page 2 Arbitrary Detention report of 24 December 2012, A/ HRC/22/44, §60] To meet their obligations under international law, MENA States must ensure that all detainees are held and registered in official detention facilities, including by disclosing: their identity; the date, time and place of their detention; the identity of the authority that detained and interrogated them; the grounds for their detention; and the date and time of their admission to the detention facility. In order to comply with these obligations, MENA states should undertake comprehensive reforms of the framework relating to detention. Indeed, in many MENA countries, acts of torture and other ill-treatment have been facilitated, and sometimes even exacerbated, by domestic laws relating to detention. In Morocco, for example, the Counter-Terrorism Act, N°03-03 of 28 May 2003, permits the extension of the length of garde à vue (detention in police custody) in “terrorism” cases to 96 hours, renewable twice upon the authorisation of the public prosecutor. Furthermore, during the garde à vue, prosecutors, at the request of the police, may also delay the detained person from contacting a lawyer for up to 48 hours after the commencement of the first renewal period. Therefore, a “terrorist” suspect might be prevented from communicating with a lawyer for the first 6 days of garde-à-vue. Under international standards, anyone arrested or detained has the right to be assisted by a lawyer without delay and to communicate and consult with his/her lawyer without interception or censorship and in full confidentiality. This right may be delayed only in exceptional circumstances and must comply with strict criteria determined by law. In any event, the person deprived of their liberty should have access to a lawyer within 48 hours of their arrest or detention. An effective means to combat policies and practices of arbitrary detention, torture and other illtreatment and enforced disappearance is to ensure that detention is subject to independent judicial review. Under international law and standards, all detained persons have the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and to be brought before a judge or a judicial authority within 48 hours of their arrest. However, in many of the MENA States, detention is subject to review by the Office of the Public Prosecutor (OPP). It is notable that in these States, prosecutors are under the authority of the Minister of Justice. As such, they cannot be considered as officers authorised to exercise judicial power. The Human Rights Committee considered that “it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power, that it be exercised by an authority which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with”. The Committee argued that it was “not satisfied that the public prosecutor could be regarded as having the institutional objectivity and impartiality necessary to be considered an “officer authorized to exercise judicial power” within the meaning of article 9(3)”. [For further details, see Human Rights Committee, Vladimir Kulomin v. Hungary. Communication N°521/1992, 22 March 1996. CCPR/C/56/D/521/1992, §11.3.] In many MENA countries, the subordination of the OPP to the executive has resulted in a lack of prompt, independent and impartial investigations into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment. Prosecutors regularly refuse to register complaints of ill-treatment or torture. In the limited cases where inquiries have been ordered subsequent to such complaints, investigations have been unreasonably prolonged and have failed to address the responsibility of superiors for the conduct of their agents. Such practices breach the obligations of these States under international law, including the CAT and the ICCPR. Under Article 12 of this convention, “Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction”. This obligation is also reflected in Principles 33 and 34 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any form of Detention or Imprisonment. In addition, Article 13 of the CAT recognises the right of individuals to make a complaint regarding allegations of torture and “to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities”. Those carrying out The Middle East and North Africa: A Torture-Free Zone

Select target paragraph3