A/62/221
Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Summary
In the present report, submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution
61/153, the Special Rapporteur addresses issues of special concern to him, in
particular overall trends and developments with respect to questions falling within
his mandate.
On the basis of his fact-finding missions, the Special Rapporteur draws the
attention of the General Assembly to observations in relation to the role of forensic
expertise in combating impunity. Notwithstanding binding obligations to fight
impunity under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, authorities are reluctant to carry out criminal
investigations and prosecutions into torture allegations, with the result that impunity
is allowed to continue unchecked. A major obstacle is the lack of independent,
thorough and comprehensive investigations, including effective documentation of the
evidence of torture. In this regard forensic science is indispensable in correlating
medical findings with a victim’s allegations. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that
effective documentation, in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, is a key tool for
Governments to combat impunity for torture.
In section IV, the Special Rapporteur stresses that avoiding depriving people of
their liberty is a very effective means of preventing torture and ill-treatment. He
notes that key factors contributing to serious overcrowding of detention centres and
prisons and inhuman conditions of detention in many countries are the almost
automatic recourse to pretrial detention of criminal suspects and the lack of efficient
criminal justice systems, with the effect that many persons suspected of minor
offences spend several years in pretrial detention. Also, at the sentencing stage many
criminal laws provide almost exclusively for prison sentences and neglect alternative
measures of punishment. The Special Rapporteur encourages States to use noncustodial measures at the pretrial, trial and post-sentencing stages as widely as
possible, in order to avoid overcrowding and to minimize the risk of torture and
ill-treatment.
Contents
2
Paragraphs
Page
I.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1–5
3
II.
Activities related to the mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6–41
3
III.
The role of forensic expertise in combating impunity for torture . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42–54
8
IV.
Avoiding the deprivation of liberty as a means of preventing torture . . . . . . . . . . .
55–66
12
07-45686