Deprivation of liberty on distant water fishing fleets: a new impetus for the OPCAT monitoring?

ABSTRACT

Detention monitoring under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture is today broadly considered as covering a plethora of non-traditional places, including but not limited to various care facilities, institutions for children or migrant shelters. The COVID-19 pandemic has further shown that there is an abundance of public health measures that likely involve a deprivation of personal liberty. In addition to the challenges brought by the world’s pandemic, there remain primordial man-made ‘illnesses’ such as workers’ exploitation, forced labour, slavery and trafficking in person that likewise concerns deprivation of liberty and ill-treatment. This is especially true for documented prison-like conditions on distant water fishing fleets where workers are confined to the physical boundaries of the ship and could not leave the terrible conditions to which they are often subjected. Therefore, a question has emerged as to what elements constitute the ‘place of detention’ under the Optional Protocol and what is the extent of detention monitoring? Examining the use of the OPCAT on the specific situation of ill-treatment on Taiwan fishing fleets is believed to put some flash to the ongoing discussion and clarify further the monitoring mandate of the National Preventive Mechanism.

KEYWORDS:

• OPCAT
• NPM
• place of detention
• fishing vessels
• forced labour
• due diligence

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Marie Lukasová and Steven Caruana for reading the earlier draft of this manuscript and providing fruitful comments and ideas. Many thanks also to the two anonymous reviewers for their critical notes and suggestions. Moreover, I should not forget to appreciate friendly and stimulating research environment at the Academia Sinica, Institutum Iurisprudentiae in Taiwan that highly contributed to this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 International Labour Organisation, ‘Fishers First: Good Practices to End Labour Exploitation at Sea’ (Report, ILO 2016) (‘ILO 2016’).

2 Greenpeace, ‘Choppy Waters: Forced Labour and Illegal Fishing in Taiwan’s Distant Water Fisheries’ (Report, Greenpeace East Asia 2020) (‘Greenpeace 2020’).

3 G Macfadyen and others, ‘The IUU Fishing Index 2019’ (Report, Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Limited and the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime 2019).

4 Greenpeace 2020 (n 2) 2.

5 Justine Nolan and Gregory Bott, ‘Global Supply Chains and Human Rights: Spotlight on Forced Labour and Modern Slavery Practices’ (2018) 24(1) Australian Journal of Human Rights 44–45 <https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2018.1441610> accessed 11 May 2022.

6 ILO 2016 (n 1) 8; International Labour Organisation, ‘Work in Fishing in ASEAN Region: Protecting the Rights of Migrant Fishers’ (Report, ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 2014) (‘ILO 2014’); Greenpeace, ‘Dodgy Prawns: The Hidden Environmental and Social Cost of Prawns in Australia’ (Report, Greenpeace 2019) (‘Greenpeace 2015’).

7 Greenpeace 2015 (n 6); United States Department of Labor, ‘List of Goods Produced by Child Labor of Forced Labor’ (Report, United States Bureau of International Labor Affairs) (‘US Department of Labour’).

8 ILO 2016 (n 1) 30; Greenpeace 2020 (n 2) 3.

9 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, ‘Governments Must Do More to Prevent Slavery and Exploitation During COVID-19 Pandemic’ (UNHCR, 30 November 2020) <www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/11/governments-must-do-more-prevent-slavery-and-exploitation-during-covid-19> accessed 19 July 2021.

10 Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 18 December 2002 A/RES/57/199) arts 3, 4 (‘OPCAT’).

11 UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ‘Ninth Annual Report’ 22 March 2016 CAT/OP/C/57/4 19 (‘SPT 2016’); UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ‘Report on the Visit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to Mexico’ 20 September 2018 CAT/OP/MEX/2/Add.1 13.

12 Rachel Murray and others, The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture (1st edn, Oxford Scholarship Online 2011) 159.

13 International Review Committee, ‘Concluding Observations and Recommendations on the Initial State Report on the Implementation of the International Human Rights Covenants’ (1 March 2013) <www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/media/14391/5415171652675.pdf?mediaDL=true&gt> accessed 23 March 2022, para 38 (‘IRC 2013’); International Review Committee, ‘Concluding Observations and Recommendations on the Second State Report on the Implementation of the ICCPR’ (20 January 2017) para 33 <www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/17998/17999/18001/18006/Lpsimplelist> accessed 23 March 2022 (‘IRC 2017’); Covenants Watch, ‘2020 ICCPR & ICESCR Parallel Report’ (Parallel Report, Covenants Watch 2020) 205–13 (‘Covenants Watch 2020’); Greenpeace, ‘Made in Taiwan: Government Failure and Illegal, Abusive and Criminal Fisheries’ (Report, Greenpeace New Zealand 14 April 2016) (‘Greenpeace 2016’).

14 Covenants Watch 2020 (n 13) 206–07; Greenpeace 2020 (n 2) 5, 30; Greenpeace 2016 (n 13) 15.

15 Covenants Watch 2020 (n 13) 208–12; Greenpeace 2016 (n 13) 35; Greenpeace, ‘Misery at Sea: Human Suffering in Taiwan’s Distant Water Fishing Fleets’ (Report, 2018) 20–27 (‘Greenpeace 2018’).

16 Since Taiwan is not a member state of the United Nations, it has developed its own system of ‘ratification’ of the UN treaties. The treaties’ obligations are implemented by means of an implementation act that grants the international commitments a domestic legal force. Although the implementation act has no international effect, it is binding to all institutions and persons in Taiwan. See more on the ‘self-made ratification model’ at <https://en.covenantswatch.org.tw/treaty-reviews/> accessed 4 August 2021.

17 Steven Dewulf, The Signature of Evil (1st edn, Intersentia 2011) 551; Paul D Kenny, ‘The Meaning of Torture’ (2010) 42(2) The Journal of Northeastern Political Science Association 23 <www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1057/pol.2009.21> accessed 5 November 2021.

18 Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, ‘Interim Report’ (A/71/298, UN General Assembly 2016) para 8; UNGA Res 31/31 (24 March 2016) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/31/31; Association for the Prevention of Torture, ‘Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering’ (Report, APT 2021).

19 OPCAT art 19(a).

20 Association for the Prevention of Torture, ‘Preventing Torture, Upholding Dignity: From Pledges to Actions’ (The Global Forum on the OPCAT 2012) 39.

21 Association for the Prevention of Torture, ‘The Optional Protocol Implementation Manual’ (APT 2010) 97 (‘APT 2010’).

22 OPCAT art 4(1).

23 Madeline Gleeson, ‘Monitoring Places of Immigration Detention in Australia under OPCAT’ (2019) 25(1) Australian Journal of Human Rights 153 <https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2019.1588059> accessed 1 December 2021 (‘Gleeson 2019’).

24 Report of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ‘Visit to Portugal Undertaken from 1 to 10 May 2018: Observations and Recommendations Addressed to a State Party’ (3 July 2019) UN Doc CAT/OP/PRT/1, 24; Report of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ‘Visit to Poland Undertaken from 8 to 19 July 2018: Recommendations and Observations Addressed to the National Preventive Mechanism’ (30 March 2020) UN Doc CAT/OP/POL/RONPM/1, 28; Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, ‘Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’ (2017) UN DOC A/HRC/36/37, 52; APT 2010 (n 21) 55; Association for the Prevention of Torture, ‘Monitoring Places of Detention’ (Practical guide) 23.

25 Marie Steinbrecher, ‘Challenges Around Preventing Torture’ [2018] 38 ECAN Bulletin <https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/conference-ECAN-bulletin-October-2018.pdf> accessed 2 February 2022; Michael White, ‘The Role and Scope of OPCAT in Protecting Those Deprived of Liberty: A Critical Analysis of the New Zealand Experience’ (2019) 25(1) Australian Journal of Human Rights <https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2019.1588055> accessed 12 February 2022; Steven Caruana, ‘Enhancing Best Practice Inspection Methodologies for Oversight Bodies with an Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture Focus’ (Report, Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia 2018) 42–43; Antenor Hallo de Wolf, ‘Visits to Less Traditional Places of Detention: Challenges Under the OPCAT’ (2009) 6(1) Essex Human Rights Review <https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/visits-to-less-traditional-places-of-detention-challenges-under-t> accessed 13 January 2022; Meredith Lea and others, ‘A Disability Aware Approach to Torture Prevention? Australian OPCAT Ratification and Improved Protections for People with Disability’ (2018) 24(1) Australian Journal of Human Rights 8 <https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2018.1441611> accessed 5 January 2022.

26 Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘OPCAT in Australia Consultation Paper: Stage 2’ (Report, AHRC 2018) 33–34.

27 Radu-Florin Geamănu, ‘Implementing a National Preventive Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture and other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Places of Detention in Romania’ (2012) 19(2) Lex ET Scientia International Journal 48 <https://tinyurl.com/yck4ab4v> accessed 21 December 2021.

28 APT 2010 (n 21) 55.

29 The SPT has repeatedly recommended to a number of States Parties and NPMs to extend the visit mandate to these non-traditional places of detention. See, for example, SPT’s recommendations to Kyrgyzstan (CAT/OP/KGZ/2, at para 42); Tunisia (CAT/OP/TUN/2, at para 10); Malta (CAT/OP/MLT/1, at para 34) or Ecuador (CAT/OP/ECU/2, at para 18).

30 Norwegian Parliamentary Ombudsman, ‘Annual Report 2020’ (Report, National Preventative Mechanism against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 2020).

31 Public Defender of Rights of the Czech Republic, ‘Protection Against Ill-Treatment’ (Report of the Public Defender of Rights as the National Preventive Mechanism, 2015).

32 Public Defender of Georgia, ‘Children’s Rights Monitoring Board Houses Run by the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Muslim Confession’ (Report, 2015).

33 New Zealand Ombudsman, ‘Chief Ombudsman to Begin Inspections of COVID-19 Isolation Facilities’ (Ombudsman Media Release, 17 June 2020) <www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/news/chief-ombudsman-begin-inspections-covid-19-isolation-facilities> accessed 20 July 2021.

34 Austrian Ombudsman Board, ‘Annual Report on the Activities of the Austrian National Preventive Mechanism (NPM)’ (Report, 2019).

35 Author participated in this debate during his service at the Czech NPM. Read more about this specific type of detention places in Office of the Public Defender of Rights of the Czech Republic, ‘Residential Facilities Providing Care Without Authorisation’ (Report, 2015).

36 Children’s Commissioner for England, ‘Who Are They? Where Are They?’ (Report, Children’s Commissioner 2020) 36.

37 Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 (16 May 2019) provisions 1–6.

38 The new system of the ‘Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS)’ which is going to be introduced by the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 (not yet adopted) will apply to individuals residing in domestic settings who need to be deprived of their liberty including the person’s own home or family home and other forms of supported living (information was provided by the UK NPM).

39 This case concerns the mandatory 14-day isolation of 1,700 students in the university campus. Find out more at: <www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/manchester-metropolitan-university-student-lockdown_uk_5f7096c4c5b64deddeef289f>.

40 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, ‘Detention Guidelines’ (Guidelines on the applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum-seekers and alternatives to detention, UNHCR 2012) 9 (‘UNHCR 2012’); Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, ‘Revised Fact Sheet’ (No 26, WGAD 2019); Murray and others (n 12) 77.

41 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, ‘Deliberation No. 11 on Prevention of Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty in the Context of Public Health Emergencies’ (Advance Edited Version, 8 May 2020); Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, ‘Statement by Sir Malcom Evans, Chairperson of the SPT’ (75th Session of the General Assembly, New York 15 October 2020); Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, ‘Advice of the Subcommittee to State Parties and National Preventative Mechanisms Relating to the Coronavirus Disease’ (UNDOC CAT/OP/10, 2020); Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, ‘Advice Provided by the Subcommittee to the National Preventive Mechanism of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Regarding Compulsory Quarantine for Coronavirus’ (UNDOC CAT/OP/9, 2020).

42 Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, ‘Statement by Sir Malcom Evans, Chairperson of the SPT’ (75th Session of the General Assembly, New York 15 October 2020).

43 ibid.

44 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, ‘Report’ (Human Rights Council Thirty-Sixth Session, 19 July 2017) 55; Murray and others (n 12) 77.

45 Murray and others (n 12) 72–73.

46 ibid 77.

47 Dorottya Karsay and Oliver Lewis, ‘Disability, Torture and Ill-Treatment: Taking Stock and Ending Abuse’ (2012) 16(6) The International Journal of Human Rights 818–20 <https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2012.718506> accessed 3 November 2021.

48 OPCAT art 4(1).

49 OPCAT art 4(2).

50 Guzzardi v Italy (Judgment) ECtHR 25781/94 (6 November 1980) [95].

51 ibid.

52 Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (Judgment) ECtHR) 47287/15 (21 November 2019) [54].

53 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ‘Immigration Detention’ (Fact Sheet, CPT/Inf(2017)3, March 2017).

54 Tarak and Depe v Turkey (Judgment) ECtHR 70472/12 (20 September 2012) [61].

55 Storck v Germany (Judgment) ECtHR 61603/00 (16 June 2005) [71]; De Tommaso v Italy (Judgment) ECtHR 43395/09 (23 February 2017) [80].

56 Gillan and Quinton v the United Kingdom (Judgment) ECtHR 4158/05 (12 January 2010).

57 UNHCR 2012 (n 40) 7.

58 Laura Grenfell, ‘OPCAT is Coming – and Now is the Time for SA to Set Up its Monitoring System for All Places of Detention’ (2020) 42(1) The Bulleting: The Law Society of SA Journal 39 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672030> accessed 4 December 2021.

59 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, ‘United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court’ (Report A/HRC/30/37, UN General Assembly 2015) [9]; WGAD 2017 [51].

60 De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (Judgment) ECtHR 2899/66 (18 June 1971) [65].

61 Storck v Germany (n 55) [76].

62 Storck v Germany (n 55) [71]; Stanev v Bulgaria (Judgment) ECtHR 36760/06 (17 January 2017) [132].

63 Manfred Nowak, Moritz Birk and Guiliana Monina (eds), The United Nations Convention Against Torture (2nd edn, Oxford 2019) 745.

64 Greenpeace 2020 (n 2) 2.

65 ibid.

66 ibid 11.

67 Take an example of the notoriously known fishing vessel ‘Da Wang’ operated by Taiwanese nationals and registered in the Republic of Vanuatu. See more in Taipei Times (2020); Greenpeace (2019).

68 Covenants Watch 2020 (n 13).

69 Greenpeace 2016 (n 13); Greenpeace 2018 (n 15), Greenpeace 2020 (n 2); US Department of Labour (n 7).

70 International Review Committee (IRC) is a group of independent international experts who review state reports on human rights implementation in Taiwan in the process of treaty review. Find out more at: <https://en.covenantswatch.org.tw/treaty-reviews/>.

71 IRC 2013 (n 13), IRC 2016 (n 13).

72 National Human Rights Commission, Forum on International Practice of OPCAT-NPM & Human Rights of Fisherman (Conference, 2021) <www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx0Mjg6g3aw> accessed 2 January 2022 (‘National Human Rights Commission 2021’).

73 Covenants Watch 2020 (n 13) 572–74.

74 Gleeson 2019 (n 23) 157.

75 OPCAT art 4(1).

76 J Herman Burgers and Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Dordrecht, 1988) 123; Nowak, Birk and Monina (n 63) 90.

77 Committee against Torture, ‘General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties’ (24 January 2008) 16 (‘CAT 2008’); UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, ‘National Preventive Mechanisms’ 9 December 2010 CAT/OP/12/5 (‘SPT 2010’) 24, 33.

78 CAT 2008 (n 77) 7.

79 Murray and others (n 12) 77.

80 Nowak, Birk and Monina (n 63) 751.

81 ibid 749.

82 ibid 752.

83 ibid.

84 Bevan Marten, Port State Jurisdiction and the Regulation of International Merchant Shipping (Springer 2014) 13.

85 Marten (n 84) 14; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (effective 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 31363, art 94 (‘UNCLOS’).

86 Marten (n 84) 46.

87 UNCLOS (n 85) art 19.

88 Marten (n 84) 28.

89 ibid 15.

90 France v Turkey (Lotus Case, Judgment) PCIJ 9 (7 September 1927) 45.

91 National Human Rights Commission 2021 (n 72).

92 Hanan v Germany (Judgment) ECtHR (16 February 2021) [136]; Razvozzhayev v Russia and Ukraine and Udaltsov v Russia (Judgment) ECtHR (19 November 2019) [178].

93 OPCAT art 4(1).

94 ibid.

95 CAT 2008 (n 77) 18.

96 Maroš Matiaško, Zločin mučení a lidská práva (1st edn, Wolters Kluwer ČR 2020) 113.

97 UNCAT art 2; A v United Kingdom (Judgment) ECtHR 100/1997/884/1096 (23 September 1998) [22]–[24].

98 OPCAT arts 12, 14.

99 CAT 2008 (n 77) 18; Storck v Germany (n 55) [102]; Murray and others (n 12) 72.

100 SPT 2016 (n 11) 3.

101 APT 2010 (n 21) 52, 53.

102 Rodriguez v Honduras (Judgment, Merits) IACHR (29 July 1988) [172].

103 CAT 2008 (n 77) 17.

104 Murray and others (n 12) 70.

105 ibid 72.

106 OPCAT art 1.

107 Maria Lukasová, 2021, personal e-mail communication (Marie Lukasová is a member of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and former head of the Czech NPM).

108 The difference between the categories of migrant workers is in particular the minimum wage (Taiwanese workers are set at USD 740 per month; while for migrant fishermen the minimum wage is set at 450 USD per month) and working hours (Taiwanese workers may work up to eight hours a day, while migrant workers have a regulated of 10 hours of rest a day): Greenpeace 2020 (n 2) 5.

109 ibid 30.

110 Covenants Watch (n 13) 205, 206; Greenpeace 2020 (n 2) 30.

111 Covenants Watch 2020 (n 13) 208.

112 Cambodian court has established a criminal jurisdiction and sentenced Taiwanese managers of the Giant Ocean International Fishery for human trafficking. It is not known, however, whether the Cambodian NPM has taken any action regarding monitoring foreign fishing vessels. Despite the establishment of Cambodian NPM in 2018, it has not so far published any report about its activities (neither visit nor annual report).

113 Greenpeace 2018 (n 15) 20–25.

114 Covenants Watch 2020 (n 13) 86; International Review Committee, ‘Taiwan International Review Process – List of Issues ICCPR & ICESCR’ (28 June 2021) 13 <https://covenantswatch.org.tw/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/公政公約及經社文公約問題清單-英文版.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1-nM_1DOIqglq4rCuTPtMMGUBxYoIjQc0SYWDsjmDmbOR0wRTtZtVYdmc> accessed 2 August 2021.

115 Ling Bonny, ‘A Watershed for Human Rights in Tawian’s Fishery Sector’ (The News Lens, 5 May 2021) <https://international.thenewslens.com/article/150838?fbclid=IwAR1fs8l1SCTb1j2IEZh2JSFjF0cE5eD697FzNM7U5el0rIjK9B6Mlm4CeHU> accessed 19 July 2021.

116 CAT 2008 (n 77) 18.

117 Ling (n 115).

118 Pavel Doubek, ‘National Human Rights Institution and National Preventive Mechanism “Within” the Control Yuan’ (2021) 6(1) Taiwan Human Rights Journal 5.

119 SPT 2010 (n 77) 7.

120 ibid 8, 15.

121 ibid 11, 31.

122 ibid 39.

123 ibid 16.

124 OPCAT art 4.

125 OPCAT art 4(1).

126 White (n 25) 61.

127 Gleeson (n 23) 151.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Pavel Doubek

Pavel Doubek is a lawyer, a postdoctoral researcher at Taiwan’s Academia Sinica, Institutum Iurisprudentiae and a member of the Czech Centre for Human Rights and Democracy. He works in the area of human rights, in particular prevention from torture and rights of detainees. He previously worked at the National Preventive Mechanism of the Czech Republic where he was in charge of detention monitoring.