UNITED NATIONS Distr. GENERAL Economic and Social E/CN.4/1991/17 Council 10 January 1991 ENGLISH Original: ENGLISH/FRENCH/ SPANISH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Forty-seventh session Item 10 (a) of the provisional agenda QUESTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS SUBJECTED TO ANY FORM OF DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT: TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT Report of the Special Rapporteur. Mr. P. Kooijmanst pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1990/34 GE.91-10026/2805B E/CN.4/1991/17 page ii CONTENTS Chapter Paragraphs Page INTRODUCTION 1-4 1 I. MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK 5 - 18 2 II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR 19 - 202 6 A. Urgent action 19-23 6 B. Correspondence with Governments 24 - 202 6 Bahrain 24 - 26 6 Bangladesh 27-28 8 Brazil 29-31 9 Burkina Faso 32 - 34 10 Cameroon 35 11 Chad 36 11 Chile 37 11 China 38 - 43 12 Colombia 44 - 51 13 Comoros 52 16 Congo 53 - 54 16 Cuba 55 - 56 17 Ecuador 57 - 61 17 Egypt 62 - 63 18 El Salvador 64 - 66 20 Equatorial Guinea 67 21 Ethiopia 68 - 69 22 Fiji 70 22 Gabon 71 23 Greece 72 23 Guatemala 73 23 Guinea 74 23 Haiti 75 - 77 24 India 78 24 Indonesia 79- 86 25 Iran, Islamic Republic of 87 27 Iraq 88 - 89 27 Israel 90-97 27 Kenya 98 - 102 31 Kuwait 103 - 105 32 Malaysia 106 33 Mauritania 107-109 33 Mexico 110 - 114 34 Morocco 115 36 Myanmar 116-125 36 Nepal 126 39 Papua New Guinea 127 40 E/CN.4/1991/17 page iii CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Paragraphs II (cont'd) Peru 128 - 133 41 Philippines 134 - 138 42 Republic of Korea 139 - 140 43 Saudi Arabia 141 - 142 46 Somalia 143 - 144 47 South Africa. 145 - 149 47 Spain 150 - 153 48 Sri Lanka 154 51 Sudan 155 - 169 51 Syrian Arab Republic 170 - 172 54 Turkey 173 - 195 55 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 196 - 197 64 Venezuela.... 198 - 200 64 Yemen 201 66 Zaire 202 66 III. VISITS BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR 203 - 275 67 A. Visit to the Philippines 203 - 274 67 B. Follow-up to visits 275 87 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 276 - 303 88 E/CN.4/1991/17 page 1 INTRODUCTION 1. At its forty-first session, the Commission on Human Rights adopted resolution 1985/33, by which it decided to appoint a special rapporteur to examine questions relevant to torture. 2. On 12 May 1985, the Chairman of the Commission appointed Mr. Peter Kooijmans (Netherlands) Special Rapporteur, who, in pursuance of Commission resolutions 1986/50, 1987/29, 1988/32 and 1989/33, submitted reports (E/CN.4/1986/15, E/CN.4/1987/13, E/CN.4/1988/17 and Add. 1 and E/CN.4/1989/15) to the Commission at its forty-second, forty-third, forty-fourth and forty-fifth sessions respectively. 3. At its forty-sixth session, the Commission had before it the fifth report of the Special Rapporteur (E/CN.4/1990/17 and Add. 1) and adopted resolution 1990/34 by which it decided to continue the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for another two years, while maintaining the annual reporting cycle in order to enable him to submit further conclusions and recommendations to the Commission. 4. In conformity with Commission resolution 1990/34 the Special Rapporteur hereby presents his sixth report to the Commission. Chapter I of the report deals with a certain number of aspects pertaining to the Special Rapporteur's mandate and method of work. Chapter II consists of the correspondence between the Special Rapporteur and Governments of States with regard to which detailed information alleging the practice of torture has been received. This chapter describes, in a summarized form, communications from the Special Rapporteur to Governments, including both urgent appeals and letters, and Governments' replies thereto. Chapter III consists of a report on the visit by the Special Rapporteur to the Philippines. Chapter IV contains conclusions and recommendations. E/CN.4/1991/17 page 2 I. MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK 5. The number of communications with information on alleged cases of torture or severe maltreatment received by the Special Rapporteur continued to increase, in comparison with previous years. The Special Rapporteur wishes to reiterate what he said in last year's report, viz. that this increase does not necessarily mean that torture itself is practised on a larger scale in the world. It may be explained by the fact that it is more widely realized that the international community has established mechanisms to monitor violations of basic human rights and also by the fact that a number of societies have become more transparent in the course of time. 6. The decision to transmit an allegation about human rights violations to a Government is always a difficult one, but especially so in the case of torture. Even in cases where there is a recorded pattern of torture in a country, the question of whether a specific person has been tortured can hardly ever be determined with absolute certainty without a careful medical examination. In this respect the mandate on torture is different from the mandates on enforced or involuntary disappearances and on summary or arbitrary executions. Torture is almost invariably practised in seclusion, and the only witnesses are the accomplices to the fact. Physical marks, if present, often disappear or heal or can be ascribed to other causes. To that extent torture can be said to be the most private of human rights violations. 7. The Special Rapporteur is well aware that, precisely because of this peculiarity, torture allegations may be made in order to tarnish a Government's reputation and that this may be quite effective in view of the fact that torture is generally and absolutely abhorred. When the Special Rapporteur's report was under discussion in the Commission on Human Rights at its 1990 session, some Government representatives accused non-governmental organizations of making unfounded allegations of torture for the purposes of political confrontation. The Special Rapporteur was invited to subject the information he received to a thorough screening process lest he would lose his credibility. 8. Whenever the Special Rapporteur transmits allegations to a Government, he does so on the basis of the following considerations: the alleged case usually should correspond to the general pattern of the human rights situation of the country concerned as recorded in documentation provided by governmental and non-governmental institutions. If this is not the case, the allegation will only be transmitted if it is sufficiently detailed; in such cases the Special Rapporteur feels that he is entitled to bring it to the Government's attention in order to enable it to investigate the matter. As for the reliability of the source, which is normally a non-governmental organization, it should be borne in mind that the possibility that the alleged facts have actually occurred must always be corroborated by other, inevitably more general, information. 9. In this context it deserves mention that torture is often applied against persons who are seen by the authorities as political opponents. However, the fact that the allegations are made by politically opposed groups does not necessarily imply that they are made merely for political purposes. E/CN.4/1991/17 page 3 10. The Special Rapporteur himself is not in a position to evaluate the veracity of the allegation. This can only be done through an investigation on the spot by the national authorities. Only they are in a position to verify or disprove the allegation by informing the Special Rapporteur about the way they have carried out this investigation and about its outcome. It is the Special Rapporteur's opinion that a reply should contain information about the authority responsible for the investigation, the persons questioned, the results of the medical examination and the identity of the person who performed it, the decision on a complaint which was eventually filed and the grounds for this decision, as well as any other relevant material. A flat denial, or a reference to the prohibition of torture under national law or to the fact that the individual has not submitted any complaint or has been released cannot be seen as satisfactory replies. Finally, if the authorities are of the opinion that allegations are made for the sole purpose of smearing the Government, they can always invite the Special Rapporteur to carry out an investigation himself. 11. The number of requests for urgent appeals is steadily increasing. The Special Rapporteur feels that the possibility to send urgent appeals is a unique feature of the Commission's thematic mandates. Such appeals are purely humanitarian in character. They refer to situations where people are actually under detention and where fear is expressed that they are or may be subjected to torture. Such fear may be based on various grounds. Sometimes relatives who have visited them, or other prison inmates, have seen that their physical condition is extremely bad or that their bodies bear marks of torture. In other cases it is reported that the arrested persons are held incommunicado and, since incommunicado detention is highly conducive to torture, fear that torture may be practised is comprehensible. In all such cases the Special Rapporteur feels that the humanitarian character of his mandate obliges him to make such an urgent appeal. These appeals, therefore, should certainly not be seen as accusations. In some cases the Government itself may not be aware of the actual situation and, only after receiving the appeal, may be in a position to look into the matter and instruct the authorities concerned to respect the individual's right to physical and mental integrity.