CAT/C/CR/28/5
page 3
(b)
The sentencing to, and imposition of, corporal punishments by judicial and
administrative authorities, including, in particular, flogging and amputation of limbs, that are not
in conformity with the Convention.
(c)
The different regimes applicable, in law and in practice, to nationals and
foreigners in relation to their legal rights to be free from, and their ability to complain of,
conduct in violation of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the Convention and its
protections are applicable to all acts in violation of the Convention that occur within its
jurisdiction, from which it follows that all persons are entitled, in equal measure and without
discrimination, to the rights contained therein;
(d)
Allegations of prolonged pre-trial detention of some individuals beyond the
statutory limits prescribed by law, which heightens the risk of, and may on occasion of itself
constitute, conduct in violation of the Convention. In this connection, the Committee expresses
its concern at instances of denial, at times for extended periods, of consular access to detained
foreigners. Moreover, the Committee is concerned at the limited degree of judicial supervision
of pre-trial detention;
(e)
Reports of incommunicado detention of detained persons, at times for extended
periods, particularly during pre-trial investigations. The lack of access to external legal advice
and medical assistance, as well as to family members, increases the likelihood that conduct
violating the Convention will not be appropriately pursued and punished;
(f)
The requirement of article 100 of the statute of the Directorate of Public Security
for an investigating officer to endeavour “by judicious means” to ascertain the reasons for an
individual’s silence. While the article in question formally proscribes resort to torture or
coercion, such a requirement unjustifiably heightens the risk of conduct violating the
Convention;
(g)
Cases of deportation of foreigners that have been drawn to the Committee’s
attention that seem to have been in breach of the obligations imposed by article 3 of the
Convention;
(h)
The jurisdiction of the Mutawe’en officials to pursue, inter alia, violations of the
moral code and to proscribe conduct they identify as not conducive to public morality and safety.
The Committee is concerned that the powers of these officials are vaguely defined by law, and
that their activities may violate the Convention;
(i)
The apparent failure of the State party to provide effective mechanisms to
investigate complaints of breaches of the Convention;
(j)
While noting the State party’s institution of mechanisms for the purpose of
providing compensation for conduct in violation of the Convention, as a practical matter,
compensation appears to be rarely obtained, and full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the
Convention is consequently limited.