Decisions

UN Committee against Torture May 21, 2013 CAT/C/50/D/430/2010

Disposition “The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention.” The Committee urged Germany “to provide redress to Onsi Abichou, including adequate compensation”, and asked to be told within 90 days of the steps taken (paragraphs 12 and 13). On its request for interim measures, which Germany did not comply with, it concluded that “in the present instance, the State party cannot be said to have failed to meet its obligations under article 22 of the Convention” (paragraph 9.1).

Germany asked Tunisia for diplomatic assurances in notes verbales of 25 March and 6 May 2010 (paragraph 2.6). The Saarland Regional High Court held the extradition lawful on 20 May 2010 and upheld that decision on 12 July 2010: although aware of reports of the risk of torture in Tunisia, “the Court put its trust in the Tunisian Government” (paragraphs 2.7 and 2.9). The Constitutional Court rejected his urgent appeal on 28 July 2010, and the European Court of Human Rights refused an interim measure on 23 August 2010 (paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11). On 25 August 2010 the Committee asked Germany not to extradite him while it considered the complaint, and he was extradited that day (paragraphs 1.2, 1.3 and 2.12). The Committee held: “Notwithstanding the diplomatic assurances that were provided, the Committee must consider the actual human rights situation in Tunisia at the time of the extradition of the complainant’s husband” (paragraph 11.6). It found that “the authorities of the State party knew or should have known at the time of Onsi Abichou’s extradition that Tunisia routinely resorted to the widespread use of torture against detainees held for political reasons and against detainees charged with ordinary criminal offences”, and that “The fact that diplomatic assurances were obtained was not sufficient grounds for the State party’s decision to ignore this obvious risk, especially since none of the guarantees that were provided related specifically to protection against torture or ill-treatment” (paragraph 11.7). It added: “The fact that Onsi Abichou was ultimately not subjected to such treatment following his extradition cannot be justifiably used to call into question or minimize, retrospectively, the existence of such a risk at the time of his extradition” (paragraph 11.7).

Extradition Convention Against Torture Diplomatic assurances Interim measures

Caution The Committee’s decisions under article 22 of the Convention against Torture are not judgments of a court. It decided after the extradition and assessed the risk as it stood on the day of the extradition. Germany said that the Committee’s request for interim measures reached its competent authorities only after he had been extradited, and the Committee accepted that Germany had not breached article 22 in that respect (paragraph 9.1). The decision does not record what redress, if any, Germany provided, and the Coalition has not read Germany’s reply. The decision was adopted in French; this entry quotes the English text.