The Prevention of Torture in Southern Europe
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
a r u t r o t a l e d n ó e i r c u n assoc t e ia r v t o n t i e o r o f n i p o t n a n l e o v e i a é r t r r u n a p p t e p our la r v o e n t r a p ió de l c a he a s t ci soc for o iation as Report The Prevention of Torture in Southern Europe An Assessment of the Work of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture in the South of Europe Founded in 1977 P.O. Box 2267 CH-1211 Geneva 2 by J.-J. Gautier Tel.(4122) 734 20 88 Fax (4122) 734 56 49 E-mail [email protected] Postal account 12-21656-7 Geneva a r u t r o t a l e d n ó e i r c u n assoc t e ia r v t o n t i e o r o f n i p o t n a n l e o v e i a é r t r r u n a p p t e p our la r v o e n t r a p ió de l c a he a s t ci soc for o iation as Report The Prevention of Torture in Southern Europe An Assessment of the Work of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture in the South of Europe Acts of the seminar held in Oñati, Spain, 17 – 18 April 1997 Geneva, December 1997 I TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IV EDITOR’S NOTE ABLE OF CONTENTS By Anna Khakee, Programme Officer for Europe, APT 1 T INTRODUCTION 3 1) Opening Speech By Marco Mona, President of the APT 3 2) Opening Speech By Jan Malinowski, Member of the CPT’s Secretariat 5 A) THE CPT AND ITS PARTNERS 11 I) FUNCTIONING OF THE CPT : STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS 13 1) The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Operational Practice By Rod Morgan, Dean of the Faculty of Law and Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Bristol, CPT Expert, Great Britain 13 2) The Liaison Officer - Practice and Potential By Maria José Mota da Matos, Head of Department for the Study and Enforcement of Sentences of the Penitentiary Administration, Ministry of Justice, Portugal 18 3) The Role of the Expert with the CPT By J.J. McManus, Scottish Prisons Complaints Adjudicator, Great Britain 20 II) FORMAL PARTNERS OF THE CPT 24 1) The CPT and its Formal Partners - An Introduction By Malcolm D. Evans, Lecturer in International Law at the University of Bristol, Great Britain 24 2) Speech by the Portuguese General Inspector of Home Affairs By António Henrique Rodrigues Maximiano, General Inspector of Home Affairs, Portugal 26 3) The Functions of Inspectors of Prisons By Remei Bona I Puigvert, Magistrate, Spain 29 II 4) The Police and the Prevention of Torture By Augusto Calado, Head of the Brigade to Combat Corruption, Judiciary Police, Portugal 31 III)INFORMAL PARTNERS OF THE CPT 34 ABLE OF CONTENTS T 1) The CPT and its Informal Partners - An Introduction By Renate Kicker, Associate Professor, Institute of International Law and International Relations, University of Graz, Austria 34 2) The NGOs - Important Partners of the CPT By Eva Falcão, Lawyer, Forum Justiça e Liberdades, Portugal 37 3) The Lawyer’s Role in the Work of the CPT By Iñigo Elkoro, Lawyer, Member of TAT (Group against Torture), Spain 39 4) External Non-Official Partners of the CPT - The Doctors By Jean-Pierre Restellini, Doctor, CPT Expert, Switzerland 43 B) THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CPT’S RECOMMENDATIONS IN FIVE SOUTHERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES 47 1) Report on Greece By Effi Lambropoulou, Department of Criminology, Panteion University of Political and Social Science, Greece 49 2) Report on Italy By Dr. Patrizio Gonnella, Deputy Director of Padova Prison, Specialist in Human Rights, and Prof. Mauro Palma, President of ANTIGONE, Italy 63 3) Report on Portugal By Eva Falcão and Francisco Teixeira da Mota, Lawyers, Forum Justiça e Liberdades, Portugal 70 4) Report on Spain By Rafael Sainz de Rozas, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of San Sebastián, Spain 75 5) Report on Turkey By Mehmet Semih Gemalmaz, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Istanbul University, Turkey 86 C) CONCLUSIONS BY THE RAPPORTEURS 99 1) The Machinery of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture must be Consolidated to Strengthen the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty By Didier Rouget, Lecturer, Paris VIII University, France 101 III 2) Comparative Analysis of the Implementations of the CPT’s Recommendations By Malcolm D. Evans, Lecturer in International Law at the University of Bristol, Great Britain 106 ANNEXES 113 ABLE OF CONTENTS T 1) List of Participants 115 2) CPT Visits to Southern European States 117 3) Places of Detention Visited by Delegations of the CPT in Southern Europe 118 IV TIONS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS APT: Association for the Prevention of Torture CAT: Committee against Torture CPT: European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman LIST OF ABBREVIA or Degrading Treatment or Punishment EComm.HR: European Commission of Human Rights ECt.HR: European Court of Human Rights ECHR: European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ECPT: European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment IGAI: General Inspectorate of Home Affairs (Portugal) HRC: Human Rights Committee ICJ: International Commission of Jurists IISL: International Institute for the Sociology of Law NGO: Non-governmental organisation SCAT: Swiss Committee against Torture UNCAT: United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment UNWGAD: United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention 1 EDITOR’S NOTE By Anna Khakee, Programme Officer for Europe, APT Lay persons coming into contact with the international system for the protection of indi- vidual rights and freedoms often react in what seems to be, to persons working daily with these EDITOR’S NOTE rights, a discouraging manner. Not only do they point to the discrepancy between the human rights rules and the actual situation in the world, but they also underline the difference between the human rights system in theory and the actual functioning of this system. They point to the fact that, for all sorts of reasons, many human rights complaints procedures do not work in an optimal way. Similarly, under some reporting systems, governments do not choose to submit reports, and in the context of certain review systems, no reviews seem to be made. When the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment came into existence less than ten years ago within the framework of the Council of Europe, the Association for the Prevention of Torture believed that it was important that the CPT not become a “paper tiger”. The main responsibility for avoiding this obviously lies with the CPT, the Council of Europe and the States Parties to the Convention that established the CPT. An independent non-governmental organisation, however, also has a role to play by providing alternative reports on country situations, giving constructive criticism, and furthering co-operation with the CPT. It was for these reasons that the APT organised a seminar in 1994, assessing the work of the CPT during its first five years of existence and suggesting future perspectives1. One of the con- clusions of that seminar was that it would be useful to make it the starting point for a series of sim- ilar seminars of smaller geographical scope. The bi-lingual Minutes in front of you are the result of the first such seminar. The aim of this Seminar on the Prevention of Torture in Southern Europe was to assess the work of the CPT in six countries in the South of Europe (Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain and Turkey2) from two angles. The first angle consisted in taking stock of the co-operation between the CPT and various bodies within State and society – the police, judges, lawyers, physi- cians, academics, NGOs, etc. The second angle provided a comparison of the implementation of the CPT’s recommendations in five Southern European States. Ten years after the adoption of the Convention that established the CPT, the Committee fulfils its primary task, undertaking visits, quite well. In this sense the CPT is indeed no paper tiger. But a second issue needs to be addressed rapidly in order to maintain the credibility already gained by the CPT. The question of the impact of the Committee’s work has to be discussed seriously. In this first sub-regional seminar, it was clearly demonstrated how complex the process of achieving con- crete results of the CPT’s work is. It is a process which no one party controls. The CPT obviously plays one of the main parts, but only one. While the CPT needs well-established contacts with a restricted number of different actors to be able to carry out efficient visits, the range of partners grows dramatically when the aim is to work for concrete change. This seminar was, in a certain sense, a first assessment of which actors should be involved, and how they should be utilised. In this content, it showed how much remains to be accomplished. The CPT is a “victim” of its own success, not only in attracting more and more new States3. It has also passed its first examination on operational practice with such good grades that more is expected from it.