CPT: 15TH GENERAL REPORT
9.
The background to the ad hoc visit to Malta
in June 2005 was the sharp and unprecedented
increase in the number of illegal migrants arriving in
the country since 2001, a situation which had placed a
considerable burden on the Maltese authorities. Faced
with critical reports of the conditions under which
immigration detainees were being held and certain
allegations of deliberate physical ill-treatment, the CPT
had already carried out an ad hoc visit to Malta in
January 2004.
The main purpose of the Committee’s
subsequent visit in June 2005 was to examine the
manner in which its recommendations concerning the
detention centres for foreigners had been implemented.
Information was also sought on the inquiry into
incidents in January 2005 at one of those centres (Safi
Barracks), in the course of which a number of
detainees had been injured.
7
During the ad hoc visit in July 2005, the CPT
examined the practical operation of the 2005 Act and
met various persons served with control orders under
that legislation. Attention was also given to the
treatment of persons detained in relation to offences
under the Terrorism Act 2000; in this connection, the
CPT’s delegation visited Paddington Green High
Security Police Station and Belmarsh Prison. Further,
the issue of “diplomatic assurances” in the context of
deportation procedures was raised during talks with
officials.
The Committee’s delegation also went to
Frankland Prison, in order to examine the situation of a
person convicted by the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia who is serving his
sentence in the United Kingdom. Further information
about this specific monitoring activity is given in
paragraphs 14 and 15 below.
10.
The ad hoc visit to the North Caucasian
region of Russia in November/December 2004 was
the seventh organised by the CPT to this part of the
Federation since 2000. To date, the reports on the
Committee’s visits to the North Caucasian region have
not been authorised for publication. However, the two
public statements concerning the Chechen Republic
issued by the CPT in July 2001 and July 2003 give a
clear insight into the facts found by the Committee and
its major concerns and recommendations.
12. The level of cooperation shown towards CPT
visiting delegations by the competent national
authorities continues, in general, to be very high.
Meetings with Ministers and senior officials at the
beginning and end of visits almost invariably take
place in a constructive atmosphere. Further, in the great
majority of cases at local level, CPT delegations enjoy
rapid access to places visited and are provided with the
information they need.
During the 2004 visit, the CPT reviewed
progress in tackling issues raised in the July 2003
public statement, in particular resort to torture and
other forms of ill-treatment by members of the law
enforcement agencies and federal forces, forced
disappearances and impunity. In addition, the
Committee examined for the first time the treatment of
persons deprived of their liberty in the Republic of
Ingushetia. At the outset of the visit, the CPT’s
delegation went to School No. 1 in Beslan (North
Ossetia-Alania) and paid homage to the victims of the
terrorist attack which took place there in early
September 2004.
13.
That said, there are still isolated examples of a
hostile reception and /or of attempts to disguise the true
situation, in particular in certain law enforcement
establishments. Members of CPT visiting delegations
are not perturbed by discourteous, provocative or
deceptive behaviour; however, such an attitude towards
an international delegation hardly inspires confidence
as to the manner in which the officials concerned treat
persons in their custody.
11.
The July 2005 ad hoc visit to the United
Kingdom was in part a sequel to visits organised in
February 2002 and March 2004. Those latter visits
focused on the treatment of persons detained pursuant
to Part IV of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security
Act 2001, which provided for the administrative
detention for an indefinite period of foreign nationals
suspected of being international terrorists. Following a
House of Lords judgement of 16 December 2004, Part
IV of the 2001 Act was abrogated and replaced by the
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
More importantly, in the course of certain
visits during the last twelve months, there were clear
indications that some prisoners interviewed by the
CPT’s delegation felt unable to speak freely because
they had been warned against making any complaints
and feared repercussions. Further, on occasion,
allegations of actual reprisals have been received. It
must be stressed that any kind of intimidating or
retaliatory action against a person before or after he has
spoken to a CPT delegation would be totally
incompatible with the obligations of Parties to the
Convention. If the CPT were to receive solid evidence
of such action, it would consider making a public
statement under Article 10, paragraph 2, of the
Convention.