CAT/C/BFA/CO/2
Fundamental procedural safeguards
9.
The Committee notes with appreciation the new Code of Criminal Procedure, which
enshrines a number of fundamental safeguards, including the right of detainees to be
informed of their rights and to be assisted by a lawyer during police investigations, and
which establishes oversight of police custody by judicial bodies. However, the Committee
regrets the absence of a provision explicitly establishing the right of detainees to be
examined by an independent physician or a physician of their choice, without conditions, as
such examinations are subject to the discretion of the prosecutor. The Committee is also
concerned about the excessive length of police custody (72 hours, extendable for another 48
hours if authorized by the prosecutor for ordinary crimes: article 252-4 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and that the time limits for police custody can be extended for up to
120 hours with the authorization of the prosecutor or the investigating judge (Code of
Criminal Procedure, art. 251-22). The Committee further notes that, despite the
recommendations it made in its previous concluding observations, the maximum period of
15 days, extendable by 10 days, has remained applicable, specifically for terrorism or
organized crime (Act No. 017-2009/AN of 5 May 2009 and art. 515-15 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure). This is all the more problematic because such extensions entail
limitations of fundamental guarantees; there is no requirement to bring the detainee before a
court. Lastly, the Committee notes with concern the lack of compliance, in practice, with
fundamental legal safeguards during arrest and detention (art. 2).
10.
The Committee, recalling its previous concluding observations (para. 11),
recommends that the State party:
(a)
Include, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the right to have medical
examinations without conditions and in full confidentiality, carried out by qualified
medical personnel promptly upon arrival at a police station, detention centre or
prison, and to have access to an independent physician or a physician of one’s
choosing, on request; and
(b)
Reduce the maximum length of police custody, ensuring that its renewal
is limited to duly justified exceptional circumstances and respects the principles of
necessity and proportionality, and providing for judicial review of the legality of the
detention.
Pretrial detention
11.
While noting the safeguards introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
limit pretrial detention to a maximum of 2 years for minor offences and 4 years for criminal
offences, and which establish judicial oversight (arts. 261–79 ff. of the Code of Criminal
Procedure), the Committee is concerned about reports of the systematic use of detention
pending trial. In particular, the Committee is concerned that individuals apprehended in the
fight against terrorism are reportedly subjected to long periods of pretrial detention before
they are brought before a judge. Thus, since 2016, more than 700 persons have reportedly
been detained on suspicion of committing terrorist acts and are awaiting trial. The
Committee is also concerned that insufficient use is made of alternatives to pretrial
detention (art. 2).
12.
The State party should:
(a)
Provide for effective oversight of the practice of pretrial detention,
ensuring that it complies with the provisions establishing its maximum duration, that
its use is as short as possible and is exceptional, necessary, and proportionate;
(b)
Actively promote, within the prosecution service and among judges, the
use of alternatives to pretrial detention, in accordance with the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules);
(c)
Review the case files of all detainees in pretrial detention and
immediately release all persons who have already been in detention for periods
exceeding the maximum sentences carried by the offences of which they stand accused;
and
GE.19-21958
3