The Case of John Paul Nerio

Benenson joins the Asian Human Rights Commission in raising the issue of a
17-year-old boy, John Paul Nerio, who claims he was tortured at a police station in the Philippines on December 11,
2010. In itself the case of John Paul is relatively minor but the arrival of communications from different parts of the
world may have a significant impact in ensuring a fair investigation of young mans complaint. This particular case
is a means of focusing on the wider issue of protecting the rights of minors and of ensuring the law enforcement
system in the Philippines is accountable to the law and meets its professional obligations.

What happened:
On the evening of December 10, 2010, John Paul was on his way to a bar in downtown Kidapawan City to meet a
friend. There was a fight at the bar where he was supposed to see his friend. He saw people, including those
involved in the fight, running away from the bar to avoid trouble. Upon seeing this scene, John Paul immediately
hid behind a bush to avoid drawing attention to himself.
Five police officers, attached to the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), arrived at the scene of the fight. They saw
John Paul and allegedly forcibly dragged him from where he was hiding towards the police car; they repeatedly hit
him in view of the onlookers with their guns at his chest.
After taking John Paul into custody they forced the boy to clean the dirty toilet at the police quarters. They
threatened and intimidated him while he was in their custody before taking him to the Women and Children's Desk
(WCD) of the Kidapawan City Police Office. While he was at the WCD, unnamed policemen took turns in
assaulting him in open view of the policewoman who was recording his case. The policewoman did nothing to stop
or prevent her colleagues from assaulting the boy but rather continued to watch passively while they continued to do
so. She also did not contact the victim's parents as is legally required for arrested minors. John Paul told the
policewoman that he had been tortured and requested that he be taken to hospital to be examined and treated.
However, his request was ignored.
It was not until February 26, 2011 that John Paul informed his parents about what had happened to him. The boy,
following the incident, had experienced emotional and psychological trauma--like fear in the presence of policemen.
He was never afforded any form of treatment and counseling. John Paul has stopped going to school.
As of today, John Paul's complaint has not been thoroughly investigated. The details regarding the torture that he
had experienced cannot even be found in police records due to deliberate attempts to cover up the matter.

Please write to, email or fax

Mrs. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta
Chief, Public Attorney Office (PAO)
DOJ Agencies Building,
NIA Road East Avenue
1104 Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax No. +63 2 927 6810 / 926 2878
Email: chiefacosta@edsamail.com.ph

Dear Mrs Rueda-Acosta,

As a member of the Benenson Society, I respectfully raise the issue of John Paul Nerio, a seventeen
year old resident Barangay Manongol, Kidapawan City, who claims he was tortured at a police station
in the Philippines on December 11, 2010. His case has been taken up by the Asian Human Rights
Commission.
It is alleged that five police officers, attached to the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), assaulted
him when he was taken into custody, and that he was subsequently humiliated and tortured while in
custody. It is important that the rights of minors be protected and that professional standards be
expected of the police.
I therefore urge you to immediately afford the victim and his family the assistance, as required by
Section 11 of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, in the process of having their complaint investigated and of
filing a complaint. I also request your office to provide the victim needed assistance to ensure his
recovery.
Yours sincerely,

I. The Torture Convention

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Torture
Convention) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984 (resolution 39/46).
The Convention entered into force on 26 June 1987 after it had been ratified by 20 States.
The Torture Convention was the result of many years work, initiated soon after the adoption of the Declaration on
the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (the Torture Declaration) by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)).
In fact, the Torture Declaration was intended to be the starting-point for further work against torture. In a second
resolution, also adopted on 9 December 1975, the General Assembly requested the Commission on Human Rights to
study the question of torture and any necessary steps for ensuring the effective observance of the Torture Declaration
(resolution 3453 (XXX)). Two years later, on 8 December 1977, the General Assembly specifically requested the
Commission on Human Rights to draw up a draft convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, in the light of the principles embodied in the Torture Declaration (resolution 32/62).
The Commission on Human Rights began its work on this subject at
its session in February-March 1978. A working group was set up to deal
with this item, and the main basis for the discussions in the working
group was a draft convention presented by Sweden. During each of the
subsequent years until 1984 a similar working group was set up to
continue the work on the draft convention.
There were a number of issues on which it was initially difficult to
reach agreement. In particular, the following issues gave rise to long
discussions:
The Definition of Torture
The definition of torture which appeared in the Torture Declaration was considered not to be precise enough and
was criticized on various points. The discussions resulted in a more elaborate and also more complex definition
which
appears
in
article
1,
paragraph
1,
of
the
Torture
Convention
Jurisdiction
The discussion centred round the concept of so-called universal jurisdiction. In other words, the question was
whether each State should undertake, in respect of torture, to assume jurisdiction not only based on territory or the
offenders nationality but also over acts of torture committed outside its territory by persons not being its nationals.
The principle of universal jurisdiction which had already been accepted in conventions against hijacking of aircraft
and other terrorist acts was eventually accepted and found its place in article 5, paragraph 2, of the Torture
Convention.
International Implementation
As the effectiveness of the Torture Convention, like that of many other human rights conventions, would depend
to a large extent on the supervision system, the implementation at the international level gave rise to extensive
discussions. It was finally decided that a Committee against Torture would be set up (article 17 of the Torture
Convention) with the following tasks:
(i) To receive, study and comment on periodic reports from the States parties on the measures they have
taken to give effect to their undertakings under the Convention (article 19);
(ii) To initiate an investigation when there is reliable information which appears to contain well-founded
indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State party (article 20);
(iii) To receive and examine complaints by one State party of violations of the Convention by another State

party (article 21); and

(iv) To receive and examine applications by individuals claiming to be victims of a violation of the
Convention by a State party (article 22).

However, the competences of the Committee against Torture under (ii), (iii) and (iv) were not made compulsory
but apply with the following modifications:
- A State party may opt out and declare that it does not recognize the Committees competence to initiate
investigations under article 20 (article 28);
- The Committees competence to examine inter-State complaints only applies when a State party has
specifically recognized this competence (article 21);
- The Committees competence to examine applications by individuals only applies when a State party has
specifically recognized this competence (article 22).

A State Partys Undertakings

Most of the provisions of the Torture Convention deal with the obligations of the States parties. These obligations
may be summarized as follows:
(i) Each State party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts
of torture. The prohibition against torture shall be absolute and shall be upheld also in a state of war and in
other exceptional circumstances (article 2);
(ii) No State party may expel or extradite a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for
believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture (article 3);
(iii) Each State party shall ensure that acts of torture are serious criminal offences within its legal system
(article 4);
(iv) Each State party shall, on certain conditions, take a person suspected of the offence of torture into
custody and make a preliminary inquiry into the facts (article 6);
(v) Each State party shall either extradite a person suspected of the offence of torture or submit the case to
its own authorities for prosecution (article 7);
(vi) Each State party shall ensure that its authorities make investigations when there is reasonable ground to
believe that an act of torture has been committed (article 12);
(vii) Each State party shall ensure that an individual who alleges that he has been subjected to torture will
have his case examined by the competent authorities (article 13);
(viii) Each State party shall ensure to victims of torture an enforceable right to fair and adequate
compensation (article 14).

II. The Optional Protocol

An Optional Protocol to the Torture Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on
18 December 2002 (resolution 57/199). The Optional Protocol, which entered into force on 22 June 2006, establishes
a system of regular visits by international and national bodies to places of detention in order to prevent torture and

other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has been set up to carry out such visits and to support States
parties
and
national
institutions
in
performing
similar
functions
at
the
national
level.
III. The Committee Against Torture
The Committee against Torture holds two annual sessions. At each session, the Committee examines reports from
a number of States parties. Each report is examined orally in the presence of one or more representatives of the State
concerned. Each State whose report is to be examined at a session is informed in advance of the main questions the
Committee wishes to be discussed. After the examination of each report the Committee adopts its conclusions and
recommendations. The Committee may also adopt general comments on specific provisions of the Convention or
issues related to their implementation.
The Committee against Torture has also set up a working group to prepare the examination of individual
communications received under article 22 of the Torture Convention. The working group examines the admissibility
and
merits
of
the
communications
and
makes
recommendations
to
the
Committee.
Related
A.

Materials
Legal

Instruments

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment,
New
York,
18
December
2002,
General
Assembly
resolution
57/199.
B.

Doctrine

J. Herman Burgers and H. Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture. A Handbook on the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dordrecht,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988.