THEO VAN BOVEN: ‘CERTAIN COUNTRIES ARE RESORTING TO TORTURE”

By Miren Gutierrez and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

UNITED NATIONS, GENEVA,, Mar 31 2004 (IPS) - Theo Van Boven, UN Special Rapporteur (SR) Against Torture since 2001 — laughed when we began our interview. He just realised that as he had been speaking with a delegation from the Chinese government, lying on the table was an announcement for a conference on the \’\’Repression of Religious Liberty in China\’\’. It was an embarrassing moment in this international centre for loquacious diplomacy.

Theo Van Boven, UN Special Rapporteur (SR) Against Torture since 2001 — laughed when we began our interview. He just realised that as he had been speaking with a delegation from the Chinese government, lying on the table was an announcement for a conference on the ”Repression of Religious Liberty in China”. It was an embarrassing moment in this international centre for loquacious diplomacy.

Van Boven is a 70-year old Dutch lawyer, tall and energetic, who was First Secretary of the International Criminal Tribunal for ex- Yugoslavia in 1994. He has seen a lot…

China invited you to visit, though thus far you haven’t been granted permission to speak with the prisoners in private. When will you go to China?

(Obtaining permission to speak directly with the prisoners) was always a problem in the past, but it is a condition included in my mandate. My predecessor, Nigel Rodley, was never able to go to China. I’ll go at the end of next June. We have signed an accord to do so, and it will be the first time that a SR against Torture visits China.

You visited Uzbekistan in 2002, after which you concluded that torture was systematically and habitually practised there and then submitted recommendations for ending it. At the time Uzbekistan had 6500 political and religious prisoners. Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, invited you to return to see the ”improvements”. Has the situation in fact gotten better?

There has been progress on cooperation with the UN, but whether or not there has been any improvement in the situation is another matter. In any case, it is unusual for a SR to visit a country twice in such a small amount of time. We are dealing with 90 countries and I can visit but two per year. One possibility, however, is to get other rapporteurs, for example the SR for judicial independence, to visit Uzbekistan.

You have been criticised for your 2003 report on Spain, which included worrying indications of mistreatment in prisons. The paper El Mundo characterised your report as ”hasty and inconsistent” and criticised the fact that you mentioned ”unnamed non- governmental organisations and anonymous terrorism suspects”.

It was a short visit, not by my decision, since I had been invited by the government of Spain. But it was not hasty. Interior Minister Angel Acebes did all he could to discredit it, and my suggestions were ignored. I was surprised. After my visit, two bills governing criminal procedure were passed, and I was criticised for not having taken them into account. I was also criticised for not having mentioned the humanitarian situation of the victims of terrorism. But I recognised the danger of terrorism and condemned the ETA as a terrorist organisation.

The truth is that what I said in my report was not new. Amnesty International had denounced the mistreatment of prisoners (terrorism suspects). In Madrid, all I heard were denials, while in the Basque Country they were far more open. This reminded me of Argentina in the 1970s and 80s. The authorities there denied the existence of the disappeared and of secret detention centres, and as a result there was no basis for discussion. To them our reports were pure propaganda. I knew then that everything the Argentine authorities were saying was lies, and history has shown that I was right. Of course the situation in Spain is not comparable to that of Argentina at that time, but the reaction of the Spanish government is similar.

You visited Spain but did not ask to visit certain other places, like Cuba, where in the space of a few days in mid-March 2003 the authorities arrested 75 dissidents, who were subjected to summary judgement and sentenced to long prison terms, some over 28 years. Why?

In Cuba we have a different approach. There is a SR for the human rights situation in Cuba, where there has been a series of violations, including political repression. But torture is not systematic as it is in other countries. The prisoners are subjected to inhuman treatment, there are problems regarding medical care and excessive sentences, but the situation in Cuba is not part of my mandate.

In a document dated January 2003, the World Organisation Against Torture said that it is ”profoundly worried by the continuous negative effect of the ‘war on terrorism’ on the prohibition on torture. Would you say that tolerance of torture has increased since 2001?

There is a legitimate concern about security and the threat of terrorism. However, torture is prohibited in all circumstances, as is inhuman treatment. But I see that certain countries are resorting to torture in the name of the ”war on terrorism”. Another violation is the deportation of prisoners to places where they will probably be mistreated. This prohibition has been eroded and we are receiving more and more complaints about this violation.

Would you say that we are seeing a wave of ”torture by proxy?”

Yes, there is ”torture by proxy”. Some countries say, ”Our hands are clean” but they send their prisoners to countries where torture is allowed. We often don’t hear about these cases until later. My position is that the information obtained through torture should not be considered in court.

What do you think of the ”moderate physical pressure” authorised by Israel in 1987?

I have told my friends in Israel: ”You have to play by the rules.” (END\COPYRIGHT IPS)