Latest news with #InhumanorDegradingTreatmentorPunishment
Daily Maverick
5 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Trump's deportation deals signal a troubling shift in US-Africa relations
Eswatini and South Sudan are just two on a list of many African countries America has asked to accept violent criminals. US President Donald Trump's policy of deporting foreign nationals convicted of violent crimes has sparked a global uproar. It also highlights the stark power imbalance between the US and developing countries, and raises serious concerns about security risks, human rights abuses and the denigration of international humanitarian law. The controversy started in March when the US paid El Salvador $5-million to incarcerate more than 250 Venezuelan deportees accused of gang affiliations, in a maximum-security prison notorious for human rights abuses. Though the deal's terms remain unknown, the rewards appear to include a White House visit and endorsement of President Nayib Bukele, despite alarm over his repression of civil liberties. Since then, the Trump administration has expanded this policy to Africa, with recent deportations of individuals from countries such as Vietnam, Jamaica and Yemen to South Sudan and Eswatini. The Department of Homeland Security justified the decision by saying their home countries refused 'to take them back'. The deportations were enabled by a June US Supreme Court ruling that allows migrants to be sent to third countries without notice or legal recourse. The judgement overrules protections in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that prevent deportations to countries where people are at risk of torture. Despite the US being a party to the convention, the supreme court's conservative majority set aside those safeguards, granting the government broad authority to expedite deportations. The majority opinion provided no reasons for its findings. In contrast, the minority opinion stressed that life-and-death matters required careful attention and adherence to the rule of law. The abandonment of international law by way of the court's ruling also casts doubt on whether it intends to uphold America's obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. These frameworks prohibit the return of refugees to countries where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. In April, the US reportedly paid Rwanda $100,000 to accept an Iraqi refugee accused by Iraq of having ties to Islamic State. The decision was taken despite a 2023 US State Department report detailing Rwanda's harsh and life-threatening prison conditions. Similarly, The New York Times recently reported that a US diplomat urged Eswatini officials in March to accept deportees even though another State Department report documented human rights abuses there, including extrajudicial killings and torture. These concerns seem warranted. On 31 July, the Southern Africa Litigation Centre filed an urgent high court application against Eswatini's correctional services department for denying the deportees access to legal counsel. Rights implications aside, the deportations have deepened public distrust in host country governments. Secrecy surrounding the deals exacerbates instability in both countries, which are already burdened by violence, instability and crackdowns on pro-democracy movements. Many citizens believe the US has used aid and trade to pressure South Sudan and Eswatini into compliance and gain favour with the Trump administration, triggering fears over what was promised in exchange. The US' approach reflects a troubling perception of Africa as a 'dumping ground' for foreign nationals convicted of violent crimes, rather than a strategic partner in global security. But outsourcing migration is not unique to the US. Australia, the UK and European Union have long focused on outsourcing asylum processing and returns to African countries. While aimed at controlling migration, this shifts the administrative burden to nations with limited resources and weak protections. These policies raise ethical and legal questions about how asylum seekers and refugees are treated by Western countries, reflecting a view that Africa's interests are less important than their own. Trump's pledge to 'make America great again' has translated into a sharp focus on expelling foreign nationals convicted of violent crimes, prioritising US interests above all else. In his first six months in office he dismantled US soft power by cutting foreign aid, insisting America had got a raw deal from its global counterparts. This shift was highlighted during an April cabinet meeting when Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasised that instead of asking 'what is good for the world', every diplomatic decision would now ask: 'Is it good for America?' He said that US foreign policy would be guided by whether it made America stronger, safer or richer. Rubio said the Trump administration was 'actively searching for other countries to take people from third countries', stressing this was a global effort. 'We're approaching nations to ask, 'Will you take some of the most despicable human beings as a favour to us? The farther from America, the better.'' In May, CBS News reported that the US had asked Angola, Benin, Equatorial Guinea and Libya to accept deportees. In June, The New York Times revealed that the Trump administration pressured 58 countries, many in Africa, to accept deportees. This 'intense diplomatic campaign' targeted nations facing US travel bans, visa restrictions or tariffs, raising concerns that some leaders may comply regardless of whether it serves their country's interests. And in July, Trump hosted a mini-summit in the White House with the leaders of Senegal, Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Gabon. The meeting was mainly about the five countries' critical mineral wealth, although making deals on accepting US deportees has been suggested as the underlying motive. According to Nigeria's foreign minister, Yusuf Tuggar, the US was 'mounting considerable pressure' on African countries to accept deportees. He said Nigeria outright rejected the deal, saying the country had enough problems of its own. Such policies are likely to erode years of diplomatic progress and US-Africa relations, especially in intelligence, counterterrorism and anti-trafficking, which have already suffered significant setbacks during Trump's second term. These actions show that Trump is using diplomacy to secure America's short-term interests at the expense of human rights and regional security in Africa. As African nations reconsider their ties to a Trump administration that treats them as expendable, these deportation policies – shaped by short-term, unilateral decisions amid complex global threats – serve the interests of no one, including America. DM
The Hill
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The Supreme Court rewards Trump's outrageous anti-immigrant actions
On Friday night, the Trump administration deported eight migrants to South Sudan after the Supreme Court — for the second time — gave it permission to go ahead regardless of the Constitution, federal statutory law and international law. In her dissenting opinion from the majority's first decision in this case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that 'thousands will suffer violence in far-flung places as a result.' That time has now come. And the justices in the majority are personally responsible. Under a federal statute first enacted in 1952, the government can only deport eligible noncitizens to countries from which they arrived or where they want to be removed. If those options are not feasible, Congress specified that the government can consider countries where the deportees are citizens, where they were born or where they have a residence. If those don't work either, the government can consider 'third-country removal,' or deportation to any 'country with a government that will accept them.' This last route is how more than 200 migrants landed in El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison, where they still remain. And now eight men are in South Sudan. According to their lawyers, they are originally from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and Sudan (which is separate from South Sudan). But there's more. In order to conduct third-country removals, the government must attempt all of the other options first and make a determination that they are all 'impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.' America is also a party to the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which prohibits deporting any person 'to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.' In 1988, Congress passed a statute implementing that treaty, which states that the government shall not 'expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.' So before sending a migrant to a third country, the government is supposed to satisfy these legal criteria as well. Normally, a judge assesses whether the government has met its burden. That's called basic due process. The Trump administration is snubbing them all. After a judge ordered that a Guatemalan man could not be removed to his home country, which he had fled after facing torture for being gay, the Trump administration sent him to a third country, Mexico. Then Mexico sent him to Guatemala. The U.S. government didn't bother to tell the judge that it was even considering a third-country deportation to Mexico, so the man got no due process — the Trump administration just did as it pleased. The administration returned the man to the U.S. in early June after agreeing to comply with a court order, and he was arrested by ICE and moved to an detention facility. After this incident, a group of noncitizens filed a class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi seeking an injunction preventing their own third-country removals without notice and an opportunity to be heard under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The lower court judge issued a temporary injunction on March 28, banning third-country removals without due process. The government appealed. On March 31, despite the injunction, the government put more people on a flight to El Salvador even though they had no connection to that country. On April 18, the lower court issued a second injunction requiring that the government provide noncitizens with notice and an opportunity to be heard in advance of third-country removals. On May 7, the plaintiffs' lawyers learned that the government was reportedly planning to remove 13 more migrants from Laos, Vietnam and the Philippines to Libya without due process — despite the judge's orders. A third injunction followed. Less than two weeks later, it came to light that more third-country deportations, this time to South Sudan, were already en route. The lower court ruled that the government had 'unquestionably' violated its order. But instead of directing that the men be returned to the U.S., it allowed the government to hold due process hearings at a military base in the African country of Djibouti. It was against this backdrop of flagrant violations of the Constitution, federal statutes, an international convention and multiple federal court orders that the far-right majority of the Supreme Court — in a one-paragraph ruling — steamrolled over the lower court and suspended its injunction pending the appeal. No due process hearings, even in Djibouti. The lower court subsequently issued another order renewing its injunction on the grounds that, however the appeal comes out, the government still can't just ignore a federal judge's orders. The Supreme Court majority disagreed, holding that 'such a remedy would serve to 'coerce' the government into 'compliance' and would be unenforceable given our stay of the underlying injunction.' On Monday, the government of El Salvador stated in a report to the U.N. that, despite its $6 million deal with the Trump administration to house American deportees, 'the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities' such as the U.S. Kilmar Abrego Garcia — the one person who made it out of CECOT to face criminal charges in the U.S. — reported that while there he was forced to frog-march, kneel from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., and sustain beatings with boots and wooden batons, threats, hunger, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. If he fell from exhaustion during the kneeling episodes, the guards hit him. He says he lost 31 pounds in two weeks. Meanwhile, South Sudan is facing a humanitarian crisis, with 7.7 million people — over half its population — 'acutely hungry,' according to the U.N. About 1.1 million people have been displaced after nearly five years of conflict between government forces and opposition factions. Health facilities have been forced to shut down, humanitarian workers have been killed and inflation has soared to 180 percent. The worst cholera outbreak in the nation's history has infected 49,000 people, killing over 900. Last year, severe flooding affected 1.4 million people. These are the kinds of matters that federal and international law require the Trump administration to consider before sending people to the clutches of a foreign government. The fact that Trump and his posse don't care was entirely predictable when voters went to the polls on Nov. 5, 2024. The unelected Supreme Court justices have no such excuse. Kimberly Wehle is author of the book 'Pardon Power: How the Pardon System Works — and Why.'
Scoop
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
UN Experts Alarmed By Resumption Of US Deportations To Third Countries, Warn Authorities To Assess Risks Of Torture
GENEVA (8 July 2025) - UN human rights experts today sounded the alarm at the human rights implications of a recent ruling by the United States' Supreme Court that paves the way for deportations of foreign nationals to third countries. The Trump administration's deportation policy allows irregular migrants to be transferred to countries other than their own. 'To protect people from torture and other prohibited cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, enforced disappearances, and risks to life, they must be given an opportunity to express their objections to removal in a legally supervised procedure,' the experts said. 'The US' expedited removal procedure could allow people to be taken to a country other than their own in as little as a single day, without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before a judge,' they said. 'International law is clear that no one shall be sent anywhere where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to serious human rights violations such as torture, enforced disappearance or arbitrary deprivation of life,' the experts said. 'That assessment must be individual as well as country-specific.' They recalled that the United States had accepted obligations to prevent refoulement as enshrined, inter alia, in Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, implicit in Articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees pursuant to its ratification of the 1967 Protocol. 'Other countries that have attempted to outsource their responsibilities have left people stranded in far away places, arbitrarily detained for years on end, and at risk of torture and other inhuman treatment, trafficking, or enforced disappearance,' the experts warned. 'Any diplomatic assurances as to the safety of transferred migrants provided by other countries cannot be taken at face value. The US is required to make a full assessment under its non-refoulement obligations.' 'We urge the United States' Government to refrain from any further removals to third countries, to ensure effective access to legal assistance for those facing deportation, and all such procedures to be subject to independent judicial oversight.' On 23 June 2025, the Supreme Court suspended a lower court order that had blocked forcible removals of foreign nationals to countries not their own due to concerns they had been implemented without adequate human rights safeguards. The specific case involved eight migrants from Myanmar, Cuba, South Sudan, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam, who were deported on a plane reported to be destined for South Sudan. 'It is with deep worry that we understand that the individuals have now been moved from Djibouti, where they were being held on a US military base, and onto South Sudan.' The experts have raised their concerns previously in writing to the Government of the United States and will continue to monitor developments. *The experts: Alice Jill Edwards, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Gehad Madi, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; Morris Tidball-Binz, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Margaret Satterthwaite , the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Ben Saul, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Siobhán Mullally, the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children; Gabriella Citroni, (Chair-Rapporteur), Grażyna Baranowska (Vice-Chair), Aua Baldé, Ana Lorena Delgadillo Pérez, Mohammed Al-Obaidi, the .
Newsweek
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Neil Gorsuch Joins Liberals' Dissent Against Trump DOJ in Immigration Case
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joined liberal justices in dissenting from the majority opinion in an immigration case handed down on Thursday. Why It Matters President Donald Trump's immigration policy and mass deportations have faced legal challenges, with the Supreme Court playing referee on whether many of these policies can stand. On Thursday, the court made a ruling on the case Riley v. Bondi, one of its final rulings of the term. What to Know The case centers around Pierre Riley, a man from Jamaica facing deportation from the United States who had been convicted on drug charges in 2008. After his release in 2021, immigration authorities took him into custody and sought his removal under a final administrative removal order (FARO). Riley did not contest his removal from the U.S. but said he should not be returned to Jamaica under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), citing concerns he could be killed by a drug kingpin if he were sent back to Jamaica. An immigration judge sent his case to a "withholding-only proceeding," which decided whether he could be removed to his home country. During that proceeding, a judge granted deferral of his removal to Jamaica over those concerns. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch poses for an official portrait in Washington, D.C. on October 7, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch poses for an official portrait in Washington, D.C. on October 7, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which opted to enforce the earlier removal order. He petitioned to appeal the order three days later—but the Fourth Circuit found that the petition came more than 30 days after the original order. The court was asked to weigh in on whether Riley's petition "was filed on time because it was filed within 30 days of the BIA order," or if it needed to be filed within 30 days of the original FARO. A second question also focused on whether the 30-day deadline is "jurisdictional." A majority of justices determined the FARO, not the BIA ruling, was not the final order of removal. "The statutory text and our precedents make clear that the FARO is the final order of removal in this case, and withholding-only proceedings do not disturb the finality of an otherwise final order of removal," the Court wrote in the majority opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito. However, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, joined the three liberal justices in dissenting from the case. The dissent was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and argued that the removal order did not become final until after the Board of Immigration rejected his CAT appeal. "The question is when Riley should have petitioned for judicial review of the Board's order," the dissent reads. "Was his petition due 30 days after the Government first notified him he would be deported, well over a year before the Board issued the order Riley sought to challenge? Or was it instead due 30 days after the order denying his claim for deferral of removal? The answer is clear: One should not be required to appeal an order before it exists." Sotomayor wrote that the majority's opinion rendered the statute in question "incoherent," writing that they held he "should have appealed the order one year and three months before the Board entered it." The dissent noted the result of the ruling could be that "noncitizens facing expedited removal will be forced to file immediate appeals of their removal orders in every case, simply to protect their right to judicial review in the event they lose their ongoing withholding-only proceedings." Notably, Gorsuch did not join part of the dissent in which Sotomayor warned of "untold damage to basic principles of finality and judicial review." On the other hand, justices all agreed on the second question that the 30-day deadline is not jurisdictional but merely a claims-processing rule. What People Are Saying Sotomayor wrote in the dissent: "Perhaps the idea is that noncitizens may seek judicial review of their CAT claims only if, by luck or happenstance, they also have a challenge to the underlying order of removal. The majority's finality rule, however, prevents CAT appeals even under those circumstances. After all, courts will likely finish reviewing the removal order before the Board ever hears the associated CAT claim." Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, wrote: "Riley has undoubtedly received a final order of removal. But, he has never sought judicial review of that order pursuant to the procedures outlined in §1252. This Court has held that 'CAT orders may be reviewed together with final orders of removal in a court of appeals.' Id., at 581 (emphasis added). But, as far as I am aware, we have never held that judicial review of CAT orders is available when an alien does not petition for review of a final order of removal." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is set to release the final decisions of its current term on Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts announced from the bench Thursday. Among the six remaining cases is a high-stakes challenge over whether President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship can be implemented nationwide. Other closely watched rulings include a dispute involving Maryland parents seeking to exempt their children from school lessons featuring LGBTQ storybooks due to religious objections, and a redistricting battle over the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana.
Scoop
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
UN Committee Against Torture Publishes Findings On Armenia, France, Mauritius, Monaco, Turkmenistan And Ukraine
GENEVA (2 May 2025) - The UN Committee against Torture (CAT) today issued its findings on Armenia, France, Mauritius, Monaco, Turkmenistan and Ukraine after reviewing the six States parties in its latest session. The findings contain the Committee's main concerns and recommendations on each country's implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Key highlights include: Armenia The Committee commended Armenia's new Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes, noting the broader definition of torture, stronger procedural safeguards, and additional non-custodial measures. However, it was concerned that the minimum penalty for torture remained too low and recommended that the State party ensure that penalties are commensurate with the gravity of the crime. It also raised concern about the persistently high number of pretrial detainees and called for better training for prosecutors and judges, adequate resources, and clear regulations to support using non-custodial alternatives. The Committee welcomed the State party's initial efforts to move toward a deinstitutionalised model of psychiatric and social care but was concerned about the continued lack of community-based services and legal safeguards for residents, particularly regarding complaint mechanisms and reviews of involuntary placements. It urged the State party to strengthen legal and procedural protections in law and practice. The Committee also raised concerns about the use of physical and chemical restraints, recommending reduced reliance on coercion and strict compliance with domestic and international standards. France The Committee expressed its deep concern over numerous reports of excessive use of force, including lethal force, and ill-treatment by law enforcement officers, particularly during traffic stops, arrests, forced evictions, and demonstrations. It noted that these abuses disproportionately affect minorities, especially people of African descent, people of Arab origin or Muslim religion, Indigenous peoples, and non-nationals. The Committee urged France to ensure prompt, impartial investigations by an independent body, accountability for perpetrators, and adequate redress for victims and their families. The Committee was concerned about persistent prison overcrowding and poor material conditions in many detention facilities, particularly in overseas territories. It also stated its concern over ongoing violence among detainees and reports of ill-treatment by prison staff. The Committee recommended that France continue its efforts to improve detention conditions and to reduce overcrowding in prisons and other detention places, including by establishing a binding prison regulation mechanism and resorting to non-custodial measures and sentence adjustments. It further called for thorough investigations into all allegations of ill-treatment, accountability for perpetrators, redress for victims, and stronger measures to prevent, monitor and control violence among detainees. Mauritius The Committee was concerned by numerous reports of torture, deaths in police custody, and police violence and abuse in Mauritius, as well as allegations of police interference in investigations of complaints of their misconduct, victims' fear of reprisals, and ineffective protective measures. While noting the State party's pledge to adopt a code of practice and strengthen police training, the Committee urged Mauritius to ensure the Independent Police Complaints Commission is adequately resourced and empowered to investigate all torture and ill-treatment promptly, impartially and effectively and prosecute perpetrators as appropriate. It also called for stronger measures to prevent reprisals targeting victims, their families, and legal representatives. Particularly about reported deaths in police custody, the Committee noted with concern that only a few cases had led to investigations or prosecutions. It called upon Mauritius to ensure all such deaths are promptly and independently investigated, including through independent forensic examinations, in line with the Minnesota Protocol. It also asked the State party to provide the Committee with detailed data on all deaths in detention, their causes, and investigation outcomes. Monaco The Committee raised concerns about reports that the 'Maison d'arrêt de Monaco' is structurally incompatible with its current purpose and unsuitable for prolonged detention. It was also concerned that pre-trial detainees still need specific authorisation from judicial authorities to receive visitors or make phone calls. Acknowledging the authorities' land-use constraint, the Committee urged Monaco to consider moving prisoners to a new detention facility that meets international standards on deprivation of liberty and the prevention of ill-treatment. In the meantime, it recommended further efforts to improve living conditions at the current 'Maison d'arrêt de Monaco', including by allowing visits and phone calls for pre-trial detainees without requiring special authorization from the judicial authorities. The Committee was concerned about the reported precarious working conditions faced by many migrant domestic and undeclared workers, especially in the construction, hospitality, and catering sectors, as well as on private yachts. It also expressed concern over the current legislation that criminalises irregular migration. The Committee urged the State party to strengthen the labour inspectorate to better monitor the situation of migrant workers, in particular domestic workers, including with regards to their recruitment and working conditions. It also recommended increasing efforts to inform migrant workers about their rights and how to file complaints. Finally, it called on the State party to repeal the legal provisions criminalising irregular migration and to consider ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Turkmenistan The Committee was alarmed at persistent reports of widespread torture and ill-treatment in Turkmenistan, including severe beating and other serious abuse often used to extract confessions, both in pretrial detention and prisons. It was particularly disturbed by the targeted abuse of individuals perceived to be homosexual, highlighting the discriminatory and systemic nature of such treatment. Despite some audio-visual monitoring in detention facilities, these measures have proven insufficient. The Committee said the lack of open investigations and prosecutions reflects a worrying pattern of institutional impunity. It urged the State party to adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards torture, including a clear statement from senior leadership, and to ensure all allegations are promptly investigated, perpetrators held accountable, and victims fully compensated. The Committee welcomed the adoption of the Ombudsman Act and Turkmenistan Ombudsperson's recent 'B' status accreditation by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). However, it raised concerns over the Ombudsperson's limited independence and authority, particularly the failure to address serious human rights violations such as torture, enforced disappearances, and gender-based violence. The lack of received complaints also raised doubts about the accessibility and credibility of the mechanism. The Committee urged full implementation of GANHRI's 2024 recommendations, including establishing an independent body with the capacity to conduct unannounced visits to all detention sites and private interviews with detainees and respond effectively to abuse allegations. Ukraine The Committee acknowledged the challenges Ukraine faces in implementing the Convention due to the Russian Federation's full-scale aggression and occupation of its territory. Nonetheless, it recalled that the Convention applies throughout Ukraine's territory and called for the State party to take all possible steps to ensure implementation of the Convention, accountability, and access to truth, justice, and reparation for victims. While noting Ukraine's commitment to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law during the ongoing conflict, the Committee expressed concern over reports of torture, ill-treatment, and other violations against Russian prisoners of war by Ukrainian forces. It underscored that the prohibition of torture is absolute and non-derogable, that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture and that the obligations stemming from this prohibition were not subject to reciprocity, and reminded Ukraine of its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law. The Committee asked the State party to continue to make clear condemnation of such violations at the highest levels, conduct prompt and impartial investigations into all torture allegations, and ensure full procedural safeguards, including access to medical screening upon every transfer and entry into a new facility for all captured combatants. The Committee expressed concern that initial confidential medical examinations are not routinely granted in Ukraine and are reportedly often carried out in the presence of police officers. It called upon Ukraine to guarantee fundamental legal safeguards for all detainees from the outset of deprivation of liberty, including the right to request and receive a medical examination by an independent doctor, free of charge, or a doctor of their choice, conducted out of hearing and sight of police officers, unless the doctor concerned explicitly requests otherwise. The above findings, officially known as Concluding Observations, are now available on the session page.
