The review of Algeria by the CAT follows that of the Human Rights Committee held in October 2007. On this occasion numerous violations of principles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had been reported. The concerns included the existence of secret detention centres out of the control of civilian authorities and the impunity granted to perpetrators of international crimes.

Engaging defenders of human rights

In anticipation of the sensitive issues that were expected to be raised by the CAT experts, the head of the Algerian delegation, Mr. Idriss Jazaïri, from the outset in his introductory remarks, addressed the points by claiming that "the alleged existence of secret detention centres exists only in the imagination of the perpetrators of these gossips."

Mr. Jazaïri accused the defenders of human rights to have sought though their "insinuations" to "sow doubt in the unacquainted minds" and "sending back to back criminals and security forces". More importantly, he accused defenders of human rights of having, because of "their silence and sometimes by their false prevarication", instrumentalized terrorism and accordingly to bear "a heavy responsibility for the loss of human lives".

The CAT experts, however, did not seem to have been impressed by the veiled threats of the representative of Algeria. It is even probable that his remarks reinforce a number of their concerns and this clearly appeared in the pertinent issues that they raised. Indeed, the experts started by asking for clarifications regarding some equivocal concepts. Thus Mr Grossman (from Chile), the Chairman-Rapporteur, asked whether what is designated as "threat to public order" and that would justify maintaining the state of emergency effectively corresponds to a real danger and was not speculative? In the same chapter, he noted that provisions of the Decree of 30 September 1992 on the fight against subversion and terrorism have been incorporated into the Penal Code in 1995. But the definition of terrorism in those provisions was, according to Mr. Grossman, too broad and too vague and would constitute an obstacle to compliance with strict standards in international law.

The impunity of security forces at the heart of the debate

Mr. Grossman reiterated the concern of the Committee in relation to the amnesty granted to both security forces and some members of armed groups. For this category of people, Mrs. Gaer (USA) seeks additional information on investigations and convictions of those who are guilty of rape by example and who are not amnestied by law.

Like several of his colleagues, the President of CAT noted that article 45 of the ordinance implementing the charter for peace and reconciliation does not provide legal procedure against the state officers who have committed crimes. He also noted that the law sets no deadline for implementation of these provisions, and therefore it is not known if they are retroactive or valid in the present and the future. He recalled that international standards prohibit the prescription or amnesty for international crimes such as genocide or torture.

Mr. Jazaïri tried to explain to the panel of experts that the state could not prosecute the soldiers involved in military operations. But what happens then when police, gendarmes, members of self-defence groups and other members of DRS who arrested, abducted and disappeared people, committed rape, torture and summarily executed thousands of people? Mr. Jazaïri therefore considers that these categories of State agents are liable to prosecution for such crimes and are therefore excluded from amnesty provisions.

Responding to criticism from experts about Article 46 of the same ordinance that penalizes any "unauthorized" version of the bloody events with Algeria, Mr. Jazaïri leaves no doubt about the nature of this provision which he compared to those which "condemn revisionism in Europe". The contemporary history of Algeria would thus be written under the threat of imprisonment of recalcitrants.

Considering that refusing impunity is the best education for respecting human rights, Mr. Grossman sought from the Algerian delegation many precisions about the training of state employees, particularly those of intelligence services (Department of Intelligence and Security, DRS), on the expertise of the latter, places of detention that they control, complaints filed against them for torture and finally monitoring and disciplinary actions for abuses.

An iny case, in order to file a complaint against these officers, their names should be known as well as their ranks and responsibilities. Mr. Marino (Spain) wondered rightly if those officers that remained anonymous are not members of the DRS. Indeed, many hearing minutes include only first names of officers.

But in order to file complaint, the victim must be informed of this right. Is this the case in Algeria? Very specifically, Mr. Marino asked for details on the cases of Hammouche Mounir, who died under torture during his custody in the premises of DRS in December 2006. So far, the family was unable to gain access to the autopsy report.

In this context arises the question of authority of the judiciary over the various services, especially on the DRS: are there records of detention? Can judges intervene in cases of suspected torture or disappearance? Are confessions obtained under torture excluded from the proceedings?

The Head of the Algerian delegation would not provide clarifications about the DRS, which he fails to mention even by its name, considering it as a "republican institution" and that "those who attack it are attacking the Algerian Republic."

Enforced Disappearances classified as crimes against humanity

Several members of the UN body, including M. Kovalev (Russia) and M. Grossman, expressed their disapproval about the treatment of the issue of the forcibly disappeared which they qualify positively as a "crime against humanity". Mr. Jazaïri in his responses, indicated that the President had recognized the liability of the State in those cases. The dilemma is therefore in his view that "If they [security forces] blamed for those crimes today, who will protect the homeland tomorrow?" That would explain, in his view, the need for an amnesty which he was unwilling to recognize as such in the notorious Article 45 of the mentioned ordinance. According to him, "Article 45 protects (..) the security forces from penal actions but not common crimes committed individually." In this sense it must be understood that the 32 State officials mentioned by the delegation since 1999 and who were convicted of torture have committed individual crimes.

The experts also considered that the requirement, for recognizing the disappearance of a person, to prove that he is dead is a very heavy burden for families. The declaration of death by the family, which is essential in order to qualify for compensation, is incompatible with international standards. As already stressed by the Human Rights Committee before him, the CAT also requested that the lists of missing persons be made public. Mr. Jazaïri tried to justify that these lists are not published by decency and respect for families. He considered, to the amazement of those present, that it would be similar to publishing the lists of divorced persons, which constitutes an invasion of privacy and added that it "would provoke protests like those seen at the publication of lists of taxpayers in Italy "!

No rule of law under the state of emergency

Many experts, beginningwith Mrs. Belmir (Morocco), co-rapporteur of the Committee, have focused on the maintaining of a state of emergency and outlined the many consequences arising therefrom: the executive power is strengthened, military justice operates in a framework of emergency, the situation is not as a rule of law and individual freedoms are limited. Mr. Gaye (Senegal) said for his part that this opens the door to all kinds of abuses and asked "when will there be an end" to this state of emergency?
Mr. Jazaïri answered this question by an objection to receive Whereby the "state of emergency is the continuity of the rule of law in certain exceptional circumstances". And he asserted that "as long as terrorism persists, even residual, a state of emergency must be maintained." He also confronted Mrs. Belmir personally, an act which prompted Mr. Grossman to stress the competence, integrity and his full confidence in his colleague.

Several experts, including Ms. Gaer, recalled that Algeria, which continues to affirm its willingness to cooperate with the mechanisms of the UN, has so far rejected requests for visits by special rapporteurs on torture, enforced disappearances and summary executions. It was strongly requested that the Algerian authorities make more concretely committments on this issue.
On this issue, the Algerian ambassador did not once again managed to convince the UN experts claiming that the special rapporteurs "did not specify the purpose of their visit" and that he did not understand why the rapporteur Special torture wanted to come to Algeria.

The experts unanimously agreed with Mr. Chiriboga (Ecuador), who deplored the continued state of emergency, requested clarification on its duration, and expressed his concern about the impunity of perpetrators of crimes while recommending their prosecution. He also declared that there can be no national reconciliation without settling the problem of impunity.

Speaking at the end of the first session, Mr. Jazaïri had expressed hiss astonishment and disapproval suggesting that the experts were subjective and driven by "prejudices" The representative of Algeria then concluded that by listening to their questions, he wondered if they really spoke of Algeria. "We had the impression that you speak of a dictatorship." Mr. Jazaïri did not realize how well he did
describe the situation...