The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 57
Paragraph- Paragraph text
- The invocation of "assurances" as a means of eliminating the possible risk of torture or other ill-treatment is of great concern. In the context of the non-refoulement provision, the Special Rapporteur, the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee have found that assurances from other States do not relieve the sending State from its responsibility to prevent torture. Similarly, assurances by providers of information that torture or other ill-treatment was not involved in producing it are not sufficient to permit cooperation where a real risk is identified. Promises of humane treatment given by Governments that practice torture or ill-treatment are not reliable and do not provide an effective safeguard against the real risk of acts of torture or other ill-treatment. States that engage in torture or ill-treatment routinely deny and conceal its use and it is therefore difficult, if not impossible, for executive agencies to verify whether their assurances are truthful. In addition, assurances are not legally binding or enforceable and the States concerned are unlikely to follow up on the assurances provided, since verifying and acknowledging that the abuse has occurred means an admission by both countries that they are responsible for violations of the prohibition of torture.
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Paragraph type
- Other
- Paragraph number
- 57
sorted by
Date added
88 relationships, 88 entities