Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture

QUESTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS SUBJECTED TO ANY FORM OF DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT, IN PARTICULAR:

TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, submitted pursuant
to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/32

CONTENTS

1. At its forty-first session, the Commission on Human Rights adopted resolution 1985/33, in which it decided to appoint a special rapporteur to examine questions relevant to torture. Since then the mandate has been renewed by Commission resolutions 1986/50, 1987/29, 1988/32, 1990/34 and 1992/32. In resolution 1992/32, the Commission extended the mandate for a period of three years. In pursuance of these resolutions, the Special Rapporteur submitted annual reports to the Commission, which are contained in documents E/CN.4/1986/15, E/CN.4/1987/13, E/CN.4/1988/17 and Add.1, E/CN.4/1989/15, E/CN.4/1990/17 and Add.1, E/CN.4/1991/17, E/CN.4/1992/17 and Add.1 and E/CN.4/1993/26.

2. In its resolution 1993/40, the Commission took note of the resignation of Mr. P. Kooijmans as Special Rapporteur and requested the Chairman, after consultations within the Bureau, to appoint an individual of recognized international standing as his successor. As a result, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley (United Kingdom) was appointed Special Rapporteur.

3. In conformity with resolutions 1992/32 and 1993/40, the newly appointed Special Rapporteur hereby presents his first report to the Commission. Chapter I deals with a number of aspects pertaining to the mandate and methods of work. Chapter II consists mainly of a review of the information transmitted by the Special Rapporteur to Governments, as well as the replies received, from 15 December 1992 to 15 December 1993. Chapter III contains conclusions and recommendations.

4. In addition to the above-mentioned resolutions, several other resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session are also pertinent within the framework of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and have been taken into consideration in examining and analysing the information brought to his attention with regard to the different countries. These resolutions are, in particular:

(a) Resolution 1993/41, entitled "Human rights in the administration of justice", in which the Commission called upon its special rapporteurs and working groups to give special attention to questions relating to the effective protection of human rights in the administration of justice, in particular with regard to unacknowledged detention of persons, and to provide, wherever appropriate, specific recommendations in this regard, including proposals for possible concrete measures under advisory services programmes;

(b) Resolution 1993/45, entitled "Right to freedom of opinion and expression", in which the Commission invited the special rapporteurs to pay attention, within the framework of their mandates, to the situation of persons detained, subjected to violence, ill-treated or discriminated against for having exercised this right.

(c) Resolution 1993/46, entitled "Integrating the rights of women into the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations", in which the Commission requested all its special rapporteurs and working groups to include regularly and systematically in their reports available information on human rights violations affecting women;

(d) Resolution 1993/47, entitled "Human rights and thematic procedures", in which the Commission recommended that Governments that had invited any of the thematic special rapporteurs to visit their countries consider follow-up visits and encouraged Governments to respond expeditiously to requests for information so that the thematic special rapporteurs concerned might carry out their mandates effectively. It also encouraged Governments encountering problems in the field of human rights to cooperate more closely with the Commission through the pertinent thematic procedures, in particular by inviting a thematic special rapporteur or working group to visit their countries. It further encouraged the thematic special rapporteurs and working groups to follow closely the progress made by Governments in their investigations carried out within their respective mandates and requested them to include in their reports gender-disaggregated data, as well as comments on problems of responding and the results of analyses;

(e) Resolution 1993/48, entitled "Consequences for the enjoyment of human rights of acts of violence committed by armed groups that spread terror among the population and by drug traffickers", in which the Commission requested the Special Rapporteurs to continue paying particular attention to the adverse effect on the enjoyment of human rights of such acts of violence;

(f) Resolution 1993/64, entitled "Cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies", in which the Commission urged Governments to refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against persons cooperating with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, availing themselves of human rights protection procedures established under United Nations auspices or providing legal assistance for this purpose, as well as those who submit communications under procedures established by human rights instruments and relatives of victims of human rights violations. It also requested representatives of human rights bodies to continue to take urgent steps to help prevent the occurrence of such intimidation and reprisals.

5. The Special Rapporteur has followed the principle of continuity in the discharge of the mandate conferred on him pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/32 and other resolutions of the Commission. Thus, his work is characterized by the following main types of activity:

(a) Seeking and receiving credible and reliable information from Governments, the specialized agencies and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations;

(b) Making urgent appeals to Governments to clarify the situation of individuals whose circumstances give grounds to fear that treatment falling within the Special Rapporteur's mandate might occur or be occurring;

(c) Transmitting to Governments information of the sort mentioned in (a) above indicating that acts falling within his mandate may have occurred or that legal or administrative measures are needed to prevent the occurrence of such acts; and

(d) Exploring the possibility of visits to States with a view to gaining more direct knowledge of cases and situations falling within his mandate and identifying measures to prevent the recurrence of such cases and to improve the situations.

6. As far as urgent appeals are concerned, the Special Rapporteur has been formally requested by one Government (Turkey, letter of 10 September 1993) and informally requested by another to clarify the criteria he uses in deciding to make an urgent appeal. In both cases he indicated to the respective Governments that, since they were raising an issue of general concern he would address the matter in the present report. This would allow the Commission on Human Rights to take cognizance of the issue and offer any guidance it might deem appropriate. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur draws the attention of the Commission to the relevant passage in the report of his predecessor to the Commission at its forty-eighth session (E/CN.4/1992/17). In paragraph 14, he stated:

"The urgent appeal procedure is basically different from the transmittal of communications about alleged cases of torture. An urgent appeal is made whenever the Special Rapporteur receives information that a person has been arrested and fear is expressed that that person may be subjected to torture. Such fear may be based inter alia on accounts by relatives or other visitors of the detainee's physical condition or on the fact that the detainee is kept incommunicado, a situation which is conducive to torture. An urgent appeal by the Special Rapporteur is of a purely humanitarian nature. The Government concerned is merely requested to assure the Special Rapporteur that the detained person's physical and mental integrity will be guaranteed. Such an appeal, moreover, provides the Government concerned with the opportunity to look into the matter and to uphold its obligations under international law by instructing the detaining authorities to respect the individual's right to physical and mental integrity."

7. It is clear from this explanation that the essence of the procedure is not per se accusatory. It is essentially preventive in nature and purpose. The most satisfactory answer the Special Rapporteur can receive from the Government in question is one containing evidence that the fear expressed has not materialized. Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur does not, indeed must not, wait until he has received evidence that torture has taken or is taking place before making an urgent appeal. That would undermine the effectiveness of this preventive technique. The question can only be whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is held under circumstances indicating that there is an identifiable risk of torture. That assessment has to be made rapidly by the Special Rapporteur and in making it he takes into account a number of factors, any one of which may be sufficient, though generally more than one will be present. These factors include:

(c) The consistency of the information with information on other cases from the country in question that has come to the Special Rapporteur's attention;

(d) The existence of authoritative reports of torture practices from national sources, such as official commissions of inquiry;

(e) The findings of other international bodies, such as United Nations country rapporteurs and representatives, the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture and regional human rights bodies, in particular, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

(f) The existence of national legislation, such as that permitting prolonged incommunicado detention, that can have the effect of facilitating torture; and

(g) The threat of extradition or deportation, directly or indirectly, to a State or territory where one or more of the above elements are present.

8. The above is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Nor will the urgent appeals generally identify which factors the Special Rapporteur has borne in mind. This is because the Special Rapporteur considers it necessary that he bring his judegment to bear on the case at hand and that the principle of safeguarding human dignity and the integrity of the person dictates that he err on the side of protection of potential victims under his mandate rather than on the side of avoiding administrative inconvenience for Governments. Further, the more the appeals were to contain formal substantiation for their having been sent, the more they would begin to resemble accusations. Such an effect would be incompatible with the preventive nature and purpose of the urgent appeal procedure.

9. With regard to the transmittal of information alleging violations of the prohibition of treatment within the Special Rapporteur's mandate, the Special Rapporteur has continued to send summaries of information giving cause for concern to Governments. As a result of the gap between the resignation of Mr. Peter Kooijmans and the appointment of his successor, it was only possible to begin processing and transmittal of letters containing such information in August 1993. Further letters were sent in October/November 1993. In general, it was only possible to send one letter to any particular Government, regardless of the incidence and quality of the information addressed to the Special Rapporteur. This is an unfortunate situation; first, because it is desirable for Governments to be in possession of relevant information as expeditiously as possible and, second, because when information is transmitted later in the year, little time is left for the receipt of a response susceptible of being reflected in the Special Rapporteur's report for the year in question. This leads to even an initial exchange of correspondence being spread across more than one report. This, in turn, makes it difficult for a reader to obtain a properly balanced perspective concerning the original allegations or to assess the significance of any later governmental response. Moreover, much information that arrives after the transmittal of a letter to a Government must then wait until the following year before being transmitted to that Government. Further, if any response from a Government seems to the Special Rapporteur to warrant elucidation, he is only in a position to seek that elucidation within the context of the next letter of transmittal of information.

10. This rigidity flows from the limited resources the Centre is in a position to make available to service the Special Rapporteur's mandate. Despite these difficulties, the Special Rapporteur has been able to initiate the practice of consulting sources of original allegations in respect of official responses to the allegations, especially in cases where the facts appear to be contradicted.

11. The Special Rapporteur believes that it is in the interest of both victims and Governments that he be in a position (a) to transmit to Governments summaries of all credible and reliable information addressed to him alleging cases and practices of torture; (b) to analyse responses from Governments; (c) to consult sources of allegations on such responses, as appropriate; (d) to pursue the dialogue with Governments when warranted; and (e) to draw any conclusions and make any recommendations to Governments that such a systematic exchange would indicate. To the extent that the present report fails to reflect this ambition, it is, as indicated, the result of limited resources. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur believes that, unless the Commission on Human Rights expresses a different view, he should seek as far as possible to work in a manner consistent with the above approach.

12. Finally, in respect of this aspect of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur wishes to draw the Commission's attention to an issue raised by one Government (India, letter dated 9 December 1993) which stated that "the mandate of the Special Rapporteur should also take into account human rights violations perpetrated by terrorism". The Special Rapporteur considers that the problem of terrorism is covered by Commission resolution 1993/48 (see Introduction, para. 4 (e)), which speaks of the "adverse effect on the enjoyment of human rights of persistent acts of violence committed in many countries by armed groups ... that spread terror among the population".

13. The Special Rapporteur notes that resolution 1993/48, like its predecessor resolutions, does not refer to such acts of violence as constituting human rights violations. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, this omission is intentional. He believes that the Commission would not wish to dignify the perpetrators of criminal violence by describing them as human rights violators or, even less, addressing them as though they had the sort of authority that falls within the regime of the international legal protection of human rights. Of course, the Special Rapporteur is conscious of the fact that international law applicable in armed conflict, whether the conflict be of an international or non-international character, prohibits torture by any party to the conflict at any time and in any place whatsoever. The Special Rapporteur could envisage that his mandate could extend to any party to such a conflict. He would welcome guidance by the Commission as to whether he should seek to apply his mandate to acts committed by parties to an armed conflict. If so, he would appreciate further guidance on how he should determine whether such a conflict exists and what entities may be appropriately considered as parties to the conflict: should he, for example, be guided by the view of the Government of the member State concerned? Meanwhile, the Special Rapporteur will continue as appropriate to acknowledge the existence of persistent acts of violence committed by armed groups when these are brought to his attention, within the context of acts falling under his mandate.

14. On the basis of the aforementioned, the Special Rapporteur transmitted during the period under review 84 urgent appeals to 31 Governments concerning roughly 400 individuals (at least 12 known to be women), as well as several groups of persons, with regard to whom fears of torture had been expressed. He also sent 42 letters containing about 500 cases (about 30 known to be women) or incidents of alleged torture. If the information received contained a critical analysis of a more general nature regarding the phenomenon of torture, this information was also brought to the attention of the Governments concerned. In addition, 20 countries provided the Special Rapporteur with replies on about 250 cases submitted during the current year, whereas 17 did so with respect to roughly 130 cases submitted in previous years.

15. As to the matter of visits to States and territories where serious allegations of torture arise, no such visits have taken place since the Special Rapporteur was appointed. In its resolution 1993/97, the Commission on Human Rights urged the Government of Indonesia to invite the Special Rapporteur, inter alia, to visit East Timor. On 13 September 1993 the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the Government of Indonesia drawing its attention to this resolution. So far he has received no reply.

16. Despite the repeated encouragement to Governments expressed by the Commission, most recently in resolution 1993/40, "to give serious consideration to inviting the Special Rapporteur to visit their countries so as to enable him to fulfil his mandate even more effectively", no Government has taken the initiative to invite the Special Rapporteur. Nevertheless, he has had contacts with a number of Governments that he believes could result in his being invited to undertake visits. The (hopefully positive) results of these contacts will be indicated to the Commission in the next report of the Special Rapporteur.

17. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur is aware of the need expressed in the Commission and at the World Conference on Human Rights (see following paragraph) for cooperation among the United Nations human rights procedures and for the avoidance of unnecessary duplication. Accordingly, he will not as a rule seek to visit a country in respect of which the United Nations has established a country specific mechanism such as a special rapporteur on the country, unless a joint visit seems to both to be indicated. As regards countries where the mandates of other thematic mechanisms may also be affected, he will seek consultation with them, with a view to exploring with the Government in question, either jointly or in parallel, the possibility of a joint visit. In any event, he will seek to avoid broadly contemporaneous visits. Similarly, where the Committee against Torture is considering or has recently considered the situation in a country under article 20 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, especially if that consideration involves a visit or a possible visit to the country in question, the Special Rapporteur will not also seek a visit.

18. In general, the Special Rapporteur has welcomed the accent placed by the Commission on cooperation among the various mechanisms called upon to address the problem of torture and analogous grave human rights violations. He has noted, in particular, resolution 1993/40, in paragraph 16 of which the Commission considered it desirable that the Special Rapporteur should continue to have a further exchange of views with the various mechanisms and bodies entrusted with the task of combating torture, in particular with a view to enhancing further their effectiveness and mutual cooperation; and resolution 1993/47, in paragraph 9 of which the Commission encouraged the thematic special rapporteurs and working groups to continue to cooperate closely with relevant treaty bodies and country rapporteurs.

19. Moreover, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference on Human Rights states in Part II:

"1. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends increased coordination in support of human rights and fundamental freedoms within the United Nations system. To this end, the World Conference on Human Rights urges all United Nations organs, bodies and the specialized agencies whose activities deal with human rights to cooperate in order to strengthen, rationalize and streamline their activities, taking into account the need to avoid unnecessary duplication. The World Conference on Human Rights also recommends to the Secretary-General that high-level officials of relevant United Nations bodies and specialized agencies at their annual meeting, besides coordinating their activities, also assess the impact of their strategies and policies on the enjoyment of all human rights."

"88. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that the State parties to international human rights instruments, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council should consider studying the existing human rights treaty bodies and the various thematic mechanisms and procedures with a view to promoting greater efficiency and effectiveness through better coordination of the various bodies, mechanisms and procedures, taking into account the need to avoid unnecessary duplication and overlapping of their mandates and tasks."

20. In this context the Special Rapporteur found extremely valuable the formal and informal contacts with other procedures that were afforded by the Fourth Preparatory Committee meeting and the World Conference itself. These and other informal and formal meetings, such as the one held in December 1993 with the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, have permitted him to stay abreast of developments in the methods of work of the other procedures, especially the thematic ones, with a view not only to avoiding duplication of the sort addressed in the previous paragraphs, but also to harmonizing their working methods and reporting procedures. The Special Rapporteur considers as potentially productive the Commission's request to the Secretary-General, in its resolution 1993/47, that he consider the possibility of convening a meeting of all the thematic special rapporteurs and the Chairmen of the working groups of the Commission in order to enable an exchange of views and closer cooperation. Following the acknowledgment by the World Conference that such "procedures and mechanisms should be enabled to harmonize and rationalize their work through periodic meetings", the Special Rapporteur looks forward to the holding of such meetings.

21. Also, pursuant to Commission resolution 1993/40, paragraph 16 (see para. 18 above), the Special Rapporteur held a formal meeting with the Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. He assured the Board that he would continue his predecessor's support for its work, encourage contributions to its resources and disseminate, as appropriate, information on its work to those that could benefit from the assistance it offers.

22. The Special Rapporteur was also mindful of Commission resolution 1993/41, entitled "Human rights in the administration of justice", in which it invited the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice to explore ways and means of cooperating with the human rights programme in the field of the administration of justice, with special emphasis on the effective implementation of norms and standards.

23. He therefore accepted an invitation to attend the second session of that Commission, where he stressed the importance of norms and standards adopted in the criminal justice field for his own work. Of particular relevance were the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1955), the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1975) and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979). The decision of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice to treat the Standard Minimum Rules as one of the instruments the implementation of which would be subject to immediate review was gratifying to the Special Rapporteur. The Special Rapporteur believes that he should be enabled to attend subsequent sessions of that Commission.

II.INFORMATION REVIEWED BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS COUNTRIES

24. By letter dated 26 August 1993 the Special Rapporteur informed the Government that he had received reports according to which the new anti-terrorist act, which entered into force in October 1992, extended the period of police detention (during which the prisoner is held incommunicado without contact with his family or his lawyer) from 48 hours to 12 days. This situation was allegedly creating conditions conducive to torture and ill-treatment, which were said to be practised systematically in some detention centres. The individual cases described in the following paragraphs were transmitted to the Government.

25. Nadir Hammoudi was allegedly arrested at his home in central Algiers on 9 October 1992 by members of the security forces. He was said to have been subjected to torture during the 29 days he spent in police custody.

26. With respect to this case the Government indicated on 15 November 1993 that following his arrest on 27 October 1992 Nadir Hammoudi had been brought before the Government Procurator's Office in Algiers on 7 November 1992 and charged under the Act to combat subversion and terrorism. The National Human Rights Observation Centre (ONDH) had approached the authorities concerned and Mr. Hammoudi himself on a number of occasions in order to obtain accurate information on the situation concerning his arrest and custody. ONDH had yet to receive a reply. Moreover, neither the parents of the defendant nor his lawyers had filed any complaint requesting a judicial investigation or an expert medical opinion.

27. Mohamed Yassine Simozrag was allegedly arrested at his home in Algiers on 23 July 1993 and held incommunicado for more than 20 days. His family and lawyer were able to visit him in Al-Harrach prison on 18 August and saw that he had contusions. He reportedly stated that he had been tortured by the "rag method", which involved tying the victim to a chair and trying to choke him with a rag soaked in dirty water and chemicals.

28. On 15 November 1993 the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that Mohamed Yassine Simozrag was arrested on 28 July 1993 in the company of a terrorist wanted for his involvement in several attacks. On the expiry of the legal period of custody, he had been brought before the Government Procurator's Office in Algiers and then had had a detention warrant issued against him after being charged in the context of the Act for the repression of terrorism and subversion. Two lawyers had been appointed to represent and defend Mr. Simozrag, who had received regular visits from them.

29. Following allegations of ill-treatment of the defendant during his custody, ONDH made a number of representations to the legal authorities concerned. One of the lawyers, on being contacted by ONDH, stated that no request for an expert medical opinion or a judicial investigation of ill-treatment during custody had been made; a visit to his client had enabled him to establish that the latter had not been physically harmed.

30. By the same letter of 15 November 1993 the Government indicated that its position on the question of torture had always been and continued to be a firm and unambiguous condemnation of this odious practice. This position was expressed, in particular, through Algeria's accession, without any reservation whatever, to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

31. Despite being confronted with terrorist activities arising out of religious extremism, Algeria had continued its efforts to safeguard democracy and protect human rights within the context of internationally recognized human rights principles. Temporary restrictions on the exercise of certain freedoms had not, therefore, gone beyond the limits expressly laid down by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Algeria was a party. Moreover, abuses of any kind were controlled by machinery which provided the persons concerned and those who defended them with every opportunity to denounce such acts, which, should they be proved, were treated accordingly, with the perpetrators being punished. Allegations which the Special Rapporteur had apparently received on certain aspects of Algerian legislation "connected with the practice of torture" were so aberrant that there could be no question of Algeria paying the least attention to them.

32. The Special Rapporteur transmitted an urgent appeal to the Government on 16 September 1993 expressing concern about the situation of Ameur Legra�di and Fathi Ouerghi, Tunisian nationals alleged to be members of the unauthorized Islamic movement "Al-Nahda". They were reported to have left Tunisia in 1992 owing to fear of persecution because of their membership of the said movement. Ameur Legraidi had allegedly been condemned in absentia to 11 months' imprisonment in Tunisia. The two men reportedly applied for political asylum in Algeria, where they were registered as refugees by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Office of Stateless Persons and Refugees of the Algerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was said to have granted them a temporary residence permit. On 13 June 1993 they were arrested in Algiers. Given the reports that seven persons of Tunisian nationality had been arrested and tortured by the Tunisian authorities after being forcibly repatriated from Algeria in January 1993, fears were expressed that the two men might also be subjected to such treatment if deported.

33. On 29 October 1993 the Government replied that these cases could not be regarded as situations coming within the terms of reference assigned to the Special Rapporteur by the Commission on Human Rights. However, in view of the importance Algeria attached to dialogue with experts of the Commission on Human Rights, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that these cases had been discussed in detail with the appropriate body, namely, UNHCR. It recalled that States had the prerogative of granting refugee status to foreigners requesting such status and denied the allegation that Ameur Legra�di and Fathi Ouerghi had been issued residence permits by the Office of Stateless Persons and Refugees in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

34. The Government also reported that Algeria had at no time failed in its duty as a country of reception, which had, moreover, been ranked as a constitutional principle; its continuing concern was to respond to genuinely humanitarian requests in accordance with the values of humanism and solidarity it had always upheld. Confronted with terrorist manifestations of religious extremism, Algeria had, since the establishment of the state of emergency, reiterated its commitment to the cause of human rights and showed that it was determined to base security action on full respect for the provisions of the international instruments to which it was a party, particularly those relating to the exercise of the right of derogation. All of the security measures taken to strengthen the rule of law and consolidate democratic institutions were thus in conformity with the international commitments Algeria had undertaken in the field of human rights. A similar concern had been shown in the humanitarian cases with which Algeria had had to deal and which had all been managed in accordance with its age-old attachment to the sacred principle of granting asylum to persons seeking protection.

35. On 18 October 1993 the source reported that Ameur Legra�di and Fathi Ouerghi, who had been recognized as refugees in need of protection by UNHCR in Algiers, had been handed over to the Tunisian authorities on 8 July 1993.

36. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the Government of Algeria's commitment to dialogue with experts of the Commission on Human Rights. He notes that the Government has not explained why it considers the cases of foreign nationals threatened with deportation and eventually deported to a country where they risked being tortured might not fall within his terms of reference. In this he has merely followed the practice of his predecessor and other thematic procedures. Moreover, Algeria, as a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is bound by its article 3 to refrain from such deportations. As to the Government's dismissal of concerns that legislation authorizing prolonged incommunicado detention can facilitate torture, the Special Rapporteur notes that this concern has consistently motivated his predecessor and that the Commission on Human Rights shares the concern: as recently as 5 March 1993, in its resolution 1993/40, in which the Special Rapporteur was appointed, the Commission recalled that "incommunicado detention is highly conducive to torture practices". The Special Rapporteur welcomes the Government of Algeria's stated commitment, despite the existence of "terrorist manifestations of religious extremism", to maintain respect for human rights, in particular the absolute prohibition of torture. He believes that this commitment could be made more effective by eschewing resort to prolonged incommunicado detention.

37. By letter dated 26 August 1993 the Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government the following two cases of torture alleged to have occurred in Angola.

38. Charles Mpoti was arrested on 5 October 1990 in Luanda on charges on being a member of UNITA and taken to Estrada Catete prison, where he was allegedly tortured. Medical reports prepared abroad shortly afterwards stated that Mr. Mpoti had a sprained left shoulder with lesions of the circumflex nerve that prevented him from raising his arm. It was also found that he had major sequelae of burns on the buttocks. He was arrested again on 14 October 1992 and detained for three weeks in Estrada Catete prison, where he was allegedly tortured once more.

39. Godfrey Absalom Nangoya, a member of the Associa�ao Civica de Angola and one of the leaders of its human rights programme, was arrested at his home in Luanda on 1 November 1992, together with his wife and children. They were taken to a police station, where Mr. Nangoya and his wife were reportedly beaten in the presence of their children. As a result, he had a broken tooth and a wound on one arm. His wife and children were released four days later, while he was transferred to Estrada Catete prison. One night while he was sleeping in his cell, a guard reportedly fired a shot at him and nearly killed him.

40. By letter dated 26 August 1993 the Special Rapporteur informed the Government that he had received reports concerning incidents of torture perpetrated by members of the military and paramilitary forces against tribal people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, as well as by the police in other parts of the country. According to this information, torture in police custody occurred routinely but was rarely reported as the victims feared further ill-treatment by the police. It usually involved beating with sticks and rifle butts, as well as kicking with boots on sensitive parts of the body.

41. The incidence of rape in custody was reported to be high but, because of the social stigmatization faced by the victim, it usually went unreported. The legal requirement that rape had to be reported within 12 hours also made it difficult for the victim to file a complaint.

42. There were also reports about cases of death in custody as a result of torture. According to them, whenever a detainee died in police custody, the police were obliged to file an "unnatural death case", which necessitated a police inquiry into the death. To avoid this, the police had sometimes transferred the bodies of people who had died after torture to hospital, putting pressure on medical staff to have them falsely admitted as alive.

43. The individual cases described in the following paragraphs were transmitted to the Government.

44. Mominuddin Ahmed was arrested by uniformed police officers at his residence on 18 August 1992 and taken to the Kotwali police station in Rangpur. When his wife visited him two hours later in the police station, he could only speak with effort and told her that he had been severely kicked in the chest and stomach. He died in Rangpur Medical College Hospital on 1 September 1992.

45. Momina Khatum died of her injuries on 31 August 1992 in the village of Bazra Hat, Noahkali district, after a group of police officers reportedly subjected her to severe beating. An inquiry is reported to have taken place into the incident.

46. Finally, the Special Rapporteur drew the attention of the Government to the case of Nazrul Islam, who was reportedly 12 years old when he was arrested in 1980 and convicted of robbery. In December 1992 the High Court allegedly found that he had been illegally detained and that for 11 of these 12 years he had been held in leg irons.

Information received from the Government with respect to cases included in previous reports

47. On 6 April 1993 the Government provided the Special Rapporteur with information on the cases referred to below, which had been communicated to it on 12 November 1992.

48. The incidents which took place in Bheramara, Kushtia district, on 25 March 1991 when members of the Range Reserve Police Force allegedly arrested five persons and severely beat them. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that following an altercation between some members of the public and a group of law enforcement officials who were on duty there, an unpleasant incident had taken place at Bheramara on 26 March 1992. One person died in the incident owing to gunfire by the armed personnel on duty. A committee of inquiry headed by an Additional District Magistrate had been established by the Government. On enquiry, 22 persons were found guilty and were dismissed from government service.

49. Milan Kanti Chakma, Upali Chakma, Syamal Kanti Chakma, Dipankar Chakma and Bimalendu Chakma, were allegedly subjected to torture in the Koakhali army camp on 20 March 1992. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that these persons had been summoned to the camp in the context of an inquiry relating to extortion of monetary contributions for a terrorist organization, putting up posters on behalf of terrorist organizations, purchasing supplies for terrorists and illegal possession of firearms. They had been released on the same day, after questioning. They had not been subjected to any physical or mental torture. The allegations of beatings, application of electric shock, infusion of hot water through the nose or hanging from trees, were totally false.

50. Silcham Chakma, Master Kamal Chakma, Barpeda Chakma, Priyalal Chakma, Kula Mohan Chakma and Pindu Mohan Chakma, were allegedly subjected to torture in the Champatali Camp, in Ghagra zone, on 20 May 1992. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that none of these persons had ever been arrested or brought to the Champatali camp in Ghagra zone and that the allegations were totally false and fabricated.

51. Bina Chakma, Mita Khisa, Rakhi Sona Khisa, Kakuna Chakma, Royna Chakma, Urbasi Chakma and Tipu Rani Chakma, were allegedly raped on 14 March 1992 by members of the Chowdhuri Chara army camp. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that only three women, Rakhi Soma Khisa, Royna Chakma and Tipu Rani Chakma could be found in Krishmachara village. The villagers were unaware of the existence of the other four women. These three women had reported that a mobile patrol visited the area on 14 March 1992 and alleged that the members of the patrol beat them. They could not, however, substantiate or provide any evidence of such beating. There were no allegations of rape.

Information received from the Government with respect to cases included in previous reports

52. On 9 December 1992 the Government transmitted its reply with respect to the alleged torture in April 1992 of Alvaro Garc�a Linera, Raquel Guti�rrez de Garc�a, V�ctor Ortiz and Macario Tola. According to the Government, once the persons accused of terrorism were imprisoned, their families went to the prisons together with a commission composed of human rights representatives. They later declared that the detainees showed signs on their bodies of having been given electric shocks and having been brutally tortured, and that they even had holes in their fingernails made by nails. In view of such statements, the Ministry of the Interior had convened members of the press, human rights representatives, relatives and members of the medical profession and urged them to visit the prisons to make impartial eyewitness checks. However, the relatives and members of human rights organizations had not taken part in the visit.

53. During the visit, evidence had been found only of burns on the hands of Raquel Guti�rrez de Garc�a and not on other parts of her body, as stated before; the burns were the result of the two suicide attempts she had made while in detention; in the first attempt, she had stuck her fingers into the electric light socket and, in the second, she had pulled the wires out of the electric sprinkler system while it was being cleaned; she had been saved both times by the police in charge of her custody; she had confirmed the two attempts in her statements to the press and to the judge hearing the case.

54. With regard to Alvaro Garc�a Linera, Victor Ort�z and Macario Tola, the visiting commission found no evidence that they had been tortured, as was evident from the medical certificates issued by the forensic physician appointed by the judiciary. The complaints of torture had been made solely for the purpose of media publicity, since it was not possible to prove them scientifically or professionally.

55. The Special Rapporteur transmitted the information provided by the Government to the source and asked for its comments. The latter reiterated that the four above-mentioned persons had alleged that they had been severely tortured. On 21 April 1992 representatives of non-governmental organizations had visited Alvaro Garc�a Linera, Macario Tola and V�ctor Ortiz in Chonchocoro prison and seen marks on their bodies consistent with their allegations of torture. The source also provided a report containing the description made by Raquel Guti�rrez de Garc�a of the torture to which she had been subjected and stating that as a result of it she had attempted to commit suicide.

56. On 18 November 1993 the Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government the individual cases described in the following paragraphs.

57. Osorio Barbosa de Barros, a rural worker, was arrested on 8 September 1993 and taken to the police station of Xinguara, state of Para, where he was held until 12 September. On that date he was transferred by members of the Political and Social Order Police to the police station of Curion�polis, where he was held for one more day before being released. During the whole period in which he was detained he was allegedly severely beaten, given electric shocks to the head, and subjected to mock hanging and mock drowning in a stream.

58. Ademir Silveira dos Santos and Mois�s Silva do Nascimento, two 12-year-old street children, were reportedly seriously beaten by members of the military police on 13 April 1993 at Pra�a da S�, Sao Paulo. Father Pedro Horacio Caballero, a street educator who witnessed the incident and tried to intervene was also beaten. Upon denunciation the state civil and military police opened inquiries into the incident.

59. On 29 November 1993 the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that the disciplinary organ of the military police had opened an inquiry on 14 April 1993, that the complainants had formally recognized the six aggressors and that the victims had been examined at the Military Police Hospital. The investigation had not yet been completed.

60. By letter dated 26 August 1993 the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had received information according to which members of the Roma community were frequently subjected to torture or ill-treatment by the police, after being taken into custody under accusation of petty criminal offences. Several incidents had also been reported of excessive use of force by the police, including indiscriminate beating of men, women and children, in Roma community neighbourhoods, such as those which had taken place in Pazardjik on 28 June 1992 and Novi Pazar on 5 April 1993. The individual cases described in the following paragraphs were transmitted to the Government.

61. Anton Stefanov Assenov, aged 14, and his father, Stefan Assenov Ivanov, were allegedly kicked and beaten with fists and truncheons at the bus station in Shumen, by police officers who claimed that the boy had been caught gambling. Subsequently, they were taken to the police station where Anton Stefanov was beaten again, handcuffed to a radiator for two hours and then released without charges. Two days later he was examined by a doctor who reportedly stated that the injuries, bruises on his head, back, chest and right armpit, were consistent with the alleged beatings. Complaints were filed with the Regional Department of the Ministry of Interior and the Varna Military Prosecutor but, so far, without success.

62. Khristo Nedialkov Khristov was arrested on 24 March 1993 in Stara Zagora by a group of police officers who accused him of attempting to steal copper wire. Immediately after his arrest he was reportedly beaten with truncheons and kicked with heavy boots all over the body. As soon as he was released, the following day, he had to be taken to the district hospital. On 28 March his condition deteriorated and he had to undergo a surgical intervention during which a part of his lung and a kidney were removed.

63. In a letter dated 26 August 1993 the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had received information according to which persons arrested for political reasons, especially those suspected of being members of the Hutu People's Liberation Party (PALIPEHUTU), were systematically beaten in detention centres run by the Gendarmerie and the Public Security Police. Methods of torture included: tying detainees' arms behind their backs so tightly that their elbows met and the ropes or cords cut into their arms - as a result, some prisoners developed gangrene and others suffered paralysis in their arms; beating on the soles of the feet, the back or the hands; being made to kneel for long periods, sometimes on bottle tops and pebbles; the use of bayonets, piping, truncheons or machetes to inflict injuries.

64. Reports also indicated that the authorities were not known to have taken any steps to prevent torture or to have ordered any independent and impartial investigation into allegations of torture. Court judges did not question the admissibility of statements made in custody as prosecution evidence, even though defendants had claimed to have made statements under duress or to have shown signs of injuries consistent with their allegations of torture. The 1992 Constitution banned torture; however, planned reforms of the Code of Penal Procedure reportedly gave little or no priority to safeguarding detainees against it. The individual cases described in the following paragraphs were dealt with.

65. Emmanuel Nkunzimana was said to have been severely beaten after his arrest in Gitega, in September 1991, by members of the security forces who accused him of membership of PALIPEHUTU. He was also reported to have had his genitals pierced with a sharp object.

66. Paul Hakizimana and Evariste Sinyirimana were arrested in August 1990 after an armed attack on Mabanda military barracks in the southern province of Makamba. Paul Hakizimana was reported to have had his legs and arms tied tightly behind his back and then been stabbed with bayonets; he was also allegedly beaten, subjected to mock execution and had his hair set alight. Evariste Sinyirimana allegedly had his genitals pierced with sharp pins and suffered temporary paralysis as a result of prolonged tying of his arms above the elbow. They were subsequently transferred from Mabanda barracks, first to Rumonge prison in the southwestern province of Bururi, and then to Mpimba prison, where they were allegedly beaten on arrival.

67. By the same letter the Special Rapporteur reminded the Government of another letter containing allegations which had been transmitted to it on 21 August 1992 and pointed out that no reply had been received so far.

68. The Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the Government on 21 April 1993 concerning Joseph Bangurambona, a representative of the Front for Democracy in Burundi for the Bujumbura rural region, arrested on 29 March 1993 by members of the Police Sp�ciale de Roulage. Fears were expressed that he might be subjected to torture.

69. On 10 June 1993 the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had received information according to which although the Penal Code proscribed torture, rendered inadmissible in court evidence obtained thereby and prohibited public servants from using force against any person, the security forces continued to inflict severe beatings and other ill-treatment on detainees. Methods of torture included beating on the soles of the feet with an iron bar or whipping with a reinforced rubber tube. Treatment of prisoners in the penitentiary system was poor, especially outside of major urban areas. Prisoners were routinely chained in their cells and received inadequate medical attention and food. At Tchollire II prison these conditions reportedly caused at least 40 deaths among the inmates between 1990 and 1992.

70. Sanctions against those responsible were reportedly unknown, although government officials maintained that they faced administrative punishments which were not made public. Investigations were rare because abused persons frequently feared reprisals against themselves and their families if they lodged a complaint.

71. According to the reports, abuses worsened in North West Province following the imposition of a two-month-long state of emergency on 27 October 1992. Several hundred people were reportedly arrested in Bamenda and severely beaten at the headquarters of the Brigade mixte mobile (BMM) or the Gendarmerie Legion. The individual cases described in the following paragraphs were transmitted to the Government.

72. Ghandi Che Ngawa was reportedly arrested on 9 November at his Bamenda office and taken to the BMM, where he was allegedly suspended by his arms and legs from an iron bar and severely beaten. Four days later he was transferred to the Military Hospital, apparently with a swollen and bruised body and with some of his toenails missing. He died a week later from his injuries. Five other detainees were also transferred to the Military Hospital at the same time as Ghandi Che Ngawa. They had reportedly been beaten daily at the BMM and given electric shocks.

73. Rose Ngo Sona, a nursing mother, was stripped naked and severely beaten by a group of soldiers who broke into her house in Bamenda on 28 October in order to arrest her brother, Barrister Sendze.

74. Disturbances also took place in the South West Province in October 1992. According to reports, in Kumbha town, Meme division, gangs tolerated by the authorities captured a number of people and subjected them to torture. Among them were the following.

75. Ikaabo Christopher Ambaisah was captured on 13 October and taken to the District Office where he was allegedly severely beaten with iron rods and rough wooden canes before being released the same day.

76. Ruben Tarh was captured on 22 October and severely beaten with electric cables and boards with nails. His captors allegedly melted rubber in fire and let the hot fluid drop on his back. They also tied him head down and, in this position, beat him with cables before leaving him hanging for one hour.

77. Thomas Mbah was summoned on 22 October by two plainclothes and three uniformed soldiers to Chief Mukete's compound for interrogation. Once there he was allegedly given 25 strokes of the cane, burnt with a hot iron rod on in several parts of the body and injured with a sword on the left shoulder.

78. In Bandja village, West Province, the following persons were arrested on 5 November 1992 by members of a paramilitary group: Emmanuel Kameni Mouaffa, Joseph Fankam, Raphel Lieji, Michel Tankeu, Blaise Tseussie, Bernard Ngaoum, Engolbert Wamboyi, Pierre Kameni and Michel Tankeu. They were all reportedly beaten with clubs, belts, batons and gun butts at the time of arrest.

79. There were also reports of a series of disturbances in Ndu, North West Province, in June 1992, in the course of which a number of citizens, including women and children, were severely beaten and subjected to sexual abuse, as in the case of Biena Mary Kimbi, publicity secretary of the Donga/Mantung South (Ndu) electoral district of the Social Democratic Front. She was arrested by six members of the police (gendarmes) on 6 June 1992 and taken to the Gendarmerie Brigade headquarters in Ndu, where she was reportedly stripped, beaten and sexually assaulted, then held for four days without food or water. On about 12 June she was transferred to the Gendarmerie Brigade headquarters in the nearby town of Nkambe, where she remained in incommunicado detention, denied all contact with family or lawyer. On 19 June she was taken to the Gendarmerie Company headquarters in Nkambe, where she and another woman detainee were reportedly whipped with belts, after which she was unable to walk. She was held in detention for 31 days.

81. S�v�rin Tchounkeu, publisher of the French language weekly La nouvelle expression and Tsapi, a cartoonist for the Challenge Hebdo weekly were arrested by the police in Douala on 2 November 1992. The two were reportedly beaten at the time of arrest and Mr. Tchounkeu required hospital attention for multiple fractures.

82. Ange Tokam Guiadem, a student leader, was reportedly arrested on 5 May 1992 by approximately 12 gendarmes at Yaound� University. They allegedly stripped and marched her across campus, punching and kicking her. Other students who tried to intervene were beaten off by the gendarmes. Ms. Guiadem was taken to a garage where gendarmes allegedly continued to beat and taunt her for two days and shaved her head with shards of broken glass. She was subsequently moved to the gendarme detention facility where she was kept until her release, without charge, on 11 May 1992.

Information received from the Government with respect to cases included in previous reports

83. On 2 March and 12 August 1993 the Government forwarded information on the case of Hameni Bieuleu, arrested on 5 November 1992, on behalf of whom the Special Rapporteur had made an urgent appeal on 2 December 1992. According to the Government, Hameni Bieuleu was, until his release on 28 December 1992, detained on the premises of the national gendarmerie in Yaound�, and later in Bamenda, in strict observance of the code on pre-trial proceedings governing criminal procedure in Cameroon. Contrary to the reported allegations, he was never subjected to any ill-treatment, nor was he deprived of medical care. Indeed, the day after his arrest, his family, with Dr. Nouedoui of the Yaound� General Hospital, were authorized at their request to visit him and take him the food they wanted (a letter addressed to the Minister of Defence by Dr. Nouedoui advising that Hameni Bieuleu should be taken to hospital was attached). After two expert tests in Yaound� and in Bamenda, earlier clinical examinations certifying that Mr. Bieuleu was a diabetic proved false. According to the findings published by the National Human Rights and Freedoms Committee, after interviews with Mr. Bieuleu during his detention, he had never complained of ill-treatment.

84. The Special Rapporteur made four urgent appeals on behalf of the persons mentioned in the following paragraphs, with regard to whom fears were expressed that they might be subjected to torture while in detention. The dates on which the appeals were transmitted appear in brackets at the end of the corresponding summaries.

85. Lieutenant S�rayohim Doyo, non-commissioned Officer Hassane Kabo, staff sergeant Ndouba Njadimadje and second-lieutenant Joachim Nodjihorkem Mbailaou, all members of the Chadian National Army (ANT). According to the information received, the first three persons were arrested in Doba on 6 February 1993 on charges of having had contacts with the Committee of National Renewal for Peace and Democracy. They were allegedly beaten and then transferred to the military base of Moundou on 15 February. Joachim Nodjihorkem was reported to have been arrested on 23 February after having been urgently summoned to Moundou by his commander. All four were allegedly being held incommunicado (8 April 1993).

86. Some 220 persons were reportedly arrested on 8 August 1993 in N'Djamena in the course of a demonstration during which clashes with the security forces were said to have taken place. Most of the demonstrators were members of the Ouadda� community protesting against executions alleged to have been carried out in their region of origin, in the eastern part of the country. The persons arrested included about 30 young people aged 14 to 17. It was reported that some of them were taken to the building of the Military Court, at the headquarters of the Gendarmerie, and questioned by members of the Judicial Police, and that others were being held incommunicado at unknown places of detention. A number of detainees were allegedly wounded during the demonstration, members of the Republican Guard having fired upon the crowd.

87. It was also reported that on 10 August members of the Gendarmerie arrested three members of the Ouadda� community: Outhman Issa, Prefect of Chari-Baguirmi, Imam Ahmat Abaker and Mahamat Zalba, former administrative director of the national electricity company. It was alleged that they were being held incommunicado. Another member of the Ouadda� community, Mahamat Saleh Issakha, was arrested on 12 July 1993 and held in detention for 48 hours, during which time he was tortured by the so-called arbatachar method, in which the arms and the legs of the victim are tied behind the back in a very painful position (17 August 1993).

88. On 13 September 1993 the Government replied that the persons mentioned in the appeal of 17 August had indeed been detained and interrogated in connection with the unauthorized demonstrations which had taken place on 8 August 1993. While in detention they had been visited by the president of the association of magistrates, as well as by doctors. They had all subsequently been released.

89. Bichara Digui, a member of the Comit� national de redressement (CNR); Ahmat Digui; Adoum Badour, businessman and Mahamat Koussou, a soldier, suspected supporters of Abbas Koty, former minister and leader of the Comit� national de redressement, were arrested on 22 October 1993 in N'Djamena following Abbas Koty's killing. Several members of the armed forces, many of whom were believed to be suspected of supporting Abbas Koty, were allegedly also arrested between 22 and 25 October; they were believed to be held in incommunicado detention at the Gendarmerie headquarters or at the National Security Agency (5 November 1993).

90. With respect to this case the Government indicated, on 11 November 1993, that the above-mentioned persons had been arrested by the judicial police after a preliminary investigation permitted the conclusion that they were preparing a coup d'�tat. During their interrogation they had not been subjected to any kind of ill-treatment. Adoum Badour had subsequently been released.

91. The following three persons were also reported to have been arrested in connection with Abbas Koty's killing: Adoum Asil, Regional Commander of the Chadian armed forces in the northern Borkounou Enedi Tibesti region, arrested in Faya on 25 October 1993; Bra�m Kossi and Hissein Kokap, businessmen, arrested on 26 October 1993 in N'Djamena (12 November 1993).

92. By letter dated 1 September 1993 the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had received information on 47 cases of torture, reported to have occurred between 1991 and 1993. These cases are described in the following paragraphs, together with the replies provided by the Government on some of them on 2 December 1993.

93. Jos� Miguel S�nchez Jim�nez, arrested on 26 March 1991 in Santiago by the Dipolcar carabinieros, was reportedly subjected to suffocation, simultaneous slaps on both ears and mock executions, and threatened with the arrest of his family.

94. Alfredo Didino Andrade Miranda, arrested on 29 April 1991 in Santiago by the Dipolcar carabinieros, was taken to the 26th Carabinieros station at Pudahuel, where he was reported to have been beaten repeatedly in an attempt to make him sign a confession. The Government replied that Andrade Miranda was being tried for terrorism. A medical report issued by a doctor of the carabinieros hospital stated that he did not bear signs of recent injuries. A complaint of torture was filed on 24 July 1991 before the fifth Criminal Court in Santiago.

95. Magdalena de los Angeles Gallardo B�rquez, arrested on 10 June 1991 by the Chilean Police Department in the city of Concepci�n, was allegedly held incommunicado for 35 days during which she was reportedly beaten, sexually abused and administered drugs.

96. Juan Sebasti�n Linares Ulloa and his brother, arrested at home in Santiago on 4 October 1991 by the Dipolcar and Gope carabinieros, were taken to the 3rd Carabinieros station where they were reportedly subjected to severe beatings and death threats.

97. Juan Aliste Vega, arrested on 4 October 1991 in Santiago by the carabinieros, was taken to the 3rd Carabinieros station where he was reportedly beaten and subjected to electric shocks.

98. Cristian Eugenio Fa�ndez Navarro, arrested on 29 November 1991 in Santiago by the Dipolcar and Gope carabinieros, was taken to the 3rd Carabinieros station where he was reportedly subjected to repeated beatings while blindfolded and handcuffed, and to electric shocks.

99. Paula Andrea Carrasco Barrios was arrested in Santiago on 14 December 1991 by the carabinieros. Among other forms of torture she was reportedly punched and kicked, forced to spend long hours in contorted positions, deprived of food and water, deprived of sleep, made to endure mock executions and threatened.

100. Wladimir Jim�nez Pinto, arrested in Santiago on 14 December 1991 by the Dipolcar carabinieros, was initially taken to the 44th Carabinieros station and later transferred to the 3rd Station. He was reportedly beaten, made to endure mock executions and deprived of food for several days.

101. Rodrigo Alejandro Olmedo Olmedo, arrested in Santiago on 14 December 1991 by the Carrascal carabinieros, was initially taken to the 45th Carabinieros station of the "Cerro Navia" and later transferred to the 3rd Station where he was reportedly beaten severely, deprived of food for three days, and suffocated with a plastic bag over his head.

102. Bernardo Antonio Acevedo Lagos, arrested by the police on 9 January 1992 at his home in Santiago, was reportedly kept in handcuffs for four days and severely beaten during interrogations. A complaint of torture has apparently been lodged with the 3rd Criminal Court. The Government replied that Acevedo Lagos was being tried for terrorism. A medical report issued on 20 January 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that he bore injuries caused by blunt instruments during the previous seven to nine days. A formal complaint of torture was submitted to the 3rd Criminal Court in Santiago on 27 January 1992. The proceedings were later dismissed for lack of evidence.

103. Ram�n Sup�lveda Alarc�n was arrested by the carabinieros on 18 January 1992 in the commune of Lo Espejo, Santiago. His right wrist was reportedly fractured as the result of beatings which he suffered at the time of his arrest. He was taken to the 3rd Carabinieros station where he was reportedly beaten once again and deprived of food and sleep for 72 hours.

104. Waldo Antonio Olivares Fern�ndez, arrested by the police on 11 February 1992 in Santiago, was taken to police headquarters where he was reportedly given electric shocks to force him to confess to his participation in various attacks.

105. Marcela Elisa N��ez Carrizo, arrested in Santiago on 6 February 1992 by members of the plainclothes police department, was reportedly subjected for several days to insults, beatings, death threats and mock executions.

106. Carlos Eduardo Saavedra Saavedra, arrested by the police on 2 February 1992 in Santiago, was reportedly subjected for four days to repeated electric shock sessions and to beatings.

107. Jaime Enrique Poblete Cort�s, arrested by the police on 7 March 1992 in the Plaza de Armas, Santiago, was taken to the Central Police Station where he was reportedly threatened and beaten repeatedly during interrogation. The Government replied that the medical report issued on 11 March 1992 by the legal medical service did not indicate any visible sign of injuries.

108. Ulises Bachler Grandi, arrested on 16 March 1992 in the city of Temuco by members of the Civil Commission of Carabinieros. He was initially taken to the 2nd Carabinieros station, and the next day he was transferred to the offices of the Dipolcar. He was reportedly subjected to severe beatings, to mock executions and suffocation with a plastic bag. The Government replied that the medical report issued on 18 March 1992 by the Temuco Regional Hospital indicated that Mr. Bachler's body bore multiple bruises.

109. Jaime Antipil A�i�ir, arrested on 16 March 1992 at Temuco by the carabinieros, was reported to have been taken to the regional hospital with gunshot wounds inflicted at the moment of his arrest and injuries resulting from beatings. On the following day he was reportedly transferred to the 2nd Carabinieros station, where he was subjected to such forms of torture as electric shocks, suffocation with a plastic bag, submerging of the head in water, mock executions and beatings.

110. Rafael Escorza Henr�quez was arrested by the police at his home in Santiago in April 1992. Among other forms of torture he was reportedly beaten on the hands and feet, deprived of food and sleep for five days and threatened. The Government replied that he had been sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorism and that he had never complained of ill-treatment by the police.

111. Luis Alejandro Reyes Reyes, arrested on 16 March 1992 at Temuco during a clash with the carabinieros, was transported to the Regional Hospital with gunshot wounds, and was reportedly beaten on various parts of the body, including his wounded arm. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 20 April 1992 by the Temuco Regional Hospital indicated that Mr. Reyes had bullet wounds as well as a broken arm.

112. Maria Cristina San Juan Avila, arrested by the police on 31 March 1992 at her home in Santiago, was reportedly kept for two days and two nights blindfolded, deprived of food and sleep and beaten. The Government replied that she had been sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorism and that she had never complained of ill-treatment by the police.

113. V�ctor Gonz�lez Gonz�lez, arrested by the police on 6 March 1992 in the Plaza Italia, Santiago, was taken to the General Mackenna central police station, where he was reportedly subjected to a series of interrogations during which he was beaten, threatened with harm to his wife and given electric shocks. The Government replied that the medical report issued on 9 March 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that there were no visible signs of injuries.

114. Axel Osorio Rivera, arrested in Santiago on 11 June 1992 by the carabinieros, was taken to the 3rd Carabinieros station, where he is reported to have been continually beaten and deprived of food and sleep for five days. The Government replied that the medical report issued on 12 June 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that there were no visible signs of injuries.

115. Vicente Vega Moreno, arrested in Santiago on 11 June 1992, together with Axel Osorio Rivera, was taken to the 36th Carabinieros station where he was reportedly punched many times and threatened with his own death and that of his family. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 15 June 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

116. Andr�s Eduardo Castro Caracciolo, arrested by the carabinieros on 14 June 1992 at his home in the commune of La Florida, Santiago, was taken to the 3rd Carabinieros station, where it is reported that he was repeatedly threatened, beaten and deprived of food. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 16 June 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

117. Alex Zuna Espinoza was arrested on 18 June 1992 by soldiers of the "Huamachuco" 24th Infantry Regiment - he was doing his military service in Arica. While under interrogation as to his membership of a subversive group he was reportedly beaten with a chair, kicked on all parts of his body and threatened with death.

118. Alejandro Rodr�guez Escobar, arrested by the carabinieros on 1 July 1992 in a street in Santiago, reportedly received several bullet wounds at the moment of his arrest. He was taken to the 3rd Carabinieros station in the Gran Avenida, where it is reported that he was repeatedly beaten and deprived of food and sleep. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 2 July 1992 indicated that Mr. Rodriguez had serious injuries consistent with having been arrested and shot at.

119. V�ctor Hern�n Torres Oteiza, arrested on 11 August 1992 by members of the Assaults Department in La Victoria, Santiago, was taken to General Mackenna police headquarters, where he was reportedly beaten and subjected to electric shocks. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 12 August 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

120. Andr�s Jord�n Fari�a, arrested on 3 September 1992 in Santiago by the carabinieros, was taken to the 12th Carabinieros station in the Gran Avenida, where he is reported to have been repeatedly beaten and deprived of food for five days running. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 8 September 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that Mr. Jord�n had slight injuries caused by blunt instruments.

121. Jorge Antonio Esp�nola Robles, arrested by the police at the home of a relative in Santiago on 15 September 1992, was taken to the police station, where he was struck on the ears and elsewhere, suspended in the air and subjected to a mock execution. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 9 March 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that Mr. Esp�nola had bullet wounds in his right arm.

122. Wilson Enrique Rojas Mercado, arrested in Santiago on 15 September 1992 by the carabinieros, was taken to the carabinieros stations of La Castrina and San Gregorio, where he was reportedly beaten, threatened, subjected to electric shocks and to cigarette burns on his arms, chest and back. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 17 September 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that Mr. Rojas had injuries likely to have been caused by a blunt instrument.

123. Alejandro Rodr�guez Escobar, was arrested on 1 July 1992 in a street in Santiago by the carabinieros, who reportedly shot him in the right arm and the left foot. In spite of his wounds, he was reported to have been severely beaten during interrogation.

124. Carlos Alberto Silva Duncan, arrested by the police on 6 March 1992 in Santiago, was taken to General Mackenna police headquarters, where he was held until 16 March. He was reportedly subjected to such forms of torture as electric shocks, beatings inflicted on various parts of his body and threats. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 9 March 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

125. Pablo Hern�n Morales Fuhrimann, arrested by the carabinieros on 8 October 1992 in the Plaza de Italia district of Santiago, was taken to the 3rd Carabinieros station, where he was reportedly beaten and given electric shocks. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 9 October 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

126. Rodolfo Retamales Leiva, arrested by the carabinieros in Santiago on 12 October 1992, was taken to the 3rd Carabinieros station, where he was reportedly beaten, threatened, deprived of sleep and given electric shocks. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 13 October 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

127. Danielo Eduardo Macaya Cocio, arrested by the police on 9 November 1992 in the commune of Renca, Santiago, was taken to the Southern police station, where he is reported to have been severely beaten. According to the Government, the medical report issued by the Barros Luco hospital indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

128. Jorge Mauricio Mateluna Rojas, arrested on 9 November 1992 in Costanera Street, Santiago, was taken to the Southern police station, where he was reportedly subjected to such forms of torture as beatings, electric shocks, simultaneous slaps to both ears with the palms of the hands and submersion of the head in water. According to the Government, the medical report issued by the Barros Luco Hospital indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

129. Ram�n Escobar D�az, arrested on 16 July 1992 during a clash with the carabinieros in Santiago, was taken to the 3rd Carabinieros station where he was reported to have been severely beaten, in particular on the hands, deprived of food for three days and sleep for five days, and threatened with the rape of his companion. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 25 August 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that Mr. Escobar had injuries caused by blunt instruments.

130. Eduardo Alfonso Gonz�lez Castro, arrested by the police on 20 August 1992 in the commune of Lo Espejo, Santiago, was taken to police headquarters, where he was reportedly beaten, given electric shocks and deprived of food and water for four days. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 25 August 1992 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

131. Manuel Osvaldo Mart�nez Garc�s, arrested by the carabinieros on 16 July 1992 on a public thoroughfare in Santiago, was taken successively to two police stations and was reportedly subjected to repeated beatings and threats.

132. Esteban Huiniguir Reyes, arrested by the police on 13 October 1992 in the commune of Lo Prado, Santiago, was taken to the premises of the homicide brigade of the commune of Providencia, where he was reportedly submitted to several electric shock sessions. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 15 October 1993 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

133. Manuel Francisco Saavedra Rodr�guez, arrested by officials of the Police Department on 12 November 1992 at his home in Santiago, was taken to the police station at the intersection of Gran Avenida and Departamental, where he was reportedly stripped and beaten all over with blunt objects. According to the Government, the medical report issued by the Barros Luco Hospital indicated that Mr. Saavedra had bruises on the face, and a broken nose.

134. H�ctor Navarro Salinas, arrested by members of the Police Department on 8 January 1993 in a street in Santiago, was taken to the Southern police station, where he was reportedly subjected to repeated beatings and electric shocks. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 13 January 1993 by the legal medical service indicated that Mr. Navarro had slight injuries caused by blunt instruments.

135. Jos� Luis Galarce Gallardo, arrested on 19 January 1993 by officials of the Police Department at his home in the settlement of La Victoria, Santiago, was taken to the police station at the intersection of Macul and Los Alerces, where he was reportedly subjected to beatings and electric shocks. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 21 January 1993 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

136. Daniel Antonio Torres Vicencio, arrested by the police on 19 January 1993 in Santiago, was taken to the police station at the intersection of Macul and Los Alerces, where he was reportedly beaten and subjected to electric shocks. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 21 January 1993 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

137. Jos� Mauricio Saldias G�mez, arrested by members of the 1st Station of the Assaults Department on 19 January 1993 at his home in Santiago, was reportedly submitted to simultaneous beating and electric shocks. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 21 January 1993 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

138. Fernando Gonz�lez Olivares, arrested by the police in a street in Santiago on 8 January 1993, was reportedly subjected to such torture as beating and electric shocks. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 13 January 1993 by the legal medical service indicated that Mr. Gonz�lez had an injury caused by a sharp instrument.

139. Juana Enriqueta Baeza Rocha, arrested by the police in Santiago on 25 March 1993, was taken to a police station in San Miguel, where it was reported that she was repeatedly beaten and threatened with harm to her family. According to the Government, the medical report issued on 27 March 1993 by the legal medical service indicated that this person bore no visible signs of injuries.

Information transmitted by the Government with respect to cases included in previous reports

140. By the above-mentioned letter of 2 December 1993 the Government also replied to the cases referred to in the following paragraphs, which had been transmitted to it on 21 August 1992.

141. Ad�n Eloy Pacheco Pinto was reportedly arrested in 1991 and taken to the 3rd police station in Santiago. According to the Government, he was charged under Law No. 12.927 on the Security of the State and sentenced to imprisonment. During the proceedings he never complained of having been tortured. A medical report issued by a doctor of the Carabinieros hospital stated that Pacheco Pinto did not bear signs of recent injuries.

142. Nelson Ernesto Ruz Aguilera, Alfredo Heriberto Marchant Figueroa and Francisco Javier Diaz Trujillo were arrested in May 1991 and taken to the 3rd police station. The Government replied that they were being tried under the Arms Control Law.

143. Ana Mar�a Sep�lveda Sanhueza was arrested in March 1992 and taken to the Central Investigations Barracks. The Government replied that she was being tried for terrorism. She had never complained before the court of having been tortured. A medical report issued on 11 March 1993 by the legal medical service indicated that there were no visible signs of injuries.

144. Alicia Lira Matus was arrested in November 1991 while taking part in a peaceful demonstration. According to the Government, a complaint for torture was lodged with the 5th Criminal Court in Santiago. The case was, however, dismissed on 1 December 1992 for lack of evidence.

145. With respect to the cases of Bernarda Eugenia Valenzuela Montecinos, Juan Carlos Ch�vez Pilquil, Jorge Alfredo de la Fuente Llanos, Mario Valenzuela Mart�nez, Roberto Antonio Morales Pinochet, N�lida Molina Morgado, Lorena Reyes Anderson, Jos� Antonio Sabat M�ndez, Francisco Olea Lagos, Cristi�n C�rdenas Jofr�, Mirentchu Vivanco Figueroa, Antonio Len�n S�nchez Pardo, Jos� Cristi�n Arriagada Melo and Jorge Antonio Concha Meza, the Government replied that no formal complaints had been lodged with the judicial authorities and, therefore, no investigation into the veracity of the allegations had been carried out.

		Paragraphs
	Introduction	1 - 4
	I. MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK	5 - 23
	II. INFORMATION REVIEWED BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS COUNTRIES	24 - 665
	Algeria	24 - 36
	Angola	37 - 39
	Bangladesh	40 - 51
	Bolivia	52 - 55
	Brazil	56 - 59
	Bulgaria	60 - 62
	Burundi	63 - 68
	Cameroon	69 - 83
	Chad	84 - 91
	Chile	92 - 145
	China	146 - 172
	Colombia	173 - 188
	Cuba	189 - 199
	Dominican Republic	200 - 201
	Ecuador	202 - 208
	Egypt	209 - 226
	Equatorial Guinea	227 - 235
	Ethiopia	236
	Guatemala	237 - 240
	Haiti	241 - 260
	India	261 - 316
	Indonesia	317 - 343
	Iran (Islamic Republic of)	344 - 347
	Iraq	348 - 351
	Israel	352 - 358
	Italy	359 - 362
	Jordan	363 - 365
	Kenya	366 - 369
	Malawi	370 - 371
	Malaysia	372 - 376
	Mauritania	377 - 380
	Mexico	381 - 394
	Morocco	395 - 398
	Myanmar	399 - 403
	Nepal	404 - 418
	Nigeria	419
	Pakistan	420 - 425
	Peru	426 - 452
	Portugal	453
	Republic of Korea	454 - 468
	Romania	469 - 471
	Rwanda	472 - 474
	Saudi Arabia	475
	Senegal	476
	Sierra Leone	477
	South Africa	478 - 481
	Spain	482 - 499
	Sri Lanka	500 - 503
	Sudan	504 - 527
	Syria	528
	Tadzhikistan	529 - 530
	Thailand	531 - 532
	Togo	533 - 539
	Tunisia	540 - 549
	Turkey	550 - 631
	Yugoslavia	632 - 649
	United Kingdom	650 - 655
	United Republic of Tanzania	656
	Zaire	657 - 664
	Zambia	665
	III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	666 - 671