CAT/C/CHE/CO/7
(a) The adoption in 2012 of a national action plan against trafficking in human
beings (2012-2014) and the organization in 2013 of the first national campaign to raise
awareness of trafficking;
(b) The adoption in 2013 of a national programme to combat forced marriage
(2013-2018);
(c) The adoption in 2013 of an agreement between the Court of Justice, the
Criminal Court and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, regulating non-custodial
alternatives.
C.
Principal subjects of concern and recommendations
Definition and criminalization of torture
7.
The Committee remains concerned that the State party does not consider it
necessary to define torture as a specific crime under ordinary law, despite the
Committee’s repeated recommendation in its previous concluding observations (see
CAT/C/CR/34/CHE, paras. 4 (a) and 5 (a), and CAT/C/CHE/CO/6, para. 5). Although
behaviours that could be characterized as acts of torture are punishable under various
articles of the Criminal Code, in the Committee’s view, the fact that there is no
definition of torture as a specific criminal offence, covering all the elements of the
definition in article 1 of the Convention, creates a legal vacuum that may open up the
possibility of impunity (arts. 1 and 4).
The Committee reiterates the recommendation previously made to the State party
that it make torture a criminal offence, in terms that fully reflect article 1 of the
Convention, and ensure that penalties for torture are commensurate with the
gravity of the crime. The Committee would like to draw the State party’s
attention to its general comment No. 2 (2007), on the application of article 2 by
States parties, paragraph 11 of which underscores the preventive effect of having
the crime of torture defined as an offence in its own right.
Fundamental legal safeguards
8.
While applauding the introduction of a provision on the immediate assistance of
a lawyer (see para. 5 (b) above), the Committee notes that this right applies only from
the outset of custodial arrest (arrestation provisoire) for the investigaton of crimes or
offences. The Committee remains concerned at the lack of an entitlement to the
assistance of a lawyer as part of the process of arrest (appréhension). In practice, there
have been reported cases in which persons deprived of their liberty were un able to
inform a relative of their situation, were not examined by a doctor or were not
informed of their rights from the outset of the deprivation of liberty (art. 2).
The Committee recommends that the State party take effective steps to ensure
that all persons who are deprived of their liberty have the benefit, in practice and
from the very outset of the deprivation of liberty, of all the fundamental legal
safeguards, namely the right of access to a lawyer, the right to contact family
members or other persons of their choice and the right to an independent medical
examination by a doctor of their choice.
National human rights institution and national preventive mechanism
9.
The Committee notes with satisfaction the information provided by the
delegation confirming that the State party will make a final decision on the
establishment of a permanent human rights institution at the end of 2015. In this
respect, the Committee recalls the importance of establishing a national institution
2/9
GE.15-15100