E/CN.4/2000/9/Add.5
page 5
physical resistance they put up, the order was given to dislodge them by force. However, the
Government made it clear that this operation had involved only the means strictly necessary and
commensurate with the circumstances. Furthermore, this incident had no (legal) repercussions.
15.
Concerning Yogeswaran Narendran, Thirnagnam Thavandi and Mylvaganan Arwanan
(ibid., para. 444), the Government stated that after their request for asylum had been rejected, it
was decided not to admit them to the territory. Since they refused to comply with this decision
they had been obliged to embark. However, the Government denied allegations of ill-treatment.
An administrative investigation into the facts revealed that the police officers could not be
faulted in any way for the performance of their functions.
16.
Concerning the questioning of trade union members in Papeete in September 1995
(ibid., para. 445), the Government indicated that an investigation into the circumstances
surrounding their questioning by gendarmes had not so far resulted in any charges being brought.
17.
Concerning Abdelkrim Boumlik (ibid., para. 446), the Government confirmed that his
parents had lodged a complaint on 2 May 1996. The investigation entrusted to the Police
Disciplinary Body (IGPN) revealed that the versions of the facts presented by the police officers
and by Abdelkrim Boumlik were contradictory and that, in the absence of objective evidence and
a medical examination during the period of detention, it was impossible to determine the origin
of his injuries which, according to his first hearing, were the result of falling off his motorbike.
On 7 April 1999, the examining magistrate of the Pontoise court of major jurisdiction issued a
dismissal order. The Indictment Division of the Versailles Court of Appeal is at present
considering an appeal by the party bringing the criminal indemnity action.
18.
Concerning Ahmed Hamed (ibid., para. 447), the Government confirms the facts but adds
that he had resisted being taken in for questioning following a complaint by the victim of a theft
who had indicated him as the person responsible. The Government explained that on
22 October 1997 the Director-General of the National Police had ordered an administrative
investigation of this case by the Police Monitoring Service. No professional misconduct could
be attributed to the four police officers concerned and as a result the case had been closed by
IGPN. No disciplinary sanctions were therefore imposed.
19.
Concerning Djamel Bouchareb (ibid., para. 448), the Government indicated that,
on 2 November 1998, a police officer was charged with using unlawful violence although no
judicial supervision measures were ordered. However, the Government explained that the
charge was unrelated to the accusation of torture within the meaning of article 221-1 of the
Penal Code.
20.
Concerning Claude Serre (ibid., para. 449), the Government stated that, following a
dispute with parking police officers, he had been questioned, handcuffed and taken to a hospital
in order to determine his blood alcohol level. During the investigation, Claude Serre had,
according to the Government, admitted that he had resisted being taken in for questioning and
had added that the police officers had not deliberately used violence against him. The Bobigny
Procurator had therefore closed the case.