禁止酷刑委员会审议土库曼斯坦的报告（部分翻译）

禁止酷刑委员会

2016年11月22日

禁止酷刑委员会今天下午结束审议土库曼斯坦关于落实《禁止酷刑公约》条款的第二次定期报告。

土库曼斯坦司法部副部长Meret Taganov在呈交报告时表示，政府在国家立法和执法做法中明确规定了禁止酷刑。新的《宪法》草案中包含了关于个人自由的新条款，将促进国际公约的落实，同时也写入了创建人权监察机构的想法。2012年《刑法典》修正案引入了与《公约》第一条相符的酷刑定义，2016年1月通过了关于对证人和刑事诉讼中的其他参与者的国家保护的法律。土库曼斯坦还通过了2016年至2020年国家人权行动计划，推动了国内法律改革的新阶段，旨在更改制度，令其能够有效保障人权和自由。

委员会专家担心，对酷刑的禁止可能会在紧急状态下遭到克减，并促请土库曼斯坦确保对酷刑不得克减的绝对禁止，并确保酷刑和强迫失踪的犯罪者在任何情况下都没有特赦资格。专家表示，尽管存在强化立法的积极措施，但仍缺少禁止酷刑的切实做法，他们对被拘留者受到广泛的酷刑和虐待表示关切。他们十分担心警察在刑事诉讼管理中的过度权力，以及司法部门在行政部门面前缺乏独立性。代表团被问及采取了何种措施以解决并预防对人权维护者、记者和民间社会活动家的报复和暴力行动；确保所有任意拘留、虐待和酷刑案件中的独立调查；以及废除单独拘禁和未经指控拘禁的做法。

Taganov先生在总结发言中表示，此次对话提供了机会，评估落实《公约》条款的进程，并显示了土库曼斯坦在司法领域与联合国条约机构加强合作的需要。

委员会主席延斯·莫德维（Jens Modvig）在总结发言中感谢代表团的建设性对话，并请代表团保证所有与委员会合作准备此次对话的人员不会遭到任何形式的报复。

一名代表回应道，没有理由担忧报复问题。

土库曼斯坦代表团包括司法部、国民议会立法委员会、检察长办公室、最高法院、内政部以及土库曼斯坦常驻联合国日内瓦办事处代表团的代表们。

委员会将在11月23日（周三）上午10点继续公开会议，审议亚美尼亚的第四次定期报告 (CAT/C/ARM/4)。
报告

土库曼斯坦的第二次定期报告可在此查看：CAT/C/TKM/2。

Presentation of the Report

MERET TAGANOV, Deputy Minister of Justice of Turkmenistan, said that significant advances had been made in the legal framework; the prohibition of torture had been enshrined in the legislation and in the law enforcement practice.  Turkmenistan was consistently bringing its national legislation in line with international law, and recently, Parliament had adopted a new draft of the Constitution which contained new articles on personal freedoms which would facilitate the implementation of international conventions, and which reaffirmed that rights and freedoms were sacrosanct and inalienable.  The draft Constitution clearly stipulated that the protection and support of the individual were the main duty of the Government, and that every individual was deemed innocent until proven otherwise; no one was allowed to be subjected to torture or cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment, and no one could be subjected to medical experimentation without prior consent.  The draft had also enshrined the idea of the creation of the Institution of Ombudsmen for Human Rights, and a draft law on the issue had been prepared.

The 2012 amendment to the Criminal Code introduced a definition of torture in line with Article 1 of the Convention, and in January 2016 the law on the State’s protection of witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings had been adopted.  The laws on combatting terrorism and countering extremism had been adopted, while the activities of religious organizations which supported and promoted terrorism were prohibited.  The Law on Customs Agencies contained provisions prohibiting the financing of terrorism.  In addition to improving its legal framework, Turkmenistan had adopted a number of national plans of action, including the National Human Rights Action Plan 2016-2020, the Gender Equality Plan 2015-2020, and the National Action Plan to Counter Human Trafficking 2016-2020.  A number of human rights training programmes had been developed and delivered to law enforcement officers and members of the armed forces, while some human rights training programmes developed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs were also taught in some universities.  Measures had been taken to prevent harsh and cruel treatment in the military, including hazing.

In conclusion, Mr. Taganov stressed that the National Action Plan on Human Rights had given an impetus to the new phase of legal reforms in the country.  Those aimed to improve national legislation, and to transform institutions to enable them to effectively guarantee human rights and freedoms, and implement norms of the international human rights instruments to which Turkmenistan was a party.

Questions by the Country Co-Rapporteurs

FELICE GAER, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Turkmenistan, welcomed the prohibition of torture in the draft Constitution, but noted that it was derogated during a state of emergency.  Turkmenistan should ensure that the prohibition of torture was absolute.  The Country Rapporteur also welcomed the inclusion of the definition of torture and the sanctions for this criminal act in the Criminal Code.

Would any further action be taken to ensure that perpetrators of torture and enforced disappearances were not eligible for amnesty and that the prohibition of torture was absolute and non-derrogable?

While Turkmenistan had taken steps to prohibit torture in law, concrete steps to prohibit it in practice were lacking, including to address the widespread torture and ill treatment of detainees, which was evidenced by the absence of prosecution of State officials for the crime of torture: between 2014 and the first months of 2016, only one prison officer had faced sanctions for misconduct.

There were reports of the continuing practice of incommunicado detention, which violated the provisions of the Convention.  Had these allegations been investigated, including the recent case of the arbitrary and prolonged detention without charge of 19 persons held in pre-trial detention in Anau, who were allegedly connected with the Islamic movement?

What steps were being taken to address and prevent acts of reprisals and violence against human rights defenders, journalists and civil society activists, including the investigation into the torture and killing of Altymurad Annamuradov, the brother of journalist Chary Annamuradov; the death in detention of Ogulsapar Muradova who had died in 2006 of “suicide”, while the autopsy showed death from torture; and arbitrary detention and torture claims of two human rights defenders arrested in connection with the Muradova case? 

Could Turkmenistan reassure the Committee that no acts of reprisals would be taken against any of the persons who had cooperated with this Committee in connection with the review of Turkmenistan?  The Committee took allegations of reprisals seriously and had developed procedures and practices to deal with it, said Ms. Gaer.

What steps were being taken to ensure an independent investigation into allegations of arbitrary detention and torture of two Jehovah’s Witnesses, and cases of severe beating of inmates in Seydi labour camp?

Where were the persons in incommunicado detention in connection with the assassination attempt against the Vice-President in 2002 held, queried an Expert, asking also about the whereabouts of Boris Shikhmuradov, the former Foreign Minister, and Konstantin Shikhmuradov? 

There were more than 100 persons in incommunicado detention in Turkmenistan at the moment, including Bahram Saparov, leader of a Hanafi Sunni Muslim community.  What measures were being taken to abolish the practice of incommunicado detention and to ensure that persons were either released or charged and tried under the rule of law?

What measures were in place to ensure that all legal safeguards were respected, including access to a lawyer which reportedly was often denied to persons deprived of liberty?  Would Turkmenistan adopt measures to require the procurator to bring criminal cases before a judge, adopt a habeas corpus procedure, and establish a central register of persons deprived of liberty which would be accessible by lawyers and family members?

The Committee was also concerned about legal safeguards for juveniles.  Had any police officers been sentenced for failing to ensure the presence of a lawyer or a parent in any proceedings involving minors, and would the law be amended to require the obligatory presence of both lawyer and parent in such proceedings? 

With regard to the establishment of the Institution of Ombudsmen for Human Rights in accordance with the Paris Principles, the delegation was asked who was currently vested with the power of receiving individual communications on issues of torture and ill treatment; whether the draft Constitution still empowered the President to nominate the Ombudsmen; how the institutional independence of the Ombudsmen would be guaranteed; and whether the draft bill on the Ombudsmen would be published before it was actually adopted.

On monitoring of places of detention, the delegation was asked about the timeframe for the ratification of the Optional Protocol, the mandate and the activities of the Monitoring Commission, and the number of visits it had carried out to places of detention?  Were places of detention accessible to the International Committee of the Red Cross and to the United Nations human rights mechanisms?

What measures were being taken to prosecute and punish perpetrators of trafficking in persons, how many cases were there, and how was support and redress to victims being provided?  What was the Government doing to end the practice of forced labour in connection to the cotton harvest?

What was being done to transfer from the President to the judiciary the power to decide on expulsion and refoulement of persons, particularly in cases in which they faced the threat of torture and ill treatment?  What data was available to demonstrate that the new Refugee Law, which had established safeguards for the rights of refugees, was making a difference in practice? 

Non-governmental organizations had reported that the system for the registration of asylum seekers was not functioning and that no new cases had been registered since mid-2005 – was this true?  It was also reported that persons intending to seek asylum in Turkmenistan were not allowed access to the territory, including persons fleeing persecution and torture – could the delegation comment and provide data on the number of asylum requests received, the number of foreigners returned from the border, and the number of foreigners in detention?

KENING ZHANG, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Turkmenistan, took up the issue of regular training on the provisions of the Convention and the absolute prohibition of torture, as well as the rules of interrogation, and asked how such training was provided and to who; how many persons were trained each time; who conducted the training; and what teaching materials were being used. 

How were the medical personnel and others who dealt with detainees and asylum seekers trained in the Istanbul Protocol and in the investigation and documentation of cases of torture?  Which methodologies were in place to assess the effectiveness and impact of training on the reduction of cases of torture and ill-treatment?

The Committee had called upon Turkmenistan to establish a national system for the independent, effective and regular monitoring of all places of detention without prior notice, and to provide permission to independent organizations to visit places of detention.  Could the delegation inform about the Action Plan with the International Committee of the Red Cross for 2015 and 2016, and on the draft Memorandum of Understanding with the International Committee of the Red Cross on cooperation and humanitarian activities for persons deprived of their liberty?

What was being done to implement the Committee’s 2011 recommendation to set up a national system for the independent, effective and regular monitoring of all places of detention; grant the International Committee of the Red Cross unhindered access to detention facilities and enable it to monitor them in accordance with its standard procedures; and to facilitate visits to Turkmenistan by the Special Procedures, including the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Working Group on arbitrary detention?

The delegation was asked to inform on the official investigations into all deaths in custody, to provide the special reports on each of those deaths, and to inform on the cause of death established.

Mr. Zhang recognized the efforts to prevent torture in places of detention, such as the installation of video monitoring and audio recording devices, and asked for information concerning an independent investigation into the reported cases of torture and ill-treatment in places of detention.

The Committee had asked the delegation about the judicial supervision of conditions of detention by the competent organs and the judiciary-ordered investigations into allegations of torture and ill-treatment in detention facilities; the response of Turkmenistan was that “in accordance with current legislation, supervision of conditions of detention was not within the remit of judicial bodies.”  Could the delegation comment?

The delegation was asked to provide statistical data since 2011, disaggregated by place of detention, on the capacity and occupancy rates of all places of detention, indicating the number of pre-trial detainees at each place of detention.  What measures were being taken to reduce prison overcrowding in pre-trial detention facilities, to separate children from the  adult population in the BLD-4 pre-trial detention facility in Balkan Province, and to ensure that detainees with tuberculosis were held separately from the healthy population?

The Co-Rapporteur welcomed the measures to improve the situation in the Dashguz women’s prison, including overcrowding, working under harsh climatic conditions, and the absence of an adequate complaint mechanism, and asked about measures taken to improve conditions in other pre-trial detention facilities and penal colonies.

What measures were being taken or would be taken to improve mechanisms for complaints of torture and ill-treatment in detention facilities, and which would meet the legal requirement to be without institutional or hierarchical connection with the alleged perpetrators?

Could the delegation comment on claims that the creation of the Turkmenistan Presidential Commission in 2007 to review citizens’ complaints of abuse had not resulted in accountability of any members of the security forces for abuses?  What had been done since the last review in 2011 to incorporate in the law the explicit provisions on the right of victims of torture and ill-treatment to redress, including fair and adequate compensation and as full a rehabilitation as possible?

The Committee remained concerned about the reported lack of implementation of the rights of victims of torture and ill-treatment to redress and compensation, and the lack of examples of cases in which individuals had received such compensation.  What had Turkmenistan done to implement Article 14 of the Convention concerning redress for victims of torture?

Non-governmental organizations reported heavy reliance by the judiciary on self-incriminatory statements made by accused persons during interrogation, often resulting from alleged ill-treatment, which were admitted as evidence in court.  Could the delegation comment and inform on any actual cases in which the evidence obtained through torture, ill-treatment or any other illegal means was excluded by a court?

Questions by the Experts

Another Expert noted that the international standard for living space in prisons was four square meters per prisoner, adding that in Turkmenistan it had been set at 3 square meters.  Turkmenistan had a very high rate of incarceration, of 543 prisoners per 100,000 citizens, while conditions in prisons were appalling, and marked by overcrowding, violence, and frequent inmate deaths.  The prevalence of tuberculosis among inmates seemed to be under-reported.  It had been reported that between May 2015 and May 2016, 30 inmates had died in special colony LBK-11 from cardiovascular diseases, and that 63 had died in the prison hospital after they were transferred there from the same colony. 

Could the delegation comment on the conditions of detention?

Another Expert took up the issue of fundamental guarantees and the independence of the judicial system, noting with concern the interference of the executive in the judiciary, as well as an omnipresence of people in the judicial proceedings who in fact should only have an auxiliary role.  Such management of procedures was detrimental to the rights of those on trial.  What measures were being taken to address this situation, and to strengthen fundamental guarantees and the power of the judiciary in their important task of ensuring the rule of law?

The treatment of minors in detention was another issue of concern.

Recognizing the improvements in conditions of detention of women resulting from the building of the women prison in Dashguz, another Expert raised concern about the frequent use of solitary confinement, full body searches and confiscation of property, and poor access to medical services.

Was there any progress in recognizing the capacity of the Committee to receive individual complaints?  Which independent complaint mechanism was available in prisons?

Turkmenistan had reported that 14 complaints of ill-treatment had been received in 2015 and during the first six months of 2016 – had investigations been conducted and were they administrative or criminal in nature?

Responses by the Delegation

Deep changes were taking place in Turkmenistan, said a delegate, with Presidential initiatives and Constitutional reforms moving the society to multiparty democracy and a market economy.  Legislation was based on international norms and standards: for example, article 33 of the new Constitution not only quoted articles from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but it established firm protection of all from torture and ill-treatment, and from scientific or medical experiments.  The Constitution recognized human rights and freedoms as set out in international laws.

Turkmenistan had acceded to all relevant United Nations human rights instruments, ensured their application throughout the country, and it actively cooperated with the United Nations treaty bodies.  Torture was criminalized in 2012 and the legislation was fully in compliance with the relevant articles of the Convention. 

Legislation could be suspended in exceptional circumstances of martial law, and in those cases only pursuant to the limits set out by the Convention.  There was a law which determined what constituted exceptional circumstances and martial law.  All Constitutional rights and freedoms were upheld, with the exception of those which could be suspended under martial law.  The relevant Ministry was obliged to inform the United Nations Secretary-General about the temporary suspension of fundamental rights and freedoms and explain why such a decision was taken.  Torture and ill-treatment were not authorised in any exceptional circumstances, including martial law, which meant that the prohibition of torture was absolute.

The President had instigated the Ombudsmen Institution, while the new version of the Constitution allowed Parliament to choose and appoint Ombudsmen based on a proposal by the President.  The law was due to be enacted soon.  It reflected a number of international provisions and standards, Turkmenistan’s own experience in dealing with human rights, as well as relevant General Assembly resolutions.

The draft law on the Institution of the Ombudsmen would soon be adopted by Parliament, said a delegate and confirmed that it contained international experiences in the area of national human rights institutions and provided for the appointment of Ombudsmen on the proposal made by the President.  The draft bill also set out the principles for the operation of the Institution, which were in fact the Paris Principles.  The United Nations Development Programme office in Turkmenistan had provided an international expert to assess the draft bill.  The Institution of the Ombudsmen would be independent and a public and transparent process of appointment would be assured, as well as the clear mandate.  Sufficient funding for the full functioning of the Institution had been provided.  The mandate would be in keeping with international standards, and the adoption of the draft law would enable it to undertake unannounced visits to places of detention.

Several national plans had been adopted over the past several years, including the National Action Plan for Human Rights, the National Action Plan for Gender Equality, and the National Plan to Counter Trafficking in Human Beings.  The Human Rights Plan 2016-2020 had provided for invitations to United Nations Special Procedures, and following consultations with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a programme of visits was currently being drafted.

The National Action Plan to Counter Trafficking in Human Being had been adopted in 2016, in collaboration with the International Organization for Migration, and the law to counter trafficking in human beings had been adopted.  It was based on relevant international instruments and the recommendations by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.  The law defined the basic State policy in countering trafficking in persons and set out standards of support provided to victims, including compensation.  In order to align domestic legislation with international norms in this regard, several amendments had been proposed to the Criminal Code which would soon be adopted by Parliament, while the Code on Administrative Procedure would incorporate liability for illicit information about victims of the crime of trafficking in persons and for publicly disclosing their whereabouts.  Over the last two years, four criminal cases of trafficking in persons had been prosecuted, with four perpetrators receiving prison sentences.

Responding to questions concerning amendments to domestic legislation to ensure the right of victims of torture to compensation and reparation, the delegation explained that this was being achieved with Constitutional amendments, while the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for reparation to individuals for damages caused by illegal detention.

The Law on Countering Terrorism of 2003 was being constantly updated to take into account the most modern ways to counter terrorism; another amendment was being prepared by Parliament.  There had been no complaints of violations in relation to the implementation of this law since 2015.  In October 2016, the Law to Counter Legalization of Criminal Proceeds and Financing Terrorism had been enacted, which was based on the 40 recommendations to curb money-laundering and the financing of terrorism issued by the Financial Action Task Force on Money-Laundering.

The Criminal Procedure Code was obligatory for all participants in criminal trials.  Investigative bodies were entitled to detain people when there was an objective suspicion that a crime had been committed, up to 72 hours, and up to 10 days upon the approval by a prosecutor.  The detention of juveniles could only happen in exceptional circumstances, and depended on the gravity of the crime.  Each detention must be documented and recorded.  The family must be notified of the act of detention and the location of the detainee within 24 hours; or immediately in the case of the detention of a juvenile.

Turkmenistan had been a party to the Convention since 1991 and had reported twice to the Committee, said a delegate, adding that Turkmenistan was deepening its cooperation with the Committee, and was also working on ratifying the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and the Rome Statute.

The independence of the judiciary was ensured and judges were appointed by the President for a five-year mandate.  Judges were appointed based on their experience, and could only be released from duty based on a decision of the Judicial Commission.  Turkmenistan was looking into adopting judicial tenure for life. 

The new draft Constitution stated that a person could only be punished in accordance with the law, and could not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, or be a subject of medical treatment without consent.  It also contained a presumption of innocence.  The Code of Criminal Procedure stated that a confession could not be seen as a proof of guilt in the absence of any evidence.  Accusations must be backed by evidence, and all evidence obtained illegally could not be admitted in court.

The Penal Enforcement Code had been adopted in March 2011 and was applied on conditions of detention in prison facilities, where living standards had been brought up to conform to the law.  Prisoners enjoyed 4 square meters of living space, with the exception of maximum security facilities, where it was limited to three square meters.  Turkmenistan had invested more than $ 61 million for the construction and repair of facilities, and purchase of medical equipment. 

Medical and preventive care was available to detainees in line with the health law; it was provided through medical facilities in each facility, while specialized medical services were available through hospitals.  Special medical facilities with modern equipment were available in women’s colonies.  About $ 1.8 million had been spent since 2012 to purchase modern medical equipment.

Audio and video recording equipment was being installed in police offices, remand centres and detention sites, as a concrete measure to prevent torture, and to ensure that all interrogations and questionings were recorded. 

There was no specific offence of domestic violence in the legislation, although unlawful acts of degradation, humiliation or cruelty in the domestic sphere and inflicting bodily injuries were criminalized.  Under the National Action Plan on Gender Equality to 2020, a survey would be carried out among women about violence.  Local police units would carry out a twice-yearly initiative known as The Family, during which checks would be conducted in the homes of persons who had previously committed crimes against family members; anti-social families would be placed on a special registry, and legal consequences of illegal actions of individuals would be explained to them.

Ongoing training sessions were provided to staff of penitentiary facilities in detecting and documenting cases of torture, and on the provisions of the code of conduct for law enforcement agencies, the Penal Enforcement Code, and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners.

The Plan of Cooperation between Turkmenistan and the International Committee of the Red Cross was an annual cooperation plan; the plan for 2016 included the promotion of international humanitarian law in penitentiary facilities, visits to places of detention, round tables and cooperation with the Red Crescent.

It had been established that Ms. Muradova’s death in detention had been due to suicide and no criminal investigation had been opened.

Responding to concerns raised about the use of forced labour during the cotton harvest, the delegate said that agriculture accounted for more than five per cent of the gross domestic product and that an important investment was being made in job creation in this sector.  Significant support and incentives were being given to farmers, who also received subsidies for wheat and cotton.  There were 515 rural associations, which were involved in cotton production.  Forced labour was prohibited by law.

The delegate explained that Turkmenistan had provided a wealth of information in connection to cases raised by the Experts, and said that Altymurad Annamuradov had a heart problem and had died at home from heart failure; Annakurban Amanklychev had suffered no torture during his time in detention; and Sapardurdy Khajiev had been released in 2003 following Presidential pardon, and as he had been criminally liable compensation had not been provided.

Every male citizen had a Constitutional duty to carry out the military service. 

Unregistered religious activity was unlawful and could be punished.  Currently, 130 organizations were inscribed in the register of religious organizations.

Turkmenistan had learned from the path and was seeking to strengthen the implementation of the Convention; dialogue with human rights treaty bodies was a part of the process to push nations to do better.

Follow-up Questions by the Experts

FELICE GAER, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Turkmenistan, asked when Turkmenistan would invite the Special Rapporteur on torture, who had asked to visit in 2003, and the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances.

Could the delegation explain the appointment and dismissal of Ombudsmen, which was one indicator of the Institution of Ombudsmen’s independence, if Ombudsmen could speak with detainees in private, and what was the procedure specified in the draft law on Ombudsmen on receiving of complaints?

Were autopsies routinely carried out for all deaths in custody and were the results routinely given to families?

Did the International Committee of the Red Cross delegate have an opportunity to speak privately with detainees in facilities they visited?

Prior to her death in custody in 2006, Ogulsapar Muradova had written to her family that she had been mistreated and brutalized – had her death ever been investigated?  Where were Boris Shikhmuradov, the former Foreign Minister, and Konstantin Shikhmuradov, arrested in connection with the assassination attempt against the Vice-President in 2002 and held since then in incommunicado detention?

KENING ZHANG, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Turkmenistan, welcomed the enactment of the new law on refugees in 2012, but was concerned about reports of no asylum seekers registered in Turkmenistan since 2005, which indicated that asylum seekers were not allowed to enter, or that the asylum procedure was very lengthy and cumbersome.  In 2015, 6,000 asylum requests had been pending action by the authorities. 

Turkmenistan should ensure that all children born in its territory were fully registered at birth, regardless of the nationality or residency status of their parents.

Other Committee Experts asked why the living space in maximum security prisons was below the accepted minimum standard of four square meters, wondered about the independence of the judiciary vis-à-vis the executive, and raised concern about the exorbitant power of the police in the management of criminal procedure.

FELICE GAER, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Turkmenistan, asked whether provisions required the presence of both the parent and a lawyer in cases involving juveniles; about the case of severely beaten prisoners in a labour camp, and the cases of Jehovah’s Witnesses; as well as cases of reprisals against journalists and human rights defenders.

Responses by the Delegation

The National Action Plan for Human Rights 2016-2020 provided for visits by United Nations Special Procedures; Turkmenistan was holding consultations with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to establish the programme of visits, based on which Special Rapporteurs would be invited to visit the country.

The Ombudsmen would have the mandate to visit detention facilities, to speak in private with detainees, and to accept complaints. 

The body of Ogulsapar Muradova had been examined by medical personnel, and the only bruises found on her body were of the hanging, confirming suicide.  That was why a criminal investigation had not been opened into her death and her body had been returned to the family.  Autopsies were routinely carried out to establish the cause of each death in custody. 

A Memorandum of Understanding with the International Committee of the Red Cross had been drafted, and the consultation process was currently ongoing.

Concluding Remarks

MERET TAGANOV, Deputy Minister of Justice of Turkmenistan, reassured the Experts that their constructive proposals would be carefully examined and considered.  This dialogue was an opportunity to assess the progress in implementing the provisions of the Convention, and had shown the need to further the cooperation in the legal sphere with United Nations treaty bodies.

JENS MODVIG, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the constructive dialogue and asked Turkmenistan to reassure the Committee that there would be no reprisals against persons cooperating with the Committee in the preparation for this dialogue.

A delegate said that there was no reason to worry about reprisals.  Turkmenistan was aware of the importance of civil society organizations and their work, including by providing alternative reports to the Committee.

__________________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr