Source: United Nations – Geneva
The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the seventh periodic report of Monaco under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, with Committee Experts praising Monaco’s ratification of United Nations and European human rights treaties, while raising questions about efforts to bring legislation on torture in line with the Convention and the transfer of prisoners to France.
Abderrazak Rouwane, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, congratulated Monaco on having ratified a significant number of United Nations and Council of Europe human rights instruments. Why had the State party decided not to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture?
Mr. Rouwane asked about measures the State party had taken to harmonise national legislation on torture with the Convention. The Committee was concerned about the statute of limitations on torture crimes, the lack of specific provisions in the Criminal Code imposing an absolute prohibition of torture, and the lack of clear mechanisms protecting subordinates from being forced to carry out unlawful orders.
Erdogan Iscan, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said some inmates in Monaco continued to be transferred to French prisons, and the State
party lacked oversight of places of deprivation of liberty in France. Would a formal legal procedure for recording prisoners’ consent to transfers be created? Which State was responsible for ensuring legal safeguards for these prisoners?
Introducing the report, Samuel Vuelta Simon, Secretary of State for Justice of Monaco, Director of Judicial Services and head of the delegation, said Monaco ensured that its legal framework was fully in line with its international commitments and that its texts were regularly adapted to better meet the requirements of the fight against torture and inhuman treatment.
Mr. Vuelta Simon said the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed for severe punishment for any act resembling torture or inhuman treatment. Also, a legislative proposal currently being prepared would ensure that the crime of torture was imprescriptible and would also ensure the unenforceability of any hierarchical order invoked to justify it.
The delegation said the Convention against Torture had been rendered executory by a sovereign ordinance. It took precedence over domestic legislation. The State party was also considering domestic legislation that would define torture in line with the Convention.
The delegation said an impact study on the Optional Protocol to the Convention had been carried out, and the State party was not closing the door on ratification. However, it attached greater importance to the main international human rights instruments. There was only one detention facility in Monaco, which was already reviewed by international monitoring mechanisms.
The delegation also said that Monaco’s territory was only two square kilometres. Its small size made it necessary to turn to France for assistance in managing prisoners. Transfer requests to French prisons were made by detainees who were French citizens. The State party would consider formalising this procedure. French authorities cooperated with transfer procedures and guaranteed detainees’ rights. There was no transfer of citizens of Monaco to foreign prisons.
In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chair, said that the dialogue had been fruitful and frank. The Committee would develop concluding observations based on the dialogue, which would aid the State in the implementation of the Convention.
In his concluding remarks, Mr. Vuelta Simon said that Monaco was a small State that tried to do things properly, on the same level as larger countries. Some issues had been raised in the dialogue that the State party could make rapid progress on to promote the well-being of human beings, including detainees. Monaco hoped to demonstrate this progress in its next review with the Committee.
The delegation of Monaco consisted of representatives from the Directorate of Public Safety; Department of External Relations and Cooperation; Directorate of Legal Affairs; Directorate of Judicial Services; and the Permanent Mission of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Monaco at the end of its eighty-second session on 2 May. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 10 April at 3 p.m. to continue its examination of the fifth periodic report of Mauritius (CAT/C/MUS/5).
Report
The Committee has before it the seventh periodic report of Monaco (CAT/C/MCO/7).
Presentation of Report
SAMUEL VUELTA SIMON, Secretary of State for Justice, Director of Judicial Services of Mexico and head of the delegation, said human dignity was an absolute value that the Principality of Monaco was committed to protecting with determination. Monaco was committed to constantly improving its mechanisms for preventing and protecting against torture and inhuman treatment. Since the submission of its first report in 1994, Monaco had continued its efforts to strengthen its legal and institutional framework, which had led to significant progress, both in terms of legislation and the implementation of concrete measures to guarantee ever more effective protection against all forms of violence.
Monaco ensured that the legal framework was fully in line with its international commitments and that its texts were regularly adapted to better meet the requirements of the fight against torture and inhuman treatment. The Constitution explicitly guaranteed respect for human dignity and prohibited any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This absolute prohibition was reinforced by several provisions of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed for severe punishment for any act resembling torture or inhuman treatment.
The Principality had begun an in-depth study to incorporate into its domestic law a definition of torture that was fully in line with article one of the Convention. A legislative proposal currently being prepared would ensure that the crime of torture was imprescriptible. It would also ensure the unenforceability of any hierarchical order invoked to justify it, and the absolute inadmissibility of evidence obtained under duress. These measures would complement an already strict legal arsenal which severely punished acts of violence, especially when committed by a public official.
Monaco also attached particular importance to supporting and providing reparation to victims. In 2023, it adopted an unprecedented compensation scheme for victims of serious crimes, including domestic violence and misdemeanours and crimes against minors, guaranteeing rapid and effective compensation to victims when the perpetrators were insolvent. Courts had an obligation to inform victims of this possibility.
In recent years, significant improvements had been made to Monaco’s prison to provide a more suitable living environment for inmates. The renovation of the cells had made it possible to bring in more natural light, while a new exercise yard and an activity room had been set up. A body scanner had recently been introduced to limit the use of body searches. The visiting regime had been significantly improved, allowing inmates to benefit from three 90-minute visits per week, in addition to two daily 45-minute visits.
The incarceration of minors remained an exceptional measure in Monaco. Recent reforms had strengthened the juvenile justice system to promote the reintegration and well-being of young people in conflict with the law. Anyone in police custody had the immediate right to information and the assistance of a lawyer, permanent judicial supervision, and audio-visual recording of interrogations, thus ensuring the transparency of proceedings. Since 2022, the right to the assistance of a lawyer had been strengthened in the event of an extension of police custody.
The Monegasque Institute for the Training of the Judicial Professions, in collaboration with other specialised institutions, provided regular training to public security forces on international standards for the respect of fundamental rights. The public security forces were thus regularly made aware of good practices, particularly regarding the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.
Monaco ensured that respect for fundamental rights within its prison system was monitored. The Office of the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation played a key role in this system by providing detainees with direct access to report any allegations of ill-treatment. Since the last review, a new right had been introduced allowing detainees to call the Office of the High Commissioner directly once a day, including when they were in a disciplinary cell.
Monaco reaffirmed its total commitment to the fight against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. While there was still room for improvement, the legislative, judicial and institutional advances put in place in recent years had made it possible to considerably strengthen the prevention, control and punishment of abuses. Monaco would continue its efforts with determination to ensure that respect for human dignity was never compromised.
Questions by Committee Experts
ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, expressed regret regarding the absence of civil society participants in the dialogue. Why were they absent? What measures had the State party taken to harmonise national legislation on torture with the Convention? The Committee had called on the State party to do so in each of its last six reviews. Could the delegation give some examples of court cases that had referenced the Convention or other United Nations human rights treaties? The Committee was concerned about the statute of limitations on torture crimes, the lack of specific provisions in the Criminal Code imposing an absolute prohibition of torture, and the lack of clear mechanisms protecting subordinates from being forced to carry out unlawful orders.
What measures had been taken to ensure that detainees enjoyed all basic legal rights from the outset of deprivation of liberty? The Committee had called on the State party to amend legislation that allowed police officers to prevent detainees from contacting a family member if such communication was considered detrimental to investigations. Had this been done? Did victims benefit from legal aid in cases involving allegations of torture or ill-treatment?
What steps had been taken to promote the accreditation of the Office of the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Freedoms and Mediation under the Paris Principles? The Office did not have a specific mandate to protect against human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment, and it did not have the competence to conduct investigations, publish studies or formulate opinions on draft legislation on its own initiative. Could the delegation comment on this? Why had the State party decided not to ratify the Optional Protocol and set up a national preventive mechanism against torture?
The Committee congratulated Monaco on having ratified a significant number of human rights instruments within the framework of the United Nations system and the Council of Europe. Would it ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Convention for the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families?
The Committee noted positive amendments to the law on the status of the judiciary to strengthen the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, which had enabled the Council to take up disciplinary matters on its own. However, the Council’s role in appointing judges had not been increased and its activity report was not made public. The Director of Judicial Services, part of the executive, chaired the High Council and could appoint and suspend judges and magistrates directly. The Prosecutor General and the magistrates of the Public Prosecutor’s Office were also under the direct authority of the Director. Was this not interference by the executive in the affairs of justice? How would the State party ensure the full independence of the judiciary, including in matters related to appointment and disciplinary measures?
Could the State party provide updated data on extraditions, asylum applications, and the number of appeals against asylum decisions? The Committee noted that refugees enjoyed the rights provided for in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. However, there was a lack of clarity regarding the asylum process and safeguards offered, and uncertainty surrounding the procedure for cooperation between the State party and the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons. Would the State party implement a mechanism to follow up on asylum seekers’ cases with the Office? What measures were in place to domesticate an asylum assessment procedure? Could the State party provide information on extradition cases and requests made for mutual legal assistance related to international cases involving torture?
A large number of foreigners living in neighbouring countries were working informally in Monaco and were at risk of trafficking. How was the State party combatting trafficking in persons, raising awareness of the issue, and training the judiciary on it? What measures were in place to strengthen the identification of trafficking victims? What tools were available to public officials to guide the identification of child victims of trafficking?
The Committee had previously called for the strengthening of training for the judiciary and prison officials on the Convention and the revised Istanbul Protocol of 2022. What measures would the State party take to train officials who were in contact with persons deprived of liberty on the absolute prohibition of torture? Were there any monitoring mechanisms in places of deprivation of liberty?
ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, commended the recent progress by the State presented in the opening statement. The Committee noted that the remand prison of Monaco had recently been extended, its facilities upgraded, and the visit regime improved. However, there were limits to the extent to which the prison could be expanded due to its location, and the prison reportedly remained unsuitable for prolonged detention due to its limited natural light and lack of space for activities. What further steps would be taken to improve prison conditions?
Some inmates continued to be transferred to French prisons, and the State party lacked oversight of places of deprivation of liberty in France. There was no formalised legal procedure for recording prisoners’ consent and requests regarding transfers. Would one be created? How many Monegasque prisoners were currently serving sentences in French prisons? Which State was responsible for ensuring legal safeguards for these prisoners? Did they have access to lawyers and could they maintain social connections in Monaco? How would the State party ensure this right? Which State conducted investigations in cases of complaints by these prisoners? Had the State party considered expanding the capacity of its prison system to allow inmates to remain in Monaco?
Did current legislation prohibit corporal punishment in all settings, including homes and educational institutions? Were awareness raising campaigns or training programmes on corporal punishment for parents and childcare professionals planned? Minors under age 13 could not be detained but could be held in police custody for up to 24 hours in criminal cases. Could the delegation provide data on minors in police custody? Would the State party consider revising legislation to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years of age?
Had the State party made progress in adopting legislation that provided full redress to victims of torture? Would it consider scaling up its support to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, and had it updated legislation to ensure that statements obtained through torture were made null and void?
The Committee noted with satisfaction measures taken by the State party to prevent and combat violence against women, including revision of the Criminal Code and awareness raising campaigns. What protection measures were in place for foreign women who were victims of violence, and what resources were devoted to programmes and measures to combat violence against women?
Reportedly, conditions in closed psychiatric units in the Princess Grace Hospital were good, but improvements were needed regarding prolonged hospitalisation and treatment of minors and detainees requiring psychiatric care. Was the State party addressing this?
Another Committee Expert asked whether the Convention was directly applicable in Monaco. How were potential conflicts between the Convention and domestic legislation resolved?
One Committee Expert asked how many prisoners were serving in Monaco. What happened to prisoners who did not consent to being transferred to French prisons? Could the delegation clarify whether consent was needed to conduct transfers?
A Committee Expert said domestic law on trafficking was sound, but the State party needed to strengthen the training of law enforcement officials, social workers, medical staff and the public on identifying victims of trafficking.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Director of Judicial Services was also the Secretary of State for Justice, which, as a member of the judiciary, was not part of the executive branch of Government but fell under the authority of the Prince. The judiciary was guaranteed security of tenure and independence. The Secretary of State for Justice gave generalised guidance to the judiciary that was consistent with State policies, but prosecutors were free to speak independently in carrying out their work.
Monaco’s territory was only two square kilometres. Its small size made it necessary to turn to France for assistance for managing prisoners. There were only six prosecutors and 22 jurists who worked with legislators to develop legal texts. Some 39,000 people lived in Monaco but only 9,000 had citizenship.
The Supreme Council of the Judiciary was made up of two elected judges and five judges appointed by the Council itself. Both the Secretary of State for Justice and the Supreme Council could take up cases of discipline of judges. The Supreme Council selected candidates for judicial posts and had a special budget guaranteeing its independence. Training was provided to newly appointed judges and prosecutors through French institutions; approximately two-thirds of judges had been seconded from France. A draft law had been developed that would create a reserve pool of judges to strengthen the domestic availability of judges.
Monaco had a dualist system. The Prince signed and ratified international treaties, with authorisation by the National Council. Sovereign ordinances were used to allow for international treaties to be directly invoked before national courts. There were cases in which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights had been invoked. The Constitution had the highest status in the domestic legal order, followed by international treaties, which took precedence over domestic legislation.
The Constitution expressly prohibited torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Acts of torture committed in offences of sexual aggression, terrorism and abduction were considered to be aggravated crimes. Monaco’s judicial services had limited capacity, but aimed to establish a stand-alone offence of torture in line with article one of the Convention through a draft law that was currently before the legislature. Serious crimes committed against minors had a statute of limitations of 30 years, which started when the victim reached the age of majority. Monaco’s law imposed an absolute prohibition of torture; it was impossible to justify acts of torture in any circumstances. Hierarchical superiors were held accountable for illegal orders to carry out acts of torture, as were agents who carried out such orders. Subordinates who refused to obey illegal orders were not disciplined or considered to have committed a crime.
There was one case of trafficking against a minor in which the court had referenced the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in its ruling. The scope of the criminalisation of trafficking had been broadened to address domestic trafficking cases that did not involve organised crime. Trafficking that endangered victims’ lives, trafficking of minors, and trafficking by public officials or members of organised criminal groups were considered aggravating circumstances.
Police custody was always recorded and was subject to court oversight; examining magistrates could end police custody at any point. All persons in police custody were informed of the reasons of their detention and their rights, including the right to access a lawyer from the beginning of custody. All persons who earned less than 20,000 euros per year were entitled to free legal aid. Detainees could request a medical examination at any point. The State party intended to regulate the grounds under which the Prosecutor General could restrict detainees’ right to contact a relative. Hearings were filmed and could be conducted in the presence of a legal counsel. Criminal investigative officers needed to record the time of detention and other details relating to the detention, including reasons for refusals of detainees’ rights.
Minors under 13 could not be placed in police custody unless they committed an offence that carried a five-year prison sentence. Hearings of minors needed to be conducted with a lawyer present. Police custody of minors was typically 12 hours but could be extended to 24 hours in criminal cases with the permission of a judge.
Legislation on the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights and Mediation had been revised to bring the institution in line with the Paris Principles. The law allowed the High Commissioner to carry out surveys and provide recommendations related to combatting discrimination, protecting human rights, and implementing international conventions. It also strengthened the High Commissioner’s investigative powers and gave the body powers to defend the rights of the child. Steps had been taken to promote registration of the institution by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. Since 2022, detainees were able to contact the High Commissioner directly by telephone, in addition to through written communications. Monaco had installed a body scanning machine in its prison after detainees’ complaints to the High Commissioner regarding body searches.
Civil society in Monaco was very active. As there had been no demonstrated cases of torture in the State for almost a century, there were no non-governmental organizations working on the issue. The High Commissioner’s mandate had recently been expanded and it was now recruiting staff to address its new functions. In future, the High Commissioner could be able to participate in reviews by the Committee.
Ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance was not a priority for the State. The State party tried to align its legislation with international instruments before ratifying them, which caused delays in ratification. There were no cases of enforced disappearance in Monaco.
An impact study on the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture had been carried out. There was only one detention facility in Monaco, which was already reviewed by international monitoring mechanisms. There had been no complaints regarding ill-treatment or poor conditions. Ratifying the Optional Protocol was not a top priority for the Government but could be done in future. Monaco made voluntary contributions to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, but did not envisage providing contributions to the Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture.
Refugees fell under ordinary law for entry and stay in Monaco. They received 10-year residence permits. The State currently hosted 23 refugees. Monaco respected the principle of non-refoulement. Asylum seekers whose claims were rejected were not immediately removed, unless they posed a threat to public safety. The Government called on the relevant French authority to assess asylum claims. Refusals of asylum claims were always explained and could be appealed before the relevant court. The overseas diplomatic presence of Monaco in countries of origin for asylum seekers was limited.
When the Ukraine conflict began in 2022, Monaco established a system providing temporary protection for Ukrainian citizens who had lived in Monaco prior to the establishment of the system. Currently, around 50 Ukrainians held the temporary protection permit, which allowed them to access health, education and other social services. Many holders of this permit had since gained residency permits.
The State party had not received any requests for mutual legal assistance or handled any international cases involving torture. It had received one extradition request, which Monaco’s court of appeal rejected due to concerns about human rights protections.
In 2020, two people were transferred to French prisons, while one person was transferred in 2023 and another in 2024; there were two requests in 2025 that were being assessed. Transfer requests to France were typically made by French citizens. All requests for prison transfers were made in writing by the detainees themselves. The State party would consider formalising this procedure. There were no difficulties in transfers to France; French authorities cooperated with transfer procedures and guaranteed detainees’ rights. Requests for transfers to other countries were considered based on respect for detainees’ rights.
The national human rights institution received and investigated written complaints from detainees. There was also an internal oversight body within the police force that could be called on by the judiciary to investigate police officers accused of human rights violations. Complaints made to the Prosecutor-General triggered judicial proceedings. Legal assistance was available for persons who filed for civil damages. A compensation mechanism had been set up for victims of serious offences who could not be compensated by the perpetrator. Compensation covered damages and court costs. State compensation could also be provided to persons who were placed in pre-trial detention before being released or acquitted.
The State party had adopted a law on school bullying and harassment, and the Criminal Code prohibited and punished corporal punishment, including in school and family settings. Teaching staff and other school staff underwent annual training on identifying and addressing harassment of children. Schools needed to implement awareness raising initiatives to combat harassment and bullying.
Incarceration and pre-trial detention of children were last resort measures. Judges could determine alternatives to prosecution of minor offenders, including provisional releases, reparation for victims, community service, and training within social health institutions. Judges could also order minors to be placed in the Foyer d’Enfance, from which they were free to come and go. In 2020, five minors were charged, of whom none were detained; in 2021, seven minors were charged and only one was placed in pre-trial detention for one month and 20 days; and in 2022, out of the 15 minors who were charged, only two were placed in pre-trial detention.
The age of criminal responsibility in Monaco was 13 years. None of the 15 minor offenders in 2022 were aged 13. The State party would consider raising the age threshold and revising the legal status of minors in the country.
Considerable progress had been made since 2020 in improving the detention facility. The State had installed cells with better access to natural light, a games room, a new exercise yard, and air conditioning and heating facilities within cells. Exercise and folding laundry were no longer mandatory, televisions did not need to be switched off at certain times, and the State no longer imposed solitary confinement on detainees.
Women and child victims of violence were supported by the Directorate for Social Assistance. A protocol for care of victims of domestic violence had been established. Health care professionals were trained in caring for victims and managing perpetrators when they accompanied them. Victims were provided with shelter in emergencies when they could not stay with friends or family. They were entitled to medical care, psychological assistance, and legal advice.
The employment service verified working conditions for migrant workers and the labour inspectorate carried out numerous checks to ensure that workers’ rights were being respected. Officials held interviews with applicants for residence and work permits to detect risks of trafficking. To date, 96 public officials had received training on identifying and treating victims of trafficking.
Members of the judiciary were obliged to attend at least five days of training per year either locally or in France, which addressed human rights and international and European norms. The State sought to ensure that the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights were incorporated in domestic legislation as soon as possible.
Training of police officers lasted 10 months. It stressed the rights of apprehended persons, including the right to be protected from violence, inhumane and degrading treatment. All police officers had to abide by the code of professional ethnics and respect the dignity of persons. They were trained on ethical means of restraint, bodily searches, the use of reasonable force, and the prohibition of torture.
Questions by Committee Experts
ABDERRAZAK ROUWANE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee welcomed that there were no cases of torture in Monaco, but this could not be used as an excuse for not ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention. Crimes needed to be legislated for regardless of their prevalence. A national preventive mechanism would be mandated to investigate all places of deprivation of liberty, including the psychiatric hospital and airports. It would be fantastic if a European country could ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. Many of the 63,000 workers in Monaco were migrant workers who needed legal protection.
Could detainees from Monaco be transferred to French prisons? When there were criminal prosecutions of perpetrators, were alleged victims entitled to legal assistance? Did the State party intend to provide the Supreme Council of the Judiciary with further independence?
ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the dialogue had been constructive. Even if there was limited scope for implementing the Optional Protocol, ratification would set a positive example for other States. Some 42 of the 46 members of the Council of Europe had ratified the Optional Protocol. Did the State party plan to remove its reservation to article 30 of the Convention. Member States needed to continue to support the treaty body system in a sustainable manner. What was Monaco’s position on this?
Another Committee Expert asked whether Monaco had adopted measures addressing trade in equipment used to inflict pain and suffering.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the State party was not closing the door on ratifying the Optional Protocol; it was still considering the option. However, it attached greater importance to the main international human rights instruments. Impact assessment studies on these instruments took time due to the State’s limited resources.
There were around 60,000 cross-border workers travelling from France or Italy to Monaco every day. They were entitled to the rights embodied by Monaco’s labour laws.
The Convention against Torture had been rendered executory by a sovereign ordinance. It took precedence over domestic legislation. The State party was also considering domestic legislation that would define torture in line with the Convention.
Legal aid lasted from the beginning to the end of legal proceedings.
There was no transfer of Monaco citizens to foreign prisons. Transfers were only for foreign detainees who had requested a transfer back to their country of origin; such transfers were essentially humanitarian.
The Supreme Council of the Judiciary promoted the independence of the judiciary. It drew mostly on the French model. The Secretary of State for Justice was responsible for appointing and promoting judges, but the Supreme Council approved appointments and promotions and could take up disciplinary cases on its own initiative.
Concluding Remarks
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair, said that the dialogue had been fruitful and frank. The Committee would develop concluding observations based on the dialogue, which would aid the State in the implementation of the Convention. The Committee did not judge States based on their size; it treated them all equally.
SAMUEL VUELTA SIMON, Secretary of State for Justice of Monaco, Director of Judicial Services and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the dialogue. Monaco was a small State that tried to do things properly, on the same level as larger countries, though staff numbers made this difficult. The State tried to respond as best it could to its realities. Monaco welcomed the Committee’s advice and relevant questions. Some issues had been raised that the State party could make rapid progress on to promote the well-being of human beings, including detainees. Monaco hoped to demonstrate this progress in its next review with the Committee.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CAT25.002E
MIL OSI United Nations News –
