CAT/C/AZE/CO/3
of any kind”, and lacks provisions defining as an offence torture inflicted with the consent
or acquiescence of a public official or other person performing official functions (arts. 1
and 4).
Bearing in mind the obligation of the State party to bring its legislation into
conformity with article 1 of the Convention, the State party should fulfil its
commitment made during the interactive dialogue with the Committee to bring its
definition of torture fully into conformity with the Convention, so as to ensure that all
public officials and others responsible for torture under article 133 of the Criminal
Code may be prosecuted.
3.
Torture and ill-treatment
9.
The Committee remains concerned about the numerous continued allegations of use
of torture and ill-treatment of suspects and other detainees, which reportedly commonly
takes place between the moment of apprehension and formal registration at remand centres.
The Committee is also deeply concerned about allegations that authorities are reluctant to
initiate criminal proceedings for alleged acts of torture or ill-treatment, and notes with
concern that officials who have allegedly committed acts of torture or ill-treatment are not
charged with these crimes, but rather charged with “excess of authority”, “negligence” and
“minor, serious or serious harm to health out of imprudence”. The Committee is concerned
that such practices contribute to a culture of impunity among law enforcement officials, and
is particularly concerned that, despite numerous allegations of torture and ill-treatment by
law enforcement officials, not a single case against an official has been initiated under
article 133, part 3, of the Criminal Code. The Committee values the fact that the
Government has prosecuted 161 cases of domestic violence under article 133 since 2001,
but notes that there were no prosecutions under this article against persons acting under
colour of authority (arts. 2, 15 and 16).
The State party should take all necessary measures to ensure that, in practice, all
allegations of torture are subjected to prompt, impartial and effective investigation
and, as appropriate, prosecute and if responsibility is found, punish accordingly.
4.
Ombudsman’s office
10.
The Committee regrets the lack of information provided on the number of
allegations or complaints of specific acts of torture or ill-treatment that were received and
investigated by the Ombudsman’s office, as well as information on the number of
investigations into torture or ill-treatment that this mechanism has initiated on its own
accord. Notwithstanding the “A” rating received by the Ombudsman’s office from the body
that oversees implementation of the Paris Principles, the Committee is deeply concerned at
the information from the State party that the Ombudsman’s office is not permitted by its
founding documents to monitor all State organs. The Committee is concerned that the
Ombudsman lacks the requisite degree of independence to be the national institution
responsible for investigating complaints of torture and other human rights violations, as
well as to serve as the national prevention mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the
Convention against Torture (arts. 2, 11 and 16).
The State party should take effective measures to ensure that the Ombudsman’s office
is in practice a functioning, independent body, in compliance with the principles
relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of
human rights (the Paris Principles), annexed to General Assembly resolution 48/134,
especially with regard to its independence. The State party should inform the
Committee on all cases of torture or ill-treatment investigated by the Ombudsman
and the outcomes of such investigations.
GE.09-46626
3