DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Committee Against Torture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Committee Against Torture A/59/44 United Nations Report of the Committee against Torture Thirty-first session (10-21 November 2003) Thirty-second session (3-21 May 2004) General Assembly Official Records Fifty-ninth session Supplement No. 44 (A/59/44) A/59/44 General Assembly Official Records Fifty-ninth session Supplement No. 44 (A/59/44) Report of the Committee against Torture Thirty-first session (10-21 November 2003) Thirty-second session (3-21 May 2004) United Nations • New York, 2004 NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. CONTENTS Chapter Paragraphs Page I. ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS .................... 1 - 17 7 A. States parties to the Convention ....................................... 1 - 3 7 B. Sessions of the Committee ............................................... 4 7 C. Elections, membership and attendance at sessions ........... 5 7 D. Solemn declaration by the newly elected members ......... 6 7 E. Election of officers ........................................................... 7 8 F. Agendas ............................................................................ 8 - 9 8 G. Pre-sessional working group ............................................ 10 - 11 9 H. Lists of issues ................................................................... 12 - 14 9 I. Thematic rapporteurs ........................................................ 15 10 J. Participation of Committee members in other meetings ............................................................................ 16 10 K. Joint statement on the occasion of the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture ......... 17 11 II. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION ..................... 18 - 21 12 III. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION ..................... 22 - 150 18 Bulgaria ...................................................................................... 28 - 36 19 Cameroon ................................................................................... 37 - 50 23 Chile ........................................................................................... 51 - 59 28 Colombia .................................................................................... 60 - 69 33 Croatia ........................................................................................ 70 - 81 38 GE.04-42978 (E) 041004 iii CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Paragraphs Page III. (cont’d) Czech Republic ........................................................................... 82 - 87 42 Germany ..................................................................................... 88 - 94 45 Latvia .......................................................................................... 95 - 104 48 Lithuania ..................................................................................... 105 - 113 52 Monaco ....................................................................................... 114 - 121 56 Morocco ...................................................................................... 122 - 129 58 New Zealand ............................................................................... 130 - 139 61 Yemen ........................................................................................ 140 - 150 64 IV. ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONVENTION .................................... 151 - 240 69 A. General information .......................................................... 151 - 155 69 B. Summary account of the results of the proceedings concerning the inquiry on Serbia and Montenegro .......... 156 - 240 69 V. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION .................................... 241- 272 91 A. General information .......................................................... 241 - 247 91 B. Interim measures of protection ......................................... 248 - 251 92 C. Progress of work ............................................................... 252 - 263 93 D. Follow-up activities .......................................................... 264 - 272 95 VI. FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ........................ 273 98 VII. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ITS ACTIVITIES ....................................... 274 99 iv CONTENTS (continued) Annexes Page I. States that have signed, ratified or acceded to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as at 21 May 2004 ....................................................... 100 II. States parties that have declared, at the time of ratification or accession, that they do not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for by article 20 of the Convention, as at 21 May 2004 ................................................................................................. 105 III. States parties that have made the declarations provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, as at 21 May 2004 ................................. 106 IV. Membership of the Committee against Torture in 2004 ....................................... 108 V. Country rapporteurs and alternate rapporteurs for the reports of States parties considered by the Committee at its thirty-first and thirty-second sessions .................................................................... 109 VI. Working methods of the Committee against Torture when considering reports under article 19 of the Convention ........................................ 111 VII. Decisions of the Committee against Torture under article 22 of the Convention .................................................................................................. 115 A. Decisions on merits Communication No. 135/1999: S.G. v. The Netherlands ..................................... 115 Communication No. 148/1999: A.K. v. Australia ................................................ 123 Communication No. 153/2000: Z.T. v. Australia ................................................. 132 Communication No. 182/2001: A.I. v. Switzerland .............................................. 139 Communication No. 183/2001: B.S.S. v. Canada ................................................ 146 Communication No. 186/2001: K.K. v. Switzerland ............................................ 159 Communication No. 187/2001: Dhaou Belgacem Thabti v. Tunisia ................... 167 Communication No. 188/2001: Imed Abdelli v. Tunisia ...................................... 187 v CONTENTS (continued) Annexes Page VII. (cont’d) A. Decisions on merits (cont’d) Communication No. 189/2001: Bouabdallah LTAIEF v. Tunisia......................... 207 Communication No. 196/2002: M.A.M. v. Sweden............................................... 227 Communication No. 199/2002: Hanan Ahmed Fouad Abd El Khalek Attia v. Sweden .................................. 234 Communication No. 203/2002: A.R. v. The Netherlands ..................................... 247 Communication No. 209/2002: M.O. v. Denmark ............................................... 254 Communication No. 210/2002: V.R. v. Denmark ................................................. 260 Communication No. 213/2002: E.J.V.M. v. Sweden ............................................ 267 Communication No. 214/2002: M.A.K. v. Germany ............................................ 275 Communication No. 215/2002: J.A.G.V. v. Sweden ............................................ 288 Communication No. 228/2003: T.M. v. Sweden ................................................... 294 B. Decisions on inadmissibility Communication No. 202/2002: Helle Jensen v. Denmark ................................... 303 Communication No. 225/2003: R.S. v. Denmark ................................................. 314 Communication No. 229/2003: H.S.V. v. Sweden ................................................ 318 Communication No. 236/2003: A.T.A. v. Switzerland ......................................... 323 Communication No. 243/2004: S.A. v. Sweden .................................................... 325 vi I. ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS A. States parties to the Convention 1. As at 21 May 2004, the closing date of the thirty-second session of the Committee against Torture, there were 136 States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 and entered into force on 26 June 1987. 2. Since the last report, the Congo, Maldives and Swaziland have become parties to the Convention. Furthermore, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile and Ukraine have made the declaration under articles 21 and 22, whereas Burundi and Guatemala made the declaration under article 22. Ukraine withdrew its reservation to article 20 of the Convention. The list of States which have signed, ratified or acceded to the Convention is contained in annex I to the present report. The States parties that have declared that they do not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for by article 20 of the Convention are listed in annex II. The States parties that have made declarations provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention are listed in annex III. 3. The text of the declarations, reservations or objections made by States parties with respect to the Convention may be found in the United Nations web site (www.un.org - Site
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advance Unedited Version Distr.: General 14 December 2015
    1 . /HRC/WGAD/2015 A Advance Unedited Version Distr.: General 14 December 2015 Original: English Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its seventy-fourth session, 30 November – 4 December 2015 Opinion No. 48/2015 concerning Djuro Kljaic (Serbia) 1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s mandate in its resolution 1997/50. The Human Rights Council assumed the mandate in its decision 1/102 and extended it for a three-year period in its resolution 15/18 of 30 September 2010. The mandate was extended for a further three years in resolution 24/7 of 26 September 2013. 2. In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/30/69), on 26 January 2015 the Working Group transmitted a communication to the Government of Serbia concerning Djuro Kljaic. The Government has not replied to the communication. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3. The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases: (a) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him) (category I); (b) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal
    [Show full text]
  • Together Against Torture 26 June 2007
    26 June 2007 Together against Torture The IRCT’s Global Report on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims Table of Contents Together against Torture The International Rehabilitation Council for Tor- Preface by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 4 The IRCT’s Global Report on the ture Victims (IRCT) is an independent, international Introduction by the Secretary-General of the IRCT 5 United Nations International Day in health professional organisation, which promotes Support of Victims of Torture – 26 June 2007 and supports the rehabilitation of torture victims Campaign material 2007 6 © International Rehabilitation Council and works for the prevention of torture worldwide. for Torture Victims (IRCT) The vision of the IRCT is a world that values and ac- Anti-torture TV-spot 8 cepts shared responsibility for the eradication of IRCT torture. Campaign activities worldwide 10 Borgergade 13 P.O. Box 9049 The United Nations Convention against Torture 32 This publication was produced with the generous 1022 Copenhagen K - status of ratification Denmark support of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Join the 26 June 2008 campaign! 34 Phone: +45 33 76 06 00 The views expressed in this report can in no way Fax: +45 33 76 05 00 be taken to reflect the official opinion of the above How to support the IRCT 35 E-mail: [email protected] institutions. The country activities portrayed in this Website: www.irct.org report are based on the submission of reports as ISBN: 87-88882-13-1 received from campaign participants.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Turkey's Kurdish Question
    Defining Turkey’s Kurdish Question: Discourse in the US Congress, The European Parliament and the Turkish Grand National Assembly, 1990-99 Hamid Akın Ünver A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Government University of Essex Date of submission November 2009 Winner 2010 Malcolm H. Kerr Award for the Best Dissertation in the Field of Social Sciences This Dissertation is Nominated by the University of Essex, Department of Government for the Following ECPR Categories The 2010 Jean Blondel PhD Prize for the Best Dissertation by a Scholar in an ECPR Member Institution. The 2010 Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Social Science Research Defining the Kurdish Question: Discourse in the US Congress, The European Parliament and The Turkish Grand National Assembly. Chapter 1 -- Defining the Kurdish question: Setting the Scene 1. Power, function and policy asymmetries: The US Congress, the EU Parliament and the Turkish Grand National Assembly……………………………………..…7 2. On the methodology of this work………………………………………………..11 2.1 Methodology step 1: Data collection………………………………………..…...14 2.2 Methodology step 2: Data evaluation……………………………………………16 Chapter 2 – Theoretical overview: The State, the non-State and political language 1. Philosophical aspects: The consciousness of the State and of the non- State.…………………………………………………………………………...…22 1.1 The State and power in politics: Machiavelli – Hobbes – Weber …………….23 1.2 Language of the ‘non-State’ and emancipation: Locke – Rousseau – Kant....31 2. Theoretical aspects: How does the consciousness of the State and emancipation materialize in politics? Enter discourse analysis………………………………...35 2.1 Limitation of the literature on ‘psychological factors’ in foreign policy…….36 2.2 When words establish power relations: Critical discourse analysis and identity conflicts…………………………………………………………………..……...40 2.3 On the methodology of the content chapters: The relationship between speech- act and discourse…………………………………………………………………………43 3.
    [Show full text]
  • UNDER ORDERS: War Crimes in Kosovo Order Online
    UNDER ORDERS: War Crimes in Kosovo Order online Table of Contents Acknowledgments Introduction Glossary 1. Executive Summary The 1999 Offensive The Chain of Command The War Crimes Tribunal Abuses by the KLA Role of the International Community 2. Background Introduction Brief History of the Kosovo Conflict Kosovo in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Kosovo in the 1990s The 1998 Armed Conflict Conclusion 3. Forces of the Conflict Forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Yugoslav Army Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs Paramilitaries Chain of Command and Superior Responsibility Stucture and Strategy of the KLA Appendix: Post-War Promotions of Serbian Police and Yugoslav Army Members 4. march–june 1999: An Overview The Geography of Abuses The Killings Death Toll,the Missing and Body Removal Targeted Killings Rape and Sexual Assault Forced Expulsions Arbitrary Arrests and Detentions Destruction of Civilian Property and Mosques Contamination of Water Wells Robbery and Extortion Detentions and Compulsory Labor 1 Human Shields Landmines 5. Drenica Region Izbica Rezala Poklek Staro Cikatovo The April 30 Offensive Vrbovac Stutica Baks The Cirez Mosque The Shavarina Mine Detention and Interrogation in Glogovac Detention and Compusory Labor Glogovac Town Killing of Civilians Detention and Abuse Forced Expulsion 6. Djakovica Municipality Djakovica City Phase One—March 24 to April 2 Phase Two—March 7 to March 13 The Withdrawal Meja Motives: Five Policeman Killed Perpetrators Korenica 7. Istok Municipality Dubrava Prison The Prison The NATO Bombing The Massacre The Exhumations Perpetrators 8. Lipljan Municipality Slovinje Perpetrators 9. Orahovac Municipality Pusto Selo 10. Pec Municipality Pec City The “Cleansing” Looting and Burning A Final Killing Rape Cuska Background The Killings The Attacks in Pavljan and Zahac The Perpetrators Ljubenic 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia 2013 Human Rights Report
    SERBIA 2013 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Republic of Serbia is a constitutional, multi-party, parliamentary democracy. In May 2012 the country held presidential, parliamentary, and local elections that international observers stated respected fundamental rights and freedoms. The Serbian Progressive Party finished with a plurality of votes in the parliamentary election and led the governing coalition. Voters elected President Tomislav Nikolic in the May 2012 runoff election. Security forces reported to civilian authorities. Authorities maintained effective control over the security forces. Security forces did commit human rights abuses. The most serious human rights problems during the year included discrimination and societal violence against minorities, especially Roma. Harassment of journalists and pressure on them to self-censor was also a significant problem, as were corruption in healthcare, education, and multiple branches of government, including police, and an inefficient judicial system that resulted in lengthy and delayed trials and long periods of pretrial detention. Other problems reported during the year included physical mistreatment of detainees by police; harassment of human rights advocates, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups and individuals, as well as groups and individuals critical of the government; lack of durable solutions for large numbers of displaced persons; societal and domestic violence against women, children, and persons with disabilities; and trafficking in persons. The government took steps to prosecute officials, both in the police and elsewhere in the government, when the public took notice of such abuses. Nevertheless, many observers believed that numerous cases of corruption, police mistreatment, and other abuses went unreported and unpunished. Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom from: a.
    [Show full text]
  • Polugodisnje Izvjesce Engleski.Indd
    Centre for Peace, Non-Violence and Human Rights, Osijek Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past Civic Committee for Human Rights MONITORING OF WAR CRIME TRIALS REPORT JANUARY / JUNE 2009 Th e report edited by: Mladen Stojanović, Robert Adrić and Katarina Kruhonja June 2009 Publisher: Centre for Peace, Non-Violence and Human Rights, Osijek On behalf of the publisher Miljenko Šmit Th e report edited by Mladen Stojanović, Robert Adrić and Katarina Kruhonja Translation Suzana Lazarević Ljiljana Bračun Print and Layout Grafi ka, Osijek Circulation 100 Osijek, 2009. ISSN 1847-0653 All texts may be used with the reference to the source. Th e project is being implemented with the fi nancial support provided by: Th e Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Croatia Th e OSCE Offi ce in Zagreb Th e National Foundation for Civil Society Development Th is publication is funded by the European Union. Th e contents of these documents are the sole responsibility of the Centre for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights and can under no circumstances be regarded as refl ecting the position of the European Union. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS KEY OBSERVATIONS 5 Insuffi cient personnel capacities and technical conditions 5 Political context and consequences by political decisions 6 Misapplication of the institute of parliamentary immunity 7 Dual citizenship and extradition 7 Decisions on trial expenses compensation 8 Status of the victim in criminal proceedings 9 Trials in absentia and re-opened trials against persons validly sentenced in absentia 10
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia in 2001 Under the Spotlight
    1 Human Rights in Transition – Serbia 2001 Introduction The situation of human rights in Serbia was largely influenced by the foregoing circumstances. Although the severe repression characteristic especially of the last two years of Milosevic’s rule was gone, there were no conditions in place for dealing with the problems accumulated during the previous decade. All the mechanisms necessary to ensure the exercise of human rights - from the judiciary to the police, remained unchanged. However, the major concern of citizens is the mere existential survival and personal security. Furthermore, the general atmosphere in the society was just as xenophobic and intolerant as before. The identity crisis of the Serb people and of all minorities living in Serbia continued. If anything, it deepened and the relationship between the state and its citizens became seriously jeopardized by the problem of Serbia’s undefined borders. The crisis was manifest with regard to certain minorities such as Vlachs who were believed to have been successfully assimilated. This false belief was partly due to the fact that neighbouring Romania had been in a far worse situation than Yugoslavia during the past fifty years. In considerably changed situation in Romania and Serbia Vlachs are now undergoing the process of self identification though still unclear whether they would choose to call themselves Vlachs or Romanians-Vlachs. Considering that the international factor has become the main generator of change in Serbia, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia believes that an accurate picture of the situation in Serbia is absolutely necessary. It is essential to establish the differences between Belgrade and the rest of Serbia, taking into account its internal diversities.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamics of Collective Action in Turkish Prisons
    DYNAMICS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION IN TURKISH PRISONS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAMAK AND DIYARBAKIR PRISONS BETWEEN 1980 AND 1985 by Basak Gemici Ay Bachelor of Arts, Sabancı University, 2012 Master of Arts, Koc University, 2015 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Pittsburgh 2016 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS & SCIENCES This thesis was presented by Basak Gemici Ay It was defended on April 14th, 2016 and approved by Suzanne Staggenborg, Professor and Department Chair, Sociology Thesis Director: Jackie Smith, Professor, Sociology John Markoff, Distinguished University Professor, Sociology ii Copyright © by Basak Gemici Ay 2016 iii DYNAMICS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION IN TURKISH PRISONS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAMAK AND DIYARBAKIR PRISONS BETWEEN 1980 AND 1985 Basak Gemici Ay, M.A. University of Pittsburgh, 2016 Historically, one of the most significant periods in which incarceration was used as a tool to manage political opponents of the regime in Turkey was the 1980s, specifically during and after the 1980 military coup. This study investigates the high-risk environments of the two notorious military prisons: Mamak and Diyarbakir Prisons between 1980 and 1985. These two military prisons: Mamak Prison, where Turkish revolutionaries were incarcerated and Diyarbakir Prison, where Kurdish revolutionaries were incarcerated, were infamous for the torture and level of repression implemented by the military junta. The aim of the military junta was to dissolve revolutionary organizations and military prisons were one of the state institutions that were used to realize this aim.
    [Show full text]
  • “They” Wanted Them, and “He” Did Not
    “THEY” WANTED THEM, AND “HE” DID NOT “THEY” WANTED THEM, AND “HE” DID NOT: ABOUT THE CONTEXT, ORGANIZATION AND FORM OF THE FORCIBLE CONSCRIPTION OF REFUGEES IN SERBIA IN 1995 Borislav Radović Borislav Radović The training camp of the Serbian Volunteer Guard is situated in Erdut. Big barracks with spacious grounds were renovated and transformed into a contemporary facility comparable with the best international centers of this kind...It is busy like in a bee-hive every morning since 6 o’ clock, when a new working day begins. There are morning calisthenics, breakfast and inspection. The trumpeter plays the Serbian anthem and a new day starts. A strenuous training awaits them…Sunday is a day off. They attend the mess in the church, play sports on various playgrounds, go out…but everything as deserved, because disrespect of the rules of this stoic school of humanity can bring the old Serbian measure: 25 strokes on the buttocks, in front of the entire ranks.1 This is not a promotional flyer for some slightly bizarre fitness-center, but a falsely idyllic description of the decor of one of the darkest episodes of the contemporary Serbian history. In this “stoic school of humanity” occured acts and treatments so inhuman that even today they represent a genuine nightmare for those who experienced them. 1 “Kako je nastala Srska dobrovoljačka garda: Ponovo u stroju”, Srpsko jedinstvo, broj 10, jun, 1995, p. 13. 11 THE CONTEXT The main reason of poverty in Serbia is too much money the citizens have.2 The events we will speak about took place in the summer of 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Social Council
    UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Distr. GENERAL Council E/CN.4/1995/34 12 January 1995 Original: ENGLISH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Fiftieth session Item 10 (a) of the provisional agenda QUESTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS SUBJECTED TO ANY FORM OF DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT, IN PARTICULAR: TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/32 CONTENTS Paragraphs Page Introduction ....................... 1- 4 4 I. MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK ............ 5- 24 6 II. INFORMATION REVIEWED BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS COUNTRIES ......... 25-921 10 Algeria ...................... 26- 27 10 Angola ....................... 28 10 Argentina ..................... 29- 41 11 Bahrain ...................... 42- 50 12 Bangladesh ..................... 51- 57 14 Belgium ...................... 58- 60 15 Bolivia ...................... 61- 65 16 Brazil ....................... 66- 73 16 Bulgaria ...................... 74- 80 18 Burundi ...................... 81 20 Cameroon ...................... 82- 86 20 Chile ....................... 87- 88 21 GE.95-10085 (E) E/CN.4/1995/34 page 2 CONTENTS (continued) Paragraphs Page China...................... 89-128 21 Colombia .................... 129-137 27 Côte d’Ivoire ................. 138 29 Croatia..................... 139-140 29 Cuba ...................... 141-149 30 Cyprus ..................... 150-153 31 Czech Republic ................. 154 32
    [Show full text]
  • The Road to the Osce Istanbul Summit and Human Rights in the Republic of Turkey
    THE ROAD TO THE OSCE ISTANBUL SUMMIT AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999 COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE, WASHINGTON, DC. The Commission met at 10:30 a.m. in room SR 485, Russell Senate Office Building, Honorable Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, presid- ing. Commission Members present: the Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Co-Chairman; the Hon. Matt Salmon; the Hon. James Greenwood; the Hon. Michael P. Forbes; and the Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin. Witnesses present: Honorable Marc Grossman, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs; Honorable Harold Koh, Assistant Secre- tary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; Stephen Rickard, Director, Washington Office, Amnesty International USA; Douglas A. Johnson, Executive Director, The Center for Victims of Torture; Neil Hicks, Senior Program Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Pro- gram, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH Mr. Smith. The Commission will come to order. I am very pleased to convene this hearing of the Helsinki Commission, and welcome my good friend and colleague, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who has re- cently been appointed Senate Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission in this 106th Congress. I look forward to working with Senator Campbell and our fellow Com- missioners as we seek to advance U.S. interest through promotion of the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act. During todays hear- ing, we will begin to assess developments within the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the U.S. strategy as we ap- proach the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Final Act.
    [Show full text]
  • EUR 48/16/92 EXTERNAL 20 March 1992 APPEAL for VUKOVAR HOSPITAL PATIENTS DETAINED by the YUGOSLAV NATIONAL ARMY in NO
    AI Index: EUR 48/16/92 EXTERNAL 20 March 1992 APPEAL FOR VUKOVAR HOSPITAL PATIENTS DETAINED BY THE YUGOSLAV NATIONAL ARMY IN NOVEMBER 1991 Following the fall of Vukovar on 18 November 1991 to Yugoslav National Army (JNA) forces, about 440 patients and 320 hospital staff from Vukovar hospital were reportedly detained by JNA troops. About 400 civilians were in the hospital grounds at the time, where they had taken refuge; many of these were also arrested. Among those detained were Dr Vesna Bosanac, aged 42, a specialist in paediatrics, the acting head of Vukovar hospital during the three-month siege of the town by JNA forces, and her assistant, Dr Juraj Njavro. Although it had been agreed that the evacuation of Vukovar hospital would be supervised by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the JNA reportedly broke this agreement and ejected ICRC representatives from the hospital. Dr Bosanac, Dr Njavro and a number of other doctors and patients from Vukovar hospital were released on 10 December 1991 in prisoner exchanges. Dr Njavro and several other doctors subsequently made statements about the ill-treatment and harsh conditions they and other prisoners had experienced in JNA detention (see below). However, 185 patients (including wounded members of the Croatian Army) and 38 auxilliary staff from Vukovar hospital have reportedly remained detained. The Croatian authorities have established through contacts with the JNA and through the ICRC that some are detained in various detention centres in Serbia, mainly in Sremska Mitrovica and Niš prisons. The whereabouts and fate of others remains unknown, and it is feared that some may have been killed following their capture by JNA and Serbian paramilitary forces.
    [Show full text]