International law, Sixth edition
Download 7.77 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
International Law MALCOLM N. SHAW
International Instruments, United Nations, New York, vol. I (First Part), 1993, Section H.
342 See, as far as the UK is concerned, sections 134 and 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. 328 i n t e r nat i o na l l aw The Committee receives states’ reports (article 19), has an inter-state complaint competence (article 21) and may hear individual communi- cations (article 22). In both the latter cases, it is necessary that the state or states concerned should have made a declaration accepting the com- petence of the Committee. 343 Article 20 of the Convention provides that if the Committee receives ‘reliable evidence’ that torture is being sys- tematically practised in the territory of a state party, it may invite the state in question to co-operate in examining the evidence. The Com- mittee may designate one or more of its members to make a confiden- tial inquiry. In doing so, it shall seek the co-operation of the state con- cerned and, with the latter’s agreement, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory. The Committee will transmit the findings of the in- quiry to the state, together with appropriate comments or suggestions. The proceedings up to this point are to be confidential, but the Com- mittee may, after consulting the state, decide to include a summary ac- count of the results in its annual report. This additional, if cautiously phrased, power may provide the Committee with a significant role. 344 It should be noted that states parties have the ability to ‘opt out’ of this procedure if they so wish at the time of signature or ratification, or accession. 345 The conduct of the reporting procedure bears much resemblance to the practice of the UN Human Rights Committee. 346 Guidelines have been is- sued for states parties and the discussions with state representatives are held with a view to establishing a constructive dialogue. Many prob- lems facing other treaty bodies also appear with regard to the Committee against Torture, for example, overdue reports and problems relating to im- plementation of the Convention generally. The Committee may also make comments on states’ reports in the form of concluding observations 347 and may issue general comments. 348 Interim measures of protection may also 343 See e.g. the Committee’s report of Spring 2002, A/57/44, p. 82. 344 Note e.g. the report of the Committee on Sri Lanka in this context, A/57/44, p. 59 (2002). See also E. Zoller, ‘Second Session of the UN Commission against Torture’, 7 NQHR, 1989, p. 250. 345 Article 28(1). See e.g. A/57/44, p. 81. 346 As at May 2006, the Committee had received a total of 194 reports, with 192 overdue: see A/61/44, p. 5 (2006). 347 See e.g. A/61/44, pp. 6 ff. (2006). 348 To date only one has been issued on the implementation of article 3 concerning deportation to states where there is substantial reason to fear torture: see A/53/44, annex IX. t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f h u m a n r i g h t s 329 be granted under Rule 108(1) and this is monitored by the rapporteurs for new complaints and interim measures. 349 The first three cases before the Committee under article 22 were ad- missibility decisions concerning Argentinian legislation exempting junior military officers from liability for acts of torture committed during the 1976–83 period and its compatibility with the Torture Convention. 350 The Committee noted that there existed a general rule of international law obliging all states to take effective measures to prevent and punish acts of torture. However, the Convention took effect only from its date of entry (26 June 1987) and could not be applied retroactively to cover the enactment of legislation prior to that date. Therefore, the commu- nications were inadmissible. However, the Committee did criticise the Argentinian legislation and stated that Argentina was morally bound to provide a remedy to the victims of torture. 351 In May 2002, the Com- mittee revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. 352 The Committee has held that where substantial grounds exist for believing that the applicant would be in danger of being sub- jected to torture, the expulsion or return of the applicant by the state Download 7.77 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling