Doc. 8973
5 February 2001

Intensifying the fight against torture

Motion for a recommendation

presented by Mr Clerfayt and others

This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only

the members who have signed it

1.       Inflicting torture on accused persons (to force them to confess) or on sentenced persons (to add extra suffering to their prison sentence) is one of the most serious human rights violations, showing the utmost contempt for human beings by causing them physical and psychological pain and suffering.

2.       For our purposes torture is defined according to the meaning given in Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

3.       It will be recalled that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has consistently held that confessions extracted under torture are ipso jure null and void. The consequence of this is that such confessions cannot be considered valid and that the detention of anyone convicted on this basis is unjust and groundless.

4.       Unfortunately, some member states are without legal rules governing the procedures to be implemented to have judgments reviewed. Furthermore, it is often impossible to confirm the actual torture inflicted.

5.       The Assembly cannot accept that, as a result of these loopholes, prisoners in some member states proclaim their innocence in vain, arguing to no avail that their conviction was purely the result of a confession extracted under torture and hence at variance with the real facts of the case, while no impartial and reliable medical examination has been arranged.

6.       The Assembly recommends the Committee of Ministers to begin drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, making it possible for the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) itself to petition the European Court of Human Rights, in cases of torture, to declare the conviction null and void and thus highlight the loopholes in the member country’s legislation. The protocol would lay down the conditions for action by the CPT, stipulating for example that it must have:

—       received a reasoned complaint from a lawyer or recognised NGO;

—       ascertained the alleged acts of torture by means of an independent medical appraisal, etc…

7.       The Assembly also recommends the Committee of Ministers to instruct the CPT:

i.       to be particularly active and vigilant in condemning torture inflicted on prisoners held in pre-trial detention or serving sentences;

ii.       to make full use of the powers provided for under Article 10 of the Convention against Torture to publicise a state’s refusal or failure to act in combating torture.

8.       Finally, the Assembly decides to introduce a specific monitoring procedure for member states which have failed to take sufficient action on the proposals and comments made by the CPT with regard to certified cases of torture.

Signed : 1

Clerfayt, Belgium, LDR

Agudo, Spain, SOC

Cesario, Portugal, EPP/CD

Derycke, Belgium, SOC

Dreyfus–Schmidt, France, SOC

Gonzalez de Txabarri, Spain, EPP/CD

Henry, Belgium, SOC

Lopez Gonzalez, Spain, SOC

Marty, Switzerland, LDR

Rodeghiero, Italy, LDR

Squarcialupi, Italy, SOC

Torrado, Spain, SOC

1        SOC: Socialist Group