?Testis unus, testis nullus?. Loosely translated, this means that a unique witness is no witness at all. Employed in jurisprudence, it intimates that the testimony of a single witness does not suffice to establish the veracity of a fact. This is especially true in a case which hinges on the testimony of a witness who has a vested interest in its outcome.

Next week, Mauritius will be presenting its Fourth Periodic Report (FPR) to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) in New York. Not surprisingly, it is quite a self-indulgent affair. Thankfully, the Association against Violence by Public Officials, JUSTICE, will also be active in the Big Apple where it will be presenting its very own counter-report.

The document, which could also be entitled a Brief History of the Defeat of Human Rights in Mauritius, makes for fascinating reading. It explains how the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a toothless watchdog, crippled by structural limitations and its dependency on the Executive and the police. The counter-report extensively quotes Paul Bérenger when, as the then leader of the Opposition, he protested in Parliament against the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1998 because it would create ?a mainmise gouvernementale?.

As the counter-report shows, he was right. Sadly, he has done nothing to change this situation during his tenure. The NHRC does not have a single investigator on its staff and is impotent against the scourge of police brutality because it cannot punish police officers it has found guilty of violations. The Director of Public Prosecutions and Commissioner of Police are empowered to do so but choose not to.

The document explains that the Complaints Investigation Bureau (CIB), which is charged with investigating complaints against the police, ?is not only poorly manned but its entire staff is made up of police officers. We therefore have a situation where police officers investigate allegations against their colleagues. The police are both judge and party. Not surprisingly, the CIB enjoys little credibility amongst the public?.

Myriad other shortfalls prevent the NHRC from being worthy of its name. The tenure of its members is not guaranteed and can be removed by the President ?on the advice of the Prime minister?. A time limit prevents it from investigating any wrongdoing two-years after it has been committed. This further weakens the NHRC, as Paul Bérenger so pointedly stated in Parliament seven years ago, ?If that (the limitation period of two years) was taken into consideration by the House of Lords, Mr Pinochet would still be singing along the Thames?.

Perhaps the most absurd aspect of the NHRC is that is obliged, by the Human Rights Protection Act, to ?attempt to resolve any complaint by a conciliatory procedure?. How is an uneducated person meant to react to a judge?s plea to forgive a police officer for his heavy-handedness if the latter apologizes? The victim of brutality will, more often than not, give in. Unfortunately, this policy of forgiving and forgetting will not stem police violence. JUSTICE explains that this provision ?defeats the very of human rights legislation and the very purpose of the NHRC?.

The UNHRC will be examining whether Mauritius is respecting its obligations under the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights. It?s heartening to know that it?ll hear both sides of the story. Mauritius loves signing international conventions but often fails to realize that doing so entails important responsibilities. Denying that problems like police brutality exist ? as the FPR does ? will only ensure their continuity.