mr benyam dawit mezmur chairperson committee...

MrBenyamDawitMezmurChairpersonCommitteeontheRightsoftheChildUNOG-OHCHRCH-1211Geneva10(Switzerland)14April2016DearMrMezmurSubmissionofinformation:Nepal(72ndsession)Wewritewith respect to theupcoming reviewofNepalby theCommitteeon theRightsoftheChildtobeheldattheCommittee’s72ndSession(17May2016-3June2016).

Advocacy Forum-Nepal and REDRESS are non-governmental organisations focusedonpreventionof,andredressfor,tortureandotherserioushumanrightsviolations.Further information about our organisations is provided inAnnexOne. Belowweprovide information on issues concerning child rights in Nepal arising in ourworkthat we hope will be helpful to the Committee in Nepal’s review under theConventionontheRightsoftheChild.

The information below relates specifically to Issues No. 7 and No. 18 in theCommittee’sListofIssuesandcovers:

(i) results of Advocacy Forum’s detention monitoring concerning children,includingreportedincidenceoffailuretoupholdsafeguardsandcommissionoftortureandotherill-treatmentofchildrenindetention;

(ii) challenges encountered by Advocacy Forum lawyers in juvenile justice,includingspecificallyrelatingtochildrenbeingtreatedasadultspendingtrial;and

(iii) ongoing impunity for extra-judicial killing, enforced disappearance andtorture of children, both during Nepal’s internal conflict (1996-2006) andsince.

(i)ResultsofdetentionmonitoringconcerningchildrenAdvocacy Forum-Nepal (AF) carries out a program of regularmonitoring of policedetention centres and Child Correction Homes in nine districts1 of Nepal. AF has1Kathmandu,Bhaktapur,Lalitpur,Rupandehi,Kaski,Morang,Dhanusha,Banke,Kanchanpur.

2

developedadetailedquestionnaire to record important informationonaperson'sdetention, tosupportanddefendthe individual'scasesaswellas tochallengeanyillegalpracticesbytheauthorities.AcopyofthequestionnaireisprovidedatAnnexThree.SummaryofFindingsConcerningChildrenAnanalysisof12monthsofdatacollectedbyAF lawyers fromNovember2014 toOctober 2015 shows regular non-implementation of procedural safeguards and ahighprevalenceoftortureandotherformsofill-treatmentagainstchilddetaineesinpolicedetentioncentersofNepal.

DuringthereportingperiodAF lawyersvisitedandinterviewed345childdetainees(21femaleand324male).Outofthoseinterviewed:

• 21.7% complained that they had been subjected to torture or other ill-treatmentinpolicedetentioncenters,

• 27.51% complained that they were not presented before the competentauthoritywithin24hoursoftheirarrest,

• 19.7% complained of not having been providing with the reason for theirarrest,

• 4.6%complainedofnothavingbeenprovidedwithahealthcheckup,

• 7.2% complained of not having been provided food to eat before theirremand,

• 25.5%complained that theyhadnotbeengivenaccess to familymembers,and

• 75.3%complainedthatthecompetentauthorityhadnotaskedabouttortureandill-treatmentduringtheircasehearing.

(ii) ChallengesencounteredinjuvenilejusticeAsatOctober2015,AFprovidedlegalaidto40childdetainees.Outofthe40childdetainees,24childrenwerereleasedtoparentalcustody.Twoofthesehadinitiallybeen sent to prison butwere released following the filing of writ petitions by AFlawyerstotheSupremeCourt.Theremaining16childrenweretransferredtoChildCorrectionHomeswiththesupportofAFLegalAid.Outofthe40childdetainees,AFlawyersassisted inobtainingthebirthcertificateof31children.AF lawyersfurtherassisted in themedicalageverificationof9children.AFLawyersassistedthechilddetaineesingainingaccesstotheirparentsbycontactingandinformingtheparentsaboutthesituationoftheirchildrenindetentioncenters.AFLawyersprovidedlegalcounselingtoallthechilddetaineesandtheirparents.AFhasexperienceddifficulties inobtainingevidenceonbehalfof the children.Onseveral occasions police have not been cooperative in releasing or accepting birthcertificatesorhavenotagreedtousemedicalageverificationorbirthcertificatesasevidenceincourt.Thepolicearethefirstauthoritywiththepowertomakeanarrest

3

andfilethecaseandinthisprocess,theageoftheminorisoftenincreasedbythepoliceandthechildispresentedasanadult.Thishasinsomecasesbeenpossibletoovercomebycloseconsultationmeetingswiththepolice,judges,publicprosecutorstosensitizethemabouttheimportanceoftheageverificationandtherightsofthechilddetainees.AFlawyershavealsopresentedawritdeclarationfortheSupremeCourtwhichoverturnedtwoofthecourtorderstosendthechildrentoprison.Case Study One in Confidential Annex Two provides an example of how non-adherencetoproceduralsafeguardscanresultinthewrongfuldetentionofchildren.This14year-oldchildwasarrestedonthechargeofstealingalaptopfromhisschool,anddespite informingpoliceofhisagewasremanded incustodyonthebasisthatschool records indicated his estimated age of 20. AF lawyers requested forensicverificationofhisagebutthiswasnotpresentedbypolicetothecourt,evenafterithadbeenreceivedandshowedthathewasaminor.OnceAFlawyerspresentedtheevidence to the Court (one month after his arrest) he was released to parentalcustodyonconditionofpaymentofNRs.40,000bail (approximatelyUSD375). Ashis family couldnot afford this amounthewas sent to aChildReformHome. Heremainedincustodyandwasonlyreleasednearlyfourmonthsafterhisinitialarrest,followingachallengebroughtbyAFlawyerstotheSupremeCourt.

In Case Study Two and Case Study Three in Confidential Annex Two, police andcourts refused to accept birth certificates in relation to children aged 14 and 13respectivelyprovidedbythechild’sguardiansandtheywereremandedincustodyasadults.ThechildinCaseStudyTwowasonlyreleased93daysafterarrestfollowingtheobtainingof forensicageverificationand furtherargument incourtbeforetheJuvenile Justice Bench. The child in Case Study Three was only released afterapproximately threemonths following the filing of awrit ofhabeas corpus by AFlawyersbeforethecourt.

Othercasestudies includedinConfidentialAnnexTwoprovidefurtherexamplesofdetentionofminorsasadultspriortointerventionbyAFlawyers.

Inaddition,someminorsareinternallydisplacedandsomecomefromIndialookingforjobsthusitisdifficulttotracetheirfamiliesandthelegaldocumentsrequired.Insome cases the police do not inform the familymembers of the detention of theminors,whichmakesitevenmoredifficultfortheAFlawyerstotracethefamilytoget the legal documents like birth certificates or school certificates to verify theirage.Otherchildren,suchasCaseStudyFiveinConfidentialAnnexTwo,donothaveguardians,andwithoutappropriatestate-appointedguardiansAFlawyershavehadtotakeresponsibilityforthechildrenfollowingreleasependingtrial.(iii) Ongoing impunity for extra-judicial killing, enforced disappearance and

tortureofchildrenFinally, Advocacy Forum and REDRESS have been involved in representing childvictims and their families of extrajudicial execution, enforced disappearances andtortureandotherill-treatmentcommittedbothduringthecountry’sinternalconflict(1996-2006) and since. Although there have been some recent positive

4

developmentswithinthecourts,impunityforsuchcrimesremainstotal.Transitionaljustice processes recently established to address conflict-era cases have beenstronglycriticizedbyvictims’groups,domesticnon-governmentalorganisationsandinternational actors includingUN experts for their failure to uphold victims’ rightsand potential to promote impunity.2 In addition, international crimes includingtorture and enforced disappearance are yet to be criminalized in Nepal, meaningthat it is impossible to bring criminal proceedings against those responsible forcommittingsuchcrimesduringtheconflictandsince.Whereanyactionistakenitislimited to disciplinary proceedings and the payments of small amounts ofcompensation.FiveemblematiccaseswewishtodrawtheCommittee’sattentiontoare:

• MainaSunawar: a15year-oldgirl torturedandkilled inArmydetention in2004.Followinginternationalpressureacourtmartialfoundthatshediedinstatecustody,convictedthreesoldiersofproceduraloffencesandsentencedthem to six months’ imprisonment, temporary suspensions of promotionsandasmallmonetaryfineascompensationtoMaina’sfamily.3Thearmyhasrefusedtocooperatewithpoliceinvestigationsintothemurder,resultinginsuspension of prosecution proceedings. In January 2016, following anapplication by AF lawyers, Kavre District Court ordered the prosecution tocontinue in the absence of the accused. However no person has yet beenpresented for trial and to date Maina’s family has not been informed offurtherprogressintheinvestigationandprosecution.

• ReenaRasaili:a16year-oldschoolgirlkilledbysoldiersinFebruary2004.InthemiddleofthenightsoldiersdraggedReenafromherhouse,interrogated,rapedand torturedherbefore shootingheratpointblank range.Despiteacourt martial finding soldiers guilty of her unlawful killing, no person hassuccessfully been brought to justice, although one deserter was tried andacquitted. Reena's parents, supported by Advocacy Forum Nepal andREDRESS,filedanindividualcomplainttotheUNHumanRightsCommitteeinDecember 2015, after failing over many years to achieve justice inNepal.ProceedingsbeforetheCommitteeareongoing.

• Subhadra Chaulagain: On the same night that Reena Rasaili was killed,Subhadra Chaulagain, a 17 year-old schoolgirl in the same village, was

2ForviewsofotherUNbodiessee,eg.OHCHR,‘OHCHRTechnicalNote:TheNepalActontheCommissiononInvestigationofDisappearedPersons,TruthandReconciliation,2071(2014)–asGazetted21May2014’;PablodeGreiff,SpecialRapporteuronthepromotionoftruth,justice,reparationandguaranteesofnon-recurrence;ArielDulitzky,Chair-Rapporteur,WorkingGrouponEnforcedorInvoluntaryDisappearances;ChristofHeyns,SpecialRapporteuronextrajudicial,summaryorarbitraryexecutions;RashidaManjoo,SpecialRapporteuronviolenceagainstwomen,itscausesandconsequences;JuanE.Méndez,SpecialRapporteurontortureandothercruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment,(2014),‘Nepal:Truth-seekinglegislationrisksfurtherentrenchingimpunity,alertUNrightsexperts’,4July2014.SeefurtherAdvocacyForum,REDRESSandTRIAL(2014),‘PayingLipServicetoJustice:TheNewlyAdoptedTRCActBreachesInternationalLawandFloutstheDecisionoftheSupremeCourtofNepal’,June2014,http://www.redress.org/downloads/publications/1407TRC_Act_UN_Submission_AF_TRIAL_REDRESS%28June2014%29.pdf.3ForfurtherdetailsofthecaseseeAdvocacyForum(2010),MainaSunuwar:SeparatingFactfromFiction,http://advocacyforum.org/downloads/pdf/publications/maina-english.pdf.

5

draggedfromherhouseinthemiddleofthenight,questionedoutsideoveraperiod of several hours, and finally shot in the head and stomach at pointblankrangeandinfrontofherfather.Thesoldierskickedherbodyandthenproceededtobrutallybeatherfather, leavinghimfordead.4Nopersonhasbeenprosecutedandherfamilyhasonlyreceivedasmallpaymentofwhatistermed“interim relief”payable toall conflict victims. Followinga failure toachievejusticeinNepal,herfamilyfiledacomplainttotheUNHumanRightsCommittee, which found in October 2014 that Nepal was responsible forviolationsofSubhadra’srighttolife,righttobefreefromtortureandothercruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment,righttolibertyandrighttohumaneconditionsofdetention,all read inconjunctionwithherrighttoaremedy.5The Committee urged Nepal to undertake an effective and completeinvestigation of the facts, the prosecution and punishment of thoseresponsible, and the provision of full reparation to Subhadra's family.However, todate,noactionhasbeentakento implement theCommittee’sviewsbeyondtranslationofthoseviewsintoNepali.6

• Manaudisappearances:On11April2002DhaniramTharu (aged17or18),Soniram Tharu (aged 16 or 17), Radhulal Tharu (aged 19), Prem PrakashTharu (aged 23), Kamala Tharu (aged between 16 and 18), Mohan Tharu(aged18),LautiTharu(agedbetween17and20)andChilluTharu(aged16)weretakenbysoldiers fromtheirhomes inNaurangaVillage.TheywereallmembersoftheTharuindigenouscommunity.Theirfamilieshaveneverseenthemagainorreceivedanycredible informationfromtheauthoritiesaboutwhathappened to them. The families of thedisappeared filed cases in theSupreme Court in 2003 seeking release of the young people. All stateauthoritiesdenieddetainingthem,andtheSupremeCourtclosedthecases.In 2006, the army informed the Neupane Committee (created by theGovernment of Nepal to investigate the fate of allegedly disappearedpersons) that seven of the young peoplewere killed in crossfire during anencounter with Maoists. The families have refuted the army’s allegations,because the victims left their houses unarmed and guarded by armedsoldiers.

Families of the victims filed a case with the Human Rights Committee,representedbyAFandREDRESS.TheHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthecase in July 2015, finding that the eight young people were victims ofenforced disappearance, resulting in violations of their rights to life, to befree from torture, to liberty and to personality before the law. It foundfurther that the anguish and stress caused to the families of the victimsamounted to a serious violation of their human rights.7 Since the handingdownofthedecisiontheonlyactiontakenbythegovernmentistranslation

4Forfurtherdetailsofthecasesee:http://www.redress.org/case-docket/chaulagain-v-nepal?utm_source=smartmail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=REDRESS+Reparation+News+Dec%2FJan+2016.5UNHumanRightsCommittee,ChaulagainvNepal,CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010,28October2014.6OnimplementationoftheCommittee’sviewsseefurtherhttp://realrightsnow.org/en/subhadra-chaulagain/.7UNHumanRightsCommittee,TharuetalvNepal,CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011,3July2015.

6

of the views into Nepali and a promise to provide the families with anadditionalsmallpaymentof“interimrelief”.8

• PadamBahadurKhadka:a14year-oldboyarrestedwithsixotherchildreninOctober 2011by soldiers on the suspicionof killing a spotteddeer. Padamand the other children were taken to the army barracks where they werethreatened and verbally abused, before being beaten with sticks, punchedwithfists,heldfor lengthyperiodsoftime instresspositions,andforcedtostandupsidedownontheirhandsagainstatree.Shortlyafterthearrest,AFbroughtacomplaintundertheTortureCompensationActonPadam’sbehalf,andfinallyinMarch2016thecourtfoundtwonamedsoldiersresponsiblefortorture. It ordered the government to provide NPR 50,000 (USD 470) ascompensationtoPadam,andorderedtheperpetratorstopersonallypayNPR2,000 (USD 18) to the victim. The Court also ordered the Government ofNepaltotakedepartmentalactionagainsttheperpetrators.However,giventhat torture isnot criminalisedunderNepali law there isnoopportunity tobringcriminalproceedingsagainsttheperpetrators.

WehopethisinformationishelpfulfortheCommitteeinitsreviewofNepal’srecordundertheConvention.Pleasedonothesitatetocontactusifyourequireanyfurtherinformation.YourssincerelyOmPrakashSenThakuri CarlaFerstmanActingDirector,AdvocacyForumNepal Director,REDRESSEnc:AnnexOne:InformationabouttheorganisationsConfidential Annex Two: Case studies from detention monitoring (not forpublication)AnnexThree:FormatofDetentionMonitoringQuestionnaire

8Forfurtherinformationonimplementationsee:http://realrightsnow.org/en/manau-disappearances/.

7

ANNEXONE:INFORMATIONABOUTTHEORGANISATIONS

Advocacy Forum – Nepal (AF) is a leading non-profit, non-governmentalorganisationworking to promote the rule of law and uphold international humanrights standards. Since its establishment, AF has been actively confronting thecultureofimpunitybysystematicallydocumentinghumanrightsabuses,monitoringgovernment detention facilities, and litigation both nationally and internationally.Theinformationispublishedandpresentedtonationalandinternationalaudiencesand provides necessary evidence for the reform of the justice system. It regularlyengages internationally recognized human rights mechanisms, including UnitedNations treaty bodies and special procedures, andwork closelywith internationalhuman rights organisations, such as Amnesty International, Human RightsWatch,and Asian Federation against Involuntary Disappearance, the InternationalCommissionofJuristsandtheAsianHumanRightsCommission.Withthehelpofallthese mechanisms and agencies, AF attempts to put Nepal at the forefront forsignificant human rights attention worldwide. AF’s work on juvenile justice andredress for torture and other ill-treatment is funded in part by DKA Austria, theEuropeanUnion’s European Instrument for Democracy andHuman Rights (EIDHR)andProVictimisFoundation.http://www.advocacyforum.orgREDRESSisaninternationalhumanrightsNGObasedintheUnitedKingdomwithamandate to assist torture survivors to seek justice and other forms of reparation,hold accountable the governments and individuals who perpetrate torture, anddevelopthemeansofensuringcompliancewithinternationalstandardsandsecuringremediesforvictims.REDRESScarriesout itsmandatethroughcaseworkonbehalfof individuals and groups before national and international courts and bodies,advocacywithgovernments,parliaments,internationalorganisationsandthemediaandbyworking inpartnershipwith like-mindedorganisationsaround theworld tostrengthen national legal systems. REDRESS has consultative status with ECOSOC.REDRESS’workinNepalisfundedbytheEuropeanUnion’sEuropeanInstrumentforDemocracyandHumanRights(EIDHR)andProVictimisFoundation.www.redress.org

8

ANNEXTHREE:FORMATOFDETAINEEQUESTIONNAIREQuestionnairetoDetaineesADVOCACYFORUM–NEPALDetaineeInterviewForm(Forthedetaineeinprocessinvestigation)CaseNo.

Charge

A.Visitinformation

Dateofvisit

Timeofvisit

NameofAFlawyer

Nameofdetention

1.Personalinformation 1.1Name(s)

1.2Gender 1.Female(completeinformationinsection11)2.Male3.Other

1.3Age

1.4DateofBirth BS:AD:

1.5Minor 1.Yes(completeinformationinsection9)2.No

1.6PermanentAddress Village/Tole:VDC/Municipality:WardNo:District:

1. TemporaryAddress(ifdifferentfromabove)

Village:District:VDC:WardNo:

1.8Telephoneno.

1.9Education 1.10Occupation

1.11Nearestrelative/Friend

9

1.12ContactNo. 2.ArrestInformation 2.1Time

2.2Date

BS:AD:

2.3Place Village/Tole:VDC/Municipality:WardNo:District:

2.4Witness(es) 1.Yes2.No

2.5.Ifyes-who? 1.2.

2.6Initialarrestingauthority 1.NepalPolice2.NepalArmy3.ArmedPoliceForce

4.ForestryOffice5.Unidentifiedgroup6.Other

2.7. Main arresting authority (Afterhanding over by the initial arrestauthority)

1.NepalPolice2.NepalArmy3.ArmedPoliceForce4.ForrestOffice5.Unidentifiedgroup6.Other

2.8 Number(s) of initial arrestauthority

2.9Name(s)Rank(s)ifknownGender(M/F/O)

2.10.Uniformed/Weapons 1.Yes2.No3.Both 2.11.Reasonforarrestgiven(Arrestwarrant)

1.Yes2.No3.Givenbutafterbringingindetention(specifydate)

2.12.Familyinformedofarrest 1.Yes2.No3.Givenbutafterbringingindetention(specifydate)

2.13Behaviourofarrestingauthority 1.Normal2.Verbalabuse3.PhysicalViolation(Complete Section 10 if with verbal abuse there is torture or other cruel,inhumananddegradingbehaviour).

2.14. Mode of transportation todetentionfacility

3.Basicdetentioninformation

3.1 When the detainee is brought tothisdetention

Date

3.2Previousdetentionplace(s)ifany

3.3Ishe/shekeptindetentionbefore 1.Yes(Givefulldetail)2.No 3.3.1Place1 Name:Datein:Dateout: 3.3.2Place2 Name:Datein:Dateout:

10

3.3.3Place3 Name:Datein:Dateout: 3.4. Did you have health check-upbeforekeepingindetention?

3.4.1.Inwhichhospitaltaken? 1.Government2.PersonalName:

3.4.2. Who paid the money in thehospital?

1.Police2.Detainee3.Free4.Anyother

3.5. Were you brought before ajudge/competent authority within 24hoursofdetention?

1.Yes2.No

3.6.Wereyougivendetaineeletter? 1.Yes(providedetailsbelow)2.NoGivenbeforeremandGivenafterremand

4.Conditionsofdetention: 4.1. Is food/money paid to you forhavingfood?

1.Yes(Givecompleteinformation)2.NoGivenbeforeremandGivenafterremand

4.2. How is the facility of drinkingwater?

1.Good2.NotGood(Givecompletedetail)

4.3.Howisthetoiletfacility? 1.Good2.NotGood(Givecompletedetail)

4.4Howisthebathingfacility? 1.Good2.NotGood(Givecompletedetail)

4.5Howisthesleepingfacility? Adequatespacetosleep1.Yes2.NoHowmanyarethereintheroomyouarein?………………………………………………………………..Bedsheetandblanket1.Yes2.NoOtherinformation……………………………………….

4.6Informationaboutotherdetainees.Women:1.Yes(howmany)2.NoChildren:1.Yes(howmany)2.NoName:Howmanymentallyandphysicallyill?1.Yes(howmany)2.NoName:Foreigners:1.Yes(howmany)2.NoName:

11

4.6.1 Are there any detainees thatneedimmediatemedicalattention?

Yes:(FullName)1.2.No2.3.

4.6.2. Are there any other detaineeswho are kept with you for the samecharge?

Yes:(FullName)1.2.No2.3.

4.7.Behaviourofdetainingauthority 1.Cooperative2.Verbalabuse2. PhysicalViolation(Torture/orothercruel,inhumananddegradingbehaviour)(CompleteinformationinSection10)

4.8. Other comments on place ofdetention

5.Familycontactinformation 5.1Contactwithfamilymembers 1.Yes

2.NoBeforeremandAfterremand

5.2.Reasonfornofamilycontact 1.Didnotwanttoinformfamily2.Familynotgrantedpermissiontovisitbythedetentionauthorities3.Familydidnotvisitdespitehavingbeeninformed4.Familyareunawareofarrest/detention5.Other(specify)

6.Accesstolegalassistance 6.1 Are you aware that every personhas the right to have legal counsellingrightfromthetimeofarrest?

1.Yes2.No

6.2 Have you consulted a lawyerfollowingarrest?

1.Yes2.No

6.2.1Whenwaslawyerconsulted? Date:Numberofdaysafterarrest:

Date:

Date:

6.2.2Whywaslawyernotconsulted? 1.Financialconstraints

2.Didnotknowhowtocontact

3.Preventedbydetainingauthorities

4.Didnotthinkitwasnecessary

6.3.Areyouabletohireownlawyer? 1.Yes2.No 6.4.Doyourequirefree legalaidfromAF?

1.Yes(completeinformationinSection12)2.No

12

7.Investigationinformation 7.1. Are you aware that according tothe law, a person is not liable toprovide a statement againstherself/himself?

1.Yes2.No

7.2 Have you been subject tointerrogation?

1.Yes2.No

7.2.1.Placeofinterrogation 1.Publicprosecutor’soffice2.Policestation

3.Both4.Other(specify)

7.3..Signedstatement 1.Yes2.No 7.3.1.Wherewasstatementsigned? 1.Publicprosecutor’soffice2.Policestation

3.Other(specify)

7.3.2..Whenwasstatementsigned? Date:

Beforeremand:

Afterremand:

7.3.3 Did you sign the statement ofyourownvolition?

1.Yes2.No(providedetailsbelow)

7.3.4 Were you able to read thestatementbeforesigning?


Wasthestatementaconfession? 1.Yes(Completeinformationinconfessionssectionbelow)2.No

7.4 Have you been brought to thepublicprosecutor’soffice?

1.Yes(providedetailsbelow)2.No

Date:

Reason:

7.5 Have you been brought before acourt/other judicial authority forremand?


FirstDate:Day()……………………time

SecondDate:Day()……………………time

ThirdDate:Day()……………………time

Court/judicialauthority:

7.6 If brought before court/otherjudicial authority for remand didjudge/judicial officer ask whetherT/CIDThadoccurred?


7.7Doyouknowthatyoucanrequestamedical (physicalandmental)check-up if brought before a court forextensionofremand?

1.Yes(providedetailsbelow)2.No1.Check-uprequested:given2.Check-uprequested:denied(detailsbelow)3.Notasked

7.8. If your requestwas granted, haveyoubeentakenforthecheck-up?

1.Yes2.No

7.8.1 Were you satisfied with themedical check-up (was treatmentprovidedifnecessary)?

1.Yes2.No

13

7.9Previousarrest?

1.Yes(providedetailsbelow)2.NoCharge:Releasedonwhatgrounds?(providedetailsbelow)

8.Casesummary

Minorinformation(completeifanswerisyesto1.5)Notcompleted16yearsofage 9.1Isyourageverified 1.Yes

2.No

Whataretheevidenceofageproof?

1. VDCbirthcertificate

2. HospitalCertificate

3. SchoolCertificate

9.2Enrolledinschoolattimeofarrest 1.Yes(providedetailsin10.3)2.No 9.3Schooldetails Name:Class:

Address:

9.4Handcuffedattimeofarrest? 1.Yes2.No

9.4.1.Handcuffedwhilebeingtakentocourtorotherexternallocation

1.Yes2.No

9.5 Were guards/police uniformedwhilst escorting you to court or otherexternallocation?

1.Uniform2.Plainclothes

9.6Co-detaineeinformation 1.Below16yearsageminor

1.Yes(ifyes,howmany)2.No

2.Over16years

1.Yes(ifyes,howmany)2.No

9.7Was interrogation following arrestchild-friendly?


9.8 Has interrogation whilst indetentiontakenplaceatnight?


14

9.9 Did you were taken to separateroom and had interrogation for morethanonehourinonetime?


9.10 When brought before court forremand, was there a juvenile bench(social worker, child psyc. orspecialist)?


9.11. Were you kept with childdetainees in the detention ornot?

1.Yes2.No

15

TortureandCIDTinformation(onlycompleteifyesto2.14or4.8–canbeundertakenonasecondvisitifnec.)10.1TortureandCIDTdetailsNo. Location Date Time and Duration

(min/hr)Description (whereon body; withwhat; methodused)

Perpetrator(s) Officer givingcommand?

1

2

3

4

5

6

10.2Perpetratordetails 1.Name:Rank:Appearance-(Physicalidentity)2Name:Rank:Appearance-(Physicalidentity)3.Name:Rank:Appearance-(Physicalidentity)4.Name:Rank:Appearance-(Physicalidentity)

10.3 Did the police givereasonsfortorturingyou?

1.Yes2.No

10.4 Were there any Witness(es)present at the time of inflicting


16

torture?

10.4.1 Witness name and contactdetails

1.Name:

Address:

Telephoneno.:

co-detaineepublicpoliceother(detail)

2.Name:

Address:

Telephoneno.:

co-detaineepublicpoliceother(detail)

10.5 Physical or psychologicaleffects of T/CIDT (as assessed byAFlawyer)

Details:

10.6 Physical or psychologicaleffects of T/CIDT (as assessed bydetaineefollowingT/CDT)

Details:

10.7 Medical assistance followingT/CIDT

1.Yes2.No

10.7.1Treatmentreceived Details:Documentation:1.Yes(specify)2.No

10.7.2Providedby 1.Detention/prisonmedicalofficer2.Doctor(hospital)3.Other(specify)

10.7.3Whopaidthemoney? 1.Detainingauthorities2.Self3.Family4.Otherdetainees

10.7.4 Reason(s) why medicalassistancenotsought

1.Fearofreprisal

2.Assumedthepolicewouldnotprovideassistance

3.Soughtbydetainee,butdeniedbydetainingauthorities

4.Soughtbydetainee,buthasnotyetbeenprovidedbydetainingauthorities

(delayed)

17

5.Other(specify)

6.Nomoneyavailableformedicaltreatment

10.8Tortureand/orCIDTfurtherdetails

11.Femaledetaineeinformation11.1.Wereyouarrestedbyfemale police/securityforcepersonnel?

1.Yes2.No

11.2. Are there femaleguards in place ofdetention?

1.Yes2.No

11.3. Gender of officialswho escort you to thecourt and other externalplaces?

1.Male2.Female3.Both

11.4 Necessary support(sanitary towels/extraclothing/medicine)provided by det.authorities duringmenstruation/pregnancy

1.Yes2.No

11.4.1. If no, what is thereason why you have notbeen provided with theabovesupport?

1.Assumedthedetainingauthoritieswouldnotprovideassistance2.Soughtbydetainee,butdeniedbydetainingauthorities3.Soughtbydetainee,buthasnotyetbeenprovidedbydetainingauthorities(delayed)4.Other(specifybelow)5.Notfeltnecessary6.Hadnomoneyforthosethings

11.5 Male co-detainees insamecell/room?

1.Yes(Number)2.No

18

Confessioninformation(onlycompleteifyestorelatedquestionabove–canbeundertakenonanyvisitifnec.)Didyougiveaconfession? 1.Yes2.NoSignedconfession 1.Yes2.No

Where was confessionsigned?

1.Publicprosecutor’soffice2.Policestation

3.Other(specify)

When was confessionsigned?

Date:

Beforeremand:

Afterremand:

Didyousigntheconfessionofyourownvolition?


Wereyouable to read theconfessionbeforesigning?


Why did you give theconfession?

1. torture/ill-treatment;2. threatoftorture/ill-treatment;3. inducementbypolice;4. adviceoflawyer;5. feelingofguilt;6. other

Confession-relatedquestionstobeansweredbyintervieweratendofinvestigationWas confession used bypolice or judicialinvestigator?

1Yes(providedetails)2No

Was confessioncorroborated by otherevidence?


What other evidence wascollected?


Was authority alerted toany coercion used againstdetainee?


Werestepstakentoensureconfession was obtainedlawfully?


Confession-relatedquestionstobeansweredbyinterviewerduringtrialWas the confessionadmitted as evidence bythejudge?

1Yes2No

Was the judge alerted toany coercion by police orotheractors?


Was the confession testedforadmissibility?


Was other prosecutionevidence submitted duringthetrial?

1Yes2No

Wasanyotherprosecutionevidence a ‘fruit’ of theconfessionevidence?


Confession-relatedquestionstobeansweredbyintervieweratendoftrialWasconfessionexcluded? 1Yes2NoIfconfessionwasexcluded,did the judge requireadditional steps be takenagainst the police or otherauthority?


Ifconfessionwasexcluded,did the judge requireadditional steps be takenagainst the police or otherauthority?


What was the overallimpactoftheconfessioninthe prosecution of thedefendant?

1. onlyevidencesubmitted,resultedinconviction;2. someimpact,notonlyprosecutionevidence;3. littleimpact;4. noimpact,excluded

19

[ASAMENDEDBYAPTFOREXCLUSIONARYRULEASSESSMENTPROJECT]

12.Legalaidinformation(onlycompleteifyesto6.4–canbeundertakenonasecondvisitifnecessary)12.1 Do you want AF toundertake any of thefollowingactions?

1.Appearinyourcase:1.Yes2.No2.Litigateagainsttheperpetrator(s)(Iftorturehasoccurred–seesection11)1.Yes2.No3.Raiseawarenessofthecaseatnational/internallevels1.Yes2.No4.Approachone/someofthefollowingbodies:1.NHRC2.OHCHR3.NBA4.AG5.AI6.AHRC)5.Other(specify)

13.Consent(general)13.1DoyouconsentforAFto use this informationwhenfollowingupthecaseand/or in AF publicreports?

1.Yes:both(withname)Yes:caseFU/AFreportsonly(withname)Yes:both(withoutname)Yes:caseFU/AFreportonly(withoutname)2.No

13.2. Detail of theguardians/legalparents?

Name:TelephoneNo:Address:

13.3. Who was present atthetimeofthisinterview?

1.Police/detentionauthorities:1.Yes(providedetailsbelow)2.NoName:Withinhearingdistance?1.Yes2.No2.Co-detainees:1.Yes(providedetailsbelow)2.NoNumber:Withinhearingdistance?1.Yes2.No

13.4.Interviewduration

B.Visitinformationcontinued:Authorityincharge: Custodymanagementincharge: Investigativeauthority:

mr benyam dawit mezmur chairperson committee...

Documents