CAT/C/TGO/CO/3
Committee remains concerned that in practice fundamental legal safeguards are not
respected during arrest and detention, something which the State party itself acknowledged
in its third periodic report. The Committee is concerned about reports that arrested persons
are not informed of their rights; moreover, although in theory article 16 of the Constitution
provides for the right to consult a lawyer of one’s choosing from the outset of police
custody, this safeguard appears not to be applied in practice and arrested persons are often
questioned or even tried in the absence of counsel. With regard to the rights of remand
prisoners, the Committee notes with concern that: (a) in police stations and gendarmeries,
their right to communicate immediately after their arrest with their family is generally not
guaranteed; (b) their right to be examined immediately by a doctor is restricted by the
requirement that they obtain prior authorization from the prosecution service; and (c) their
right to be brought as soon as possible before an independent and impartial tribunal in order
to obtain a ruling on the legality of their detention is not respected (art. 2).
11.
Reiterating the recommendations set forth in paragraph 10 of its previous
concluding observations, the Committee recommends that the State party should:
(a)
Promptly adopt the bill on the organization of the judicial system and
the preliminary draft Code of Criminal Procedure and ensure that the latter
enshrines all fundamental safeguards applicable to arrest and detention;
(b)
Ensure, in law and in practice, that from the outset of their deprivation
of liberty detainees are informed without delay of the charges brought against them
and can inform a family member or other person of their choice of their detention or
arrest, that they have access to counsel from the moment of arrest, and that details
regarding every stage of their detention are recorded in a log book;
(c)
Ensure that detainees enjoy their right to undergo an independent
medical examination by revoking the requirement that they obtain prior
authorization from the prosecution service;
(d)
Ensure detainees’ right to be brought before a judge at the end of police
custody and to challenge the legality of their detention at any stage of the proceedings.
Maximum duration of police custody
12.
The Committee remains concerned about the lack of respect for legally binding time
limits on police custody, as well as the significant number of periods of custody prolonged
arbitrarily without the authorization of a prosecutor or a prosecuting judge, which is
required by law. The Committee is also concerned about the legal provisions allowing for
the extension of police custody for up to eight days, which is excessive and exposes remand
prisoners to a high risk of torture or ill-treatment (art. 2).
13.
The State party should:
(a)
Take all necessary measures, including adopting the new Code of
Criminal Procedure, to ensure that the maximum duration of police custody does not
exceed 48 hours, with the possibility of one extension in exceptional circumstances, if
justified by tangible evidence;
(b)
Ensure that the procedures for extending police custody are strictly
respected by police and gendarmerie officers, as well as by the judicial authorities
responsible for exercising effective and regular control in this respect.
Legal aid
14. While noting the State party’s efforts to provide legal aid to some destitute detainees,
the Committee notes with concern that Act No. 2013-010 on legal aid in Togo is not being
implemented owing to the absence of an implementing decree. The Committee is therefore
concerned about the ability of indigent and marginalized persons to obtain access to
criminal justice (art. 2).
15.
The State party should promptly adopt an implementing decree for Act No.
2013-010 to ensure that indigent defendants have access to a lawyer from the moment
they are taken into police custody.
GE.19-14561
3