CAT/C/MDG/CO/1
(b)
The State party has stated that the signing in September 2011 of the road map
to end the political crisis, which had led to the appointment of a consensus candidate for the
post of prime minister, should also allow national institutions paralysed since 2009 by the
crisis to begin functioning normally again. The return to normal operations of such
institutions, and in particular of Parliament, would permit the passage or amendment of
laws to bring domestic legislation into line with the standards set forth in international
human rights instruments ratified by the State party;
(c)
The State party has pledged to renew the standing invitation it has verbally
made to the special procedures of the Human Rights Council as soon as possible; and
(d)
C.
A de facto moratorium on the death penalty is in place.
Principal subjects of concern and recommendations
Criminalization of torture and ill-treatment
6.
While taking note of Act No. 2008-008 of 25 June 2008 which prohibits torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in line with the Convention, the
Committee is concerned about the failure to specify the range of penalties for acts of illtreatment, which leaves the penalty completely at the discretion of the judge. In the
Committee’s view, the absence of a specified range of penalties violates the principle that
both the offence and the penalty must be prescribed by law. In addition, the Committee
regrets the failure to apply this law since its enactment in 2008, a fact borne out by reports
that judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers are unaware of its existence (art. 4).
The State party should amend its law against torture in order to incorporate a scale of
penalties for acts of ill-treatment and amend its Criminal Code and Code of Criminal
Procedure to include relevant provisions from the law against torture, thereby
facilitating their enforcement. In the meantime, the State party should circulate this
law to judges, lawyers, criminal investigation officers, the heads of local
administrative units (fokontany) and prison staff with a view to its immediate
application.
Categorization of torture and the statute of limitations
7.
The Committee notes that the Act of 2008 draws a distinction between acts of
torture categorized as offences, punishable by 2 to 5 years of imprisonment, and those
defined as serious offences, punishable by terms of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years. The
Committee regrets that the statute of limitations for torture cases is, at most, 10 years, and
that it is only in cases of genocide or crimes against humanity that no statute of limitations
applies (arts. 1 and 4).
The State party should amend this Act in consideration of the fact that torture,
because of its serious nature, should not be subject to a statute of limitations. The use
of appropriate penalties and the absence of a statute of limitations increase the
deterrent effect of the prohibition of torture. They also enable the public to monitor
State action or inaction that violates the Convention and, if necessary, to challenge it.
Non-justification of torture and thorough, impartial investigations
8.
The Committee is deeply concerned about the numerous reports of human rights
violations since the onset of the 2009 political crisis — including torture, summary and
extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances — that have neither been
investigated, nor prosecuted. The Committee is concerned about reports that the use of
2
GE.11-47941