UNCAT

CBSA Release of Canadian Red Cross Immigration Detention Report

Successfully evading the watchful eye of even the Canada OPCAT Project, the first report of Canadian Red Cross monitoring of immigration detention in Canada has been released.

Published by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) on 14 February 2019, where the news item remains a front page feature, the report highlights the findings of Canadian Red Cross monitoring of immigration detention in Canada in the period September 2017 to March 2018. A French version of this key report is also available on the same website.     

If the CBSA seems only too pleased to mark the release of the Canadian Red Cross’ CBSA detention report, the said report has oddly yet to surface on the Canadian Red Cross website. Even so, its publication comes as a very welcome step in opening up a detention setting in Canada, for which there is currently no statutory arms-length oversight body.

CBSA detention report
CBSA by British Columbia Emergency Photography (2014)

Instead such facilities are monitored as part of a two-year agreement between the CBSA and the Canadian Red Cross, as highlighted in the Executive Summary of the recently published report. In the document the Canadian Red Cross summarizes its main findings, as follows:

“Under the reporting period, the IDMP carried out a total of fifteen (15) visits to detention facilities holding immigration detainees between December 2017 and end of March 2018. Based on our observations made during this reporting period, CRCS grouped its concerns into the following five themes:  

  • Co-mingling of immigration detainees in correctional institution;
  • Lack of orientation about the detainees’ rights and responsibilities in detention;
  • Difficulties in accessing certain medical service;
  • Lack of access to outdoor areas in some visited facilities;
  • Difficulties in maintaining contact with families.”

On the basis of the CRC’s findings and observations the report makes the following recommendations:

  • “Where detention is necessary, to hold immigration detainees in facilities other than correctional prisons and where this is not possible, to separate immigration detainees from the rest of the prison population; 
  • To ensure that immigration detainees are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities, regardless of their place of detention; 
  • To ensure that immigration detainees have access to adequate mental health services wherever they are detained; 
  • To provide immigration detainees with daily access to outdoor areas as well as recreational activities; 
  • And finally, to allow regular and adequate contact between detainees and their families.”

In reaction to the Canadian Red Cross report, the CBSA has issued its Management Response and Action Plan, outlining its raft of proposed actions.    

CBSA detention

In contrast to certain other countries, Canada’s dedicated immigration holding regime is relatively small, comprising just three facilities. However, the country’s provincial prison estates are also used for the dispersal and detention of immigration detainees, a practice not without accompanying concern. Moreover, annually, sizeable numbers of persons are detained on immigration grounds.

According to the Canada Border Services Agency, in the fiscal year 2017-2018 some 8,355 persons were detained for a total of nearly 120,000 detention days in Canada. Of this number, 6,609 persons were held in one of the country’s three Immigration Holding Centres, while the remainder were detained in provincial and other facilities.

It bears noting that, during its examination of Canada in November 2018, the UN Committee against Torture voiced various concerns about recourse to immigration detention in the country, including the use of provincial prisons and the absence of any arms-length oversight body of such detention facilities.

During the said review in Geneva, the Canadian delegation stressed its intention to make public the annual reports of the Canadian Red Cross Immigration Detention Monitoring Program. The publication by the CBSA of the first annual report of activities is therefore to be welcomed.


Read the CRC report in English.

Read the CBSA Management Response and Action Plan in English.

Lire le rapport de l’CRC en français.

Lire la réponse de la direction de l’ASFC et un plan d’action en français.

Examine the Concluding observations of the UN Committee against Torture from December 2018 concerning oversight of immigration detention in Canada.

Explore the Canada OPCAT Project’s other featured articles relating to immigration detention, including the University of Oxford’s Faculty of Law Border Criminologies publication, HMIP Detention Monitoring Methodology: A Briefing Paper (2018) and the Global Detention Project reportHarm Reduction in Immigration Detention (2018).

Posted by mp in Immigration detention, Oversight bodies, UNCAT, 0 comments

The UNCAT 65th Session: Important OPCAT Lessons for Canada

The UN Committee against Torture reached a remarkable milestone in its lifetime earlier this month, having successfully completed its 65th session, some 34 years after the adoption of the UN Convention. Nonetheless, it was business as usual for this body of international experts, who had another tranche of states to review in Geneva from 12 November to 7 December.

Canada numbered one of the six countries whose periodic reports were examined by the UN Committee, the others being Guatemala, Maldives, Netherlands, Peru and Viet Nam. Over the past week or two the outcome of this review of Canada has been explored in some detail on this website.

In particular, UN Committee key recommendations have been discussed in relation to the need for independent oversight of immigration detention as well as psychiatric care settings, and the urgency for Canada to push ahead with the ratification of the OPCAT. In this latter connection it will be recalled that the UN Committee urged Canada to:

“Complete the process towards accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention, while introducing mechanisms to ensure the participation of civil society, Indigenous groups and other stakeholders in the entire process”

Unfortunately, to date, the process of consultation has mainly sought the opinions of the different provincial and territorial governments and not those of civil society and the country’s many Indigenous groups.

UNCAT 65th session Canada Probed
Palais Wilson – Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva by UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferre

Surprisingly, among the six countries examined by the UN Committee during the 65th session, only Canada and Viet Nam have yet to ratify the instrument – not a human rights comparison usually made between these two countries. Similar to Canada, the UN Committee called on Viet Nam to consider acceding to the OPCAT as well as, in the interim, to establish a national mechanism that independently, effectively and regularly monitors and inspects all places of detention in the country without prior notice (see §34-35).

Even though Canada has yet to ratify the instrument, certain of the OPCAT-related outputs of the other country reviews have possible direct relevance in the Canadian context, particularly at a moment when the country is considering how it might implement the instrument.

UNCAT 65th session concerns vis-à-vis the OPCAT

During the 65th session the UN Committee advanced recommendations in relation to all four countries under review which are States Parties to the OPCAT. As will be revealed, certain common concerns arose repeatedly.

The UN Committee’s concerns about the Guatemalan NPM were far-reaching and related primarily to the election process of the different members of the National Office for the Prevention of Torture and its general ineffective operation and performance in practice. However, other serious concerns existed, including the NPM’s alleged use as a tool to pressurize anti-corruption judges and the limited involvement of civil society in the NPM’s activities (§14). A whole raft of recommendations were directed at Guatemala in order to address such extensive concerns (§15).

The UN Committee’s concerns about the Netherlands’ NPM were also relatively sweeping, several of which had previously been voiced by other key UN human rights actors, most notably the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) during a 2015 visit to the Netherlands.

As in a small number of other states, the Dutch NPM is a multi-body mechanism, comprising four monitoring bodies. These include: its coordinating body, the Inspectorate of Security and Justice; Health Care Inspectorate; Inspectorate for Youth Care; and the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles. In 2015 the SPT regretted that the four NPM bodies had not been allocated additional financial and human resources to take on the NPM mandate and adequately fulfil its related functions (§46). It also found the almost complete absence of an independent legal basis for the NPM’s activities had marred the operation of the Dutch NPM (§14-15).

During its 65th session the UN Committee echoed these sentiments, stating that it was concerned “… about consistent reports on the NPM’s lack of both resources and independence.” (§22) The Committee urged the country to address these and other shortcomings (§23).

UNCAT 65th session
Nations Unies by MPDO1605

An absence of resources and autonomy also arose in relation to Peru, where the Ombudsman was belatedly designated as the country’s NPM. It noted:

“…the Committee regrets that the national preventive mechanism does not enjoy the functional autonomy required for the normal exercise of its functions, nor does it still have the human, material and technical resources necessary for its proper functioning (Article 2).” (§14)

The country was urged to address such shortcomings (§15).

Regrettably, a shortfall in resources commonly afflicts national torture prevention bodies. In relation to the Maldives it was significant that the UN Committee also commented negatively on the financial base of the country’s NPM, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives. In so doing, it stated that the Maldives should provide it with additional financial resources “… in order to enable it to carry out more visits and better fulfil its functions as National Preventive Mechanism, including the function of conducting unannounced visits to all places of deprivation of liberty”. (§38a)

It is an incontrovertible reality that a significant number of NPMs struggle to operate effectively with the financial, human and material resources made available to them. Even NPMs located in the stronger economies of Western and Northern Europe have been found to be poorly resourced.

For Canada the challenge of securing adequate resources for its future NPM will be significant. Irrespective of whether existing human rights institutions are re-purposed as NPMs or whether new entities are established, the task of effectively implementing the OPCAT at the national level will require a significant government commitment of resources. It therefore remains important for Canada to draw on the above lessons and to ensure that its future NPM has the resources to effectively tackle the task at hand.


Read the Concluding observations on Canada’s seventh periodic report.

Read OMCT’s E-Bulletin from November-December 2018 on the 65th session of the Committee against Torture in English.

Posted by mp in OPCAT, UNCAT, 0 comments

Canada: Greater OPCAT Transparency, No Time-Frame Commitment

Canada has publicly committed to ensuring greater transparency of its consultation process to consider ratification of the OPCAT. It declined, however, to provide a fixed time-frame for the completion of the overall process.

During today’s exchange with the UN Committee against Torture in Geneva, Global Affairs Canada formally acknowledged civil society’s concerns about the lack of transparency of the OPCAT consultation process, the latest phase of which was initiated in September 2016.

Greater transparency

Palais Wilson, Geneva by UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré.

The Deputy Director of Global Affairs Canada’s Human Rights & Indigenous Affairs Policy Division, Stéphanie Bachand, publicly stated that her agency was henceforth committed to a transparent process. Civil society and Indigenous groups would be consulted, it was observed, as soon as the federal, provincial and territorial government consultation process had been completed.

Regrettably, so far there has been only very limited OPCAT consultation in Canada with civil society, as underscored in the declassified pages of an April 2018 ministerial memorandum. It can therefore only be hoped that government OPCAT deliberations have not progressed so far as to render civil society input on this crucial issue tokenistic.

Nonetheless, during the Canadian delegation’s interventions today in Geneva detailed information was helpfully provided about the steps thus far taken in the context of the OPCAT consultation process. It was noted by Global Affairs’ Stéphanie Bachand that “a great deal of progress had been made, but more was to be done.”

When asked by the UN Committee’s Co-rapporteur on Canada, Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, for a reasonably detailed time-frame for the conclusion of the overall OPCAT consultation process, Global Affairs Canada declined to commit to a specific date. Conversely, Stéphanie Bachand underpinned the complicated nature of the OPCAT ratification process for Canada as a federal state.

Transparency of OPCAT

Representatives of Justice Canada & Global Affairs Canada in Geneva, the latter leading on the OPCAT in Canada.

Regrettably, Canada’s federal political structure has been cited as the standard refrain in government circles for the difficulties in making OPCAT-related progress over the years.

Even so, Canada should henceforth use this week’s exchange with the UN Committee against Torture as a reason to push quickly ahead with the process and, in so doing, liaise closely with Canadian civil society and Indigenous groups.

Quite simply, Canada should not wait until the 2022 review of its eighth periodic report under the UN Convention to ratify the OPCAT, as that time is now.

The UN Committee against Torture’s Concluding observations on Canada will be published before the close of its 65th session on 7 December 2018.

Readers who wish to watch this week’s UN Committee’s examination of Canada can do so on demand at UN Web TV.

Posted by mp in OPCAT, Ratification, 0 comments

Deep Probe Of Canada’s OPCAT Intentions At UN

Canada’s human rights track-record to prevent acts of state and non-state abuse was deeply probed earlier today, when it reported to the UN Committee against Torture in Geneva, Switzerland.

Among the many issues discussed, the matter of Canada’s long-awaited, if not long overdue ratification of the OPCAT arose during the morning’s deliberations.

A busy meeting room at Palais Wilson, headquarters for OHCHR in Geneva, saw a 14-person Canadian delegation present its 7th periodic report to the UN Committee against Torture. In anticipation of this United Nations review some 13 civil society entities had submitted shadow-report information to the UN body of experts (available here).

Canada Probed

Palais Wilson – Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva by UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré.

During Canada’s opening 20-minute presentation Laurie Wright, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice Canada and Head of Delegation, stated that regarding the OPCAT “significant progress has been made and Canada continues to take the process seriously.”

 

She underscored the “extensive consultations” which had thus far taken place in Canada and noted Justice Canada’s legal analysis of possible accession to the instrument, including the identification of potential implementation gaps through the analysis of existing oversight bodies. Significantly, however, no fixed time-line for the process of domestic consultation was mentioned, nor was reference made to consultation with civil society.

Somewhat surprisingly, only one of the 10-member UN Committee probed Canada’s intentions to ratify the OPCAT, a task which fell to Co-rapporteur Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov. The latter explored this matter with great diligence and in considerable detail.

The Russian representative drew attention to the fact that Canada had first stated it would ratify the OPCAT as long ago as 2006 and in 2012 the UN Committee against Torture had urged Canada to accelerate the domestic consultation process. He also observed that, more recently, Canada had stated it was considering the possible ratification of the instrument and a final decision had not been made in this regard, seemingly reflecting a weakening of language in relation to the OPCAT.

Canada probed at UN

Nations Unies by MPDO1605

The UN expert therefore inquired about the nature and content of Canada’s OPCAT consultation process, the impediments which exist preventing ratification, and whether civil society and Indigenous groups had been involved in the process? He also posed the highly relevant question of how Canada was interpreting the scope of deprivation of liberty and whether social care and educational settings were being considered?

Concern was also expressed about the absence of oversight over specific detention domains, namely psychiatric care and immigration detention. In this same connection the Co-rapporteur queried Canada’s reluctance to provide for permanent arms-length oversight over immigration detention, despite the existence of an agreement with the Canadian Red Cross to monitor the country’s three Immigration Holding Centres as well as some provincial prisons. He therefore asked for information about the modalities of the Canadian Red Cross’ monitoring of immigration detention and any related reports.

Limitations to the powers of existing oversight bodies were also identified, including the Office of the Correctional Investigator. The representative also sought information about the composition of OCI delegations when visiting prison settings and whether medical professionals were included in such delegations?

Many other pressing issues were discussed during the morning’s exchange, to all of which the Canadian delegation has the opportunity to reply in the afternoon of 22 November. For Canadian human rights observers the UN Committee’s examination of Canada can be followed live at 9 am ET on UN Web TV.

Today’s session will also be available later in the day to watch on demand in both English and French.

The Canada OPCAT Project will continue to publish updates about Canada’s examination by the UN Committee against Torture, so please return tomorrow for further information. Alternatively, you can receive live updates on Twitter. See you soon!

Posted by mp in OPCAT, Ratification, UNCAT, 0 comments

UNCAT Meeting on Canada: Civil Society Views Solicited

With just a month to go before the UN Committee against Torture’s examination of Canada in Geneva, civil society’s views were recently solicited in the run-up to this important UNCAT meeting.

On 17 October 2018 the Department of Canadian Heritage convened a meeting in Ottawa of the country’s principal civil society and Indigenous groups to discuss various crucial questions surrounding the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture in Canada.

UNCAT meeting

John G. Diefenbaker Building – Old Ottawa City Hall by Jamie MacCaffrey.

In its invitation to civil society and Indigenous groups the Department of Canadian Heritage wrote: “In preparation for this appearance, federal, provincial and territorial governments are seeking the views of Canadian civil society organizations and Indigenous representatives on Canada’s implementation of the CAT.” The UNCAT meeting was held in Old Ottawa City Hall in the heart of the nation’s capital (please see left).

Approximately 15  civil society and Indigenous group representatives attended the meeting, who were joined by an array of government actors from different federal, provincial and territorial spheres (both in person and by teleconference). A diversity of human rights subject matter was discussed during the exchange, including issues such as Canada’s implementation of the Convention, policing, non-refoulement and the rights of migrants, corrections, national security, and violence by private actors, particularly against Indigenous women. The agenda of the meeting can be found at the bottom of this news article in French and English.

As highlighted previously on the Canada OPCAT Project website, the UN Committee is timetabled to examine Canada at 10 am Geneva-time on 21 November, while Canada’s replies to the UN Committee will be heard from 3 pm onwards on 22 November.

 

Focus on the OPCAT

The question of Canada ratifying the OPCAT was also discussed and throughout the exchange several civil society groups made verbal reference to the instrument. A representative from Global Affairs Canada underscored that, while the ratification of the OPCAT was a priority of some importance for Canada, the process of putting in place an NPM was a complex exercise and certain financial considerations had also to be taken into account.

Even so, it was made known that Global Affairs Canada had also been in contact with various OPCAT-focused entities internationally. These included actors in countries where the OPCAT had or was in the process of being implemented, including New Zealand and Australia.

It was highly noteworthy that, in addition to the Canada OPCAT Project’s briefing-paper, several Canadian civil society organizations have highlighted the recommendation of OPCAT ratification in their written shadow-reports to the UN Committee. These include ACAT Canada/FIACAT, Amnesty International Canada, Canadian Human Rights Commission and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG).

In its shadow-report Amnesty International Canada expressed concern that, despite the May 2016 statement by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs that the OPCAT would no longer be optional for Canada: “More than two years later accession has not yet occurred, and there has been no public update regarding progress.” It therefore recommended that Canada should reconfirm that it intends to accede to the OPCAT, provide a public report on the progress of consultations with provincial and territorial governments, and accelerate those consultations towards a successful outcome.

ACAT Canada/FIACAT similarly urged Canada in their shadow-report to: “Respecter sa promesse de ratifier, dans le plus brefs délais, le Protocole facultatif à la Convention contre la torture (OPCAT)”, a view point also shared by the ICLMG. ACAT Canada/FIACAT also stressed the inadequacies of existing monitoring bodies as well as gaps in oversight coverage in the pages of its detailed report.

In its shadow-report the Canadian Human Rights Commission made the following key point: “In a geographical large, complex federal state such as Canada, it is imperative that the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) be carefully designed with appropriate legislative authorities and coordination mechanisms. It is also imperative that it be provided adequate resources to effectively carry out its work.”

It is hoped that the opinions of civil society and Indigenous groups on the OPCAT as well on a myriad of other human rights issues under the UN Convention against Torture are taken into consideration in Canadian government circles. It also hoped that the latter act positively on the outputs of the UN Committee against Torture’s examination of Canada in Geneva in late November 2018.

UN Web TV will broadcast the UN Committee’s examination of Canada live on 21-22 November. Interested persons will therefore be able to tune-in in real time or alternatively watch audio-visual recordings of the process on demand afterwards.

 

Agenda:

EN Agenda_CAT engagement

FR Ordre du jour_Séance d’engagement CCT

Posted by mp, 0 comments

COPCAT Shorts: Too Many States Failing OPCAT

Although over 60 NPMS have been established in countries around the world – a major success story – it remains the case that a significant number of OPCAT state parties have failed to do so … The obligation to establish an NPM is a central element of the OPCAT. We just do not understand why these states believe that they do not need to do so.

We will continue to do what we can, but at the end of the day a State either takes its international obligations in respect of torture prevention seriously, or it does not. Those states which have not established their NPM as they ought do not appear to the SPT to be taking their obligations very seriously at all.

Statement of Sir Malcolm Evans, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to the UN General Assembly Third Committee, New York, 15 October 2018.

Read the full statement here.

Watch the joint press briefing by Malcolm Evans, Chair of Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture; Jens Modvig, Chair of Committee Against Torture; and Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on Torture from 16 October 2018.

States Failing OPCAT

Torture Prevention – Press Conference, 16 October 2018 (copyright UN Web TV).

Posted by mp in Monitoring tools, OPCAT, SPT, 0 comments

Canada’s OPCAT Progress To Come Under Renewed UN Scrutiny

With just a few days to spare before the guillotine falls, the Canada OPCAT Project today submitted its shadow-briefing paper to the United Nations Committee against Torture in Geneva in anticipation of its examination of Canada in late November 2018.

In its short paper the Canada OPCAT Project focuses exclusively on the state of ratification of the OPCAT in the country as an issue. In doing so, it advances various suggested questions which the UN Committee against Torture may wish to put to the Canadian delegation. For the more eager readers, the Canada OPCAT Project’s shadow report can be downloaded in full at the bottom of this page.

The UN Committee against Torture is timetabled to examine Canada at 10 am Geneva-time (4 am ET) on 21 November, while Canada’s replies to the UN Committee of experts will be heard from 3 pm onwards (9 am ET) on 22 November. The Committee’s provisional agenda and program of work are available here, where all submitted shadow papers and reports will be listed in due course (the submission deadline for which is 15 October).

Palais Wilson

Palais Wilson, Geneva, Switzerland by CCPR_Centre.

The proposed questions highlighted in the Canada OPCAT Project’s briefing include the following:

  • As stated in paragraph 5 of Canada’s seventh periodic report, could the delegation please detail any ‘extensive consultations’ which Canada has so far undertaken on the question of the ratification of the OPCAT?
  • Could the delegation cite specific examples of consultation with Canadian civil society in this same regard? If not, when does Canada envisage conducting in-depth consultations with civil society?
  • Could the delegation provide a more detailed time-line and end-date for the completion of the process of considering the ratification of the OPCAT?
  • Could the Canadian delegation please explain the specific roles allotted to the Department of Justice and Global Affairs Canada respectively in relation to the OPCAT ratification process?
  • Is the Department of Justice planning to make public its legal analysis on Canada’s accession to the OPCAT? If not, could the Canadian delegation please specify why this information should not be placed in the public domain (in an non-redacted format) for the purposes of discussion?
  • Has Canada considered contacting the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture with a view to seeking its advice on the ratification of the OPCAT?

It is therefore hoped that the two assigned Co-Rapporteurs for Canada as well as the other eight UN Committee members will closely quiz the Canadian delegation about Canada’s repeatedly stated intention to consider the ratification of the OPCAT and that they will try to seek concrete answers to at least some of the above unanswered questions.

Palais Wilson

UN Conference Room at Palais Wilson, Geneva by Niklas Plutte (2010).

As noted on previous occasions on this website, written civil society contributions to the examination of Canada’s seventh periodic report under the UN Convention against Torture come as highly welcome. Such alternative information infinitely helps support the crucial work of the UN Committee members as they subject the track-records of countries to much-needed international scrutiny.

Canada will be one of six countries whose periodic reports will be examined by the UN Committee against Torture in Geneva from 12 November to 7 December. The other States Parties include Guatemala, Maldives, Netherlands, Peru and Vietnam. A link to the live broadcast of the UN Committee’s examination of Canada on 21-22 November will be posted on this website in the coming weeks.

Persons interested in receiving a copy of the Canada OPCAT Project’s full submission to the UN Committee against Torture can download the document immediately below or contact the website directly for an emailed copy.

COPCAT Project Shadow Briefing Paper to UNCAT 12 October 2018

Posted by mp in OPCAT, UNCAT, 0 comments

UNCAT Rapporteurs Assigned for Canada

The Canada OPCAT Project has learned which UN Committee against Torture members will act as the rapporteurs for Canada’s examination under the UN Convention against Torture in November in Geneva. These two members will lead the Committee’s examination of Canada and closely scrutinize state compliance with the anti-torture instrument.

AI France

Amnesty International France vintage campaign action

As this information has not yet been made public, interested persons are invited to contact the Canada OPCAT Project for further information (we have been asked not to publicize this information for the moment). Nonetheless, given the small ten-person composition of the UN Committee and the linguistic make-up of Canada, interested parties may well be able to surmise the possible candidates.

The UN Committee will examine Canada at 10 am (Geneva-time) on 21 November, while Canada’s replies will be heard from 3 pm onwards on 22 November. The Committee’s provisional agenda and program of work are available here.

As noted in a recently issued update, the deadline for civil society contributions to the upcoming examination of Canada is no later than 15 October 2018. More information about the overall process of how to submit a shadow-report can be found in this earlier article.

The Geneva-based civil society entity, the Convention against Torture Initiative, has also produced the following in-depth guidance paper on the overall reporting process to the this treaty body.

Alternatively, you would be very welcome welcome to contact us for further advice. But please do not forget to mention the OPCAT in your submissions! As Amnesty International France might say (see above): Utilisez votre arme pour l’OPCAT!

Posted by mp in OPCAT, UNCAT, 0 comments

Canada UNCAT Shadow-Reports Due Soon… Don’t Leave It Too Late!

Canada’s track-record to prevent acts of torture and other ill-treatment is set to come under international scrutiny once again in just over two months’ time. The UN Committee against Torture (UNCAT) is due to meet for its 65th session in Geneva, Switzerland from 12 November to 7 December 2018, during which it will examine Canada’s seventh periodic report under the UN Convention.

UNCAT shadow-reportsCivil society actors who are intent on submitting alternative- or shadow-reports to the UN Committee of experts should act sooner rather than later!

Although no specific date is as yet known for the Geneva review, Canadian CSOs and NHRIs should submit information in an electronic format no later than 15 October 2018.

According to OHCHR’s website, to date no Canadian (or other) CSOs or NHRIs have yet submitted information on Canada (unlike for several of the other countries which will be examined during this same session).

The procedure for doing so can be found as follows in English. If afterwards you still remain unsure as to how all this works, please do contact us. We would be very happy to assist you.

If your organization plans to submit a shadow-report, please do not forget to mention Canada’s stated intention to ratify the OPCAT … and its lack of progress to do so. Please contact us for any advice in this connection. Alternatively, read the following section of this website for more information.

General information about the UN Committee against Torture can be found as follows in French and English. OHCHR has also produced this short video animation about the UN Committee.

Posted by mp in UNCAT, 0 comments