CAT/OP/BRA/2
outlined with recommendations in the SPT’s visit Report. Indeed the Reply appears to be
absent of any details of how the State intends to address these matters in a practical manner,
- through the implementation of policy rather than the restatement of policy itself,- in the
light of the SPT’s recommendations. Regrettably, this, in combination with Brazil’s failure
to implement the recommendations of other UN mechanisms, does not persuade the
Subcommittee fully of a commitment by the State to implement the SPT’s
recommendations. This said, the SPT takes note of Brazil’s ‘Master Plan’, and it considers
it a welcome step forwards to which it hopes more detail can be added to ensure its
implementation, in a relevant way, in places of detention across the country.
9.
This Response focuses on some of the most pressing issues that have either not
been covered comprehensively, or not referred to at all in Brazil’s Reply. However,
although it does not refer back to all of the recommendations in its visit Report, the
SPT wishes to emphasise that all of the recommendations made in the original visit
Report are and remain relevant, and that it expects a timely response to them all.
10.
At the outset, the SPT wishes to highlight three matters of very specific and
pressing concern which it urges the authorities to take immediate steps to address. It is
the SPT’s view that such action strikes at the heart of the State’s commitment and its
obligation to cooperate with the SPT to improve the treatment and detention conditions of
detainees with a view to eradicating torture and other ill-treatment.
III. Priority issues
11.
As stated above, the SPT is acutely conscious that many of its recommendations
have been made previously to the Brazilian authorities by other UN and regional bodies,
but without being implemented by the State, (see Report, para. 8). The SPT is very
concerned particularly by two issues relating to the implementation of SPT
recommendations and considers that their persistence gravely impedes any possibility of
preventing torture and ill-treatment effectively in Brazil. The SPT is concerned
particularly by;
(a)
Brazil’s reliance on the complexity of its federal structure, and excessive
formalism in respect of roles and responsibilities of different government entities, to
excuse lack of implementation and non-compliance. This, in the SPT’s view, is neither
acceptable nor useful to resolve many of the issues highlighted in the SPT’s Report,
(b)
safeguards that are in place at a legislative and policy level are simply
not reflected, respected or practiced in detention facilities in Brazil.
These points are elaborated in the section below with recommendations
12.
In addition, as a matter of urgency the SPT has recommended the immediate closure
of Ary Franco prison, yet the SPT gathers from the State’s Replies that the facility remains
open, albeit that operations may ‘have been suspended’ at the prison (Reply, para. 44) . The
SPT requests confirmation if this means the facility has been closed, ie. it no longer
holds any inmates, and if so, the date and details of the closure. If it has not been
closed, the SPT reiterates its call that Ary Franco should be closed down immediately.
Subsequent to that, it may be the case that Brazil decides either (i) to refurbish the
prison to bring it into conformity with international standards and to then reopen it,
or (ii) to close it down definitively.
13. In any event, the SPT must restate its view that under no circumstances should the Ary
Franco prison remain open in its present state. Such a situation would perpetuate conditions
that amount to ill-treatment of inmates and hence this situation should, in the very short
term, be brought to an end through the prison’s closure. The SPT requests specific
4