Committee Opinion | Doc. 13955 | 25 January 2016
Request for partner for democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Jordan
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
A. Conclusions of the committee
(open)B. Proposed amendments
(open)Amendment A (to the draft resolution)
In paragraph 9.6, add before the word “apply”, the word “consistently”.
Amendment B (to the draft resolution)
In paragraph 9.7, replace “in particular, revise the 1954 Crime Prevention Act to prevent any misuse of administrative detention” with “take a step towards the abolition of the practice of administrative detention”.
Amendment C (to the draft resolution)
In paragraph 9.9, insert, at the beginning of the paragraph, the words, “intensify its efforts to reduce the number of persons placed in pre-trial detention, and”.
Amendment D (to the draft resolution)
In paragraph 9.10, insert at the beginning of the paragraph the words “ensure that a clear prohibition of torture is included in the legislation and that torture is considered as a serious crime and punished in accordance with international standards;”.
C. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Xuclà, rapporteur for opinion
(open)
Freedom of expression is
also limited by Article 118 of the Jordanian Penal Code, which stipulates
a minimum sentence of no less than five years for anyone who commits
“acts or writings the government did not authorize that expose the
kingdom to the danger of hostile actions, disturb its relations
with a foreign country, or expose Jordanians to acts of revenge
targeting them and their assets”. A Jordanian journalist
was for instance accused of disrupting the kingdom's relationships
with foreign States and arrested on 23 April 2015, after he published
an article that criticised Operation Decisive Storm, the bombing
campaign by a Saudi-led coalition including Jordan against Houthi
forces in Yemen. Another journalist
was given a sentence of 15 days in jail for “exposing the kingdom
to the danger of hostile actions” after being accused of breaking
a recent ban on coverage of a terror plot. amended
in June 2014 to broaden the definition of terrorism to include non-violent
acts. This imposed new curbs on freedom of expression by equating
acts deemed to disrupt Jordan’s foreign relations, including criticism
of foreign leaders and the dissemination of certain ideas, with
terrorism. Such actions should not be qualified as terrorist crimes,
as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism
pointed out in his 2009 Report following his mission to Egypt: “The
definitions of terrorist crimes should be confined exclusively to
activities that entail or are directly related to the use of deadly
or serious violence against civilians.” 1. Amendment A (to the draft resolution)
Explanatory note:
As indicated in Ms Durrieu’s report, the de facto moratorium on executions
ended in December 2014 with the execution of 11 people and two more
in February 2015. In November 2014, the end of the de facto moratorium was already
under way as a panel to reinstate executions had been formed by
the ministerial cabinet because of an alleged increase of the crimes
committed in the country. In
2007, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014, Jordan repeatedly abstained to
vote on the United Nations resolution concerning a moratorium on
the use of the death penalty. While acknowledging
the delicate situation of Jordan in a region rife with terrorism
and other forms of violence, the Assembly has repeatedly pointed
out, on the basis of actual experience in many countries, that the
death penalty does not increase security. It does not have a deterrent
effect on the most dangerous criminals, who believe they will not
be found out, or on terrorists, many of whom are in any event prepared
to die for their cause. I would therefore like to encourage Jordan
to reinstate a true, effective moratorium.
2. Amendment B (to the draft resolution)
Explanatory note:
The 1954 Crime Prevention Act authorises the practice of administrative
detention. This law allows provincial governors to detain persons
who are “about to commit a crime or assist in its commission, those
who ‘habitually’ steal, shelter thieves, or fence stolen goods,
and anyone who, if remaining at liberty, would constitute a ‘danger to
the people’”. The
last category was also used until recently for the “protection”
of women at risk of domestic violence. According to Jordan’s National
Centre for Human Rights, 12 766 persons were administrative detainees
in 2013, some for a period of over three years.
After having reviewed the third periodic report of Jordan
in November 2015, the United Nations Committee against Torture called
on the Jordanian authorities, in its concluding observations, to
“abolish the practice of administrative detention, including and
in particular against holding women and girls who are victims of
violence in ‘protective custody’ as well as migrant workers who
have fled abusive employers”. This amendment is in line with
paragraph 9.11 of the draft resolution, which calls for the effective
implementation of the relevant international instruments in the
field of human rights as it reinforces the recommendation made recently
by the United Nations Committee against Torture. The amendment would
also be in line with the work currently being done by the Assembly
on the issue of administrative detention in general.
The practice of administrative detention is allowed under international human rights law only under very limited circumstances. Administrative detention, as practiced in Jordan, undermines the rule of law by denying access to justice for those detainees and by granting governors with powers which should rest with the judiciary. Therefore, I strongly recommend abolishing the practice of administrative detention as it is currently practised in Jordan.
3. Amendment C (to the draft resolution)
Explanatory note:
This amendment echoes the recommendations made in October 2015 by the Assembly in its Resolution 2077 (2015) on abuse of pretrial detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights.
In September 2013, over 40% of the detainee population was
in pretrial detention according to the information given by the
prison administration. A
large backlog and judicial inefficiency contribute to the problem
of overly long pretrial detention. In principle, “[t]he law requires
that police notify authorities within 24 hours of an arrest and
that authorities file formal charges within 15 days of an arrest”. It
is however common practice for judges to grant extensions to the
prosecutor to file those charges (as long as six months for a felony
and two months for a misdemeanour). According to a 2012 study by
the Justice Center for Legal Aid, 35% of pre-detainees were later
acquitted and 20% were detained for a period exceeding their final
prison sentence. Because of those alarming figures, I consider
that the issue of pretrial detention should be dealt with urgently
by the Jordanian authorities.
4. Amendment D (to the draft resolution)
Explanatory note:
Torture is currently not considered a crime in Jordan, but
a misdemeanour, and is not punishable by appropriate penalties in
accordance with international standards. In its concluding observations,
the United Nations Committee Against Torture urged Jordan to “adopt
a definition of torture that covers all elements contained in article
1 of the Convention and ensure that torture is considered a crime
and penalties for torture are commensurate with the gravity of this
crime”. The committee further recommends that the scope of such
a definition should include “anyone who commits acts of torture,
attempts to commit torture, or instigates, consents to or acquiesces
to the commission of such acts”.
According to the 2015 Human Rights Watch report, perpetrators
of torture or other ill-treatment enjoy near-total impunity. The special court for the
police, which deals with all complaints of police misconduct and
allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, has never convicted
anybody for torture. Some positive changes
regarding attitude and taboos towards torture have been noted since
the start of the Karama programme in 2008. This programme, run among
others by the National Centre for Human Rights and the Jordanian
Ministry of Justice with some technical support from Dignity (a
Danish Human Rights Institute), aims to eliminate the use of torture and
other forms of ill-treatment.
Allegations of torture related to anti-terrorism activities
are regularly reported. For instance, in November 2015, Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch called on the Jordanian Government
to investigate the allegation that Amer Jamil Jubran, a Jordanian
of Palestinian descent, made a confession under torture and ill-treatment.
In May 2014, he was arrested, detained incommunicado for 56 days
and allegedly tortured at the General Intelligence Department (GID)
headquarters. After his “confession”, he was then charged with a
series of terrorism-related offences which included conducting “acts
that threaten to harm relations with a foreign government”. On 29
July 2015, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The
European Court of Human Rights considered the issue of being judged
on the basis of “confessions” obtained by torture as a flagrant denial
of justice. In the Othman (Abu Qatada)
v. the United Kingdom case, it judged that the United
Kingdom may not deport Omar Othman (an extremist preacher linked
to Al Qaeda) to Jordan because evidence obtained via torture (of
others) would be admitted and used against Othman.