CAT/C/MDA/CO/3
areas of particular concern, namely: the national preventive mechanism and the lack of
clarity as to what constitutes it (para. 13); the excessive use of force by law enforcement
officers, with particular reference to the post-election demonstrations in April 2009 and
reports of torture and ill-treatment of persons detained in connection with those events (para.
15); police and other law enforcement officers who wore masks and did not carry
identification badges during the post-election demonstrations in April 2009, impeding the
subsequent investigation of complaints of torture or ill-treatment (para. 16); the absence of
a specific law providing for full redress for victims of torture and ill-treatment (para. 20);
and the forcible detention of persons with tuberculosis (para. 24). The Committee expresses
its appreciation for the State party’s follow-up response on those matters and the
substantive information provided on 14 February 2011 (see CAT/C/MDA/CO/2/Add.1) and
in the State party’s subsequent report and during the interactive dialogue. It notes with
regret, however, the absence of a reply to its request for additional information contained in
the letter sent by the rapporteur for follow-up on concluding observations on 16 April 2012.
In view of that information and the concerns described below (see paras. 12, 13, 15, 16, 19,
20, 29 and 30 of the present concluding observations), the Committee considers that the
recommendations in paragraphs 13, 15, 16, 20 and 24 of its previous concluding
observations have not been implemented.
Fundamental legal safeguards
8.
The Committee is concerned about reports that:
(a)
Persons deprived of their liberty do not enjoy all fundamental legal
safeguards from the outset of their detention, and in particular that persons deprived of their
liberty are in practice deprived of the ability to have their lawyers present for all hearings;
(b)
Arrested persons do not always receive medical examinations promptly upon
deprivation of liberty, with such examinations often not conducted until the second day
after arrival in so-called police isolators, and that in some cases the examinations are
carried out by paramedics and may amount only to asking the person about his or her state
of health;
(c)
Detention registers are not kept up-to-date, and that information concerning
the application and duration of special measures against persons deprived of their liberty,
including during transport, is not consistently recorded (arts. 2, 11–13 and 16).
9.
The State party should ensure that all fundamental legal safeguards against
torture are enjoyed in practice by all detained persons, including arrested persons and
those in pretrial detention, from the outset of their deprivation of liberty. The State
party should monitor the provision of such safeguards and ensure that any official
who fails to provide them in practice is subjected to disciplinary or other appropriate
punishment. In particular, the State party should ensure:
(a)
The right of detainees to have prompt and confidential access to a
qualified and independent lawyer immediately after arrest and during all stages of
detention, including hearings;
(b)
The right of detainees to request and receive a medical examination
conducted in confidentiality by an independent doctor within 24 hours of their arrival
in a place of detention;
(c)
The right of detainees to have information concerning their detention,
including the application and duration of special measures, recorded in a register at
the place of detention and in a central register of persons deprived of their liberty that
their lawyers and family members can access, in line with the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment;
(d)
The disciplining or prosecution of officials who deprive detainees of
fundamental legal safeguards, as required by law.
Pretrial detention
10.
The Committee is concerned that:
3