Govt urged to place anti-torture Bill before the Parliamentary Standing Committee-
- 16,836 deaths in custody in 14 years-
New Delhi: Asian Centre
for Human Rights (ACHR) while submitting the Report of the National Conference
on the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2008 http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/India-Anti-Torture-Bill-2009.pdf) to the
Members of Parliament urged to intervene with the Prime Minister of India to
place the Prevention Torture Bill before the Parliamentary Standing Committee
after necessary modifications to comply with the UN Convention Against Torture
(UNCAT). The Ministry of External Affairs has drafted the “Prevention of
Torture Bill, 2008” in order to “ratify the UNCAT and to provide for more effective
implementation.”
Since
the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued the guidelines to report
custodial death cases within 24 hours in December 1993, the NHRC recorded the
custodial deaths of 16,836 persons or an average of 1203 persons per year
during 1994-2008. These included 2,207 deaths in police custody and 14,629
deaths in judicial custody.
ACHR
asserted that the number of custodial deaths in India have been rising
consistently
with
1,037 custodial deaths in 2000-2001; 1,305 in 2001-2002; 1,340 in 2002-2003;
1,462 in 2003-2004; 1,493 in 2004-2005; 1,730 in 2005-2006; 1,596 in 2006-2007
and 1,977 in 2007-2008.
“The
Prevention of Torture Bill, 2008 is not intended to address liberal use of
torture in India but is a part of window dressing to address international
criticisms.” – stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Convenor of the
National Conference and Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights.
The
National Conference called upon the government of India to expand the
definition of torture to conform to the obligations of the UNCAT. Despite the
widespread prevalence of custodial death resulting from torture, the Prevention
of Torture Bill, 2008 makes no reference to death as a result of torture.
“The
law enforcement personnel are entrusted to carry out duties of the state and
are empowered with special powers and have higher level of responsibility.
Hence the crimes by the law enforcement personnel should be considered more
seriously and harsher punishment than what is provided in the Indian Penal Code
needed to be given.” – stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human
Rights.
The
National Conference on the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2008 also rejected the
six months limitation from the date on which the offence of torture is alleged
to have been committed for taking cognizance.
“It
is ridiculous that the government relies on crime of defamation rather than on
grievous hurt to justify the six months limitation for cognizance of an act of
torture.” – stated Mr Chakma further.
The
National Conference recommended that the proposed Act should be renamed as
“Prevention and Punishment of Torture Act” and further made specific
recommendations to ensure compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture and
include provisions, in particular, ensuring that an order from a superior
officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification for
committing torture (Article 2); establishing jurisdiction over acts of torture
committed by or against a party's citizens (Article 4); ensuring that torture is an extraditable
offence (Article 8); establishing
universal jurisdiction to try cases of torture where an alleged torturer cannot
be extradited (Article 5); providing
mechanism to promptly investigate any allegation of torture (Articles 12 &
13); providing an enforceable right to
compensation to the victims of torture (Article 14); banning the use of evidence obtained through
torture in the courts (Article 15); and barring deportation, extradition or refoulement of any person where there are substantial grounds for believing she/she will be
subjected to torture (Article 3).
[Ends]