CAT/C/QAT/CO/3
(a)
All detainees, including those held under security laws, are informed
about the charges against them, have their detention recorded in a register and are
brought promptly before a judge;
(b)
Detainees taken into custody are permitted to contact family members,
lawyers and independent doctors promptly following deprivation of liberty and that
the provision of these safeguards by the authorities is monitored effectively;
(c)
No one is held in secret detention;
(d)
Solitary confinement is only used in exceptional cases as a last resort, for
as short a time as possible and subject to independent review, and only pursuant to
authorization by a competent authority, in accordance with rules 43 to 46 of the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules). The State party should also compile and regularly publish
comprehensive data on the use of solitary confinement.
Coerced confessions
17.
While taking note of the guarantees set forth in article 232 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure regarding the inadmissibility of evidence obtained under duress or threat, the
Committee regrets the scant information available on decisions taken by the Qatari courts to
refuse confessions obtained under torture as evidence. Of particular concern is the case of
Ronaldo Lopez Ulep, a Filipino national convicted on espionage charges, who claimed to
have been repeatedly subjected to torture in order to force his confession (arts. 2, 15 and
16).
18.
The State party should take effective steps to ensure in practice that confessions
obtained under torture or ill-treatment are ruled inadmissible. It should also expand
vocational training programmes for both judges and prosecutors so as to ensure their
ability to identify torture and ill-treatment and investigate all allegations of such acts.
The State party should also provide the Committee with detailed information on any
cases in which confessions were deemed inadmissible on the grounds that they were
obtained through torture and indicate whether any officials have been prosecuted and
punished for extracting such confessions.
Independence of the judiciary
19.
While acknowledging the information provided by the delegation, the Committee
continues to be concerned about the level of independence of judges in the State party,
which remains severely undermined by the Emir’s exclusive authority to appoint judges on
the advice of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, and the lack of security of tenure of
both national and foreign judges, who can be dismissed by the Emir “in the public interest”.
The Committee takes note of the explanations provided by the delegation regarding the
status of foreign judges, who work under a labour contract and whose rights are protected
by decree. However, it remains concerned at reports indicating that they are recruited under
temporary contracts that have to be renewed annually, which raises questions about their
independence, impartiality and irremovability (art. 2).
20.
Recalling its previous recommendation (see CAT/C/QAT/CO/2, para. 13), and
in the light of the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of
judges and lawyers (see A/HRC/29/26/Add.1, paras. 95–102), the State party should
adopt all measures necessary to establish and ensure the independence of the judiciary,
including by guaranteeing their tenure in office and severing administrative and other
ties with the executive branch, in conformity with international standards, notably the
Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (General Assembly resolutions
40/32 and 40/146). The State party should also revise the modalities of the
appointment and tenure of foreign judges, to ensure their total independence,
autonomy, impartiality and irremovability.
4