CAT/OP/BOL/3
27.
In the seven years since the Subcommittee’s first visit, no change whatsoever
has been made in the relevant legislation. The Subcommittee must once again refer,
and with great concern, to its previous observations and recommendations. 10 In
particular, the Subcommittee reiterates the urgent need for the State to adopt the
necessary legislative measures to bring its laws into line with the international treaties
on torture that it has ratified, to avoid any risk of impunity and to ensure the proper
investigation of cases of torture and the punishment of the perpetrators.
IV. Follow-up to the recommendations made by the
Subcommittee in 2010
A.
Causes and consequences of the excessive use of pretrial detention
28.
The Subcommittee notes that the use of pretrial detention has not abated since its
visit in 2010. Pretrial detainees currently account for more than 70 per cent of the prison
population. This has led to extreme overcrowding, as in San Pedro Prison, which is
operating at 550 per cent capacity, or Palmasola, which is operating at 700 per cent capacity.
29.
Based on its two visits, the Subcommittee identified the following reasons for the
present high rates of pretrial detention: 11
(a)
A failure to adopt alternative non-custodial measures even though most
people placed in pretrial detention have no criminal records and are accused of petty
offences. In practice, pretrial detention remains the rule, although article 221 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure states that it should be the exception;
(b)
Interference with the work of judicial authorities responsible for deciding
whether to release suspects from custody before their hearings; this interference takes the
form of pressure from the public and from prosecutors who advocate a punitive approach to
justice. The Subcommittee was informed that the Prosecution Service gauges its
effectiveness by the number of requests for pretrial detention that it makes and that judges
fail to order alternatives to detention for fear of being subjected to disciplinary proceedings,
especially in higher-profile cases;
(c)
The imposition by the courts of restrictive and discriminatory conditions in
determining eligibility for alternative measures, with bail being set too high in most cases,
thereby forcing members of the poorest and most marginalized groups to remain in prison; 12
(d)
Delays and breaches of procedural time limits. It has been reported 13 that
more than 70 per cent of pretrial hearings are either suspended because the judge is not in
attendance or are held in the absence of a prosecutor. 14 Statements from numerous persons
made it clear to the Subcommittee that hearings are also suspended as a result of deliberate
delays in transferring detainees from prison to the courts, as this procedure has become a
source of illegal revenue for prison and police authorities;
(e)
Corruption in the penal system, which, as the Subcommittee noted in 2010,
has a significant impact on people with limited resources. 15 Many informants said that
lawyers serve as intermediaries who pass on requests for monetary payments in exchange
10
11
12
13
14
15
GE.18-12272
aún, favorece la impunidad de los perpetradores, y c) el crimen de tortura en el Estado Plurinacional
de Bolivia sigue siendo un delito prescriptible.
Véase CAT/OP/BOL/R.1, párrs. 28 a 32.
Véase ibíd., párrs. 54, 204 y 205.
Véase CAT/OP/BOL/R.1, párrs. 138 y 139. En su jurisprudencia, el Subcomité ya estableció un
vínculo entre pobreza, discriminación y prisión preventiva.
Estudio realizado por la Fundación CONSTRUIR con apoyo de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de
las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos en el Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia en las
ciudades de La Paz y El Alto.
Lo que limitaba la capacidad de la defensa de rebatir los argumentos vertidos en la imputación formal
en presencia del fiscal y del juez.
Véase CAT/OP/BOL/R.1, párrs. 38, 52, y 69 a 74.
7