CAT/C/MUS/CO/3
Appropriate penalties for acts of torture
8.
While noting that penalties foreseen in Section 78, as revised, of the amended
Criminal Code (2008), provide for a maximum fine of 150,000 rupees and for an
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years for the offence of torture, the Committee is
remains concerned that some aggravating circumstances, such as the permanent disability
of the victim, are not taken specifically into account. It also notes with concern that
penalties for other crimes, such as drug trafficking, are higher than those for torture (arts. 1
and 4).
The State party should revise its Criminal Code to make acts of torture
offences punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave
nature, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention.
Absolute prohibition of torture
9.
While noting that “courts in Mauritius are unlikely to find that exceptional
circumstances can justify torture” (CAT/C/MUS/3, para. 15), the Committee is concerned
about the absence in the legislation of the State party of a provision to guarantee that no
exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture, as
prevented by paragraph 2 of article 2 of the Convention.
The State party should incorporate in its legislation a provision on the absolute
prohibition of torture and that no justification may be invoke in any circumstances.
Fundamental legal safeguards
10.
While noting the information provided by the State party, the Committee is
concerned at the lack of clarification as to whether arrested and detained persons in police
custody have access to a doctor, if possible, of their choice, at the outset of their detention
and preserving the right to privacy. The Committee is also concerned at the lack of clear
information as to whether detained persons are promptly informed on their right to contact
their family or a person of their choice. The Committee is further concerned about the
appropriate registration of persons between their arrest and the moment they are brought
before a judge (art. 2).
The State party should take measures to ensure that:
(a)
Persons arrested and detained in police stations have access at the
outset their detention, to a doctor, if possible, of their choice;
(b)
(c)
their detention.
Visits by a doctor are conducted in a confidential manner;
They can inform their family or a person of their choice about
The State party should also set clear and appropriate rules and procedures on
the registration of persons from the outset of their detention and on ensuring that they
are brought before a judge within a short period of time.
Complaint mechanisms
11.
While noting that different mechanisms are charged to receive and inquire on
complaints against police officers for excessive use of force, such as the National Human
Rights Commission and the Complaints Investigations Bureau, the Committee is concerned
about the independence of the Complaints Investigation Bureau, as it remains under the
administrative control of the Commissioner of Police. The Committee regrets the lack of
information on the implementation of recommendations made by the National Human
Rights Commission in its report of 2007 regarding the police (arts. 2, 12 and 13).
3