Fédération Internationale De L'action Des Chrétiens Pour L'abol

Fédération internationale de l’Action des chrétiens pour l’abolition de la Torture International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Tortur Federación Internacional de la Acción de los Cristianos para la Abolición de la Tortura

Concerns on the part of FIACAT and ACAT Cameroon1 about torture and abuse in Cameroon

Presented to the Human Rights Committee prior to consideration of Cameroon’s 4th periodic review, 97th session, 12 – 30 October 2010

Paris – Yaoundé, August 2009

The International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT) together with its association member in Cameroon, ACAT Cameroon, wish to draw the Human Rights Committee’s attention to a number of concerns relating to torture and abuse in Cameroon. These concerns chiefly relate to enforcement of the death penalty and procedural guarantees for the imprisonment and care of individuals held in detention.

On 27 June 1984, Cameroon ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In accordance with Article 40 of the Covenant, its 4th periodic review was expected on 31 October 2003. It was received on 31 March 2009, eight years overdue.

1ACAT Cameroon is a human rights organisation set up in 1993. ACAT Cameroon is affiliated to FIACAT (International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture). ARTICLE 6

There have been no executions in Cameroon since 1997. However, the death penalty remains on the country’s statute books. The Criminal Code lists crimes subject to the death penalty: premeditated murder, aggravated theft and treason.

In his report to the fifth session of the Human Rights Council (June 2007) the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions stated that the notion of “most serious crimes” implies that “the death penalty can only be imposed in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life”. 2 Although premeditated murder fulfils these conditions, aggravated theft only does so in exceptional circumstances (cases in which the theft resulted in a person’s death and in which the prime motive was murder, not theft), and treason does not.

As recently as 2008 courts handed down death sentences. On 20 May 2008, a number of death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment by presidential decree.

On 18 December 2007, Cameroon abstained from the vote on United Nations General Assembly resolution 62/149 calling for a de facto moratorium on the death penalty. It abstained once again in 2008.

In response to this vague stance, during the Universal Periodic Review3 in February 2009 Slovenia asked Cameroon to comment on potential abolition of the death penalty, but Cameroon has yet to clarify its position on this.

 Does Cameroon envisage removing the death penalty from its statute books? Does it envisage ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant?

2 A/HRC/4/20, p2 3 A/HRC/WG6/4/L7, §19 et §77 - 5

2 ARTICLES 2 and 7

Torture and ill-treatment The Constitution of 2 June 1972, revised by Law no 96/06 of 18 January 1996, bans torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment. The ban is reiterated in Law no 97/009 of 10 January 1997 that amends and expands several provisions of the Criminal Code in Article 132 of the Criminal Code. The ban on subjecting a suspect to torture and the obligation of treating him humanely are also enshrined in Article 121(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 132 bis of the Criminal Code in Cameroon defines torture as set out in Article 1 of the Convention.

In its recommendations of 5 February 20044, the Committee against Torture expressed concern about continuing recourse to torture in Cameroon and that the practice is widespread throughout the country. It was especially worried “by information indicating the systematic use of torture in police stations and Gendarmeries when an individual is arrested” and made strong recommendations that the State cease this practice with immediate effect in all police stations, Gendarmeries and prisons.

Despite these recommendations and the ban on torture in Cameroon legislation, physical torture still occurs in isolated cases. Psychological torture however has spread as officers do not want to leave any physical marks.

Prison guards regularly resort to violence amounting to inhuman and degrading behaviour towards prisoners. In May 2009 Mme DJOKO, nee Jeanne TEUBOU, held in Bafoussam prison, was the victim of cruel and degrading treatment by her guards while awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeal following her appeal. She was shaven, chained up and shut up in a so-called disciplinary cell.

During the events of late February 2008, many individuals were subjected to torture. Those responsible for law and order violently arrested a number of people in the street and in swoops. During a punitive expedition at the University campus of Yaoundé 1, late at night on 27 February, at least 5 students were the victims of abuse on the part of military personnel and sustained head and leg injuries.

Article 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that: “(2) Confessions are not acceptable as proof if obtained through duress, violence or threats or in exchange for any advantage whatsoever or through any other means that impinge on an individual’s free will”.

Confessions obtained by torture The burden on the defendant at the witness stand to prove instances of torture against him prevent him from proving to the judge that his confessions were obtained by torture despite bearing visible marks, in some cases, on his body. As a result confessions included in reports of preliminary enquiries continue to be considered elements of proof in criminal cases. Example: the MP, Robert WANDJI and Joseph DJIMAFO case against Marc ETOUNDI, John Brice KAM, Louis Legrand BIMOGA and Michel GREDOUBAI.

4 CAT/C/CR/31/6

3 Lack of investigations and prosecutions

In its most recent conclusions on Cameroon5, the Human Rights Committee expressed its concern at the failure to investigate abuses by the security forces and to bring them to justice, and at the abuse of the use of weapons by the police, leading to loss of life.

The Cameroon authorities have pointed to the country’s Code of Criminal Procedure as evidence of progress in this area. Article 132 of the Criminal Code bans torture and punishes it according to the severity of its consequences:  if torture results in the death of the victim, the person found responsible can receive a life prison sentence;  if torture results in loss of use of one of the victim’s members or organs it is punishable by 10 to 20 years imprisonment;  if it results in the victim being unable to work for more than 30 days it is punishable by 5 to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of between 100,000 and 1 million CFA francs;  if the victim is unable to work for less than 30 days torture is punishable by 2 – 5 years imprisonment and a fine of between 50,000 and 200,000 CFA francs.

Although torture is a punishable offence in domestic legislation and sentenced according to the severity of its consequences, actual convictions and sentences handed down are far lower than those set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure. A State report6 details convictions that fail totally to respect the sentencing guidelines.

By way of example, take the case outlined in the State report7 concerning the “Mpacko Dikoume” affair, in which a police officer was accused of assault occasioning the victim’s death. In its ruling of 12 December 2008, the High Court sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment and fined him 12 million CFA francs.

The bloody repression meted out by the security forces during the “hunger riots” (26-29 February 2008) involved serious human rights abuses and caused the deaths of at least 139 individuals8. No member of the forces responsible for law and order were prosecuted or punished for having committed these crimes. Moreover no commission of enquiry was set up to investigate.

5 CCPR/C/79/Ad.116, §15 et 17 6 CCPR/C/CMR/4, page 29 et seq. 7 CCPR/C/CMR/4, page 29 et seq. 8 National Human Rights Forum of Cameroon (ONDH), with the support of the Littoral branch of ACAT Cameroon and ACAT France, “Cameroon – 25/29 February 2008 – bloody repression behind closed doors”

4 ARTICLE 9

Procedural guarantees A new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force on 1 January 2007.

It includes many failings, particularly with regard to: - the length of pre-trial detention (6 to 12 months); - execution of arrest warrants including Sundays and bank-holidays; - use of power by law enforcement bodies when arresting a suspect9; - the possibility for a police officer to make an arrest without an arrest warrant10; - the prerogative to Minister of Justice to terminate criminal proceedings when he considers that such cases are likely to jeopardise collective security11.

Observations on the ground, however, report a continuing of the old ways: immediate enforcement of imprisonment for debt with no warning notice given and failure to respect the provisions of Articles 118 (2) and 218 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to conditions during periods of custody and remand. It has been noted that a suspect called in for questioning by a senior police officer and who attends voluntarily can nonetheless be held in custody, brought before first a prosecutor and then an investigating judge before being held in detention without any explanation. Yet the Code of Criminal Procedure states that an individual living at a fixed address cannot be held in custody unless accused of an offence discovered while being committed12.

Custody cannot exceed 48 hours extendable once on the authorisation of the State Prosecutor. This period can, in exceptional circumstances, be extended a second time provided grounds are given13. ACAT Cameroon has noted that in a number of police stations and gendarmeries custody time limits are greatly exceeded with no grounds given and without notification of the State prosecutor, contrary to Articles 118 and 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These extensions are often exploited by public officers in order to obtain money from detainees by threats. Examples are legion but difficult to prove after the event because the officers make sure that suspects are not formally recorded in the register on arrest.

Article 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs what happens in custody. Thus “(2) The suspect shall not be subjected to any physical or mental duress, to torture, violence, threats or any other pressure, trickery or insidious actions, fallacious suggestions, lengthy questioning, hypnosis or have any drugs administered or undergo any other procedure that could compromise or limit his ability to act or take decisions or could impair his memory or his judgement. (3) An individual held in custody may, at any moment during working hours, receive a visit from his lawyer or from a member of his family or from any other person who takes an interest in his treatment during his period in custody”.

Generally speaking incidences of physical and mental coercive practices during custody are reducing but officers are have recently become much craftier by writing up answers in the register of interviews that differ from those given, either when drafting the report of

9 Article 30 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 10 Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 11 Article 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 12 Article 118 – 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 13 Article 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

5 information for the courts or a summary of the interview. Detainees are frequently offered their release from custody on signing the declaration; they are still not being informed of their right to legal assistance.

According to Article 221 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure the time limit for detention pending an investigation cannot exceed six months and can only be extended by an order from a judge giving grounds by 12 months for serious crimes and 6 months for lesser crimes. When the time limits expire, the suspect must immediately be released. However, in Douala central prison, out of 3,549 detainees on 6 August 2008 only 15% were convicted prisoners, the remaining 85% being held on remand. The majority of the remand prisoners had not been brought before a judge. In Yaoundé central prison the percentages are similar. On 6 August 2008 there were 4,626 prisoners. The situation is no better in Bafoussam.

Senior police officers investigating offences do not allow lawyers to meet clients in order to give advice or make comments during preliminary investigations.

Article 116 (paragraph 3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure states: “The Senior Police Officer is obliged from the moment the preliminary enquiry is opened and in order for it to be valid to inform the suspect of his right to be assisted by a lawyer and to remain silent”. This information is only to be found in forms and is often not read out. Legal aid is only available for offences carrying the death penalty or life imprisonment. The lawyer in such cases can only intervene when the judicial enquiry commences.

The Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the right to be seen by a doctor and to receive visits from members of one’s family – Articles 123 and 122 (paragraph 3). However, mafia-style practices are rife in prisons whereby family members are forced to purchase a booklet costing 300 CFA francs unless they have obtained a special permit from the judge.

Arbitrary arrests still take place in Cameroon. Many people are arrested for no reason, are not informed of their rights, are denied access to their families, a lawyer or a doctor and are usually beaten by the security forces.

While justice in Cameroon is habitually slow, the proceedings taken against those suspected of rioting in February 2008 were organised in special hearings to try offences discovered while being committed. The defendants, in groups of 5 or 10, were brought before the courts just hours after being arrested14.

14 National Human Rights Forum of Cameroon (ONDH), with the support of the Littoral branch of ACAT Cameroon and ACAT France, “Cameroon – 25/29 February 2008 – bloody repression behind closed doors”

6 ARTICLE 10

In its conclusions following the review of the 3rd periodic report on Cameroon in 199915, the Human Rights Committee expressed its concerns about the extreme prison overcrowding in Cameroon jails and the living conditions of detainees in particular.

In the report by the United Nations working group on the universal periodic review of February 200916, Cameroon made a commitment to continue in its efforts to bring conditions in detention in line with “international standards”, in particular by building new prisons and investing to improve the buildings where detainees are housed so as to ensure full respect of their rights.

The State report17 details an increase in funds earmarked to be spent on detainees and focusing especially on improving levels of hygiene in places of detention. However, ACAT Cameroon has not noticed any material changes in living conditions for inmates.

In accordance with Article 553 of the Code of Criminal Procedure “those charged with offences, awaiting trial and held on remand pending investigations are to be incarcerated in a special wing and held separately from convicted prisoners [...]”. In practice there is no separation of remand and convicted prisoners in prisons in Cameroon.

Article 555, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states: “The enforcement of sentences that deprive an individual of his liberty [...] must bear in mind the type of offence committed, the length of sentence, the sex, age and mental and physical health and the behaviour of the convicted individual [...]”. Cameroon during its Universal Periodic Review accepted the recommendations made by Estonia18 that aim to ensure proper treatment and assistance to juveniles held in prison. Despite this, inmates are not always separated by age or sex. There are so-called juvenile wings but adults are also housed there.

The salient points describing detention conditions in Cameroon are: - prisons are very dilapidated and cramped. By way of example, the prison in the town of Douala built in 1930 with a capacity of 800 detainees and located in a densely built-up area – the central market in Douala – was holding 3,549 inmates on 6 August 2008; - overcrowding and lack of privacy; - an unhealthy environment; - the lack of proper sanitation; - malnutrition among detainees; - the filthy state of the cells and the wings where detainees are housed; - failure to separate men from women prisoners; adults from juveniles; the convicted from those on remand; serious offenders from minor offenders; - violence among detainees; - the precarious and mediocre health care offered in prisons: lack of and dilapidated equipment, lack of medicines, no policies in place to deal with caring for sick prisoners;

15 CCPR/C/79/Ad.116, §23 16 A/HRC/WG.6/4/L.7, §76 – 21, §76 - 14 17 CCPR/C/CMR/4, page 68 18 A/HRC/WG.6/4/L.7, §76 - 33

7 - the recurrence of deaths among detainees as a result of poor detention conditions. There were 19 deaths of inmates in Douala prison in June 2008 and 19 in that in Yaoundé in March 2008. Deaths among detainees are common in the main prison in Bafoussam.

The prisons do not have the basic facilities to ensure a minimum standard of hygiene for detainees. The latter have to pay the guards and doctors if they want medical treatment; the situation in the prison in Bafoussam is identical.

In Douala and Yaoundé prisons raw sewerage runs along the gutters that pass through the prison cells because the septic tanks are not properly emptied – a task that the inmates themselves must do by hand. The same is true in Bafoussam prison.

The prison budget per detainee is 100 CFA francs per day. Inmates are only given one meal a day and, according to some staff, the budget is in reality just 80 CFA francs per day.

Living conditions are especially tough for those on death row: some detainees are chained up in their cells and kept apart from other inmates.

Corruption The entire prison system is riddled with corruption that prevents any improvements. During the Universal Periodic Review in February 2009, the Cameroon government agreed to take action to fight corruption more effectively19.

 Which concrete steps has the government taken to this end?

The few buildings that have been renovated at Yaoundé prison are reserved for “VIP” (political) prisoners, who “rent” them by paying those in charge of the jail.

In 2007, the British High Commission gave Cameroon 15 million CFA francs to purchase materials in order to open a hospital in Douala prison. During an official ceremony in the presence of a representative of ACAT Cameroon, the prison head and the British High Commissioner, the materials (beds, refrigerators, etc) were installed in the prison. Several months later, the High Commissioner visited the complex to check on the improvements made thanks to the gift – all the materials had be resold by the prison managers.

Keeping a check on places of detention Problems such as those listed above cannot be overcome until a proper body responsible for monitoring places of detention in Cameroon is set up.

Cameroon has yet to ratify the optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). There is no provision for a nationwide body to visit places of detention. The national commission for human rights and freedoms (a government body) is the only organisation that has permission from time to time. However such visits are only sporadic and the organisation only reports back to the Head of State. Access to places of detention for monitoring purposes for human rights associations is forbidden. No equipment, not even telephones, is allowed inside prisons.

19 A/HRC/WG.6/4/L.7, §76 - 27

8 In addition, even though all places of detention have a register there are regular reports of individuals being held in police station and gendarmerie cells without being recorded in the proper registers.

In 1999, the Human Rights Committee expressed its concern about the independence of the National Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms20. In its recommendations to Cameroon on 5 February 200421, the Committee against Torture praised the project to reorganise the National Human Rights and Freedoms Committee (CNDHL), “to give it a greater degree of independence vis-à-vis the executive and confer better visibility to its work”.

To meet this goal, Law n° 2004/016 of 22 July 2004 set up the National Commission for Human Rights and Freedoms to replace the National Committee of Human Rights and Freedoms. In accordance with Article 1 of the 2004 Law, the CNDHL is an independent body responsible for consulting, monitoring, assessing, setting up dialogue and discussion groups, promoting and protecting human rights. To that end its mission involves handling complaints of human rights violations in the country together with NGOs, carrying out investigations into unlawful detention and visiting places of detention.

However, this body is under the total “management” of the Cameroon government. Complaints are very difficult to make, and when successful they only rarely lead to convictions or sanctions for human rights abuses. ACAT Cameroon has noted on a regular basis that cases of human rights violations brought by individuals are not followed up.

20 CCPR/C/79/Ad.116, §27 21 CAT/C/CR/31/6

9 ARTICLE 14

Imprisonment for debt “Imprisonment for debt” is authorised by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 564). Individuals who have served their sentences are kept in detention for periods of between 20 days and 5 years (depending on the sum of money owed) in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The length of time to serve is decided by the courts. Almost 5% of detainees in Cameroon prisons are there for non-payment of debt. Even juveniles can be imprisoned for non payment of money due.

Example: On 15 December 2006, J. Achini was sent to prison for theft. On 31 January 2007 he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and fined 32,000 CFA francs expenses or ordered to serve a further three months in jail if no payment was made. In the end he was held until October 2007 although he had already fully served his time.

Summary trials and miscarriages of justice during the events of February 200822 During the events of late February 2008, there were over 3,000 arrests of civilians, including a number of juveniles. In Littoral province nearly 2,000 people were arrested and in the Western province at least 384 (Bafoussam: 213, Bafang: 85, Dschang: 65, Bandjoun: 4, Baham: 17).

In such circumstances a number of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not respected, nor were the rights to defence, the principles of hearing from both parties during the proceedings or the presumption of innocence. The following were noted:

 no information given to defendants concerning their right to be assisted by a lawyer and to remain silent during hearings (when they took place);

 unreliable identification of the accused (age, name) due to the fact that many defendants did not have identity papers on them and could not, given the speed of the proceedings, obtain their birth certificates in time. The judges therefore relied on information given orally by the defendants. A number of the accused were summarily tried and attributed fictitious ages by the investigator or by the judge in the absence of a lawyer. Several juveniles were also tried and treated as adults and convicted of being caught in the act of committing offences although they ought to have been tried before a youth court.

 the investigation report was not signed by the accused;

 the prosecutors failed to prepare the prosecuting documents;

 the defendants were denied their right to prepare their cases. The defendants were not given the time to prepare their defence as stipulated in Article 300 of the Code of

22 National Human Rights Forum in Cameroon (ONDH), with the support of the Littoral branch of ACAT Cameroon and ACAT France, “Cameroon – 25/29 February 2008 – bloody repression behind closed doors”

10 Criminal Procedure: “When a defendant appears for the first time accused of being caught while committing an offence he is informed by the Judge that he has the right to ask for three days time to prepare his defence”. The judges failed to apply this legal provision. Almost all the defendants were tried at their first hearing and their cases were put over for sentence to the next available hearing which generally took place two days later.

The initial sentences handed down to the defendants were lengthy: fines and prison sentences of up to 5 years imprisonment. There were no lawyers present to guarantee a proper defence. A number of lawyers, some of them members of human rights organisations, mobilised to defend the accused in a bid to ensure that their rights and justice prevailed, despite outside pressure. As soon as lawyers were able to assist defendants the sentences handed down were lighter (prison sentences of less than 2 years). Nevertheless, by resorting to and enforcing imprisonment for debt any fines that defendants were unable to pay were converted into further prison sentences.

On 25 March 2008, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Justice, M Amadou Ali, stated that a total of 1,137 individuals had been questioned in the five provinces where the troubles had occurred. 729 people had been convicted and given sentences of between 3 months and 6 years imprisonment, of whom 466 had appealed. 251 people had been released and 157 were on remand awaiting trial.

11 RECOMMENDATIONS

FIACAT and ACAT Cameroon recommend that the Human Rights Committee question the Cameroon authorities on the following issues and ask them to undertake to:

 ratify and implement properly the optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT),  adopt uniform practices in their rules for minimum standards in the treatment of detainees,  take urgent measures to combat prison overcrowding by opting for alternative sanctions to the imprisonment of individuals, especially those convicted of minor offences or those being held on remand for a number of years, by speeding up the legal process and building new prisons that meet international standards,  take the necessary steps to ensure that detainees are given proper access to basic health care and are properly fed,  guarantee that juveniles and women prisoners are separated from adult and male prisoners respectively and that those held on remand are kept apart from convicted prisoners,  guarantee those held in custody access to a doctor and to legal aid, free of charge for those without any means of payment. Individuals held in custody must be informed of their rights in a language that they understand and be able to contact family or friends.  set up an independent, impartial judicial enquiry into the serious crimes and human rights abuses committed at the end of February 2008 so that those responsible can be tried and convicted in accordance with the law. The report and outcome of this enquiry must be made public,  release immediately all those individuals still detained who were arbitrarily arrested, illegally held or unfairly convicted during and following the events of late February 2008,  guarantee better protection of human rights and basic freedoms in order to create an environment that is favourable towards holding free, open, democratic and transparent presidential elections in 2011.