page 3 the investigation must, among other things, seek to “recover and preserve evidence, including medical evidence, related to the alleged torture to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible” and, to this end, should order a medical investigation as soon as possible. In this context, the Committee Against Torture has recognised that, “Securing the victim’s right to redress requires that a State party’s competent authorities promptly, effectively and impartially investigate and examine the case of any individual who alleges that she or he has been subjected to torture or ill-treatment. Such an investigation should include as a standard measure an independent physical and psychological forensic examination as provided for in the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol).” [See Committee Against Torture, General Comment N°3 (2012), §25.] In the case of Khaled Ben M’Barek v. Tunisia, concerning the death of Faisal Baraket due to police torture, the Committee Against Torture noted significant shortcomings on the part of the judge, the Public Prosecutor, and the Minister of Justice. In particular, the Committee stated that the Public Prosecutor had committed a breach of the duty of impartiality required of him by his obligation to give equal weight to both accusation and defence “when he failed to appeal against the decision to dismiss the case”. The Committee went on to note: “In the Tunisian system the Minister of Justice has authority over the Public Prosecutor. It could therefore have ordered him to appeal, but failed to do so”. [See Khaled Ben M’Barek v. Tunisia, Committee Against Torture Communication N°60/1996, Views of 10 November 1999, UN Doc. CAT/C/23/D/60/1996, §11.10.] More recently, in the report of his visit to Tunisia in 2012, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture noted, “a pattern of a lack of timely and adequate investigation of torture allegations by prosecutors or investigative judges”. [See Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mission to Tunisia, 2 February 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/19/61/Add.1, §29.] In its concluding observations on Egypt, the Committee Against Torture pointed to the “many consistent reports received concerning the persistence of the phenomenon of torture and illtreatment of detainees by law enforcement officials, and the absence of measures to ensure effective protection and prompt and impartial investigations.” [See Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee Against Torture, Egypt, 23 December 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/29/4, §5.] A Fact-Finding Commission was established by the ousted President, Mohamed Morsi, to investigate human rights abuses committed from 25 January 2011 until 30 June 2012. The Commission, generally considered as impartial and credible, documented many cases of individuals: “arrested by military police and intelligence officers and subjected to torture and other ill-treatment in military prisons”; “who died from torture while in military custody”; and “who died from torture while in military prisons and were then buried as “unknown” after the authorisation of the public prosecution services”. The Commission submitted its report to the Prosecutor General with a view to investigating all cases documented in the report. So far, the Prosecutor General has failed to investigate, order the investigation of or commence any criminal proceedings in relation to, the documented abuses. [For further details see the ICJ’s submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Egypt.] When prosecutors fail to discharge their duties by adequately investigating and prosecuting acts of torture and other ill-treatment, courts are under a duty to protect the rights of the persons deprived of their liberty not to be subjected to these acts. Courts must investigate or order the investigation of allegations of torture and other ill-treatment. They must not admit as evidence statements and “confessions” alleged to have been obtained as a result of torture or other ill-treatment. They should also require, before the admission of such evidence, that the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the “confessions” were obtained by lawful means. In the “UAE 94 case”, 94 individuals were prosecuted before the State Security Chamber of the UAE Supreme Court on charges of “opposing the Constitution and the basic principles of the UAE ruling system and establishing and managing an organization with the aim of committing crimes that harm State security”. On 6 May 2013, 71 of the detainees addressed a complaint to the President of the Court asking him to investigate the incidents of torture to which they had been allegedly subjected. The methods of torture they referred to in the complaint included severe beatings, pulling out the detainees’ hair, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme light during the day and night, death threats and other threats, insults and other verbal abuse, and prolonged solitary confinement that The Middle East and North Africa: A Torture-Free Zone

Select target paragraph3