I.Facilitation of the visit and cooperation
17.The SPT expresses its gratitude to the Paraguayan authorities for their consistent cooperation in providing the documentation and
information necessary for the preparation of the visit and in facilitating the visit itself. Access to places of detention was always rapid
and unimpeded and the authorities in the places visited showed themselves ready to cooperate with the SPT. The Subcommittee also
wishes to place on record that it enjoyed unrestricted access to persons deprived of their liberty whom it wished to interview in
private, as well as to the reports and registers it requested.
18.The SPT is grateful for the frankness and openness shown by the government focal point and by all the authorities it had the
opportunity to meet. The dialogue with the authorities in question was easy and productive. The SPT is particularly appreciative of the
interview that two of its members had with the President of the Republic at the start of its visit to Paraguay, which demonstrated
Paraguay’s commitment at the highest level to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment.
19.The SPT wishes to thank the representatives of non-governmental organizations with whom it met for the full and valuable
information they provided, which made a significant contribution to ensuring that the visit achieved its purposes. It likewise expresses
its gratitude for the testimonies and cooperation of those persons interviewed who asked not to be identified.
20.The SPT is deeply grateful for the logistic support provided by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in
Paraguay, which proved essential for the proper conduct of the visit.
II.Safeguards against torture and ill-treatment
21.The SPT examined both the legal and institutional framework relating to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in
Paraguay and the material and practical conditions of their detention, with the aim of identifying the factors and situations that can
constitute safeguards for persons deprived of freedom, as well as those liable to give rise to or increase the risk of torture and illtreatment.
A.Legal context
1.The Constitution of Paraguay: prohibition of torture and constitutional safeguards
22.Paraguay’s 1992 Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic. Under its article 137, international treaties, conventions and
agreements that have been approved and ratified come immediately after the Constitution in order of precedence and make up the
national legal system, followed in descending order by national laws and other legal provisions of lesser rank.
23.The Constitution sets forth a wide range of fundamental human rights. Article 5 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment and establishes the imprescriptibility of torture, as well as genocide, forced disappearance, kidnapping and
politically motivated homicide.
24.The Constitution also embodies various articles aimed at the prevention of torture and ill-treatment during arrest and detention,
namely article 12 (detention and arrest); article 17 (procedural rights); article 18 (restrictions on questioning); article 19 (preventive
imprisonment); article 20 (the objective of sentences); and article 21 (the imprisonment of people). Furthermore, article 133 (habeas
corpus) guarantees review of restriction of freedom by a court of first instance, inter alia in cases of physical, psychological or moral
abuse against the detainee. Habeas corpus proceedings must be brief, summary, free of charge, and may be initiated by judges ex
officio. Similarly, article 134 provides individuals with the right to file a petition for amparo before a competent judge if they consider
themselves seriously affected by a manifestly illegal act or omission by an official or other individual, or consider that their
constitutional rights are in imminent danger, or if, due to the urgency of the question, they are unable to seek remedy through regular
legal channels.
25.Despite the wealth of rights recognized and safeguards established under Paraguay’s Constitution, the SPT observes that the
repeated and grave violations recorded in this report reflect not merely particular circumstances or the negligence of a few public
officials but clear shortcomings of legislation and in the protection afforded by the courts and other institutions, including the
Ombudsman’s Office. The situation is thus seen to be one in which rights lack sufficient guarantees.
2.Definition of torture in Paraguayan legislation
26.Definition of torture in the Criminal Code. Article 309 of the Criminal Code provides that: “Anyone who, with the intention of
destroying or seriously damaging the personality of the victim or a third party and who, acting as a public official or with the consent
of a public official, carries out an unlawful act against (…) physical integrity (…) or subjects the victim to severe mental suffering shall
be punishable by imprisonment for a term of not less than five years.” According to this definition, an act only constitutes torture if the
perpetrator intends to destroy or seriously damage the personality of the victim, which is very difficult to prove. As already observed
by the Committee against Torture, the Special Rapporteur on Tortureand the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this definition
of torture is extremely restrictive and does not conform to international standards in the matter.
27.The SPT was able to verify the practical difficulties posed by this legal shortcoming in interviews with lawyers and human rights
defenders, who assured the SPT that “to file a charge of torture is to ensure the impunity of the offender”. Thus the defenders of
victims of acts that would be covered by the international definition of torture are obliged to report them as other criminal offences,
such as “inflicting bodily injury in the exercise of public duties” under article 307 of the Criminal Code, or to resort to administrative
procedures, given the difficulty of invoking the simultaneous offence of torture with reference to article 309. This entails the imposition
of lighter sentences (ranging from a fine to five years’ detention for the offence of inflicting physical injury while performing a public
function) and, in any case, prevents the victims from benefiting from the imprescriptibility for which the Criminal Code provides in the