Follow-up report v. Argentina,Canada,Denmark,Mexico,Morocco,Switzerland

The present report is a compilation of information received from States parties and complainants that has been processed since the sixty-fifth session of the Committee against Torture (12 November–7 December 2018) in the framework of its follow-up procedure on decisions relating to communications submitted under article 22 of the Convention.²

2. The preceding follow-up report on decisions relating to communications submitted under article 22 of the Convention was adopted by the Committee at its sixty-fifth session (CAT/C/65/3), on 6 December 2018, as amended. ↩

On 4 March 2019, the State party recalled its initial follow-up submission dated 4 April 2012, in which it had contested the allegations of torture of the complainant and had indicated that it did not intend to compensate or rehabilitate the complainant. The State party submitted additional observations dated 6 April 2017 and 7 September 2018. In those reports, the State party reports that the complainant was transferred to Canada in June 2017, where he continued to serve his sentence until a conditional release in December 2017.

The State party notes that it generally respects the mandate and decisions of the Committee. However, in this case, it does not share the Committee’s views. The State party contests the complainant’s allegations of torture. As a result, there is no need for reparation, unless otherwise decided by the competent Canadian courts. The State party invites the Committee to await the outcome of a compensation claim that is pending before the Federal Court of Canada, the recourse to which had been questioned, prior to seeking further updates from the State party.

On 27 March 2019, the State party’s submission was transmitted to the complainant’s counsel for comments, which are to be provided by 27 May 2019.

The Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing and to request, in line with its previous decision, regular updates from the State party on the status of the implementation of the Committee’s decision before each session, until a satisfactory resolution was reached. The follow-up observations and comments have demonstrated partial implementation.

On 1 April 2019, the State party recalled its request for closure of the follow-up procedure, dated 29 April 2013.

On 8 May 2019, the Secretariat informed the State party and the complainant’s counsel that the State party’s request for closure of the follow-up procedure would be considered during the sixty-sixth session of the Committee, as no comments had been received from the counsel in regard to the State party’s information that the complainant had been granted a residence permit in Denmark. However, the Committee had already decided, at its fiftieth session, to close the follow-up dialogue with a note of satisfactory resolution.

The Committee decided to inform the State party and the complainant that the Committee had decided to close the follow-up dialogue at its fiftieth session, with a note of satisfactory resolution, as the complainant had been granted a residence permit in Denmark. The follow-up observations have demonstrated full implementation.

On 11 January 2019, the State party submitted follow-up observations in Arabic.

On 20 February 2019, the State party’s observations were transmitted to the complainant’s counsel for comments, which were to be received by 22 April 2019.

In line with the decision taken by the Committee at its sixty-fifth session to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, given the absence of meaningful progress in implementation of the above decision, the Chair requested a meeting with a representative of the Permanent Mission of Morocco to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva during the sixty-seventh session, with a view to discussing further measures that could be taken by the State party’s authorities to implement the Committee’s decision. The follow-up observations and comments have demonstrated a lack of implementation. The Committee decided to express concerns about the lack of implementation of the above decision in its annual report.

On 30 January 2019, the State party submitted follow-up information. It reports that criminal investigations were reopened in 2016 in order to bring the perpetrators of torture to justice. However, no significant progress in establishing their accountability has been achieved. The State party notes that evidence in the form of voice recordings has been requested from the military Public Prosecutor’s office. As regards compensation to victims, their names have been entered into the National Registry of Victims and can therefore receive compensation. Nonetheless, the victims have not received any compensation to date, other than legal assistance, and no further explanation in that regard has been provided. No updated information has been provided on the two victims who had been sent back to prison shortly after their release. The State party’s submission does not contain an update on the medical treatment required by the victim who suffered hearing loss in one ear as a result of torture, and updated information on the reform of military jurisdiction is also lacking.

On 20 February 2019, the State party’s observations were transmitted to the complainants’ counsels for comments, which were to be provided by 11 April 2019.

On 12 April 2019, the complainants’ counsels requested the Committee to: (a) require the State party to submit information on the measures taken to comply with the recommendations in the above decision; (b) call on the State party, through the Committee’s rapporteur on reprisals, to safeguard the physical and moral integrity of and refrain from any reprisals or retaliation against the complainants, their families and legal representatives; and (c) appoint one or several of its members to proceed with a confidential investigation into the follow-up to its previous visit to Mexico in 2001, in accordance with article 20 of the Convention.

Noting that the follow-up to the above decision was part of a dialogue during the examination of the seventh periodic report by the State party, the Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, and to send out a letter by the Chair of the Committee requesting the State party to ensure full implementation of the above decision, and to refrain from any further reprisals against the complainants, their families and legal representatives. The Committee also decided to consider further steps in the light of the State party’s response. The follow-up observations and comments have demonstrated a lack of implementation.

Given the absence of counsel’s comments on the State party’s observations of December 2017, and the State party’s status request dated 1 April 2019, a reminder for counsel’s follow-up comments was sent on 8 May 2019, which are to be provided by 8 July 2019.

The Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, and to consider further steps in the light of the complainant’s comments. The follow-up observations and comments have demonstrated a lack of implementation.

On 5 December 2018, the State party responded to the allegations of reprisals, including the limitations placed on visits of the complainant’s family members, and the ban on the entry of Claude Mangin-Asfari into the territory of Morocco.

On 11 January 2019, the State party submitted follow-up observations in Arabic.

On 20 February 2019, the State party’s observations were transmitted to the complainant’s counsels for comments, which were to be provided by 22 April 2019.

On 17 April 2019, the complainant’s counsels reported that Ms. Mangin-Asfari had been allowed to enter to Morocco on 14 January 2019, after a ban lasting 30 months. She had been permitted to visit the complainant in prison on 14 and 15 January 2019. It was noted that the complainant continued to suffer from various restrictions in detention, perceived as reprisals against him.

On 13 May 2019, the counsels’ comments were transmitted to the State party for observations, which are to be provided by 15 July 2019.

The Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing and, given the absence of meaningful progress in the implementation of the above decision, to request a meeting with a representative of the Permanent Mission of Morocco to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva, to be held during the sixty-seventh session of the Committee, and to discuss further measures that could be taken by the State party’s authorities to implement the Committee’s decision. It also decided to send out a letter by the Chair of the Committee, requesting the State party to refrain from reprisals against Ennaâma Asfari, while noting positive developments in the form of visits to Mr. Asfari by his wife, and inviting the State party to provide further follow-up observations on the implementation of the remedy. The follow-up observations and comments have demonstrated a lack of implementation. The Committee therefore decided to express concerns about the lack of implementation of the above decision in its annual report.

On 7 September 2017, the State party submitted that it was not going to accept the Committee’s decision and that it would deport the complainants. On 2 November 2018, the State party’s follow-up observations were transmitted to the counsel for comments, which were to be provided by 3 December 2018.

On 8 May 2019, since no response had been received, the Secretariat sent the first reminder for the counsel’s comments, which were to be provided by 8 July 2019.

The Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, and to consider further steps in the light of the comments of the complainants’ counsel. The follow-up observations have demonstrated a lack of implementation.

On 8 May 2019, the complainant’s counsel confirmed that the complainant’s asylum proceedings had been reopened by the authorities of Switzerland, and that the complainant had been interviewed on the merits of his asylum claim on 5 February 2019 by the State Secretariat for Migration. It was noted that the complainant’s second interview was scheduled for 21 May 2019. In addition, the domestic asylum proceedings were still ongoing, and there had not been a decision on their merits.

On 13 May 2019, the counsel’s follow-up submission was transmitted to the State party for observations, which are to be provided by 15 July 2019.

The Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, and to consider further steps in the light of the State party’s observations, and the outcomes of the national asylum procedure. The follow-up observations and comments have demonstrated partial implementation.

On 8 May 2019, the complainant’s counsel confirmed that the authorities of Switzerland had quashed the expulsion order of 6 August 2014 and had reopened asylum proceedings. However, no measures had been undertaken to date by the authorities in furtherance of the complainant’s new asylum proceedings. In particular, he had not been scheduled for an interview or any other procedure aimed at gathering evidence.

On 13 May 2019, the counsel’s follow-up submission was transmitted to the State party for observations, which are to be provided by 15 July 2019.

The Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, and to consider further steps in the light of the State party’s observations, and the outcomes of the national asylum procedure. The follow-up comments have demonstrated a partial implementation.

On 20 April 2019, the complainant’s counsel submitted that none of the recommendations as contained in the Committee’s decision had been implemented by the State party. In particular, the counsel indicated that the investigation into the facts of the case had remained paralysed. The relatives of the victim had neither been involved in establishing the circumstances of his death, nor had they received adequate compensation. The counsel suggested that the Committee request the State party to implement the decision.

On 14 May 2019, the counsel’s comments were transmitted to the State party for observations, which are to be provided by 14 July 2019, with a view to the State party implementing the Committee’s decision.

The Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, and to consider further steps in the light of the State party’s observations. The follow-up comments have demonstrated a lack of implementation.

On 15 March 2019, the State party submitted that a new asylum application had been submitted on behalf of the complainant on 24 January 2019, and that an asylum interview had been scheduled for 5 April 2019. The complainant would be allowed to stay in the territory until the conclusion of the procedure. The State party was of the view that it had implemented the Committee’s decision.

On 19 March 2019, the State party’s observations were transmitted to the complainant’s counsel for comments, which are to be provided by 20 May 2019.

On 8 May 2019, the counsel submitted that the complainant’s asylum proceedings had been reopened by the authorities of Switzerland, and that, on 5 April 2019, the complainant had been reinterviewed on the merits of his case by the State Secretariat for Migration. However, his new asylum proceedings were still pending and no new decision on the merits of the case had yet been taken.

On 13 May 2019, the counsel’s follow-up submission was transmitted to the State party for observations, which are to be provided by 15 July 2019.

The Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, and to consider further steps in the light of the State party’s observations, and the outcomes of the national asylum procedure. The follow-up observations and comments have demonstrated partial implementation.