Doc. CPT (91) 3, para. 3.

8 Cf. Cassese, Le Monde diplomatique, September 1991.

9 Art. 3. Each State must notify the details of the authority responsible for receiving communications and of any `liaison officer' appointed: Art. 15.

10 Art. 2. Article 20 further provides that States may agree to extend the application of the CPT to any other of its territories either at the time of ratification or thereafter.

11 Under Art. 9(1) representations may only be made on the grounds of national defence, public safety, or serious disorder in the place of detention; upon the medical condition of a prisoner; or that an urgent investigation into a serious crime is in progress. Yet the making of such does not act as a veto upon any proposed visit. Art. 9(2) provides that the CPT and national authorities must consult each other immediately to ascertain the particular situation and decide what arrangements are necessary.

12 Art. 7(2). Art. 14(3) states that exceptionally, a State may declare that any expert or other person assisting the CPT may not take part in a visit.

13 Art. 8(2)(c).

14 Art. 8(4).

15 Art. 8(3).

16 Art. 8(2)(d); the CPT must have regard to any rules of domestic law or professional ethics in seeking such information.

17 E.g., Austrian Report, Doc. CPT/Inf (91) 10, paras. 89-93, which discusses special transit rooms for aliens.

18 E.g., Nielsen case, ECHR (1988) Series A, No. 144; X v. Federal Republic of Germany, (1981) DR 24, 158. Cf. Trechsel, `The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person', 1 HRLJ (1988) 88 at 96; Murdoch, `Safeguarding the Liberty of the Person: Recent Strasbourg Jurisprudence' 42 ICLQ (1993) 494 at 495-99.

19 Danish Report, Doc. CPT/Inf (91) 12, para. 74.

20 E.g., Maltese Report, Doc. CPT/Inf (92) 5, para. 10; Swiss Report, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 2, paras. 6 & 7. Problems mainly concern police premises, although on occasion judges and public prosecutors have failed to cooperate: Third General Report, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 12, paras. 3 & 4, and 6.

21 Cf. the repeated encouragement to States to make known to all relevant authorities and staff the CPT's existence, powers and purpose: First General Report, supra note 6, at para. 41; Second General Report, Doc. CPT/Inf (92) 3, para. 21.

22 First General Report, supra note 6, at paras. 74-77.

23 See Arts. 8(2) and 14(3).

24 Entry visas were ultimately granted. See Some Issues Concerning the Interpretation of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, etc., Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 10, 5, 11. The Ministers' Deputies' Rapporteur Group on Legal Cooperation which reported that it was unable to agree that exemption from visa requirements was implied by the Convention, that only States could in any case give an authoritative interpretation, and that practical problems could be overcome by the issue of multiple entry visas. The CPT continues to maintain that visa requirements are excluded by the treaty: see Some Issues Concerning the Interpretation of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, etc, ibid., at 9-14.

25 Arts. 10(1), 11(1), 13 and 14(2).

26 Art. 11(2); but under Art. 11(3) no data referring to an individual may be published without the express consent of the individual.

27 Art. 10(2); a majority of two-thirds of the membership of the CPT is required in such a case.

28 The decision to take steps to issue a public statement was made at the plenary meeting of the CPT at the end of September 1992; the views of the Turkish authorities were received some six weeks later. See Third General Report, supra note 19, at para. 10.

29 Public Statement on Turkey Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 1, paras. 21 and 37. See further Tanka, `The Public Statement on Turkey', 4 EJIL (1993) 115; Parmentier, `Spotlight on Turkey', 11 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (1993) 131.

30 Which are made under Art. 12 to the Committee of Ministers and transmitted to the Consultative Assembly.

31 Such statements must have been made in conformity with CPT Rules on confidentiality and cleared by the Secretariat. See, e.g., Cassese, `Our Ultimate Weapon: The Public Statement', Forum, May 1991, 14; `Interview with Nadia Gevers Leuven-Lachinsky, Member of CPT', 4 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (1991) 389. A valuable and important article, co-authored by an expert appointed to assist the Committee, is Evans and Morgan, `The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture: Operational Practice', 41 ICLQ (1992) 590.

32 Second General Report, supra note 20, at para. 25.

33 Reports to the Governments of Austria, Doc. CPT/Inf (91) 10; Denmark, Doc. CPT/Inf (91) 12; United Kingdom, Doc. CPT/Inf (91) 15; Sweden, Doc. CPT/Inf (92) 4; Malta, Doc. CPT/Inf (92) 5; France, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 2; Switzerland, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 3; Finland, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 8; Germany, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 13; and the Netherlands, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 15.

34 Responses of the Governments of Austria, Doc. CPT/Inf (91) 11; United Kingdom, Doc. CPT/Inf (91) 16; Sweden, Doc. CPT/Inf (92) 4; France, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 2; Switzerland, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 4, together with Annexes; Germany, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 14; and Finland, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 16. Follow-up Report from the Swedish Government, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 7; Follow-up Report of the United Kingdom Government, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 9.

35 Evans, Morgan, `The European Torture Committee: Membership Issues', 5 EJIL (1994) 249.

36 The threat of a `revolving doors' membership is likely to be avoided by the ratification of Protocol No. 2, opened for ratification on 4 November 1993, Doc. CPT/Inf (93) 17.

37 The Rules of Procedure, Rules 10 and 14 provide that decisions will be made in full plenary, with administrative decisions or those relating to the overall direction of work to be taken by the President and two vice-presidents; First Annual Report, supra note 6, at paras. 14-15.

38 Possibly full-time experts: cf. Novak, `Die Europäische Konvention zur Verhütung der Folter', supra note 2, at 539, who suggests engaging a wide pool of part-time experts, having regard to the special needs of each mission.

39 Members spend about 3 months per year on CPT business. The International Commission of Jurists, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Swiss Committee Against Torture all argued for the appointment of experts to discharge the task of carrying out visits.

40 Cassese, `A New Approach to Human Rights: The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture', 83 AJIL (1989) 130 at 147.

41 First General Report, supra note 6, at paras. 87-88.

42 Evans and Morgan, supra note 30, at 604.

43 First General Report, supra note 6, at paras. 87 and 88; Second General Report, supra note 20, at paras. 26 and 27.

44 Cf. Third General Report, supra note 19, at para. 23.

45 Cf. Novak, supra note 37, at 539.

46 Rules of Procedure, Rule 37(2). Similarly, under Rule 38(2) a visiting delegation will not generally be assisted by an expert who is a national of the State being visited.

47 Art. 7(2).

48 First General Report, supra note 6, at paras. 35 and 37.

49 Cf. ibid., at para. 88: `[T]he participation of persons [from medical and penitentiary backgrounds] at all stages of the Committee's work would prove beneficial; this is only possible through membership of the Committee.'

50 Second General Report, supra note 20, at para. 27.

51 Evans and Morgan, supra note 30, at 605-7.

52 Rules of Procedure, Rule 37(2).

53 First General Report, supra note 6, at para. 90; Second General Report, supra note 20, at paras. 14 and 34.

54 The current Secretariat comprises a Committee Secretary, three Administrative Officers, two Principal Administrative Assistants (one for administrative and budgetary questions, one for documentation and information), a Senior Clerk, and two Secretaries; another two appointments are in the pipeline: Third General Report, supra note 19, Appendix 2B and para. 27.

55 The planned visits to Spain in 1990, Portugal in 1991, and Luxembourg in 1992 were each postponed: First General Report, supra note 6, at para. 54; Second General Report, supra note 20, at para. 17; Third General Report, supra note 19, at para. 1.

56 First General Report, at para. 54; Second General Report, at para. 17; Third General Report, at paras. 1, 13 and 26, ibid.

57 First General Report, at para. 89; Second General Report, at para. 29, ibid.

58 First General Report, ibid., at para. 71.

59 Art. 7(1).

60 Cf. Art. 7(2) which simply provides that at least two members will take part in each visit as a general rule.

61 The CPT's Rules of Procedure were adopted on 16 November 1989, and have been amended on five occasions. The 1991 Report referred to the Rules as now being `quite stable': Second General Report, supra note 20, at para. 11.

62 First General Report, supra note 6, at para. 19.

63 Rules of Procedure, Rule 31(2). Art. 15 provides that notification is to be made to liaison officers.

64 Second General Report, supra note 20, at para. 4; cf. Third General Report, supra note 19, at para. 2.

65 Third General Report, ibid.

66 First General Report, supra note 6, at para. 61.

67 Ibid., at para. 55.

68 For example, the non-governmental organizations visited in the UK included inter alia the British Medical Association, the Howard League, Justice, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Justice), and the Prison Reform Trust. United Kingdom Report, supra note 32, at para. 7.

69 Arts. 8(3) and 9(1).

70 In some institutions it appears that governors will suggest names of inmates who have expressed an interest in meeting members of the delegation, while during the course of a visit other inmates may come forward.

71 Second General Report, supra note 20, at para. 22.

72 Evans and Morgan, supra note 30, at 602.

73 First General Report, supra note 6, at paras. 64-67, at 67.

74 Art. 8(5).

75 Second General Report, supra note 20, at para. 23; cf. French Report, at para. 7, Swiss Report, at para. 17, supra note 32.

76 First General Report, supra note 6, at paras. 34-6; the documents remain confidential, and have not yet been made public.

77 Art. 8(2)(b) provides that full `information on the places where persons deprived of their liberty are being held' must be given. The First General Report, supra note 6, at para. 40 notes that all parties were asked for this information in November 1989, but some parties had still not complied with the request more than a year later. It is not clear the extent to which national constitutional arrangements (for example, involving fragmentation of authority for policing) is to blame. Central government may not hold details of all police detention facilities if the police function is the responsibility of State, municipal or local government.

78 Art. 8(2)(d).

79 Art. 8(4).

80 Finnish Report, supra note 32, at para. 136.

81 In particular, with the Council of Europe's European Commission and European Court of Human Rights, the UN's Committee against Torture, Special Rapporteur on Refugees and High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and in addition with unnamed non-governmental organizations. See First General Report, supra note 6, at para. 42; Third General Report, supra note 19, at paras. 17-18.

82 Although the First General Report, supra note 6, at paras. 43 and 44 notes that `the flow of information' is very much `a oneway process' since rules of confidentiality prevent disclosures by the CPT.

83 Cf. Second General Report, supra note 20, at para. 10.

84 Cf. Cassese, supra note 30, at 14: `Great Britain [sic] has a national prison inspectorate ... [giving] us access to a number of excellent critical reports... We therefore had to ask ourselves whether on the spot visits were really called for. However, it was our British colleagues themselves who insisted on a "European" visit, on the grounds that "your opinion could be constructive".'

85 See, for example, approval given to suggestions by prison governors to improve training of staff or to provide new accommodation for inmates. Danish Report, supra note 32, at paras. 21 and 54.

86 First General Report, supra note 6, at para. 68.

87 Evans and Morgan, supra note 30, at 608.

88 Although currently reports are taking nine months.

89 First General Report, supra note 55, at para. 32.

90 Third General Report, supra note 19, at para. 15.

91 This aspect of the work of the CPT is at an early stage. The first observations were made in 1992 in respect of the Maltese, Swedish and United Kingdom follow-up reports, and during the first half of 1993 in response to the Austrian and French reports. See Third General Report, supra note 19, at para. 7.

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:01PM