Search Tips
sorted by
300 shown of 1232 entities
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- The practice of detaining persons incommunicado and questioning them in unofficial or secret facilities is of grave concern because it exposes individuals to heightened risks of torture. Secret detention amounts to torture or ill-treatment in itself and should be abolished and criminalized under national law. States must ensure that questioning is conducted only at official and accessible facilities, regardless of the form of detention. In the criminal justice system, any evidence obtained from detainees in unofficial places of detention and not confirmed by them during subsequent interviews at official locations ought to be inadmissible in court (see A/56/156).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recognizes that the content of some procedural rights may vary, to a limited extent, depending on the legal status of the interviewee and the context of questioning. The provision of precise and accurate information on one's status and rights before questioning is therefore doubly critical. Authorities may not interview persons as "witnesses" or under the guise of "informative talks" in order to evade the legal safeguards attendant to the questioning of suspects. Any person who is under a legal obligation to attend and remain at an establishment for questioning must be afforded the same rights as a suspect. When a person becomes a suspect during questioning, the interview must be suspended and begin again only if the interviewee has been made aware of this change and has been given a full rundown of his or her rights and is able to fully exercise them (European directive 2013/48/EU).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is concerned that, in many jurisdictions, access to a lawyer during questioning is routinely denied or unduly delayed until confessions or incriminating statements are elicited. The protocol must adequately reflect the prohibition on interviewing persons without counsel, except in compelling circumstances or when the interviewee gives his or her voluntary and fully informed consent to waive this right (see the United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems; A/68/295; and E/CN.4/813 and Corr.1), and reiterate that access to counsel must be enjoyed by anyone deprived of liberty, regardless of whether the offence in question is considered "minor" or "serious".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- Compelling circumstances denying access to counsel must be strictly defined in national law and correspond to situations in which there is an urgent need to avert serious adverse consequences for the life, liberty or physical integrity of persons, or where immediate action by investigators is imperative to prevent the destruction or alteration of essential evidence or to prevent interference with witnesses. Even then, the questioning of suspects without a lawyer must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards, limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve its singular purpose (i.e., obtaining information to address the exigent circumstances) and cannot unduly prejudice the rights of the defence (European directive 2013/48/EU). Defence rights are in principle irreparably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during questioning in the absence of counsel are used for a conviction (see European Court of Human Rights, Salduz v. Turkey).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- Where a person waives the right to counsel, means of verification should be employed to ensure that he or she received clear and sufficient information about the content of the right and the potential consequence of a waiver and to establish that the waiver was voluntary and unequivocal (see the United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems). When a person invoked the right to assistance of counsel during questioning, a waiver cannot be established by evidence that he or she responded to further questioning in the absence of counsel, even if formerly advised of his or her right to remain silent. In such situations, the interview cannot continue until the assistance of counsel is actualized, unless the interviewee initiates further communication with interviewers (see European Court of Human Rights, Pishchalnikov v. Russia).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- The protocol should further provide practical guidance on the role, rights and responsibilities of lawyers in relation to questioning, including, for example, advice on - and a rundown of potential consequences of - exercising the right to remain silent. It must affirm that counsel must be physically present and able to intervene during interviews to protect the interviewee's rights and ensure fair treatment. Lawyers should be allowed to ask questions, request clarifications, challenge improper or unfair questioning and advise clients without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference. Lawyers cannot, however, prevent interviewees from answering questions that they wish to answer, reply on their behalf or otherwise unduly interfere with questioning.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- The protocol should contain guidance on the right to free legal assistance. Many States regrettably still lack the resources and capacity necessary to provide legal aid (see the United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems). In the absence of a sufficient number of certified lawyers and a full-fledged legal aid system covering all stages of deprivation of liberty, authorities should, as an interim measure, grant detainees the right to have a trusted third party present during questioning during initial custody (see CAT/OP/BEN/1). The United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems, while asserting that lawyers are the first providers of legal aid, confirm that other stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, professional bodies and associations and academic institutions, may step in to fulfil this function.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- Persons arrested or detained on criminal charges must be informed of their right to remain silent during questioning by law enforcement in accordance with article 14 (3) (g) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This right is inherent to the presumption of innocence and key to torture prevention efforts, given that interviewers respecting this right are unlikely to resort to abusive questioning methods. Suspects must be duly warned, at the beginning of every interview, that their words may be used in evidence against them. Persons' willing agreement to provide statements during questioning following this warning cannot be regarded as a fully informed choice when they were not expressly notified of the right to remain silent or when the decision was taken without the assistance of counsel (see European Court of Human Rights, Stojkovic v. France and Belgium).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- Concern is expressed about the drawing of negative inferences from a person's failure to answer questions, and it is recommended that no inferences be drawn "at least where the accused has not had prior consultations with counsel" (see CCPR/C/IRL/CO/3). The Rome Statute and the Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in Africa (Luanda Guidelines) expressly prohibit adverse inferences being drawn at trial from a suspect's exercise of the right to remain silent, finding that anything to the contrary may improperly imply that a suspect's silence amounts to an admission of guilt and compromise the presumption of innocence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 78
- Paragraph text
- The right to remain silent should equally apply, as a matter of law or policy, to prisoners of war, criminal detention relating to an armed conflict, detention of individuals considered to be civilian internees under international humanitarian law and administrative detention outside of armed conflict. With regard to interviews of witnesses and victims in the criminal justice system, courts alone may compel witness testimony. As a preventive measure against coercion and a matter of good practice, witnesses and victims should not be obliged to answer individual questions by which they could incriminate themselves during interviews.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- A complementary safeguard is the presence of a support person during questioning, in addition to counsel. A child must never be subjected to questioning or requested to make any statement or to sign any document without the presence of a lawyer and, in principle, his or her caregiver or another appropriate adult (whose presence is encouraged to help to prevent coercion, reassure the child and limit potential traumatization), at all stages of the investigation and proceedings (see the United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems; and Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 10 (2007) on children's rights in juvenile justice). Persons who appear to suffer from psychosocial or intellectual disabilities should be assisted by an independent support person, whether a relative, legal guardian, mental health professional or social worker with relevant experience and training, during questioning.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 82
- Paragraph text
- Witnesses, victims, suspects and persons deprived of liberty who do not adequately speak or understand the language of questioning should be entitled to receive the free assistance of an independent, qualified and effective interpreter during interviews and, when necessary, during consultations with counsel (see International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14 (3) (f)). Persons with sensory impairments likewise have the right to interpreters. When no interpreter is available, a person who knows the interviewee and is able to adequately communicate with him or her may be invited to act as one; alternatively, the interviewee should be asked and/or be allowed to answer questions in writing in his or her preferred language.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 84
- Paragraph text
- The recording of interviews is a fundamental safeguard against torture, ill treatment and coercion and ought to apply in the criminal justice system and in connection to any form of detention. Every reasonable effort must be made to record interviews, by audio or video, in their entirety. Where circumstances preclude or when the interviewee objects to electronic recording, the reasons should be stated in writing and a comprehensive written record of questioning must be kept. Accurate records of all interviews must be kept and safely stored, and evidence from non recorded interviews should be excluded from court proceedings (see A/56/156).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 85
- Paragraph text
- Suspect interviews must be at least audio, and preferably video, recorded (see A/HRC/4/33/Add.3 and A/68/295). Video recorders should capture the entire interview room, including all persons present. Video recording discourages torture while providing an authentic and complete record that can be reviewed during the investigation and used for training purposes. It cannot, however, be used as an alternative to the presence of counsel (see CAT/C/AUT/CO/3 and A/HRC/25/60/Add.1). The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the financial implications associated with the use of video-recording equipment. The protocol may explore alternative solutions, such as limiting the mandatory use of audiovisual recording to interviews of suspects, vulnerable victims or witnesses.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 86
- Paragraph text
- Recording should not be limited to confessions or other incriminating statements. Whatever the format, several elements must be recorded during an interview, including: its place, date, time and duration; the intervals between sessions; the identity of the interviewers and any other persons present and any changes in individuals present during questioning (see Human Rights Council resolution 31/31); confirmation that the interviewee was informed of his or her rights and availed himself or herself of the opportunity to exercise them and confirmation of any voluntary waiver; the substance and content of questions asked and answers, in addition to any other information, provided by the interviewer or interviewers or the suspect (see the Luanda Guidelines, guideline 9 (e)); and the time and reasons for any interruption and time of resumption of the interview (rules of procedure and evidence of the International Criminal Court, rule 112 (1)).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- Examples of other safeguards against mistreatment and coercion during questioning include ensuring that no interview occurs without direct or indirect supervision, among others by way of one-sided mirrors, live-feed or review of recordings. Save exceptional circumstances, strict national regulations must ensure that detained persons may not be subjected to questioning for more than two hours without a break and must be provided adequate breaks for refreshments and be allowed uninterrupted periods of at least eight hours for rest - free from questioning or any activity in connection with the investigation - every 24 hours. Save in compelling circumstances, no interview should happen at night.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 91
- Paragraph text
- Victim of torture or ill-treatment must have access to impartial and effective complaint mechanisms and be protected from retaliation and reprisals. All complaints of mistreatment must be transmitted without screening to external independent bodies for prompt, impartial, thorough and effective investigation. Even in the absence of complaints, States have a duty to conduct investigations wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture or ill treatment occurred in any territory under their jurisdiction (see Committee against Torture, general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties; and A/68/295).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 96
- Paragraph text
- Statements, documentary or other evidence elicited through torture and ill treatment are inadmissible in any proceedings, except against suspected perpetrators. The exclusionary rule is a non-derogable norm of customary international law. It is fundamental to uphold the prohibition of torture and ill treatment by providing a disincentive to them. The rule applies to mistreatment of both suspects and third parties, including witnesses, and against evidence obtained in a third State, and regardless of whether the evidence is corroborated or is uniquely decisive for the case. The exclusionary rule applies in full to the collecting, sharing and receiving of any information tainted by mistreatment (see A/HRC/25/60).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 100
- Paragraph text
- National laws must provide for the exclusion of all evidence obtained in violation of safeguards designed to prevent mistreatment (see A/HRC/25/60), such as confessions or incriminating statements obtained in violation of one's rights to be informed of his or her rights and legal status before questioning, or duly warned that his or her words may be recorded and used in evidence against him or her. Evidence should also be excluded when access to counsel is unduly delayed or denied, or involuntarily waived; whenever specific safeguards applicable to the questioning of vulnerable persons are infringed; and when persons are denied adequate breaks and periods of rest during interviews save compelling circumstances. The protocol should account for situations where evidence or information is obtained in violation of preventive safeguards and the accused takes a plea without trial.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 101
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur calls upon States to spearhead the development of a universal protocol aiming to ensure that no person is subjected to torture, ill treatment or coercion, including any forms of violence, duress or threat. A protocol, to be developed in collaboration with relevant international and regional human rights mechanisms, civil society and experts, must be grounded in fundamental principles of international human rights law and foremost in the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. The first step in this process ought to be the convening of a broad public consultation designed to set the parameters for the collaborative development of the protocol by the relevant stakeholders.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 103
- Paragraph text
- The protocol ought to elaborate on a fundamental set of standards and procedural safeguards designed to protect the physical and mental integrity of all persons during questioning. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur calls upon States to consider adopting the elements considered herein (without prejudice to other elements suggested by experts and stakeholders), which should apply, as a matter of law and policy, at a minimum, to all interviews by law enforcement officials and other intelligence, military and administrative bodies with an investigative mandate, as well to those conducted by private contractors and other proxy agents of the State. The protocol should also provide for accountability mechanisms and appropriate remedies for victims.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- In the present report, the Special Rapporteur assesses the applicability of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in international law to the unique experiences of women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and intersex persons. Historically, the torture and ill-treatment framework evolved largely in response to practices and situations that disproportionately affected men. The analysis has thus largely failed to have a gendered and intersectional lens, or to account adequately for the impact of entrenched discrimination, patriarchal, heteronormative and discriminatory power structures and socialized gender stereotypes. He highlights in the report how the torture and ill-treatment framework can be more effectively applied to qualify human rights violations committed against persons who transgress sexual and gender norms; identify gaps in prevention, protection, access to justice and remedies; and provide guidance to States on their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of all persons to be free from torture and ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- Gender-based violence, endemic even in peacetime and often amplified during conflict, can be committed against any persons because of their sex and socially constructed gender roles. While women, girls, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, sexual minorities and gender-non-conforming individuals are the predominant targets, men and boys can also be victims of gender-based violence, including sexual violence stemming from socially determined roles and expectations. As noted by the Committee against Torture in its general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 of the Convention, gender-based crimes can take the form of sexual violence, other forms of physical violence or mental torment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Gender
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Boys
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Men
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- The purpose and intent elements of the definition of torture (A/HRC/13/39/Add.5) are always fulfilled if an act is gender-specific or perpetrated against persons on the basis of their sex, gender identity, real or perceived sexual orientation or non-adherence to social norms around gender and sexuality (A/HRC/7/3). The definitional threshold between ill-treatment and torture is often not clear. A gender-sensitive lens guards against a tendency to regard violations against women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons as ill-treatment even where they would more appropriately be identified as torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Gender-based discrimination includes violence directed against or disproportionately affecting women (A/47/38). Prohibited conduct is often accepted by communities due to entrenched discriminatory perceptions while victims' marginalized status tends to render them less able to seek accountability from perpetrators, thereby fostering impunity. Gender stereotypes play a role in downplaying the pain and suffering that certain practices inflict on women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. Furthermore, gender intersects with other factors and identities, including sexual orientation, disability and age, that may render a person more vulnerable to being subjected to torture and ill-treatment (general comment No. 2). Intersectional identities can result in experiencing torture and ill-treatment in distinct ways. The torture protection framework must be interpreted against the background of the human rights norms that have developed to combat discrimination and violence against women.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- States' obligations to prevent torture are indivisible, interrelated, and interdependent with the obligation to prevent other forms of ill-treatment. States have an obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment whenever they exercise custody or control over individuals and where failure to intervene encourages and enhances the danger of privately inflicted harm (general comment No. 2). States fail in their duty to prevent torture and ill-treatment whenever their laws, policies or practices perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes in a manner that enables or authorizes, explicitly or implicitly, prohibited acts to be performed with impunity. States are complicit in violence against women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons whenever they create and implement discriminatory laws that trap them in abusive circumstances (A/HRC/7/3).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- States must exercise due diligence to prohibit, prevent and redress torture and ill-treatment whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that such acts are being committed by private actors. This includes an obligation to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against women (A/47/38). Indifference or inaction by the State provides a form of encouragement and/or de facto permission (general comment No. 2). This principle applies to States' failure to prevent and eradicate gender-based violence. States' failure to protect against prohibited conduct and effectively investigate and prosecute violations suggests consent, acquiescence and, at times, even justification of violence. When States are aware of a pattern of violence or the targeting of specific groups by non-State actors, their due diligence obligations are likewise engaged and they are required actively to monitor and review data, apprise themselves of trends and respond appropriately.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Gender
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- In Opuz v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights found that discriminatory judicial passivity and unresponsiveness to domestic violence gave rise to impunity and a climate that was conducive to such gender-based violence, leading to a violation of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. Furthermore, when a State knows or should have known that a woman is in danger, it must take positive steps to ensure her safety, even when she hesitates in pursuing legal action (A/47/38). Women's rights to life and physical and mental integrity cannot be superseded by other rights, such as those to property and privacy. States have a heightened obligation to protect vulnerable and marginalized individuals from torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- A clear link exists between the criminalization of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and homophobic and transphobic hate crimes, police abuse, community and family violence and stigmatization (A/HRC/19/41). At least 76 States have laws that criminalize consensual relationships between same-sex adults, in breach of the rights to non-discrimination and privacy; in some cases, the death penalty may be imposed. Such laws foster a climate in which violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons by both State and non-State actors is condoned and met with impunity. Transgender persons are criminalized in many States through laws that penalize cross-dressing, "imitating the opposite sex" and sex work. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are frequently detained on the basis of laws containing vague and undefined concepts such as "crimes against the order of nature", "morality", "debauchery", "indecent acts" or "grave scandal" (A/HRC/29/23).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- Women comprise between 2 and 9 per cent of the prison population in 80 per cent of the world's prison systems. Although their numbers are increasing, their needs in detention often go unnoticed and unmet, as prisons and prison regimes are typically designed for men. However, women's unique experiences of prison, as well as the motivations for women's criminal behaviour and their pathways into criminal justice systems are often distinct from those of men (A/68/340). Different incarceration and treatment policies, services and even infrastructure are required to address women's distinct needs and ensure their protection.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Gender
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Men
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- Solitary confinement can amount to torture or ill-treatment when used as a punishment, during pretrial detention, for prolonged periods or indefinitely and on juveniles. Solitary confinement of any duration must never be imposed on juveniles, or persons with mental or physical disabilities, or on pregnant and breastfeeding women, or mothers with young children. (A/66/268). Its use as a measure of retaliation against women who have complained of sexual abuse or other harmful treatment must also be prohibited. Female prisoners subjected to solitary confinement suffer particularly grave consequences as it tends to retraumatize victims of abuse and women suffering from mental health problems. It places women at greater risk of physical and sexual abuse by prison staff and severely limits family visits.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Body searches, in particular strip and invasive body searches, are common practices and can constitute ill-treatment when conducted in a disproportionate, humiliating or discriminatory manner. Inappropriate touching and handling amounting to sexual harassment during searches is common, as are routine vaginal examinations of women charged with drug offences. These practices have a disproportionate impact on women, particularly when conducted by male guards. The punishment of women who refuse to undergo strip and invasive searches, for instance by placing them in isolation or revoking visitation privileges, is also common. When conducted for a prohibited purpose or for any reason based on discrimination and leading to severe pain or suffering, strip and invasive body searches amount to torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Harmful Practices
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- Most prison health policies and services are not designed to respond to women's specific health needs and fail to account for the prevalence of mental health and substance abuse problems among female prisoners, the high incidence of exposure to different forms of violence, and gender-specific sexual and reproductive health concerns. The provision of appropriate health-care services, including comprehensive, interdisciplinary and rehabilitation-oriented mental health-care programmes, as well as the provision of training and capacity-building to prison staff and health-care personnel to identify specific physical and mental-health needs of female detainees, are key to preventing mistreatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Of particular concern are a lack of specialist care, including access to gynaecologists and obstetric health-care professionals; discriminatory access to services like harm-reduction programmes; lack of private spaces for medical examinations and confidentiality; poor treatment by prison health staff; failures in diagnosis, medical neglect and denial of medicines, including for chronic and degenerative illnesses; and reportedly higher rates of transmission of diseases such as HIV among female detainees. The absence of gender-specific health care in detention can amount to ill-treatment or, when imposed intentionally and for a prohibited purpose, to torture. States' failure to ensure adequate hygiene and sanitation and to provide appropriate facilities and materials can also amount to ill-treatment or even torture. It is essential to engage in capacity-building and adequate training for detention centre staff and health-care personnel with a view to identifying and addressing women's specific health-care and hygiene needs.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Health
- Water & Sanitation
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Studies suggest that up to 80 per cent of women in prison are mothers. Many female prisoners are single mothers or primary caregivers, and imprisonment can result in considerable hardship for their children. Contact between detained mothers and their children is often difficult due to the remote location of female prisons. Concern about their children is a primary factor leading to the high incidence of mental health problems and self-harm among female detainees. The Bangkok Rules require that parental and child-caring responsibilities be taken into account in the allocation and sentence-planning processes. The best interests of the child, including the need to maintain direct contact with the mother, must be carefully and independently considered by competent professionals and taken into account in all decisions pertaining to detention, including pretrial detention, sentencing and the placement of the child (CRC/C/THA/CO/2).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Families
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights noted in a 2001 report on prisons in Malawi that prisons were not safe place for pregnant women, babies and young children and that it was not advisable to separate babies and young children from their mothers. Even very short periods in detention settings can undermine a child's psychological and physical well-being, compromise cognitive development and result in higher rates of suicide, self-harm, mental disorders and developmental problems (A/HRC/28/68). Children living in prison with their mothers may be at heightened risk of suffering violence, abuse and conditions of confinement that amount to torture or ill-treatment. In this context, the imprisonment of pregnant women and women with young children must be reduced to a minimum.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Infants
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- Girls in the criminal justice system are at particular risk of experiencing torture and ill-treatment. The majority have prior histories of abuse and violence that serve as primary predictors of their entry into the juvenile justice system. Girls' particular physical and mental health needs often go unrecognized and incarceration itself tends to exacerbate trauma, with girls suffering disproportionately from depression and anxiety and exhibiting a higher risk of self-harm or suicide than boys or adults. Many States lack facilities for separating girls from adults or boys, which significantly increases the risks of violence, including sexual violence. The employment of male guards in girls' facilities significantly increases the risk of abuse, while girls held in remote, segregated facilities are isolated and have limited contact with their families.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Boys
- Families
- Girls
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender detainees report higher rates of sexual, physical and psychological violence in detention than on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity than the general prison population (CAT/C/CRI/CO/2). Violence against these persons in custodial settings, whether by police, other law enforcement authorities, prison staff or other prisoners, is prevalent (A/HRC/29/23). Fear of reprisals and a lack of trust in the complaints mechanisms frequently prevent lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in custody from reporting abuses. Their placement in solitary confinement or administrative segregation for their own "protection" can constitute an infringement on the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. Authorities have a responsibility to take reasonable measures to prevent and combat violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender detainees by other detainees.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- Adequate and effective complaint and oversight mechanisms are critical sources of protection for at-risk groups that experience abuses in detention. All too often proper safeguards are absent or lacking in independence and impartiality, while fear of reprisals and the stigma associated with reporting sexual violence and other humiliating practices discourage women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons from reporting. In many cases, the vulnerability and isolation of women and girls is compounded by limited access to legal representation, inability to pay fees or bail as a result of poverty, dependence on male relatives for financial support and fewer family visits.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- Human trafficking affects approximately 21 million adults and children worldwide, including 11.4 million women and girls. Human trafficking is a particularly egregious human rights violation and a form of gender-based violence specifically targeting girls and women for exploitation and placing them at high risk of physical and psychological abuse, trauma and disease. Systemic discrimination against women and girls, including lack of access to education, resources and employment, renders them especially vulnerable to trafficking. Trafficked women and girls are routinely subjected to confinement, severe physical and sexual abuse, humiliation and threats for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, forced and bonded labour and organ removal. These practices unequivocally amount to torture and ill-treatment (A/HRC/13/39).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Girls
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Women are vulnerable to torture and ill-treatment when seeking medical treatment on the basis of actual or perceived non-conformity with socially determined gender roles (general comment No. 2). Discrimination against women, girls, and persons on the basis of sex, gender, real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and sex characteristics often underpins their torture and ill-treatment in health-care settings. This is particularly true when seeking treatments such as abortion that may contravene socialized gender roles and expectations. International human rights law increasingly recognizes that abuse and mistreatment of women seeking reproductive health services cause tremendous and lasting physical and emotional suffering, which is inflicted on the basis of gender (A/HRC/22/53). Health-care providers tend to exercise considerable authority over clients, placing women in a position of powerlessness, while the lack of legal and policy frameworks that effectively enable women to assert their right to access reproductive health services enhances their vulnerability to torture and ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- Unsafe abortion is the third leading cause of maternal death globally. Where access to abortion is restricted by law, maternal mortality increases as women are forced to undergo clandestine abortions in unsafe and unhygienic conditions. Short- and long-term physical and psychological consequences also arise due to unsafe abortions and when women are forced to carry pregnancies to term against their will (A/66/254). Such restrictive policies disproportionately impact marginalized and disadvantaged women and girls. Highly restrictive abortion laws that prohibit abortions even in cases of incest, rape or fetal impairment or to safeguard the life or health of the woman violate women's right to be free from torture and ill-treatment (A/HRC/22/53, CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1). Nevertheless, some States continue to restrict women's right to safe and legal abortion services with absolute bans on abortions. Restrictive access to voluntary abortion results in the unnecessary deaths of women (CAT/C/PER/CO/4).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- In other cases, women and girls face significant difficulties in accessing legal abortion services due to administrative and bureaucratic hurdles, refusal on the part of health-care workers to adhere to medical protocols that guarantee legal rights, negative attitudes, official incompetence or disinterest (A/HRC/22/53). The denial of safe abortions and subjecting women and girls to humiliating and judgmental attitudes in such contexts of extreme vulnerability and where timely health care is essential amount to torture or ill-treatment. States have an affirmative obligation to reform restrictive abortion legislation that perpetuates torture and ill-treatment by denying women safe access and care. Limited and conditional access to abortion-related care, especially where this care is withheld for the impermissible purpose of punishing or eliciting a confession, remains of concern (A/HRC/22/53). The practice of extracting, for prosecution purposes, confessions from women seeking emergency medical care as a result of illegal abortion in particular amounts to torture or ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- Women and girls seeking reproductive health care in professional settings are often exposed to severe pain and suffering and coerced into or subjected to unwanted, degrading and humiliating procedures and examinations. In some States, such practices include requiring sex workers to undergo weekly gynaecological examinations and blood tests, and forced or coerced pregnancy testing by means of physical examination or urine testing as a precondition for attending schools and public examinations. Virginity testing and the expulsion of pregnant girls from schools, which often result in long-term harmful consequences, constitute forms of discrimination and ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Harmful Practices
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- In many States women seeking maternal health care face a high risk of ill-treatment, particularly immediately before and after childbirth. Abuses range from extended delays in the provision of medical care, such as stitching after delivery to the absence of anaesthesia. Such mistreatment is often motivated by stereotypes regarding women's childbearing roles and inflicts physical and psychological suffering that can amount to ill-treatment. The detention of post-partum women in health-care facilities for failure to pay medical bills amounts to ill-treatment by separating new mothers from their children and exposing them to significant health risks.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons are frequently denied medical treatment and subjected to verbal abuse and public humiliation, psychiatric evaluations, forced procedures such as sterilization, "conversion" therapy, hormone therapy and genital-normalizing surgeries under the guise of "reparative therapies". These procedures are rarely, if ever, medically necessary, lead to severe and life-long physical and mental pain and suffering and can amount to torture and ill-treatment (A/HRC/22/53). The criminalization of same-sex relationships and pervasive discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons lead to the denial of health care, information and related services, including the denial of HIV care, in clear violation of international human rights standards such as the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Transgender persons often face difficulties in accessing appropriate health care, including discrimination on the part of health-care workers and a lack of knowledge about or sensitivity to their needs. In most States they are refused legal recognition of their preferred gender, which leads to grave consequences for the enjoyment of their human rights, including obstacles to accessing education, employment, health care and other essential services. In States that permit the modification of gender markers on identity documents abusive requirements can be imposed, such as forced or otherwise involuntary gender reassignment surgery, sterilization or other coercive medical procedures (A/HRC/29/23). Even in places with no legislative requirement, enforced sterilization of individuals seeking gender reassignment is common. These practices are rooted in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, violate the rights to physical integrity and self-determination of individuals and amount to ill-treatment or torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- It is estimated that 35 per cent of women worldwide have experienced physical or sexual intimate-partner or non-partner violence, with significantly higher figures reported in some States. Women and girls can be victims of specific forms of violence at the hands of their families, for instance in the form of widowhood rites or dowry-related violence, such as bride burnings or acid attacks (A/HRC/20/16). Victims of domestic violence tend to be intimidated by continual threats of physical, sexual or other violence and verbal abuse and may be "effectively manipulated by intermittent kindness" (see E/CN.4/1996/53, para. 47). Fear of further assaults can be sufficiently severe as to cause suffering and anxiety amounting to inhuman treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- Domestic violence can cause severe physical or mental pain and suffering, constitutes gender discrimination, and is sometimes perpetrated with the purpose of eliciting information, punishment or intimidation (E/CN.4/1996/53). Domestic violence amounts to ill-treatment or torture whenever States acquiesce in the prohibited conduct by failing to protect victims and prohibited acts, of which they knew or should have known, in the private sphere (A/HRC/13/39/Add.5). States are internationally responsible for torture when they fail - by indifference, inaction or prosecutorial or judicial passivity - to exercise due diligence to protect against such violence or when they legitimize domestic violence by, for instance, allowing husbands to "chastize" their wives or failing to criminalize marital rape, acts that could constitute torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Gender
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons are disproportionately subjected to practices that amount to torture and ill-treatment for not conforming to socially constructed gender expectations (A/HRC/22/53). Violence motivated by homophobia and transphobia tends to be characterized by particularly brutal acts, often resulting in murder (A/HRC/19/41). Private actors typically inflict torture and ill-treatment on such persons in a climate of impunity as many States fail in their due diligence obligations to combat, prevent and remedy abuses. Lesbians and transgender women are at particular risk of mistreatment because of gender inequality and power relations within families and communities (ibid.). Sexual violence, including the practice of "corrective rape", uniquely affects lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex individuals (CEDAW/C/ZAF/CO/4). Discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons extends into the family sphere and can include placement in psychiatric institutions, forced marriage and honour-based violence (A/HRC/29/23).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- Women and girls tend to be at risk of honour violence or killing for engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage, choosing partners without their family's approval or behaving in other ways that are considered immoral; Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons are also targeted (A/HRC/29/23). Honour killings have been documented in South-East Asia, Europe, North America and the Middle East and affect 5,000-12,000 women each year. States' failure to prevent honour-based violence contravenes their obligations to combat and prevent torture and ill-treatment. This includes failure to grant asylum to persons facing the risk of honour violence in their countries of origin.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Harmful Practices
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- The practice constitutes torture or ill-treatment (A/HRC/7/3) and must be prohibited in accordance with, inter alia, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (art. 5). Domestic laws permitting the practice contravene States' obligation to prohibit and prevent torture and ill-treatment, as does States' failure to take measures to prevent and prosecute instances of female genital mutilation by private persons. The tendency towards "medicalization" of female genital mutilation does not in any way make the practice more acceptable. States' indifference or inaction provides a form of encouragement and de facto permission for the practice to take place and go unpunished. The Special Rapporteur notes that in many cases, the perpetrators of female genital mutilation include the victim's parents. In this context, prosecution and the imposition of sanctions, including imprisonment, must result from a nuanced determination that takes into account the best interest of the child.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Harmful Practices
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- Child and other forms of forced marriage increase during conflict and among displaced populations living in refugee or internally displaced persons camps. In 2015 the practice has been documented as being enforced by both State actors and non-State or rebel factions in Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic and elsewhere, with victims being repeatedly raped, compelled to carry multiple pregnancies and subjected to other forms of physical and psychological violence over prolonged periods. While rape commonly occurs in the context of forced marriage, girls and women can also be forced into marriage as a consequence of rape or fear of sexual violence, as a form of "restitution" or "reparation". Like rape, forced marriage is used as a tactic of war and to fulfil strategic objectives such as domination, intimidation and degradation. It has been recognized as a crime against humanity by the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Girls
- Persons on the move
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- Victims of gender-based violence face significant hurdles in accessing justice and reparations, including absence of or shortcomings in domestic legal frameworks to hold perpetrators accountable, and practical obstacles such as the significant expense involved in accessing courts. Stigma can be a factor associated with gender-based crimes, and victims may fear rejection by families and communities and encounter personnel who are not properly trained to respond to their needs. All victims must be granted access to effective judicial and administrative remedies. This entails the dismantling of discriminatory barriers and the provision of support to victims at all stages of the legal process.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- Reparations must be premised on a full understanding of the gendered nature and consequences of the harm suffered and take existing gender inequalities into account to ensure that they are not themselves discriminatory (see A/HRC/14/22, para. 32). They must address the context of structural discrimination in which violations occurred and aim to provide both restitution and rectification. Reparations must have a transformative impact, addressing the underlying causes and consequences of violations, and offer continued protection for and respectful engagement with victims (A/HRC/14/22). As stipulated in the Nairobi Declaration on Women's and Girls' Right to a Remedy and Reparation, victims must be empowered to help determine what forms of reparation are best suited to their situation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- Adequate redress requires States to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators and inform the public of results. States must ensure that judicial procedures and rules of evidence are gender responsive; that equal weight is afforded to the testimony of women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons; and that the introduction of discriminatory evidence and the harassment of victims and witnesses are strictly prohibited. The standards established by international courts should serve as an example for domestic courts to follow, for instance by implementing institutional gender-balance requirements and prohibiting the admission of evidence regarding the victims' prior sexual conduct in cases of sexual, domestic and other gender-based violence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- States must repeal all laws that support the discriminatory and patriarchal oppression of women, inter alia laws that exclude marital rape from the crime of rape or grant pardon to rapists who marry their victims and laws that criminalize adultery. In addition, States must decriminalize same-sex relationships between consenting adults and repeal all laws that criminalize persons on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Comprehensive, coordinated policies and programmes to combat gender-based discrimination and violence, inclusive of gender-sensitive trainings of public officials and the implementation of public education and awareness campaigns, must be developed and implemented at all levels.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 70e
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in detention, the Special Rapporteur calls on all States to:] Divert women and girls away from the criminal justice system and towards appropriate services and programmes, whenever appropriate, and implement alternatives to detention such as absolute or conditional discharge, verbal sanctions, arbitrated settlements, restitution to the victim or a compensation order, community service orders, victim-offender mediation, family group conferences, sentencing circles, drug rehabilitation programmes and other restorative processes, services and programmes;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Gender
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 70k
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in detention, the Special Rapporteur calls on all States to:] Account for women's gender-specific health-care needs and provide individualized primary and specialist care, including comprehensive and detailed screenings and prerelease preparations, in a holistic and humane manner, in line with the Bangkok Rules; provide preventive and gender-sensitive care designed to safeguard women's privacy and dignity, including as regards mental health, sexual and reproductive health, HIV prevention and treatment and substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation programmes; and ensure that female detainees are examined and treated by female health-care professionals if they so request, except in emergency situations, when female staff should be present;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 70n
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in detention, the Special Rapporteur calls on all States to:] Consider the imprisonment of pregnant women and women with young children only when other alternatives are unavoidable or unsuitable; ensure that sentencing policies and practices respect the best interests of the child, including the need to maintain direct contact with mothers; assist female offenders with tools to carry out child-rearing responsibilities and make special provisions for mothers prior to admission to allow for alternative childcare arrangements; and allow children to maintain personal relations and direct contact with mothers in detention;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Youth
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 70o
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in detention, the Special Rapporteur calls on all States to:] When the detention of children with their mothers in prison is unavoidable,implement effective safeguards, including regular monitoring and review of every case to ensure that the children are never treated like prisoners; ensure that the full range of the children's needs, whether medical, physical, psychological or educational, including living conditions that are adequate for a child's development, are guaranteed in practice;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 70q
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in detention, the Special Rapporteur calls on all States to:] Ensure that migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are individually assessed, including with respect to their need for protection, and that adequate screening and assessment procedures are in place to identify victims of torture and ill-treatment; provide opportunities for safe, voluntary and dignified disclosure of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex status; and ensure that measures taken by migration authorities do not retraumatize victims;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Persons on the move
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Migrants, asylum seekers and refugees worldwide face grave human rights violations during the migration process. Physical violence, threats and abductions by smugglers, traffickers and organized criminal groups are common. Women and girls are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence, exploitation and slavery along migration routes. Such abuses can amount to torture and ill-treatment and States' failure to properly screen migrants and refugees, identify victims of torture and provide appropriate care and support can retraumatize victims and inflict additional mistreatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Movement
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- Persons on the move
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- States' due diligence obligations to ensure redress remain intact when non-State actors perpetrate conflict-related sexual violence. Gender-sensitive practices must be employed when investigating violations during and after the armed conflict. Silence or lack of resistance cannot be used to imply consent, which furthermore cannot be inferred from the words or conduct of a victim who was subjected to force, threats, or a coercive environment (A/HRC/7/3). Comprehensive assistance and reparations programmes in these contexts often require years to be fully implemented.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Gender
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- The right of access to counsel is one of the most essential safeguards against torture and ill-treatment. Not only does a lawyer's presence act as a deterrent against mistreatment or coercion and facilitate the undertaking of remedial action if mistreatment occurs, but also can protect officials facing unfounded allegations of improper conduct.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- The right to a lawyer entails the right to meet in private and consult and communicate in full confidentiality before any interview, which is essential to preserve defence rights and enable detainees to raise issues about treatment in custody.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- Detention, often for prolonged periods, is sometimes used on the grounds of "protecting" female victims of rape, honour-based violence and other abuses or to ensure that they will testify against the perpetrator in court. This practice further victimizes women, deters them from reporting rape and sexual abuse and can amount to torture or ill-treatment per se.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- Female genital mutilation has severely negative health consequences, including risk of death; has no documented health benefits; causes severe stress and shock, anxiety and depression; and has long-lasting, negative health consequences including higher risks of post-partum haemorrhage and other obstetric complications.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Harmful Practices
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 70a
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in detention, the Special Rapporteur calls on all States to:] Fully and expeditiously implement the Bangkok Rules and establish appropriate gender-specific conditions of detention;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 70b
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in detention, the Special Rapporteur calls on all States to:] Use pretrial detention as a means of last resort in accordance with the Tokyo Rules and prioritize the use of alternative measures, such as release on bail or personal recognizance;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 70c
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in detention, the Special Rapporteur calls on all States to:] Guarantee the right to effective assistance of counsel, including by means of a legal aid system, and the right to appeal decisions to a judicial or other competent independent authority, without discrimination;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 70g
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in detention, the Special Rapporteur calls on all States to:] Ensure that male and female detainees are separated, including during transport; that female detainees are supervised and attended to only by female staff; and that escorts of female prisoners at least include female officers;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- In 1990, the General Assembly adopted resolution 45/111, the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. Principle 7 states that efforts to abolish solitary confinement as a punishment, or to restrict its use, should be undertaken and encouraged.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- States bear the main responsibility for implementing international human rights standards, including the prohibition of torture. However, torture occurs because national legal frameworks are deficient and do not properly codify torture as a crime with appropriate sanctions. Torture persists because national criminal systems lack the essential procedural safeguards to prevent its occurrence, to effectively investigate allegations and to bring perpetrators to justice. Moreover, torture remains entrenched because of a climate of tolerance of excessive use of force by law enforcement officials in many countries.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- In certain cases, the definition of torture in national criminal law is too narrow and/or leaves out important elements established in article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In the case of Mongolia, the definition fails to include any of the essential elements of torture, including that the act (or omission) causes severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, that it is intentionally inflicted for a specific purpose and by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity. Article 251 of the Mongolian Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in 2008 but the provision does not apply to all public officials or persons acting in an official capacity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur found legislation where the definition was in line with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in some countries, such as the Republic of Moldova. The definition in the Sri Lankan legislation is in accordance with the Convention; however, it does not include "suffering". Moreover, since the implementation of the Emergency Regulations, most of the safeguards against torture either do not apply or are simply disregarded. In Equatorial Guinea, the definition was mainly in line with the Convention, with a catch-all clause broad enough to comply with it.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- However, during his fact-finding missions, the Special Rapporteur found that torture is often treated as a misdemeanour, such as in Mongolia, and penalties are too lenient, sometimes ranging from a few months to two years' imprisonment. In the Republic of Moldova and Equatorial Guinea, the sanctions could be for up to five and six years' imprisonment, respectively. The sentences in other countries, such as Jordan, were simply administrative sanctions ranging from six months to three years. In Togo, where a proper crime of torture is lacking, the provision of the Criminal Code relating to "wilful violence" is sometimes applied, but subject to statutes of limitations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Despite the fact that, in many cases, detainees have visible signs of ill-treatment, the authorities generally fail to initiate investigations. Medical examinations are often not conducted, nor are detainees provided with medical treatment. In Paraguay, the Special Rapporteur was concerned to see that officials completely disregarded their duty to initiate ex officio investigations. In Georgia, judges or procurators have an obligation to make inquiries or investigate allegations ex officio; however, no action is taken in the vast majority of cases. The same applies in the Republic of Moldova, where the legal provision calling for ex officio investigations is not applied in practice.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- Ex officio investigations, as required by article 12 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, are one of the strongest tools for preventing torture and combating impunity. As victims are often unaware of existing complaints mechanisms, they lack confidence that their complaints will be effectively addressed or they are afraid to file them. This problem is worse in countries where the obligation to initiate ex officio investigations is not enshrined in the law, as was observed by the Special Rapporteur in some of his missions, including those to Jamaica and Sri Lanka. Whenever there are reasonable grounds, including credible evidence, that an act of torture has been committed, States should conduct an investigation, irrespective of whether a complaint has been filed. In Jordan, the Special Rapporteur found that even though the Court of Cassation had overturned a number of convictions on the grounds that security officials had obtained confessions under torture, this did not trigger official criminal investigations against the perpetrators. The same holds true for Sri Lanka.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- A further concern is the fact that the authorities entrusted with investigating allegations of torture and ill-treatment are frequently the same authorities who are accused of committing such acts (i.e. the police), as is the case in Denmark, Georgia, Jordan and Nepal. Additionally, in Georgia, Mongolia and Paraguay, the investigation may also be carried out by the Office of the Prosecutor, the same authority responsible for prosecuting the case against the victim. The lack of independent investigating bodies with no connection to the authority investigating or prosecuting the case (a proper "police-police") prevents victims from obtaining justice and is one of the main impediments to combating impunity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- In most countries visited by the Special Rapporteur, he was not presented with a single case of a law enforcement official being suspended, investigated and prosecuted, let alone convicted, for torture. This was the case in Mongolia, Indonesia, Nepal, Nigeria and Togo, among other countries. Three countries where the Special Rapporteur did receive information that law enforcement officials had been convicted of torture were China, the Republic of Moldova and Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, 34 officials had been indicted and three convicted of torture. In Uruguay, there were several ongoing trials for crimes committed in the past. Although several people had been convicted, none had yet been convicted of torture. In Equatorial Guinea, only one official had been tried, but had not been convicted, despite the fact that torture is systematically practised there.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- Following the obligations of States to prevent torture and to hold perpetrators accountable, article 14 of the Convention against Torture stipulates that each State party shall ensure in its legal system that victims of torture obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. That obligation includes the establishment and support of torture rehabilitation centres. That duty was further emphasized by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 2004/41, in which it stressed that "national legal systems should ensure that victims of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment obtain redress and are awarded fair and adequate compensation and receive appropriate socio-medical rehabilitation". In that regard the Commission encouraged "the development of rehabilitation centres for victims of torture".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Most existing torture rehabilitation centres are private, founded by physicians, psychologists, family members of victims and other concerned individuals or groups in response to the failure of Governments to ensure that victims of torture receive the necessary treatment. Torture rehabilitation centres fill a gap and provide highly specialized medical and psychosocial care to those in need. Member organizations of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, the umbrella organization of 146 rehabilitation centres worldwide, provided treatment to more than 100,000 survivors of torture and trauma in 2009 alone. In the same year, the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture provided grants to 195 projects in 65 countries, for a total amount of 10 million United States dollars to support victims of torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- In order to fully appreciate the importance of the work of torture rehabilitation centres, one has to recall the devastating impact of torture on human beings. For most victims, the experience of their ordeal will remain present for the rest of their lives, if not physically then at least mentally. Often, the psychological impact of torture amounts to what has been described as a "disintegration of the personality". The harm inflicted may be so profound that it shatters the very identity of a person, the ability to feel any joy or hope, to engage with his or her environment, or to find any meaning in life. Depression, anxiety disorders including flash-backs, loss of self-respect, cognitive impairment and suicidal tendencies are only some of the consequences of torture. The impact of the abuse is rarely limited to the person directly targeted but also victimizes their families and even their communities. The victims' inability to resume their work further adds to their social seclusion and financial strain. In general, experiences of torture cannot be entirely "left behind", let alone forgotten.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- Centres for the rehabilitation of victims of torture support survivors in their efforts to learn to live with their experiences and assist them in regaining the strength to lead self-determined lives. Reflecting the far-reaching consequences of torture, rehabilitation centres provide a holistic treatment for survivors, aimed at healing their "bodies, minds and social ties". Rehabilitation centres possess specialized medical know-how and experience in dealing with torture injuries, and provide primary care and sometimes longer in-patient stays focusing on pain relief and the avoidance of any long-term physical impairment. Their specialization in torture traumata facilitates the provision of high-quality care, and provides expertise from which other members of the health community, for example local hospitals, can learn. In terms of psychological treatment, rehabilitation centres constitute first and foremost a safe haven where survivors have their suffering acknowledged and can develop trust towards those around them. The specific treatment that is eventually provided depends on their specific situation and personality and the type of abuse they have suffered, and also reflects the relevant cultural context. Patients may initially stay for some time at the rehabilitation centres, where intensive psychological counselling and, if needed, adequate psychotropic medication is provided. Overwhelmingly, the experience of torture requires long-term psychological support, which may include individual or group counselling, occupational therapy, social rehabilitation and other forms of support. Rehabilitation centres assist their clients for years on their long journey back into their lives.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- It is important to note that the services provided by rehabilitation centres for the victims of torture go beyond the medical aspects of rehabilitation. They also contribute to raising awareness of the issue of torture and the establishment of justice. Alerting and informing society of the prevalence of torture and States' involvement in it can trigger public pressure and eventually bring about policy changes. During his visit to the Republic of Moldova, the Special Rapporteur was impressed with the work of the Medical Centre for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims in Chisinau, which had managed to inform, train and mobilize lawyers, journalists and other professionals in order to support victims and disseminate information about cases of torture, both within the country and abroad. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture initiates programmes of survivor activism, encouraging victims to share with the public their stories, images and communications about survival, and works to make their voices heard. Similarly, centres in Argentina, Brazil and Chile are at the forefront when it comes to dealing with the legacy of the national security regimes and the continuing impunity for the crimes committed during those periods. In many countries, rehabilitation centres engage in campaigns advocating for legal reform and the passing of laws that comply with the Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol. In Pakistan, Struggle for Change, aside from providing multidisciplinary services to survivors, played a leading role in national advocacy efforts that eventually contributed to the ratification of the Convention.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- Rehabilitation centres also assume a decisive role in holding perpetrators accountable. With their forensic expertise they ensure that torture traumas, whether visible or invisible, are scrupulously documented before they disappear. Even if, at the time of the examination, it may seem unlikely that proceedings will be held, adequate records can eventually constitute crucial evidence in later criminal or civil cases. In this regard, the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) provides an important standard for the documentation of abuse, which goes beyond the therapeutic purpose in a narrow sense. Medical records can be instrumental in overcoming the otherwise lack of objective evidence with which survivors of torture are so commonly confronted, given that torture mostly takes place without witnesses. They provide evidence which can corroborate the victim's account of the ordeal. Establishing the facts of torture before a court and holding perpetrators accountable can give torture survivors a sense of justice and facilitate both a coming to terms with their past suffering and a comprehensive process of healing. Additionally, monetary compensation as a result of civil proceedings may provide the necessary funds for additional medical treatment. Acknowledging the importance of the Istanbul Protocol, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and the Turkish Medical Association, together with the Government of Turkey, concluded last year the training of 4,000 medical doctors, 1,000 prosecutors and 500 judges.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- Throughout his tenure of the mandate, the Special Rapporteur has been impressed by the courageous, dedicated and professional work undertaken by rehabilitation centres around the world. In all the centres he visited during his fact finding missions, he was impressed that staff members had been working extremely hard and often at considerable personal sacrifice. Confronted with the continuous arrival of new victims, aware of the large number of those who cannot be reached and knowing how quickly a person's life can be broken and how long it takes to heal, their work may at times appear frustrating. Working with survivors of torture involves listening to their experiences of abuse and its consequences, and may place a considerable psychological burden on those treating torture victims. Nevertheless, the staff of rehabilitation centres work relentlessly, often on a voluntary basis, in order to provide treatment and shelter.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- More subtle, but similarly obstructive, has been the introduction of new, sweepingly restrictive regulations for civil society organizations in many countries. While it has to be recognized that it is within the discretion of each State to adopt domestic legislation concerning non-governmental organizations, such provisions sometimes appear to be more the expression of a general suspicion or even hostility towards the work of civil society organizations working in the field of human rights, rather than serving any reasonable administrative purpose. In Egypt, the El Nadeem Centre for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence, which provides holistic support to victims of torture through medical rehabilitation, family support and legal aid, is threatened by a proposed law on non-governmental organizations. If approved, the law will lead to the centre's closure, along with that of many independent non governmental organizations. A similar situation already exists in Algeria, where the political situation presents extreme challenges for the establishment of non governmental organizations. As a result, despite efforts by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, there is as yet no rehabilitation centre in the country. Likewise, in the Sudan, the Amel Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture was recently closed in a crackdown on independent non-governmental organizations. Yet, in other areas work continues. In Zimbabwe, the Counselling Services Unit, which the Special Rapporteur visited in 2008, is a heartening example of how courageous individuals manage to provide crucial rehabilitation services and documentation in sometimes extreme circumstances. There are other examples of rehabilitation centres providing unmatched services, yet many prefer to keep a low profile because of the dangers of public exposure resulting from the nature of their work.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- Rehabilitation centres deserve appreciation and full support for their courage and for the determination with which they continue against the odds to accept patients and care for them in an uncompromising manner. While some medical institutions, such as State hospitals, may succumb to pressure exerted by the police or the military and turn a blind eye when it comes to documenting torture, the rehabilitation centres rigorously and consistently uphold professional and ethical medical standards. Ultimately, to attack a torture rehabilitation centre is to attack the victims of torture who have already suffered abuse and are in need of treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- As earlier emphasized, international human rights law places States under the obligation to ensure that victims of torture are provided with the means for as full physical and psychological rehabilitation as possible, implying the establishment or support of torture rehabilitation centres. At the same time, one has to realize that the majority of torture survivors do not have access to adequate treatment. Most centres, where they do exist, are overburdened by the number of victims, and their staff members constantly operate on the verge of exhaustion. This distressing situation is largely attributable to the limited financial support for rehabilitation centres. Reflecting this impasse, the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, as one of the main sources of funding for rehabilitation centres worldwide, receives grant requests every year for more than double the resources it is provided with by a relatively small number of donor States. In its 2009 report, the Board of Trustees of the Fund held out the prospect of a financial gap of 3 million United States dollars, which would equate to a reduction of its grants by 20 per cent unless State contributions increase. Furthermore, the recent global financial crisis has had a tangible impact on many centres, forcing them to cut back existing services because funding from private foundations has decreased. The Kosovo Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims, in Pristina, which has carried out excellent work, is facing closure in December 2010 because of a lack of funding. In Greece, the Medical Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims, in Athens, closed in 2009 for lack of funding, resulting in a complete lack of rehabilitation centres for torture victims.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- While the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and international donors such as the European Union (EU), as well as private foundations, are the most important sources of support for rehabilitation centres, it has to be noted that Governments fall overwhelmingly short of their obligation and leave domestic centres and torture survivors struggling. The Special Rapporteur interprets this shortcoming as a further example of the prevalent reluctance on the part of States to deal with the issue of torture in a rigorous manner and to acknowledge the scope of the problem. The unwillingness to ensure adequate funding of domestic rehabilitation centres is a manifestation of the same attitude of taking torture prevention lightly that results in failure to investigate crimes perpetrated by State agents and to eventually hold them accountable.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- The lack of funding for rehabilitation centres is by no means limited to poor States or States where torture may be rife, but also holds true for States which are generally considered to be relatively safe and affluent, for example EU member States. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern the upcoming phasing-out of EU support for centres located within its area and the simultaneous failure of European Governments to step up their support for their own domestic institutions. Rehabilitation centres within the EU assume a crucial role in providing services to thousands of individuals who have had to flee their home countries and seek refuge after experiencing war, persecution and torture. While these survivors may have succeeded in escaping from imminent persecution and from their torturers, their experiences are still very much present and continue to haunt them. Often alone in a foreign country, confronted with xenophobic resentment, general suspicion that there is abuse of the asylum system, and concerns about the outcome of protracted and increasingly restrictive asylum procedures, survivors of torture find themselves in an environment which is far from conducive to a process of healing. The availability in those States of well-functioning rehabilitation centres where many refugees can open up and receive medical treatment for the first time is essential and their value cannot be overestimated. The Special Rapporteur calls for a change of the perception prevalent in many Western countries that torture is a distant issue. Many Europeans would be surprised to learn that their immigrant neighbour is in fact one of many survivors of torture who have found refuge in their country.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Movement
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- In view of the great importance of systematic, independent external monitoring for the prevention of torture, and in response to the shortcomings of the existing mechanisms, the General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture in 2002. The rationale behind the Optional Protocol is based on the experience that torture mainly happens in places of detention, owing to their opaqueness to the outside world and lack of external scrutiny. The Optional Protocol is intended to introduce a shift from a paradigm of opacity, in which detainees are locked away from the outside world and the outside world is kept away from the detainees, to one of transparency. Through the opening up of places of detention, the entire system of detention can be exposed to public scrutiny, made more transparent, and its officials deterred from abusive treatment by being held accountable for their actions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 79
- Paragraph text
- As of July 2010, a total of 54 States, including 8 States visited by the Special Rapporteur, were parties to the Optional Protocol. Of those, 32 States have designated national preventive mechanisms. Given that all the existing national preventive mechanisms are still at an initial stage and have yet to develop their practices, the current phase is absolutely crucial in terms of paving the way for the Optional Protocol to exert its full potential for the prevention of torture. Against this background, a first stocktaking would appear to be instructive in order to identify lessons learned and potential pitfalls in the process of setting up national preventive mechanisms.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- The Optional Protocol does not prescribe a specific form for national preventive mechanisms but leaves it to States parties how to "maintain, designate or establish … one or several independent national preventive mechanisms". However, the Optional Protocol and the related Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles) prescribe clear minimum criteria for national preventive mechanisms. Any national preventive mechanism is to be provided with a broad mandate to regularly visit all places of detention with a view to examining the treatment of detainees, to make recommendations to the relevant authorities and to submit draft legislative proposals and observations. It must have unrestricted access, without prior notification, to all places of detention and enjoy the right to hold private interviews with detainees. It must be granted full institutional, functional, personal and financial independence from the State authorities, be pluralistically composed to have the "required capabilities and professional knowledge" and provide for a balanced gender and adequate minority representation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- States parties have taken different approaches to establishing a national preventive mechanism in compliance with the Optional Protocol, either designating existing institutions or establishing an entirely new body, both of which have advantages and disadvantages. By designating an existing institution such as the national human rights institution, the national preventive mechanism may benefit from that institution's previous experience and positive and visible public profile. On the other hand, it may take over potential problems and shortcomings of the existing institution in terms of public perception, a narrow mandate and a lack of resources. The establishment of an entirely new body may require additional efforts and resources but enables States parties to model the mechanism precisely according to the requirements of the Optional Protocol, instead of making amendments to existing legislation. The ideal model depends on the specific circumstances of each State.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 83
- Paragraph text
- Even the most independent national preventive mechanism with the strongest mandate cannot function without sufficient resources. Therefore, article 18, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol expressly requires States to provide "the necessary resources for the functioning of the national preventive mechanisms". However, lack of resources remains one of the main problems of existing national preventive mechanisms, as the task of regularly monitoring all places of detention is very complex and costly. It is by the allocation of adequate resources that States parties demonstrate their genuine commitment to the prevention of torture. France set a positive example by assigning extensive human and financial (2.5 million euros) resources to its national preventive mechanism. Similarly, New Zealand has considerably increased the resources of its national preventive mechanism after the first year of functioning. The Special Rapporteur and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture previously raised the concern that some States that had designated existing institutions as national preventive mechanisms had not allocated sufficient additional resources, for example Denmark, Maldives and Sweden. A particularly worrying example is Germany, where the national preventive mechanism has an alarming lack of human and financial resources. As the country with the largest population in Europe, it is merely assigning four part-time unpaid staff members to the regional national preventive mechanism body and one unpaid person to the federal national preventive mechanism body, with a budget of only 300,000 euros. The Special Rapporteur has previously criticized these resources as being insufficient to allow the national preventive mechanism to fulfil the task of regular, systematic monitoring of all places of detention.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 84
- Paragraph text
- The provision of inadequate resources has an effect on the capabilities and professional knowledge required by article 18, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol. A pluralistic composition cannot be ensured by a national preventive mechanism body that consists of only one member, as is the case in Germany. In contrast, the French national preventive mechanism has 14 full-time inspectors and can call on an additional 14 inspectors to take part in specific missions, thereby facilitating the participation of persons from various educational and professional backgrounds. Small national preventive mechanisms with only a few members have to largely rely on the expertise of ad hoc members or external experts for the effective performance of monitoring visits. In practice, this can create difficulties, including in regard to their availability. Therefore, some States, for example the Czech Republic, Denmark, Luxembourg and Slovenia, have entered into cooperation agreements with relevant civil society organizations in order to ensure external support for their national preventive mechanisms.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 85
- Paragraph text
- In order for national preventive mechanisms to carry out their functions effectively, they must have a clear understanding of their tasks and roles. Particular problems can arise for a national preventive mechanism that functions within a previously existing institution such as a national human rights institution, for a national preventive mechanism composed of several bodies and for a national preventive mechanism that cooperates institutionally with civil society organizations. Those models all require a particular effort of planning and coordination and a clarification of the exact roles and tasks within the institution. In national human rights institutions designated as national preventive mechanisms, the roles of the members of the national preventive mechanism and the staff of the national human rights institution may not always be clear and the different tasks of the national human rights institution may impede the effective and autonomous functioning of the national preventive mechanism. Therefore, it is recommended that national human rights institutions designated as national preventive mechanisms create separate units or departments where employees are explicitly and fully assigned for the performance of the tasks of the national preventive mechanism, as in Costa Rica, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mexico and Spain. The units should have an autonomous agenda and programme of action, and their own staff and budget. Concerning the designation of several existing institutions as national preventive mechanisms, as in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, adequate coordination of the work of the bodies is necessary in order for them to function effectively and coherently. An equal need for coordination and coherence arises in cases where national preventive mechanisms cooperate institutionally with non governmental organizations, as in the Republic of Moldova and Slovenia. In the Republic of Moldova, their institutional involvement has led to a serious internal conflict over the competences and roles of the different members. Additionally, there is a risk of the dilution of their mandates for non-governmental organizations and of a loss of independence and credibility for the national preventive mechanism if the division of tasks is unclear.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 88
- Paragraph text
- While the appalling conditions of detention in most countries of the world could be effectively addressed by adopting a special United Nations convention on the rights of detainees, no further standard setting is required to combat torture. Its prohibition is one of the few absolute and non-derogable human rights and part of ius cogens, and the Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol contain a broad range of very specific positive State obligations aimed at preventing and combating torture. If States parties to the Convention and the Optional Protocol would abide by their legally binding obligations, torture could easily be eradicated.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- In order to combat increasing levels of crime, terrorism and other forms of organized crime effectively, Governments in too many countries seem willing to restrict certain human rights by granting their law enforcement, intelligence and security forces very extensive powers. This leads to an environment conducive to undermining the absolute prohibition of torture. The brutalization of many societies has reached a level where torture is simply regarded by Governments and the population at large as the "lesser evil". This trend is alarming. There is a need for a new global awareness-raising campaign to change this climate of tolerance towards excessive use of force by law enforcement officials. Governments need to be reminded that torture is not an effective means of combating crime. On the contrary, it contributes to the further brutalization of societies and the spiral of violence which many societies suffer from. Torture is nothing other than an act of barbarism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 92
- Paragraph text
- Finally, all States have an international legal obligation to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent torture. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to promptly ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and to establish, through legislative action on the basis of an inclusive and transparent process, independent and professional national preventive mechanisms tasked with conducting regular and unannounced visits to all places of detention. Such national preventive mechanisms should be granted unrestricted access to all places of detention and the opportunity to have private interviews with detainees. The Special Rapporteur urges all States parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture to provide national preventive mechanisms with the necessary financial and human resources to enable them to regularly inspect all places of detention, to examine the treatment of detainees and to prevent acts of torture or ill-treatment in detention.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The term "torture" should not be used in an inflammatory manner. It is reserved for one of the worst possible human rights violations and abuses human beings can inflict upon each other, and therefore carries a special stigma. It therefore holds a special position in international law: it is absolutely prohibited and this prohibition is non-derogable. Where torture has been inflicted, it is a very serious crime against a human being, who most likely will suffer from its consequences for the rest of his or her life, either physically or mentally. According to the definition contained in the Convention against Torture, four elements are needed in order for an act to be qualified as torture: firstly, an act inflicting severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; secondly, the element of intent; thirdly, the specific purpose; and lastly, the involvement of a State official, at least by acquiescence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- It is disappointing to see that the few perpetrators who are held accountable are punished with sentences far below what is required by international law. While the Committee against Torture, in its State reporting procedure, has interpreted the obligation for an adequate punishment as a long-term prison sentence with a penalty of up to 20 years, the Special Rapporteur's fact-finding missions have shown that perpetrators, if held accountable at all, were predominantly punished with disciplinary sanctions and light or suspended prison sentences. The forms of discipline do not normally go beyond demotion, delayed promotion or pay freeze. These sanctions are an affront to the victims, lack any meaningful acknowledgment of their suffering, are devoid of any deterrent effect and, therefore, put further persons at risk.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur has ample grounds to believe that the vast majority of violations are never reported by detainees, including because they are often not aware of their right to complain. In a context of detention frequently characterized by violence and other abuse, it seems beyond imagination for many detainees that someone could listen to their allegations. If detainees know about their right to complain and the actual existence of a complaints mechanism, the fear of reprisals and lack of confidence in the overall functioning of the system may silence them. Normally, there is no complaints body sufficiently independent from the authority which is in charge of holding the detainees.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- All too often, the safeguards required by international human rights law are either not foreseen or not effective.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Detainees are at a high risk of being ill-treated during the first hours of deprivation of liberty. Suspects mostly find themselves in the hands of the officers in charge of investigating the crime of which they are accused. The officers therefore have an interest in obtaining a confession or other relevant information. In order to keep this critical phase as short as possible, international human rights law requires the minimization of the period before a person is brought before a judge or another officer authorized by law to exercise judicial powers. However, suspects are frequently held in police custody for much longer than international human rights law allows, sometimes for weeks or months, and find themselves in a situation which is generally dominated by a feeling of vulnerability and fear. In many of the police stations the Special Rapporteur has visited, there was a palpable level of fear which manifested itself inter alia in the strong reluctance of detainees to speak with him.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Given that most cases of abuse take place during the very early stages of detention, immediate access to an independent lawyer is crucial. In many countries, however, detainees are arrested, interrogated and indicted without having been able to access counsel. Even access to a lawyer at a later stage remains a hypothetical option for most detainees since they lack the financial resources to pay for it. Since persons from poorer social strata make up the majority of detainees, the inability to effectively access legal aid affects the majority of persons deprived of their liberty. The lack of legal counsel is in sharp contrast to the basic principles of equality before the law and fairness. Detainees are often not aware of their rights, even when it comes to which treatment is actually permissible during interrogations. However, even in States with legal aid schemes, many detainees voiced doubts regarding the independence of their State-appointed lawyers or reported that they requested additional payment, since State-provided remuneration did not meet the lawyers' fees.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- One of the major challenges when it comes to proving cases of torture and ill-treatment is the gathering of evidence. Since abuses are mainly inflicted behind closed doors, victims most often have an uphill struggle to make their cases heard and get their complaints properly considered. This is particularly the case for persons who are accused of having committed a crime and carry the stigma of not being credible and trying to avoid justice by complaining about their treatment. Forensic medical science is a crucial tool in addressing this problem, since it can establish the degree of correlation of the medical findings with the allegations brought forward and therefore provide evidence on which prosecutions can be based. Modern medical examinations can help to detect injuries which are otherwise not visible, such as soft tissue or nerve trauma - essential in light of the ever increasing sophistication of torture methods.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- As torture often leaves indelible traces on the body - or in the minds - of the victims, reparation can almost never be complete. However, article 14 of the Convention against Torture requires each State party to ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible. This is a specific manifestation of the general right of victims of human rights violations to a remedy and adequate reparation, as laid down in various international and regional human rights treaties and should also apply to victims of other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Consequently, reparation has to encompass several aspects. What victims perceive as fair and adequate reparation for the ordeals they had to endure may differ from case to case. In the Special Rapporteur's experience, victims of torture are not primarily interested in monetary compensation, but in having their dignity restored. Public acknowledgment of the harm and humiliation caused and the establishment of the truth together with a public apology may often provide greater satisfaction than monetary compensation. For many torture survivors, justice is only perceived as such when criminal prosecution has lead to an appropriate punishment of the perpetrators. Most victims of torture are in urgent need of long-term medical and psychological rehabilitation in specialized treatment centres where they feel secure. The amount of monetary compensation must therefore include any economically assessable damage, such as the costs of long-term rehabilitation measures and compensation for lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits. In addition to reparation tailored to the needs of the individual victim, States are also obliged to adopt more general guarantees of non-repetition, such as taking resolute steps to fight impunity through, for example, the revision of amnesty laws, the establishment of independent investigation units or promotion of the observance of codes of conducts for law enforcement officials.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and relevant provisions of regional human rights treaties prohibit not only torture, but also cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which is separately proscribed in article 16 of the Convention against Torture. As is the case of the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is non-derogable. While the Convention against Torture expressly defines torture, there is no such definition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in international treaties. Consequently, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is commonly distinguished from torture with reference to article 1 of the Convention against Torture. However, as the Special Rapporteur has argued before, the distinguishing factor is not the intensity of the suffering inflicted, but rather the purpose of the conduct, the intention of the perpetrator and the powerlessness of the victim. Torture constitutes such a horrible assault on the dignity of a human being because the torturer deliberately inflicts severe pain or suffering on a powerless victim for a specific purpose, such as extracting a confession or information from the victim. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, on the other hand, means the infliction of pain or suffering without purpose or intention and outside a situation where a person is under the de facto control of another. It follows that one may distinguish between justifiable and non-justifiable treatment causing severe suffering. Examples where causing severe suffering may be justifiable are the lawful use of force by the police in the exercise of law enforcement policies (e.g. arrest of a criminal suspect, dissolution of a violent demonstration) and of the military in an armed conflict. In such situations, the principle of proportionality has to be strictly observed. If the use of force is not necessary and, in the particular circumstances of the case, disproportional to the purpose achieved, it amounts to cruel or inhuman treatment. In a situation where one person is under the de facto control of another and thus powerless, the test of proportionality is no longer applicable. Other situations which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are particularly severe conditions of detention, domestic violence, female genital mutilation and trafficking in human beings. This means that, in principle, all forms of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, including torture, require the infliction of severe pain or suffering. This is different for the qualification of degrading treatment or punishment only in the sense of article 16 of the Convention against Torture, which arises from humiliation of the victim even if the pain or suffering is not severe.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Domestic violence, in particular against women and children, is a widespread practice in most countries, and not enough action is taken by States to protect women and children against ill-treatment by their husbands, partners or parents. Although female genital mutilation inflicts most severe pain and long-term suffering on girls, it continues to be practised in too many African and other countries without adequate laws prohibiting it and without law enforcement bodies implementing existing laws. Trafficking in human beings, notably women and girls, is one of the most widespread and lucrative activities of organized crime. Most Governments seem to be more interested in returning victims of trafficking to their countries of origin than providing protection and reparation for them. By not acting with due diligence to protect victims of domestic violence, trafficking, female genital mutilation and similar practices, States may commit torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by acquiescence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Harmful Practices
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Girls
- Women
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- In its pervasiveness, impact on the victim and justifications put forward by its proponents, corporal punishment of children in the home and in educational settings differs from corporal punishment that is administered as part of a judicial sentence in a number of States. A separate problem is the corporal chastisement of detainees as a disciplinary sanction that the Special Rapporteur has witnessed in many countries. What is common to all these forms of corporal punishment, however, is that physical force is used intentionally against a person in order to cause severe pain. Furthermore, without exception, corporal punishment has a degrading and humiliating component. Corporal punishment must therefore without exception be considered to amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or torture in violation of international treaty and customary law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- The principle of non-refoulement is an important principle codified in several international instruments, considered part of international customary law and reflected in international jurisprudence prohibiting the return or extradition of a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would face the risk of being tortured. States are thus not only prohibited from subjecting persons to torture but also from sending them to States where they face that risk, or through indirect or "chain" refoulement. The sending State is therefore responsible for undertaking a proper risk assessment of the situation in the receiving State.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- Although there are similarities between the two, the refoulement procedure is not to be equated with the asylum procedure. While there are limitations to asylum in terms of the Refugee Convention, article 3 of the Convention against Torture and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights apply to every person and are not subject to any limitation or exclusion clauses. Consequently, the non-refoulement principle is absolute. While doubts about the credibility of the facts provided by the applicant can result in the refusal of asylum, the State has to ensure that the security of the applicant is not endangered, as continuously upheld by the Committee against Torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- The principle of non-refoulement has come under fire during the Special Rapporteur's tenure both from the ever increasing tightening of immigration laws and domestic procedures that often only provide for superficial examinations by the authorities and the several attempts at undermining the principle in the context of the fight against terrorism (including through the so-called "test of reasonableness", which balances the risk of torture against the threat to national security and the increased use of diplomatic assurances), where there were fears that States may use torture on persons suspected of terrorist acts. As the Special Rapporteur has stated repeatedly, diplomatic assurances related to torture are nothing but an attempt to circumvent the absolute nature of the principle of non-refoulement.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- Although 146 States are party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, most Governments have failed to effectively implement its provisions. Despite the obligation to criminalize torture and prosecute perpetrators of torture under different types of jurisdiction, only very few torturers have been brought to justice worldwide. Impunity continues to be one of the main factors in widespread torture. Despite the obligation to provide victims of torture with an effective remedy and adequate reparation for the harm suffered, only a very small number of victims of torture are able to enjoy this right in the country responsible for inflicting the torture. If victims manage to access medical, psychological and other forms of rehabilitation, this important form of reparation is usually provided by private organizations in countries in which torture victims are granted asylum. Despite the obligation to effectively investigate every allegation or suspicion of torture and ill-treatment, almost no country has established bodies with effective powers of criminal investigation which are also fully independent from the law enforcement officers subject to their investigations. Despite the obligation to take all legislative, administrative, political and other measures necessary to prevent torture, including prompt access of detainees to lawyers, judges, doctors and families, audio- or videotaping of interrogations, the prohibition of using confessions extracted by torture before courts and regular inspections of all places of detention and interrogation by independent bodies, most of the some 10 million detainees around the world can only dream of enjoying such measures.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- Other forms of widespread cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment include corporal punishment and excessive police violence during arrest and in reacting to demonstrations and political gatherings, combating riots and similar law enforcement activities. States also do not live up to the standard of due diligence required by the obligation not to commit torture by acquiescence when combating torture and ill-treatment by private actors, including harmful traditional practices, such as female genital mutilation and honour crimes, domestic violence and trafficking in human beings, above all of women and children.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Harmful Practices
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Women
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 77a
- Paragraph text
- [In building upon the general recommendations elaborated by his distinguished predecessor, Theo van Boven, in 2003, the Special Rapporteur wishes to particularly stress the following recommendations:] All States should ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture and fully implement its provisions. In particular, they must criminalize torture, as defined in article 1, with appropriate sanctions taking into account the gravity of the crime of torture; investigate all allegations and suspicions of torture by independent and effective "police-police" bodies; bring perpetrators of torture to justice under the various forms of criminal jurisdiction mentioned in article 5 of the Convention; provide victims of torture with an effective remedy and adequate reparation for the harm suffered - in particular medical, psychological and other forms of rehabilitation; and take all measures necessary to prevent torture, including prompt access of all detainees to lawyers, judges, doctors and their families;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 77b
- Paragraph text
- [In building upon the general recommendations elaborated by his distinguished predecessor, Theo van Boven, in 2003, the Special Rapporteur wishes to particularly stress the following recommendations:] All States should ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and establish effective national preventive mechanisms to carry out preventive visits to all places of detention. Those mechanisms should be fully independent bodies with a pluralistic composition and equipped with the financial and human resources necessary to conduct regular and ad hoc visits to all places of detention (police lock-ups, prisons, pretrial detention facilities, psychiatric hospitals and special detention facilities for women, children, migrants, drug addicts, etc.);
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Persons on the move
- Women
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 77d
- Paragraph text
- [In building upon the general recommendations elaborated by his distinguished predecessor, Theo van Boven, in 2003, the Special Rapporteur wishes to particularly stress the following recommendations:] The international community should establish a global fund for national human rights protection systems which will assist States in their efforts to improve and reform national criminal justice systems, including the judiciary, prosecutors, police and prisons. That fund shall be financed by States, non-governmental organizations and the corporate sector and shall contribute to the legal empowerment of the poor;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 77e
- Paragraph text
- [In building upon the general recommendations elaborated by his distinguished predecessor, Theo van Boven, in 2003, the Special Rapporteur wishes to particularly stress the following recommendations:] The Human Rights Council should consider drafting a United Nations convention on the rights of detainees to codify all human rights of persons deprived of liberty, as laid down in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and similar soft law instruments, in a legally binding human rights treaty with effective monitoring and implementation mechanisms;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur's predecessors have noted that prolonged solitary confinement may itself amount to prohibited ill-treatment or torture (E/CN.4/1999/61, para. 394, and E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (m)).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- The Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement was annexed to the former Special Rapporteur's 2008 interim report to the General Assembly (A/63/175, annex). The report concluded that "prolonged isolation of detainees may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and, in certain instances, may amount to torture. ... [T]he use of solitary confinement should be kept to a minimum, used in very exceptional cases, for as short a time as possible, and only as a last resort. Regardless of the specific circumstances of its use, effort is required to raise the level of social contacts for prisoners: prisoner-prison staff contact, allowing access to social activities with other prisoners, allowing more visits and providing access to mental health services" (A/63/175, paras. 77 and 83).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- The history of the use of solitary confinement on detainees has been well documented. The practice can be traced to the 1820s in the United States of America, where it was believed that isolation of prisoners would aid in their rehabilitation. Under this model prisoners spent their entire day alone, mostly within the confines of their cells, including for work, in order to reflect on their transgressions away from negative external influences. Beginning in the 1830s, European and South American countries adopted this practice (A/63/175, para. 81). It must be recognized that 200 years ago this model was a socially and morally progressive way to deal with punishment, as it emphasized rehabilitation and attempted to substitute for the death penalty, limb amputations and other penalties then prevalent.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- There is no universally agreed upon definition of solitary confinement. The Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement defines solitary confinement as the physical isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day. In many jurisdictions, prisoners held in solitary confinement are allowed out of their cells for one hour of solitary exercise a day. Meaningful contact with other people is typically reduced to a minimum. The reduction in stimuli is not only quantitative but also qualitative. The available stimuli and the occasional social contacts are seldom freely chosen, generally monotonous, and often not empathetic.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Solitary confinement is also known as "segregation", "isolation", "separation", "cellular", "lockdown", "Supermax", "the hole" or "Secure Housing Unit (SHU)", but all these terms can involve different factors. For the purposes of this report, the Special Rapporteur defines solitary confinement as the physical and social isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day. Of particular concern to the Special Rapporteur is prolonged solitary confinement, which he defines as any period of solitary confinement in excess of 15 days. He is aware of the arbitrary nature of the effort to establish a moment in time which an already harmful regime becomes prolonged and therefore unacceptably painful. He concludes that 15 days is the limit between "solitary confinement" and "prolonged solitary confinement" because at that point, according to the literature surveyed, some of the harmful psychological effects of isolation can become irreversible.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- International and regional human rights bodies have taken different approaches to address the underlying conditions of social and physical isolation of detainees, and whether such practices constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For example, while the European Court of Human Rights has confronted solitary confinement regimes with regularity, the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have most extensively addressed the related phenomenon of incommunicado detention. For the purposes of this report, the Special Rapporteur will highlight the work of universal and regional human rights bodies on solitary confinement only.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- The Committee against Torture has recognized the harmful physical and mental effects of prolonged solitary confinement and has expressed concern about its use, including as a preventive measure during pretrial detention, as well as a disciplinary measure. The Committee has recommended that the use of solitary confinement be abolished, particularly during pretrial detention, or at least that it should be strictly and specifically regulated by law (maximum duration, etc.) and exercised under judicial supervision, and used only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the safety of persons or property is involved (A/63/175, para. 80). The Committee has recommended that persons under the age of 18 should not be subjected to solitary confinement (CAT/C/MAC/CO/4, para. 8).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has pointed out that prolonged solitary confinement may amount to an act of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and recommended that solitary confinement should not be used in the case of minors or the mentally disabled (CAT/OP/PRY/1, para. 185). The Subcommittee has also recommended that a medical officer should visit prisoners held in solitary confinement every day, on the understanding that such visits should be in the interests of the prisoners' health. Furthermore, prisoners held in solitary confinement for more than 12 hours should have access to fresh air for at least one hour each day (CAT/OP/PRY/1, para. 184). In view of the condition of solitary confinement, the Subcommittee has pointed out that beds and proper mattresses should be made available to all inmates, including prisoners held in solitary confinement (CAT/OP/HND/1, para. 227 (a), and CAT/OP/PRY/1, para. 280).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its General Comment No. 10 (2007), emphasized that "disciplinary measures in violation of article 37 [of the Convention on the Rights of the Child] must be strictly forbidden, including ... closed or solitary confinement, or any other punishment that may compromise the physical or mental health or well-being of the child concerned" (CRC/C/GC/10, para. 89). Moreover, the Committee has urged States parties to prohibit and abolish the use of solitary confinement against children (CRC/C/15/Add.151, para. 41; CRC/C/15/Add.220, para. 45 (d); and CRC/C/15/Add.232, para. 36 (a)).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- In its evaluation of cases of solitary confinement, the European Court of Human Rights considers the rationale given by the State for the imposition of social and physical isolation. The Court has found violations of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights where States do not provide a security-based justification for the use of solitary confinement. In circumstances of prolonged solitary confinement, the Court has held that the justification for solitary confinement must be explained to the individual and the justification must be "increasingly detailed and compelling" as time goes on.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The level of isolation imposed on an individual is essential to the European Court of Human Rights' assessment of whether instances of physical and mental isolation constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A prolonged absolute prohibition of visits from individuals from outside the prison causes suffering "clearly exceeding the unavoidable level inherent in detention". However, where the individual can receive visitors and write letters, have access to television, books and newspapers and regular contact with prison staff or visit with clergy or lawyers on a regular basis, isolation is "partial", and the minimum threshold of severity - which the European Court of Human Rights considers necessary to find a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights - is not met. Nevertheless, the Court has emphasized that solitary confinement, even where the isolation is only partial, cannot be imposed on a prisoner indefinitely.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- The jurisprudence on solitary confinement within the Inter-American System on Human Rights is more conclusive than within the bodies discussed above. Since its earliest judgments, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has found that certain elements of a prison regime and certain physical prison conditions in themselves constitute cruel and inhuman treatment, and therefore violate article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which recognizes the right to the integrity of the person. For example, the Court held that "prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment, harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person and a violation of the right of any detainee to respect for his inherent dignity as a human being". The Court has additionally addressed physical conditions of detention, asserting that "isolation in a small cell, without ventilation or natural light, ... [and] restriction of visiting rights ..., constitute forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- The Court has additionally recognized that solitary confinement results in psychological and physical suffering that may contribute to treatment that constitutes torture. In at least one case, the Court has identified the physical conditions of solitary confinement, including "a small cell with no ventilation or natural light", and a prison regime where a detained individual "is held for 23 and a half hours a day ..., [and] permitted to see his relatives only once a month, but could have no physical contact with them", when coupled with other forms of physical and psychological aggression, in sum may constitute physical and psychological torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- In its analysis of solitary confinement, the Court has noted that even when used in exceptional circumstances, procedural safeguards must be in place. For example, "the State is obliged to ensure that the detainee enjoys the minimum and non-derogable guarantees established in the [American] Convention and, specifically, the right to question the lawfulness of the detention and the guarantee of access to effective defense during his incarceration". Similarly, the Inter American Commission on Human Rights has consistently held that all forms of disciplinary action taken against detained persons must comport with the norms of due process and provide opportunity for judicial review.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 40a
- Paragraph text
- [The justifications provided by States for the use of solitary confinement fall into five general categories:] To punish an individual (as part of the judicially imposed sentence or as part of a disciplinary regime);
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 40b
- Paragraph text
- [The justifications provided by States for the use of solitary confinement fall into five general categories:] To protect vulnerable individuals;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 40c
- Paragraph text
- [The justifications provided by States for the use of solitary confinement fall into five general categories:] To facilitate prison management of certain individuals;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 40d
- Paragraph text
- [The justifications provided by States for the use of solitary confinement fall into five general categories:] To protect or promote national security;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 40e
- Paragraph text
- [The justifications provided by States for the use of solitary confinement fall into five general categories:] To facilitate pre-charge or pretrial investigations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- The imposition of solitary confinement as a part of an individual's judicially imposed sentence often arises in circumstances of particularly egregious crimes or crimes against the State. For instance, in some central European States, individuals convicted and sentenced to capital punishment and to life imprisonment serve their time in solitary confinement (A/64/215, para. 53). In other States, such as in Mongolia, death sentences may be commuted to life sentences spent in solitary confinement (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.4, para. 47). The use of solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure within prisons is also well documented and is likely the most pervasive rationale for the use of solitary confinement as a form of punishment. Disciplinary measures usually involve the violation of a prison rule. For instance, in Nigeria detainees are punished with solitary confinement of up to three days for disciplinary offences (A/HRC/7/3/Add.4, appendix I, para. 113). Similarly, in the Abepura Prison in Indonesia, solitary confinement for up to eight days is used as a disciplinary measure for persons who violate prison rules (A/HRC/7/3/Add.7, appendix I, para. 37).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- State officials also use solitary confinement as a tool to manage certain prison populations. Individuals determined to be dangerous, such as gang members, or at high risk of escape may be placed in solitary confinement. Similarly, individuals determined to be at risk of injury, such as sex offenders, informants, and former correctional or law enforcement officers, are often allowed, or encouraged, to choose voluntary solitary confinement in order to protect themselves from fellow inmates. Prisoners may also be placed in some form of solitary confinement in the interests of prison management before, during or after transportation to and from cells and detention facilities. While the duration of solitary confinement when used as a management tool may vary considerably, it is notable that the motivation for its imposition is pragmatic rather than punitive.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- Individuals determined to be terrorist suspects or national security risks are often subjected to solitary confinement as well. For instance, in Equatorial Guinea a section of the Black Beach Prison consisting of single cells is used for solitary confinement of high security prisoners (A/HRC/13/39/Add.4, appendix I). Solitary confinement can be also used as a coercive interrogation technique, and is often an integral part of enforced disappearance or incommunicado detention (A/63/175, annex). As noted within category (a) in paragraph 40 above, national security also serves as a primary reason for the imposition of solitary confinement as a result of a judicial sentence. For example, in China an individual sentenced for "unlawfully supplying State secrets or intelligence to entities outside China" was allegedly held in solitary confinement for two years of her eight-year sentence (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6, appendix 2, para. 26).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- The particular conditions in which detainees are held in solitary confinement vary between institutions and jurisdictions. Most, however, have a number of physical and non-physical conditions (or a prison regime) in common.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The principal physical conditions relevant to solitary confinement are cell size, presence of windows and light, and access to sanitary fixtures for personal hygiene. In practice, solitary confinement cells typically share some common features, including: location in a separate or remote part of the prison; small, or partially covered windows; sealed air quality; stark appearance and dull colours; toughened cardboard or other tamperproof furniture bolted to the floor; and small and barren exercise cages or yards (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3, para. 47). In some jurisdictions, prisoners in solitary confinement are held in leg irons and subjected to other physical restraints (A/HRC/13/39/Add.4, para. 76 (f)).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Health
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- The presence of windows and light is also of critical importance to the adequate treatment of detainees in solitary confinement. Under rule 11 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, there should be sufficient light to enable the detainee to work or read, and windows so constructed as to allow airflow whether or not artificial ventilation is provided. However, State practice reveals that this standard is often not met. For example, in Georgia, window-openings in solitary confinement cells were found to have steel sheets welded to the outside bars, which restricted light and ventilation (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3, para. 47). In Israel, solitary confinement cells are often lit with fluorescent bulbs as their only source of light, and they have no source of fresh air.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Rules 12 and 13 of the Standard Minimum Rules stipulate that detention facilities should provide sufficient sanitary fixtures to allow for the personal hygiene of the detainee. Therefore, cells used for solitary confinement should contain a lavatory and wash-basin within the cell. In its 2006 report on Greece, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment observed that isolation cells in the Komotini Prison failed to meet the necessary minimum standard for sanitary fixtures because detainees were forced to use the toilet for a wash-basin as well. Other environmental factors, such as temperature, noise level, privacy, and soft materials for cell furnishings may also be implicated in the solitary confinement setting.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- The principal aspects of a prison regime relevant to an assessment of the conditions of solitary confinement include access to outdoor exercise and programming, access to meaningful human contact within the prison, and contact with the outside world. In accordance with rule 21 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits. Similarly, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture emphasizes that all prisoners without exception should be afforded the opportunity to have one hour of open-air exercise per day. However, State practice indicates that these standards are not always observed. In Jordan, for example, a detainee was allowed outside of his solitary confinement cell for only one hour per week (A/HRC/4/33/Add.3, appendix, para. 21). In Poltrotsky v. Ukraine, the European Court of Human Rights found that a lack of opportunity for outdoor exercise, coupled with a lack of access to natural light, constitutes a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Access to meaningful human contact within the prison and contact with the outside world are also essential to the psychological health of detainees held in solitary confinement, especially those held for prolonged periods of time. Within prisons this contact could be with health professionals, prison guards or other prisoners. Contact with the outside world could include visits, mail, and phone calls from legal counsel, family and friends, and access to reading material, television or radio. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights grants prisoners the right to family and correspondence. Additionally, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners provide for various external stimuli (articles 21 on exercise and sport; 37-39 on contact with the outside world; 40 on books; 41 and 42 on religion; 71-76 on work; 77 and 78 on education and recreation; and 79-81 on social relations and after-care).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Solitary confinement reduces meaningful social contact to an absolute minimum. The level of social stimulus that results is insufficient for the individual to remain in a reasonable state of mental health.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- Research shows that deprived of a sufficient level of social stimulation, individuals soon become incapable of maintaining an adequate state of alertness and attention to their environment. Indeed, even a few days of solitary confinement will shift an individual's brain activity towards an abnormal pattern characteristic of stupor and delirium. Advancements in new technologies have made it possible to achieve indirect supervision and keep individuals under close surveillance with almost no human interaction. The European Court of Human Rights has recognized that "complete sensory isolation, coupled with total social isolation, can destroy the personality and constitutes a form of inhuman treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other reason".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- The use of prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement has increased in various jurisdictions, especially in the context of the "war on terror" and "a threat to national security". Individuals subjected to either of these practices are in a sense in a prison within a prison and thus suffer an extreme form of anxiety and exclusion, which clearly supersede normal imprisonment. Owing to their isolation, prisoners held in prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement can easily slip out of sight of justice, and safeguarding their rights is therefore often difficult, even in States where there is a strong adherence to rule of law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- Most studies fail to specify the length of time after which solitary confinement becomes prolonged. While the term may be undefined, detainees can be held in solitary confinement from a few weeks to many years. For example, in Kazakhstan, individuals can be held in solitary confinement for more than two months (A/HRC/13/39/Add.3, para. 117). Some detainees have been held in solitary confinement facilities for years, without any charge and without trial, and in secret detention centres where isolation is used as an integral part of interrogation practices. In a joint report on the situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, experts found that although 30 days of isolation was the maximum period permissible, some detainees were returned to isolation after very short breaks over a period of up to 18 months (E/CN.4/2006/120, para. 53).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- There is no international standard for the permitted maximum overall duration of solitary confinement. In A.B. v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights held that detaining an individual in solitary confinement for three years constituted a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. By contrast, in the United States of America, it is reported that two prisoners have been held in solitary confinement in a Louisiana prison for 40 years after failed attempts at judicial appeal of the conditions of their confinement. As explained in paragraph 26 above, the Special Rapporteur finds that solitary confinement exceeding 15 days is prolonged.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Negative health effects can occur after only a few days in solitary confinement, and the health risks rise with each additional day spent in such conditions. Experts who have examined the impact of solitary confinement have found three common elements that are inherently present in solitary confinement - social isolation, minimal environmental stimulation and "minimal opportunity for social interaction". Research further shows that solitary confinement appears to cause "psychotic disturbances," a syndrome that has been described as "prison psychoses". Symptoms can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, paranoia and psychosis and self-harm (see annex for a comprehensive list of symptoms).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- Studies have found continued sleep disturbances, depression, anxiety, phobias, emotional dependence, confusion, impaired memory and concentration long after the release from isolation. Additionally, lasting personality changes often leave individuals formerly held in solitary confinement socially impoverished and withdrawn, subtly angry and fearful when forced into social interaction. Intolerance of social interaction after a period of solitary confinement is a handicap that often prevents individuals from successfully readjusting to life within the broader prison population and severely impairs their capacity to reintegrate into society when released from imprisonment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- United Nations treaty bodies consistently recommend that juvenile offenders, children or minors should not be subjected to solitary confinement (CAT/C/MAC/CO/4, para. 8; CAT/OP/PRY/1, para. 185; CRC/C/15/Add.151, para. 41; and CRC/C/15/Add.232, para. 36 (a)). Juveniles are often held in solitary confinement either as a disciplinary measure, or to separate them from the adult inmate population, as international human rights law prohibits the intermingling of juvenile and adult prison populations. Regrettably, solitary confinement as a form of punishment of juvenile detainees has been prevalent in States such as Jamaica (A/HRC/16/52/Add.3, para. 211), Paraguay (A/HRC/7/3/Add.3, appendix I, para. 46) and Papua New Guinea (A/HRC/16/52/Add.5, appendix). In regard to disciplinary measures, a report has indicated that solitary confinement does not reduce violence among juvenile offenders detained in the youth prison.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Children
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- The assessment of whether solitary confinement amounts to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should take into consideration all relevant circumstances on a case-by-case basis. These circumstances include the purpose of the application of solitary confinement, the conditions, length and effects of the treatment and, of course, the subjective conditions of each victim that make him or her more or less vulnerable to those effects. In this section, the report discusses a few circumstances where the use of solitary confinement constitutes torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- Solitary confinement, when used for the purpose of punishment, cannot be justified for any reason, precisely because it imposes severe mental pain and suffering beyond any reasonable retribution for criminal behaviour and thus constitutes an act defined in article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture, and a breach of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This applies as well to situations in which solitary confinement is imposed as a result of a breach of prison discipline, as long as the pain and suffering experienced by the victim reaches the necessary severity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- While physical and social segregation may be necessary in some circumstances during criminal investigations, the practice of solitary confinement during pretrial detention creates a de facto situation of psychological pressure which can influence detainees to make confessions or statements against others and undermines the integrity of the investigation. When solitary confinement is used intentionally during pretrial detention as a technique for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, it amounts to torture as defined in article 1 or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under article 16 of the Convention against Torture, and to a breach of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- The use of solitary confinement can be accepted only in exceptional circumstances where its duration must be as short as possible and for a definite term that is properly announced and communicated. Given the harmful effects of indefinite solitary confinement, its potential use to extract information or confession during pretrial detention, and the fact that uncertainty prevents the use of remedies to challenge it, the Special Rapporteur finds that indefinite imposition of solitary confinement violates the right to due process of the concerned individual (article 9 of the Covenant, articles 1 or 16 of the Convention, and article 7 of the Covenant).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 78
- Paragraph text
- The right of persons with mental disabilities to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity guaranteed under article 10 of the Covenant should be interpreted in light of the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care, adopted by the General Assembly on 17 December 1991 (resolution 46/119, annex). Given their diminished mental capacity and that solitary confinement often results in severe exacerbation of a previously existing mental condition, the Special Rapporteur believes that its imposition, of any duration, on persons with mental disabilities is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and violates article 7 of the Covenant and article 16 of the Convention.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- Considering the severe mental pain or suffering solitary confinement may cause when used as a punishment, during pretrial detention, indefinitely or for a prolonged period, for juveniles or persons with mental disabilities, it can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that where the physical conditions and the prison regime of solitary confinement fail to respect the inherent dignity of the human person and cause severe mental and physical pain or suffering, it amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 87
- Paragraph text
- Indefinite solitary confinement should be abolished.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur reiterates that solitary confinement should be used only in very exceptional circumstances, as a last resort, for as short a time as possible. He emphasizes that when solitary confinement is used in exceptional circumstances, minimum procedural safeguards must be followed. These safeguards reduce the chances that the use of solitary confinement will be arbitrary or excessive, as in the case of prolonged or indefinite confinement. They are all the more important in circumstances of detention where due process protections are often limited, as in administrative immigration detention. Minimum procedural safeguards should be interpreted in a manner that provides the greatest possible protection of the rights of detained individuals. In this context, the Special Rapporteur urges States to apply the following guiding principles and procedural safeguards.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 91
- Paragraph text
- The physical conditions and prison regime of solitary confinement must be imposed only as a last resort where less restrictive measures could not achieve the intended disciplinary goals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 93
- Paragraph text
- All assessments and decisions taken with respect to the imposition of solitary confinement must be clearly documented and readily available to the detained persons and their legal counsel. This includes the identity and title of the authority imposing solitary confinement, the source of his or her legal attributes to impose it, a statement of underlying justification for its imposition, its duration, the reasons for which solitary confinement is determined to be appropriate in accordance with the detained person's mental and physical health, the reasons for which solitary confinement is determined to be proportional to the infraction, reports from regular review of the justification for solitary confinement, and medical assessments of the detained person's mental and physical health.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 94
- Paragraph text
- From the moment that solitary confinement is imposed, through all stages of its review and decisions of extension or termination, the justification and duration of the solitary confinement should be recorded and made known to the detained person. Additionally, the detained person should be informed of what he or she must do to be removed from solitary confinement. In accordance with rule 35 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the detained person must receive this information in plain language that he or she understands. This information must additionally be provided to any legal representative of the detained person.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 96
- Paragraph text
- Persons held in solitary confinement must be provided with a genuine opportunity to challenge both the nature of their confinement and its underlying justification through a process of administrative review. At the outset of the imposition of solitary confinement, detained persons must be informed of their alleged criminal or disciplinary infraction for which solitary confinement is being imposed and must immediately have an opportunity to challenge the reasons for their detention. Following the imposition of solitary confinement, detained persons must have the opportunity to file a complaint to prison management through an internal or administrative complaints system.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 98
- Paragraph text
- Detained persons held in solitary confinement must be afforded genuine opportunities to challenge both the nature of their confinement and its underlying justification through the courts of law. This requires a right to appeal all final decisions by prison authorities and administrative bodies to an independent judicial body empowered to review both the legality of the nature of the confinement and its underlying justification. Thereafter, detained persons must have the opportunity to appeal these judgements to the highest authority in the State and, after exhaustion of domestic remedies, seek review by regional or universal human rights bodies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 100
- Paragraph text
- There should be a documented system of regular monitoring and review of the inmate's physical and mental condition by qualified medical personnel, both at the initiation of solitary confinement and on a daily basis throughout the period in which the detained person remains in solitary confinement, as required by rule 32, paragraph 3, of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Medical personnel monitoring detained persons should have specialized training in psychological assessment and/or the support of specialists in psychology. Additionally, medical personnel must be independent and accountable to an authority outside of the prison administration. Preferably, they should belong to the general national health structure. Any deterioration of the inmate's mental or physical condition should trigger a presumption that the conditions of confinement are excessive and activate an immediate review.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the efforts of various organizations to ensure appropriate remedies and reparation for victims. He commends the adoption of the "Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law" by the General Assembly as an important step towards fulfilling minimum standards for victims. However, he remains dissatisfied by the lack of progress in institutionalizing these basic principles and guidelines in most States. He notes that victims have only been awarded formal rights, including at the national level, but that these rights are often modest and peripheral to the justice systems.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur observes that acts of torture and ill-treatment remain a widespread phenomenon in today's world. In the last decade, State practices and approaches to torture, particularly in view of the ongoing security threats associated with the war on terror, responses to immigration concerns, citizen security and organized crime have tended to weaken or reinterpret the absolute prohibition on torture. While civil society organizations and members of the judiciaries of those countries where such practices have taken place have condemned them, a net effect in some sectors of public opinion has been a tendency to countenance torture as a "necessary evil." The Special Rapporteur believes it is his duty to confront this debate in all its legal, political, ethical and practical dimensions, and demonstrate that embarking on a path that permits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is not only immoral and illegal, but also counter-productive to law-enforcement efforts. He hopes, in this context, to join many others who wish to counter this worrying trend towards a severe erosion of some of the gains of the last four decades.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Under the rubric of fighting the war on terror, confronting organized crime and insecurity in the streets or maintaining an effective immigration policy, States have, regrettably, attempted to dilute cardinal principles necessary to preventing and suppressing torture and ill-treatment. Of particular concern are attempts to justify restrictions or limitations to the applicability of article 15 of the Convention, citing, as primary arguments, a supposed "necessity to avert serious imminent harm" or the "ticking bomb scenario" or, where the State is not complicit in the torture, that information provided by third parties, even if obtained under torture, is admissible.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recalls that international customary law and treaty law require States to "ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made." This exclusionary rule is fundamental for upholding the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition of torture by providing a disincentive to use torture. Its essential preventive function is also crucial to fair trial guarantees. The Special Rapporteur calls for strict adherence to the international prohibitions established under international treaties and developed through the Convention, as well as regional and national judicial processes.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Attempts to restrict the applicability of the exclusionary rule represent a serious threat to international efforts to eradicate torture. It is of deep concern that States regularly receive and rely on information - either as intelligence or evidence for proceedings - whose sources present a real risk of having been acquired as a result of torture and ill-treatment from third party States. Receiving or relying on information from third parties which may be compromised by the use of torture does not only implicitly validate the use of torture and ill-treatment as an acceptable tool to gain information, but creates a market for information acquired through torture, which in the long term undermines the goal of preventing and eradicating torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- While article 15 of the Convention covers judicial and administrative proceedings, it is silent on the question of the applicability of its provisions to intelligence or other executive decisions not directly arising from judicial or administrative proceedings. This is rendered more troublesome by difficulties in delineating purely "non-formal preventative" action by executive decisions arising from formal administrative proceedings. For instance, a State may rely on information provided by a third party, and which may have been obtained through torture, to arrest and detain an individual for the purpose of investigating his alleged suspicious activities. In such a case, aspects of administrative proceedings such as a deportation order may be used in the process of arresting the suspect. Thus, by virtue of article 15, it is argued that State institutions must take appropriate measures to ascertain whether or not the information on which a decision is based has been obtained as a result of torture. However, does the fact that the information was obtained through torture prevent the State from arresting the individual in the first place? Can it be used as intelligence or as the subject of an executive decision? Are diplomatic assurances relating to the origins of the information provided by third parties sufficient? We should be mindful of the real possibility that a policy of using such information for purposes other than trials, could provide an incentive to State agents to forego prosecutions altogether, and instead engage in disappearances, extra-judicial executions, and other illegal repressive measures that could lead to a total breakdown in the rule of law. These and other equally important questions relating to the applicability of the exclusionary rule to executive decisions and intelligence gathering merit further consideration in future reports of this mandate.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- In his report to the 13th session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism takes the view that "reliance on information from torture in another country, even if the information is obtained only for operational purposes, inevitably implies the "recognition of lawfulness" of such practices and therefore triggers the application of principles of State responsibility. Hence, States that receive information obtained through torture or inhuman and degrading treatment are complicit in the commission of internationally wrongful acts. Such involvement is also irreconcilable with the obligation erga omnes of States to cooperate in the eradication of torture." The Special Rapporteur shares this view and believes that this is a good starting point for future deliberation on the subject.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- In the considered opinion of the Special Rapporteur, in order for the "exclusionary rule" to work as a preventative measure and create a disincentive for would-be abusers to deploy ill-treatment as a tool for extracting confessions or corroborating information, its applicability must be extended to cover intelligence and executive decisions. In other words, it can only remain effective if it is applicable to all and any information which may form the basis of a judicial or administrative process or decisions by the executive and its agencies. The Special Rapporteur intends to ensure enhanced respect for, and adherence to, the principle set out in article 15 of the Convention one of the central themes for his engagement with States and other actors during his tenure. Questions relating to the applicability of the exclusionary rule to executive decisions and intelligence gathering will be the subject of further consideration in future reports of the mandate.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur also intends to explore the possibility of a teleological interpretation of the exclusionary rule contained in article 15 of the Convention, as he believes that this norm is both a fundamental due process standard as well as a tool to discourage investigators and security agents from practicing torture and ill-treatment. In this regard, it would be important to consider whether the exclusion of evidence should be extended not only to confessions and statements obtained under torture, but also to all other pieces of evidence obtained through legal means but whose leads originate in an act of torture. In some jurisdictions, this approach has been called the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. While acknowledging that the international standard does not go so far, the Special Rapporteur would certainly recommend that States, as a matter of their own internal practices, voluntarily adopt a similar rule in their domestic criminal procedures.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur reiterates his conviction that torture and ill-treatment are and always will be ineffective means or tools for intelligence or information gathering and law enforcement. Confessions and statements obtained under torture are inherently unreliable, and often disorient and disperse the efforts of law enforcement and investigations personnel. It is therefore crucial to recognize that alternatives to brutality are available and, indeed, effective in addressing the needs of States in fighting crime in all its forms. The Special Rapporteur feels that it is important to counter the attitude that is prevalent in many States and societies that the use of torture and ill-treatment is practically inevitable. In this connection, advances in forensic and other sciences present a more promising answer to these questions than so called "enhanced interrogation techniques" or torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- The mandate holder believes that his role as Special Rapporteur does not only give him an opportunity to assess the situation with regard to torture, but also to provide credible and human rights-friendly forensic and other scientific alternatives which have been proven to achieve better results than the use of torture. During his tenure, the Special Rapporteur intends to identify and further develop the linkages between forensic and other sciences, not only with a view to eradicating torture and providing corroborating evidence of torture, but also to offer States credible forensic and other scientific alternatives to employ in law enforcement, counter-terrorism and effective criminal prosecution.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur observes that the principle of non-refoulement has been at the core of discussions both in light of immigration laws, and in the context of countering terrorism. The Special Rapporteur recognizes that diplomatic assurances do not release States from their non-refoulement obligations nor are they necessarily the best way to prevent torture and refoulement. Indeed, diplomatic assurance has been proven to be unreliable, and cannot be considered an effective safeguard against torture and ill-treatment, particularly in States where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person would face the danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- Like his predecessor, the Special Rapporteur regards the practice of diplomatic assurances "as an attempt to circumvent the absolute prohibition of torture and non-refoulement".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur emphasizes the importance of monitoring places of pretrial detention and developing effective measures to prevent the perpetration of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including in police custody and pretrial detention centres. Like his predecessors, the Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that legally arrested persons should not be held in facilities under the control of their interrogators or investigators for more than the time required by law to obtain a judicial warrant of pretrial detention which, in any case, should not exceed 48 hours. He further notes that pretrial detention is often carried out for the purpose of extracting a confession under torture. Experience shows that most acts of torture, and certainly the most cruel and egregious, happen in the first few hours or days after a person's arrest, and while he/she is technically under preventive detention. In this respect, he recalls article 15 of the Convention, and like his predecessors, recommends that no statement of confession made by a person deprived of liberty, other than that made before a court, should be admissible or be afforded probative value in any judicial proceeding.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- In order to identify structural methods of assisting States in developing, adopting and fulfilling the above-mentioned obligations, the Special Rapporteur will encourage Governments to reinforce their legislative norms through protocols, instruments and methodological guides targeted at ensuring effective guarantees for persons deprived of their liberty. These measures include effective realization of the right of detainees in custody to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before an independent court (e.g., the right to habeas corpus). Further, States should promote and apply non-custodial measures such as bail and probation, respect medical inspection upon admission and compulsory medical inspection during transfer, and introduce video and audio recordings of proceedings in interrogation rooms. There must be formal procedures by which a detainee is informed of his/her rights, including the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer, as well as effective sanctions for failure to respect these rights. The Special Rapporteur recognizes the importance of continuing dialogue with States with a view to strengthening legislative mechanisms aimed at preventing torture and ill-treatment in pretrial detention. He notes that various mandate holders have expressed concerns about pretrial detention, and undertakes to hold further discussions with them in order to identify and promote best practices on measures to prevent, punish and eradicate torture and other ill-treatment in pretrial detention. This will also be done by using fact-finding country visits and information provided by reliable sources to identify challenges and illustrate good practices.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- In previous reports , conditions of detention have been documented extensively based on information received from various sources, in particular, factual observations made as a result of fact-finding missions. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by the large number of places of detention that do not meet minimum international standards. He plans to engage with States that permit such conditions as well as with those that lack the ability or resources to institute minimum standards. He will seek to address the systematic deprivation of the most basic human rights standards relating to conditions of detention, including those related to food, water, clothing, health care and minimum space, as well as hygiene, privacy and security necessary for a humane and dignified existence, as conditions that in and of themselves can constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur considers the issues of torture and ill-treatment of victims in secret detention as a key concern that falls squarely within his mandate. He intends to follow up on any new and credible allegations concerning the ongoing use of places of secret detention by States or their complicity regarding their existence. Eradicating such practices is central to the prevention of torture and the Special Rapporteur believes that engagement in this issue cannot be seen as an unwarranted expansion of the definition of torture set forth in article 1 of the Convention or of the treaty's establishment of responsibility for its occurrence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recognizes that the question as to whether the death penalty, as well as some health and drug policies, prolonged solitary confinement, some treatments for mental disability, and domestic violence constitute per se cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has given rise to much debate and discussion in the Human Rights Council. He recognizes the sensitive nature of these issues and believes that the international community as a whole would greatly benefit from a dispassionate and rational discussion of the issues. The Special Rapporteur will look more deeply into these issues and also suggests that they be the subject of further research by the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- In view of this, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that the basic good faith measure that States can undertake to show their commitment to addressing torture remains the ratification, without reservation, of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol (the "Protocol"). The Convention and its Protocol are important first steps towards eradicating this serious international crime. This notwithstanding, ratification is not a substitute for States to take effective measures as necessary to prevent and suppress torture and ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recognizes the work of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the various non-governmental organisations working for the rehabilitation of victims of torture. He recalls the obligation of States to ensure the right of torture victims to obtain reparation, including redress, fair and adequate compensation and the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In this regard, he calls upon Governments to make voluntary contributions to the Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture so as to enable it to continue providing organizations with funds for psychological, medical, social, legal and economic assistance. He also entreats States to support the work of the organizations through financial and other means, as well as create an enabling environment for the organisations to provide redress and rehabilitation for torture victims.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur reiterates the importance of the "exclusionary rule" in preventing and suppressing torture, and recalls the obligations of States to ensure that any statement established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. To this end, he recommends strict adherence to this most fundamental of rules. He stresses that the exclusionary rule should not only apply to judicial and administrative proceedings, but also interpreted to include intelligence and decisions by the executive and its agencies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recognizes the important role that forensic and other sciences play in eradicating the use of torture. To this effect, he calls for a concerted effort to further improve forensic and other scientific tools and mechanisms used in law enforcement, counter-terrorism and effective criminal prosecution in order to ensure that torture is not practiced. He acknowledges that there is need for further capacity building and technology transfer to those States that do not possess adequate capacities or technologies. He urges States to continue working with the relevant international organisations to ensure such capacity building and technology transfers.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Capital punishment is the ultimate exception to the inherent right to life. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and respective regional provisions allow use of the death penalty as the ultimate form of punishment under specific conditions. Accordingly, and despite the global trend towards the abolition of capital punishment, the continued use of the death penalty does not constitute a violation per se of the right to life if imposed and executed in accordance with severe restrictions and safeguards provided by international and domestic law. Simultaneously, international law absolutely prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7 of the Covenant, and arts. 1 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- It has long been the view in doctrine and jurisprudence that article 6 of the Covenant (as well as the exclusion of "pain and suffering arising only, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions" from the definition of torture in art. 1, para. 1, of the Convention against Torture) means that the death penalty cannot be considered per se a violation of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. However, as noted by the Special Rapporteur's predecessor in his 2009 report on the death penalty (A/HRC/10/44) in reference to judicial bodies, such interpretation may change over time, as was the case with the prohibition of corporal punishment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- In paragraph 7 of its resolution 1996/15, the Economic and Social Council urged Member States in which the death penalty might be carried out to effectively apply the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners in order to keep to a minimum the suffering of prisoners under sentence of death and to avoid any exacerbation of such suffering. Taking into account new forensic evidence and discussions concerning the various forms of executions and the situation of persons sentenced to death awaiting execution on death row, the Special Rapporteur urges serious reconsideration of whether the actual practice of the death penalty amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, or even torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- The jurisprudence of regional human rights bodies and national judiciaries leaves no doubt that death by stoning constitutes torture and is, beyond dispute, a violation of the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In Jabari v. Turkey (2000), the European Court of Human Rights held that death by stoning was a violation of the prohibition on torture and that the possibility of being stoned to death would make deportation of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran contrary to article 3 of the European Convention. At the United Nations, the Commission on Human Rights described execution by stoning as a particularly cruel or inhuman means of execution. During the period from July 2011 until June 2012, no execution by stoning was recorded and in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the new Islamic Penal Code of January 2012 no longer provides for such punishment (A/HRC/21/29 and Corr.1, para. 46).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- The same can be concluded with regard to execution by gas asphyxiation. In the case Ng v. Canada (1993), the Human Rights Committee concluded that this method of execution results in death in more than 10 minutes and constituted cruel and inhuman treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant, and would not meet the test of least possible physical and mental suffering, as required under the Covenant. However, the Committee did not discuss whether other methods of execution would be considered violations of article 7. In any event, the criteria to determine the threshold of pain and suffering beyond which an execution violates international law prohibitions is not limited to the time that it takes for a person to die.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has suggested that hanging, as a matter of law, is contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In 2007, the High Commissioner submitted an amicus curiae application to the Iraqi Supreme Criminal Tribunal because of the real risk that the method of execution would itself amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Acknowledging that the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment was a core provision of international human rights law, the High Commissioner found that the executions (by hanging), were so flawed as to amount, in their implementation, to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- In Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, the petitioners presented evidence that hanging was an ineffectual and extremely painful method of killing such as to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention. The petitioners submitted three expert reports showing that there was an impermissibly high risk that the victim would suffer an unnecessarily painful and tortuous death by strangulation. They argued that the manner in which hangings were carried out in Iraq was seriously and fundamentally flawed. While the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom rejected the petitioners' arguments, the European Court found a violation of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment because whatever the method of execution, the extinction of life involved some physical pain. In addition, the Court held that foreknowledge of death at the hands of the State must inevitably give rise to intense psychological suffering.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- In 1994, the High Court of the United Republic of Tanzania found, in the Mbushuu' case that the death penalty was unconstitutional on the grounds that execution by hanging violated the right to dignity of a person and constituted inherently cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In the Kigula case (2009) before the Supreme Court of Uganda, Justice Egonda Ntende, in dissent, cited powerful evidence of the cruel, inhuman and degrading nature of hanging. Finding the expert evidence concerning hangings to be chilling, Justice Ntende concluded that various practices associated with hanging in Uganda, including subjecting those who do not die instantly to bludgeoning or the plucking off of heads, constituted, without a doubt, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- In 1994, the Human Rights Committee rejected an argument that lethal injection constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment but has not revisited the issue since new evidence has emerged indicating that the combination of drugs used in lethal injection can cause excruciating pain. However, in concluding observations, both the Human Rights Committee (A/50/40, para. 296) and the Committee against Torture (CAT/C/USA/CO/2, para. 31) called on the United States of America, as one of the countries in which lethal injection is used, to review its execution methods in order to prevent severe pain and suffering.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- Following a number of executions in the United States, it has recently become apparent that the regimen, as currently administered, does not work as efficiently as intended. Some prisoners take many minutes to die and others become very distressed. New studies conclude that even if lethal injection is administered without technical error, those executed may experience suffocation, and therefore the conventional view of lethal injection as a peaceful and painless death is questionable. Experts suggest that current protocols used for lethal injection in the United States probably violate the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Health
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- In conclusion, it can be stated that even retentionist States agree that some methods of execution constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and are therefore prohibited under international law (e.g., see A/63/293 and Corr.1, para. 67). In addition, there is a growing trend to scrutinize all other methods of execution so far considered as not causing severe pain and suffering. In this respect, there is no categorical evidence that any method of execution in use today complies with the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in every case. Even if the required safeguards (Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50, annex) are in place, all methods of execution currently used can inflict inordinate pain and suffering. States cannot guarantee that there is a pain-free method of execution.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- Regional courts have confirmed the existence and destructive nature of the death row phenomenon. In the landmark decision Soering v. United Kingdom (1989), the European Court of Human Rights held that the death row phenomenon as practised in the State of Virginia in the United States of America violated the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court was presented with facts detailing the extensive period of time people spend on death row in extreme conditions and the ever-mounting anguish of awaiting execution. The European Court in subsequent decisions reaffirmed this view.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- In the inter-American system, there have been significant findings of mistreatment of those on death row. With regard to detention conditions, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held, in Lallion v. Grenada (2002), that the conditions on death row in Grenada failed to respect the physical, mental and moral integrity required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights. In Aitken v. Jamaica (2002) the Commission held that the detention conditions, when considered in the light of the lengthy period of nearly four years for which the petitioner had been detained on death row, had failed to satisfy the standards of humane treatment under article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the aforementioned Convention. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated, in Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago (2002) that the death row phenomenon was a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and was characterized by a prolonged period of detention while awaiting execution, during which prisoners sentenced to death suffered severe mental anxiety in addition to other circumstances, including, among others: the way in which the sentence was imposed; lack of consideration of the personal characteristics of the accused; the disproportionality between the punishment and the crime committed; the detention conditions while awaiting execution; delays in the appeal process or in reviewing the death sentence during which time the individual experienced extreme psychological tension and trauma; the fact that the judge did not take into consideration the age or mental state of the condemned person; and continuous anticipation by the prisoners about what practices their execution may entail. The Inter-American Commission has consistently concluded, across different working mechanisms and in countries throughout the region, that the conditions afforded to prisoners on death row are most often inhumane and that a prolonged stay on death row and the anxiety created by the threat of death, as well as other conditions, constitute a violation of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- In 1993, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the British House of Lords took the approach that length of time is the sole factor in constituting cruel or inhuman punishment. The case of Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica created a presumption that spending more than five years on death row met the criteria necessary for a finding of death row phenomenon. The Privy Council's reasoning was that the domestic appeals process should take approximately two years and an appeal to an international body should take approximately 18 months. By combining the two, and adding an appropriate amount of time for reasonable delay, the Court was able to come up with a timetable of five years. In a number of cases, the Privy Council relied on the five-year principle as a guide. In Guerra v. Baptiste (1996), it found that four years and ten months under sentence of death, as a result of factors beyond the prisoner's control, constituted the death row phenomenon and therefore a violation. In Henfield v. Bahamas (1997), three and a half years was deemed an appropriate time limit. Similarly, in the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of Uganda in January 2009, the Court held that to execute a person after a delay of three years in conditions that were not acceptable by Ugandan standards would amount to cruel, inhuman punishment. With regard to the reasons for the delay, the Privy Council found that delay inappropriately caused by the prisoner could not be used to the advantage of the inmate but where a State caused the delay, it was logical to hold the State responsible for violating the prisoner's rights. However, where delay was caused by a prisoner exercising his legitimate right to appeal, the fault was to be attributed to the appellate system that permitted such delay and not to the prisoner who took advantage of it. The Privy Council recognized that a prisoner would cling to any hope in order to protect his or her life, and that such human instinct could not be treated as a prisoner's fault. The European Court went even further and took the position that even if the delay was the result of the inmate's actions, he or she was not to be blamed for pursuing life as the fact remained that individuals were pursuing life under death row conditions with mounting tension over their own death.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- Prolonged delay is, however, only one cause of the death row phenomenon and, considered alone, may be harmful to a prisoner's rights. This approach risks conveying a message to States parties to carry out a capital sentence as expeditiously as possible after it is imposed. The Human Rights Committee declined to find that delay alone is enough to warrant a finding of death row phenomenon and a violation based on torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Consequently, even in cases of detention on death row for more than 10 years, the Committee maintained its previous practice of not finding a violation of article 7 of the Covenant unless such detention was aggravated by particularly harsh prison conditions. However, prolonged detention, as with any other delay in the process, must be subject to judicial review and the highest standards of regular review must be applied. Medical assistance and psychological follow-up should also be considered. It is the combined deprivation of basic human rights on death row which amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment or even torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- Solitary confinement is one of the most common practices used on death row. As outlined in the previous report of the Special Rapporteur to the General Assembly (A/66/268), given its severely adverse effects on health, solitary confinement itself can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Individuals held in solitary confinement suffer extreme forms of sensory deprivation, anxiety and exclusion, clearly surpassing lawful conditions of deprivation of liberty. Solitary confinement, in combination with the foreknowledge of death and the uncertainty of whether or when an execution is to take place, contributes to the risk of serious and irreparable mental and physical harm and suffering to the inmate. Solitary confinement used on death row is by definition prolonged and indefinite and thus constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or even torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Other harsh conditions currently employed on death rows throughout the world may themselves constitute violations of the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Human Rights Committee has expressed concern over the living condition of inmates on death row in terms of visits and correspondence, cell size, food, exercise, extreme temperatures, lack of ventilation, and lack of time outside of cells as constituting violations of articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant. The Special Rapporteur's predecessor, in the report on his visit to Mongolia, declared that physical conditions on Mongolia's death row alone might be so poor as to amount to cruel treatment (see E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.4).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Health
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture has previously given rise to the question of whether the psychological effect of uncertainty may be equated with severe mental suffering, and whether this situation is reconcilable with the required respect for human dignity and physical and mental integrity (E/CN.4/1988/17, para. 47). The Committee against Torture has addressed the conditions of detention for those on death row, which may involve cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment not only as a result of physical circumstances but as a consequence of the mental anguish caused by spending an excessive length of time there (CAT/C/ZMB/CO/2, para. 19). The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has acknowledged the mere possibility that the death penalty can be applied during de facto abolition threatens the accused for years, and is a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.4, para. 35; also (A/HRC/8/3/Add.3, para. 76). The Inter-American Court in the Hilaire case concluded that the victims lived under constant threat that they may be taken to be hanged at any moment and that the procedures leading up to death by hanging terrorized and depressed the prisoners. The Court found that the prospect of the prisoners being taken from their cells and hanged at any moment or compelled to live under circumstances that impinged on the physical and psychological integrity constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In the United States of America, the Supreme Court of California found that the process of carrying out a verdict of death is so degrading to the human spirit as to constitute psychological torture. The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has recognized in particular the impact on mental integrity that a death sentence may have. Finally, one of the reasons United States Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan gave for his conclusion that capital punishment was per se unconstitutional was that mental pain was an inseparable part of the practice of punishing criminals by death, for the prospect of pending executions exacted a frightful toll during the inevitable long wait between the imposition of sentence and the actual infliction of death.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- In relation to the enforcement of the death penalty, the Human Rights Committee has recommended that families of death row inmates be given reasonable advanced notice of the scheduled date and time of execution, with a view to reducing the psychological suffering caused by the lack of opportunity to prepare themselves for that event (CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5, para. 16). Similarly, in Staselovich v. Belarus, the Committee found that the failure of the authorities to notify the mother of the scheduled date for the execution of her son and their subsequent persistent failure to notify her of the location of her son's grave amounted to inhuman treatment of the mother. Secrecy and the refusal to hand over remains to families are especially cruel features of capital punishment, highlighting the need for total transparency and avoidance of harm to innocents in the whole process.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- In the 1978 case of Tyrer v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights referred to the European Convention as a living instrument that needed to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions. In the Selmouni case (1999), the Court invoked this reasoning and argued that the definition of torture had to evolve with a democratic society's understanding of the term. Similar shifts in international law and, in particular, evolution of the understanding of prohibition of torture as encompassing prohibition of slavery and domestic violence or, more recently, the qualification of rape as falling within the scope of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, show that the notion of torture has developed over time, and acts originally considered as lawful become unlawful and prohibited under the right to be free from torture (e.g., see A/HRC/13/39, para. 60).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- In addition, and especially relevant to the emergence of a customary norm to consider the death penalty as running afoul of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, is evidence of a consistent global practice by States that reflects the view that the imposition and enforcement of the death penalty in breach of those standards is a violation per se of the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This conclusion originates from the fact that international law does not attribute a different value to the right to life of different groups of human beings, such as juveniles, persons with mental disabilities, pregnant women or persons sentenced after an unfair trial, but considers the imposition and enforcement of the death penalty in such cases as particularly cruel, inhuman and degrading and in violation of article 7 of the Covenant and articles 1 and 16 of the Convention against Torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Women
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- Under international law, the death penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement of a competent court and only applied to the most serious crimes. The possible safeguards given during legal process to ensure a fair trial in cases in which the death penalty might be imposed should be at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the Covenant. The Inter-American Commission has reaffirmed in its report No. 90 (2009) and in constant jurisprudence that a heightened level of scrutiny has to be applied. This is in line with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee which maintains that legal assistance should be available and that States have an imperative duty to observe rigorously all of the guarantees required for a fair trial.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- The death penalty may also not be carried out on pregnant women and, according to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa and the safeguards approved by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1984/50, recent mothers. Article 4, paragraph 5, of the American Convention on Human Rights prohibits the imposition of capital punishment on persons who, at the time the crime was committed, were over 70 years of age. In its resolution 1989/64, on the implementation of the aforementioned safeguards, the Economic and Social Council recommended that States strengthen further the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty by eliminating it for persons suffering from mental retardation or extremely limited mental competence, whether at the stage of sentence or execution. The Commission on Human Rights also adopted several resolutions urging all States not to impose the death penalty on, or to execute, any person suffering from any form of mental disorder (e.g., Commission resolution 2003/67). The Human Rights Committee has stated that the reading of a death warrant for the execution of a mentally incompetent person is a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the United States Supreme Court ruled that executing mentally disabled individuals violated the ban on cruel and unusual punishment and that the prohibition of such punishment should be interpreted in the light of the evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society. The reasoning for the prohibition of the death penalty in these cases is the same as that for juveniles and children. It is inherently cruel to execute pregnant women, nursing mothers, elderly persons and persons with mental disabilities and it leads to a violation of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- Some fundamental human rights standards, such as the prohibition of torture, are a norm of customary international law. The prohibition is non-derogable even in times of emergency and, in addition, is an imperative norm in international law that no State is allowed to ignore (jus cogens). The Statute of the International Court of Justice defines international customary law as evidence of a general practice accepted as law (Art. 38, para. 1b). This is generally determined through two factors: the general practice of States and what States have accepted as law (opinio juris). States are typically bound by international customary law regardless of whether they have codified such law domestically or through treaties. Evidence for both aspects, State practice and opinio juris, is found in the signature and ratification of treaties, in public statement of policy, in votes on resolutions of political organs etc. Discussed below is whether a customary rule against the death penalty is emerging or has emerged.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- At the national level, a first and prominent attempt to consider the death penalty as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was made by United States Supreme Court Justice Brennan in his dissenting opinion to the judgement in Gregg v. Georgia (1976). He stated that the fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death was that it treated members of the human race as non-humans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded. It was thus inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the clause (on prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment), and that even the vilest criminal remained a human being possessed of common human dignity. He emphasized that foremost among the moral concepts recognized in the cases before the Court and inherent in the clause was the primary moral principle that the State, even as it punished, must treat its citizens in a manner consistent with their intrinsic worth as human beings, and that a punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to human dignity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- A significant number of courts of last instance and constitutional courts have found that the death penalty per se violates the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. The South African Constitutional Court in the landmark judgement in State v. Makwanyane and Mchunu (1995) held that the death penalty was contrary to the prohibition by the South African Constitution of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In 2001, the Canadian Supreme Court in United States v. Burns considered capital punishment to amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The Court stated that in Canada, the death penalty had been rejected as an acceptable element of criminal justice, and that capital punishment engaged the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, the Constitutional Courts of Albania, Hungary, Lithuania and Ukraine have found that the death penalty per se violates the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- The President of Mongolia justified the abolition of capital punishment by referring to the degrading character of the death penalty. In addition, while reporting back to the Secretary-General concerning moratoriums on the use of the death penalty (A/65/280 and Corr.1), Bulgaria stated that it considered the death penalty to be an extreme form of physical and psychological violence upon human beings and as such it constituted, in the utmost degree, a cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment. Denmark was also firmly convinced that the death penalty was brutal, inhumane and an affront to human integrity and human dignity, no matter how cruel the offence. Similarly, Slovenia considers that the death penalty constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and a violation of international law. This is a result of the execution itself, as well as the cruelty in forcing the convicted person to wait on death row, often for many years, contemplating execution. Spain considers the death penalty as cruel and inhumane treatment and as an unacceptable violation of human dignity and integrity. Italy in its remarks on the question of the death penalty in April 2012 stated that it considered the death penalty to be inhuman. Finland, in its response to General Assembly resolution 63/168, reported that it considered the death penalty a cruel and inhuman form of punishment. Finally, in a joint contribution to the report of the Secretary-General concerning moratoriums on the use of the death penalty (A/65/280 and Corr.1), the European Union stated that it considered the death penalty to be cruel and inhuman, representing an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- An increasing number of national constitutional courts and political instances have pronounced their conviction that the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment not reconcilable with the inherent right to physical and mental integrity and human dignity. It can be said, therefore, that there is an evolving standard whereby States and judiciaries consider the death penalty to be a violation per se of the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. A review of precedents to determine the existence of such a norm as an already established custom is beyond the capacity of the present report. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur is convinced that a customary norm prohibiting the death penalty under all circumstances, if it has not already emerged, is at least in the process of formation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- To date, the death penalty has been treated under the provisions concerning the right to life, and therein as an exception provided for by international law. A new approach is needed as there is evidence of an evolving standard within international bodies and a robust State practice to frame the debate about the legality of the death penalty within the context of the fundamental concepts of human dignity and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This evolving standard, along with the resulting illegality of the death penalty under such prohibition, is developing into a norm of customary law, if it has not already done so.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and the strict adherence to safeguards constitute absolute limits on the use and enforcement of the death penalty. It may still be theoretically possible to impose and execute the death penalty without running afoul of the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, but the rigorous conditions that States must apply for that purpose make the retention of capital punishment not worth the effort. Even with such conditions, States cannot guarantee that in all cases the prohibition of torture will be scrupulously adhered to.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 78
- Paragraph text
- The death row phenomenon is a violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, depending on the length of isolation and severity of conditions. The anxiety created by the threat of death and the other circumstances surrounding an execution, inflicts great psychological pressure and trauma on persons sentenced to death. A prolonged stay on death row, along with the accompanying conditions, constitutes a violation of the prohibition of torture itself.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 80a
- Paragraph text
- [Whether or not a customary norm prohibiting the death penalty has crystallized, the Special Rapporteur calls upon all retentionist States to observe rigorously the restrictions and conditions imposed by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture. The Special Rapporteur calls upon retentionist States:] To abolish the use of the death penalty for juveniles, persons with mental disabilities and pregnant women and give further consideration to abolishing the death penalty for persons over the age of 70 years and for recent mothers;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Persons with disabilities
- Women
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 80b
- Paragraph text
- [Whether or not a customary norm prohibiting the death penalty has crystallized, the Special Rapporteur calls upon all retentionist States to observe rigorously the restrictions and conditions imposed by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture. The Special Rapporteur calls upon retentionist States:] To ensure that the method of execution employed causes the least possible physical and mental suffering and that it does not violate the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; establish that there are no more humane alternatives available; and justify the use of a particular method of execution. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that the burden of proof is on the State;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 80c
- Paragraph text
- [Whether or not a customary norm prohibiting the death penalty has crystallized, the Special Rapporteur calls upon all retentionist States to observe rigorously the restrictions and conditions imposed by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture. The Special Rapporteur calls upon retentionist States:] To refrain from carrying out executions in public or in any other degrading manner; end the practice of secret executions; and end the practice of executions with little or no prior warning given to condemned prisoners and their families;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 80d
- Paragraph text
- [Whether or not a customary norm prohibiting the death penalty has crystallized, the Special Rapporteur calls upon all retentionist States to observe rigorously the restrictions and conditions imposed by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture. The Special Rapporteur calls upon retentionist States:] To improve conditions on death row in accordance with international standards, such as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment; all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, as protected by article 10, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- Today, commissions of inquiry have taken on a central role in the effort to address patterns and practices of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment around the world.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- The Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol) provides comprehensive guidance on the relevant international legal standards and ethical obligations for investigative procedures, interviews and collection of both physical and psychological evidence of torture, including a section on commissions of inquiry into torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In addition, the updated set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity contains eight principles specific to commissions of inquiry. However, the circumstances under which commissions of inquiry are appropriate, and the ways in which they may provide unique benefits, remain little discussed.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- The principal objective generally pursued by commissions of inquiry is to discover, clarify and formally acknowledge the causes and consequences of past violations in order to establish accountability. In this capacity, commissions of inquiry are fact-finding mechanisms that aim to establish an accurate record of the past by clarifying and deepening the public understanding of certain events or a particular period of time. This objective is met by means of numerous interviews and/or providing a venue for the public testimony of a broad array of actors, including victims, witnesses and Government officials. The resulting bolstered historical record allows for a more detailed account of patterns of violence, identifies where safeguards are lacking against torture and other forms of ill-treatment, opens space for public dialogue that may not have previously existed and corrects public misperceptions about certain events or a particular time period. Effective commissions of inquiry may aid in the establishment of accountability by paving the way for an effective strategy to prosecute perpetrators.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 26a
- Paragraph text
- [Commissions of inquiry may also be designed to address other objectives, including:] To contribute to accountability for perpetrators;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 26b
- Paragraph text
- [Commissions of inquiry may also be designed to address other objectives, including:] To respond to the needs of victims;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 26c
- Paragraph text
- [Commissions of inquiry may also be designed to address other objectives, including:] To identify institutional responsibility and propose institutional, legal and personnel reforms;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 26d
- Paragraph text
- [Commissions of inquiry may also be designed to address other objectives, including:] To promote reconciliation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- Commissions of inquiry are particularly useful where there is a lack of public information about a specific event or issue, such as when, for reasons of national security or intelligence, certain information is secret or classified. Under these circumstances, in order to respect the principles of constructive and meaningful participation of victims in establishing the facts, truth-seeking and holding perpetrators accountable, it is essential to ensure that a victim's right to effective investigation and redress is secured. In this respect, commissions of inquiry can help to maximize the disclosure of relevant information into the public domain. Where information is received in camera, a commission of inquiry may submit an excerpt or summary of that information to the appropriate judicial authority to ensure that a State's assertion that certain information is privileged is subject to the highest level of scrutiny.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- Commissions of inquiry into torture and other forms of ill-treatment may be traced back at least to the practice of ad hoc public inquiries or royal inquiries into a defined issue in the United Kingdom in the eleventh century, and subsequently in other Commonwealth countries. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, public inquiries became prolific in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The inquiries were appointed to advise the Government on a wide range of public policy issues, allegations of wrongdoing by Government officials and investigation into the causes of major disasters. Many other States, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Kenya, Morocco, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sweden and the United States of America, have also historically or recently established commissions of inquiry with prescribed membership or given national human rights institutions the mandate to undertake inquires more systematically in order to investigate specific crimes or events.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- In general, it should be seen as a positive development if States undertake to establish a commission of inquiry in response to alleged violations, since States are accountable to the international community for their solemnly acquired obligations. Some States may, however, establish a commission to give the impression that there is a serious inquiry under way so that the international community is less likely to take action. It is appropriate to presume good faith on the part of the State that establishes a commission of inquiry, but ultimately that good faith should be tested in the results of the exercise.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- There are also examples of commissions of inquiry that have had limited success owing to other factors. In 2009, the Government of Sri Lanka dissolved the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, established to look into serious violations of human rights committed since 2006. The Commission was unable to complete its mandate as no extensions were granted owing to a lack of resources and political will. The final report of the truth and reconciliation commission in Liberia received criticism that it was poorly drafted, lacked transparent explanation of the evidence on which it was based and contained inconsistent policy recommendations. The law that established the truth and reconciliation commission in Indonesia in 2005 was struck down by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the prerequisite of granting amnesties to perpetrators violated victims' rights as protected by the Constitution of Indonesia. The truth and reconciliation commission established in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2003 suffered from a number of critical flaws in its structure, including, most prominently, a lack of transparency in the selection of the commissioners, who included individuals with ties to those implicated in the crimes to be investigated.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- The "Arab spring" uprisings and the violent repression that followed have also been the subject of several recent commissions of inquiry established by the Human Rights Council. For example, in its resolution S-15/1, the Council established an independent commission of inquiry, to investigate alleged violations of international human rights law in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, establish facts and identify those responsible, make recommendations on accountability measures. The Council, in its resolution S-16/1, established an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate alleged violations of international human rights law in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- The Human Rights Council also mandated a fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict, in 2009, and a fact-finding mission for the Syrian Arab Republic, in 2012.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- The Council of Europe has set up commissions of inquiry with a variety of mandates, under the authority of various bodies. In 2006, a 46-member European Parliament inquiry was established to investigate the alleged use of European countries by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners. In a speech before the European Parliament in 2009, the international law expert Antonio Cassese called for the establishment of a permanent commission of inquiry within Europe to facilitate expeditious investigations into whether torture or other international crimes had been perpetrated.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The Arar Commission was established to investigate the detention in 2002 of Maher Arar while in transit through New York and his subsequent rendition to the Syrian Arab Republic, where he was subjected to torture. In its report, the Commission acknowledged the wrongs perpetrated against Mr. Arar and recommended possible remedies; it also reviewed the policies and activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and made recommendations on information-sharing and oversight mechanisms for national security agencies, including specific directives aimed at ensuring accountability and preventing any possible future complicity in torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- During county visits undertaken by the mandate holder, reports of torture from national sources, such as official commission of inquiry, have been analysed in an effort to corroborate allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In May 2011, the Special Rapporteur conducted a visit to Tunisia to engage with the interim Government to examine the violations committed by the previous regime, assess the violations committed in the interim period under the transitional Government and identify measures to be implemented to prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment in the future. In his report thereon (A/HRC/19/61/Add.1), the Special Rapporteur refers to the "national commission to establish the facts of abuses and violations from 17 December until the elimination of the cause", and recommends improvement of the fact-finding commission's methodology, particularly with regard to measures that could be taken to best preserve evidence gathered.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- In response to international pressure, the President of Kyrgyzstan, after consultations with the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, established a commission of inquiry into the events in southern Kyrgyzstan. The Special Rapporteur will take note of these findings in his forthcoming report on Kyrgyzstan, following his visit in December 2011. He will also take note of the Government's response when formulating his own recommendations, which will include an examination of the events of June 2010 in Osh and surrounding provinces, in addition to other issues within the scope of his mandate.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- In Bahrain, a commission of inquiry was established pursuant to Royal Order No. 28 in response to the events of February and March 2011 and thereafter, to investigate alleged international human rights violations and propose recommendations. In response to the Commission's report, published in November 2011, the Government engaged in a consultation process with relevant actors in order to implement the recommendations, including an examination of all complaints of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the opportunity to follow up on the Commission's report, within the scope of his mandate, and to contribute further to the reform process during his official visit to Bahrain in March 2012.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The affirmative obligation of States to investigate gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law is inextricably linked to the obligation to prosecute, and also to the right to truth. In its jurisprudence, the Human Rights Committee regularly invokes the obligation of States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to investigate and punish human rights violations. In the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, the General Assembly asserted that the obligation to implement international human rights law and international humanitarian law includes the duty to investigate violations effectively, promptly, thoroughly and impartially and, where appropriate, to take action against those allegedly responsible in accordance with domestic and international law. Moreover, States have the duty to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible for the violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish him or her.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Article 12 of the Convention against Torture expressly obligates States parties to investigate all allegations of torture, asserting that each State party should ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction. In its general comment No. 20, the Human Rights Committee stated that an effective remedy for allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment constituting a violation of article 7 required prompt and impartial investigation by competent authorities. Additionally, the right to an effective remedy established by article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is widely understood to include the obligation to investigate.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 51c
- Paragraph text
- [According to the Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the main purposes of effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are:] Facilitation of prosecution and/or, as appropriate, disciplinary sanctions for those indicated by the investigation as being responsible and demonstration of the need for full reparation and redress from the State, including fair and adequate financial compensation and provision of the means for medical care and rehabilitation. The characteristics of an effective investigation include the establishment of a mechanism that can receive and investigate complaints, competent and impartial investigators, careful documentation of crimes perpetrated, and adequate protection of victims, witnesses and those conducting investigations. Only when an allegation is manifestly ill-founded should a public official implicated be allowed to retain office pending the outcome of an investigation and any subsequent legal or disciplinary proceedings.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- The scope and type of information uncovered by commissions of inquiry are often different from the information that is disclosed through formal criminal investigation and prosecution. Whereas prosecutions are intended to fulfil a State's duty to achieve individual accountability, they may only bring to light a limited amount and type of information. Once an allegation of torture and other forms of ill-treatment is referred to competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, the complete results of the ensuing investigation are not always disclosed for public record. While focused on accountability, commissions of inquiry also delve more deeply and broadly into the relevant facts and circumstances that led to the violations than a prosecutorial investigative authority would. In this way, a commission of inquiry can help to establish a more complete picture of how and why torture occurred by analysing not just the human, legal and political consequences of a State policy of torture but also by revealing insights into wider patterns of violations, institutional involvement and responsibility, and command responsibility, as well as provide valuable background information and leads to witnesses (see for example the Gibson Inquiry).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Commissions of inquiry are able to complement the prosecutorial function as they may make use of information not admissible in a court of law because the evidentiary standards are less rigorous. For example, in commissions of inquiry, hearsay evidence is generally admissible owing to the lower evidentiary standards required. Similarly, often the required burden of proof is not as high as it would be in criminal trials; for example, a preponderance of the evidence may be sufficient, as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in the case of commissions of inquiry, individuals are typically invited voluntarily to testify or submit written statements, unlike the more formal deposition proceedings generally required in traditional courts of law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Commissions of inquiry can also directly assist prosecutions by providing information collected by the commission to the prosecuting authorities. Information derived from a commission's final report can serve as a useful, even if not entirely comprehensive, tool in the formal prosecution of a victim's case. For example, the commission's findings may provide insights into the role and extent of the complicity of State officials in torture. In all instances where a commission of inquiry receives allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment committed by State or non-State actors, the allegation and all relevant evidence must be submitted to relevant prosecutorial authorities for the initiation of a formal legal investigation and, if relevant, prosecution.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- If a commission of inquiry precedes formal criminal prosecutions, or the two mechanisms exist simultaneously, care must be taken to ensure that the work of the commission does not inhibit prosecutions in any way. In establishing an international commission of inquiry to investigate the assassination of former Prime Minister of Pakistan Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, the Secretary-General agreed that the international commission should be fact-finding in nature and not be a criminal investigation; the duty of carrying out a criminal investigation, finding the perpetrators and bringing them to justice, remains with the competent Pakistani authorities.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- The wealth of experience in national and international commissions of inquiry is a source of multiple lessons on both good and bad practices. The Istanbul Protocol and the Principles to Combat Impunity provide examples of standard-setting that apply to the institution, objectives, working methods and outcomes of commissions of inquiry. Given the wide variety of contexts and purposes for which commissions of inquiry are created, standards should be understood to be indicative and not fully binding as a matter of international law. Nevertheless, it is important to discuss standards as a way to determine when and how commissions of inquiry actually advance principles of international law and aid States, and the international community, in the fulfilment of their international legal obligations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- A commission of inquiry should be given the means to conduct a serious and rigorous examination of facts, most of which will be hidden or difficult to ascertain. For that reason, it is imperative that a commission have at its disposal the financial resources to travel, to provide for witness protection, to commission reports from experts and to finance forensic investigations and examinations. A commission should be able to hire staff of confidence and with proven professional expertise, including legal counsel, who should be shielded from political influence. Technical expertise and investigatory experience should be part of the recruitment process.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- Where possible, national commissions of inquiry ought to be pursued before the establishment of an international commission of inquiry. Proximity to the affected population often adds to the legitimacy and potential impact of a commission of inquiry. States should, however, seek international assistance where they lack necessary resources and/or expertise. The international community has a duty to establish a commission of inquiry, using the various mechanisms available, when the State fails to break the cycle of impunity or is unwilling or unable to explore the truth and provide justice or where human rights violations threaten international peace and security. In addition, international commissions of inquiry can play a valuable role in promoting subsequent national investigations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- There are various models of what to look for in the profile of members of a commission of inquiry, and each model is valid within the particular circumstances and legal culture of each State. For example, States may wish to ensure representation of the entire political or ideological spectrum, while others may not. In all circumstances, however, it is necessary for States to appoint commission members who will rise above partisanship and be first and foremost dedicated to the truth. It is important to include individuals with experience in fact-finding methodologies and assessment of the quality of evidence; for this reason, it is advisable to include at least some acting or retired magistrates or prosecutors. At the same time, it is important to reflect a wide range of expertise within the commission to ensure that the work benefits from diverse interpretations of the underlying problems. People of high moral standing from the sciences (especially medical, psychiatric and forensic sciences) and from social science and liberal arts backgrounds, including journalism, should also be included.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Where human rights violations have had a distinct ethnic, racial, or religious dimension, it is important to include people who fully understand the plight of affected communities. Under all circumstances careful attention should be paid to the inclusion of women in the composition of the commission. Of additional value is the inclusion of individuals with a gender perspective to better understand the specific ways in which vulnerable persons, including, women, children, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, persons with disabilities and persons belonging to a minority or indigenous group suffer from gross violations, including torture and other forms of ill-treatment and how they affect their communities. Geographic and cross-cultural balance in a commission is also of the greatest importance, as long as the standards of expertise and professionalism are not diminished for the sake of political balance.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Ethnic minorities
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- A commission of inquiry should be created by way of the legal instrument that is most appropriate to its context and should reflect the high importance that States give to such investigative bodies. The legal instrument establishing a commission of inquiry may be an act of parliament, an executive order or decree, or a decision of the highest courts in exercise of their investigatory functions. In all circumstances, the legal instrument establishing a commission of inquiry should identify clearly the terms of reference of the commission's mandate, including a clear temporal and/or geographic framework that is appropriate for the issue being investigated. The mandate should not excessively broaden the universe of violations to be investigated. The text of the authorizing instrument should also set out clearly the scope of the inquiry, citing with precision the events and issues to be addressed. The terms of reference should be stated in neutral language to avoid the impression of a predetermined outcome. A commission should have flexibility to amend its terms of reference in exceptional circumstances, as long as newly found elements warrant the amendment and the commission's decision is publicly and transparently explained.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- The legal instrument should also clearly establish the powers and attributions of the commission. Regardless of whether the findings of the commission have legal force in the national jurisdiction or are guidelines for future action of State institutions, it is imperative that commissions be seen as "official" bodies whose work and outcome the State pledges to respect and abide by. A commission must have the ability to inspect all documents in public agencies and archives, including those classified as secret or of limited distribution. A commission of inquiry should have subpoena powers; alternatively, it should be empowered to obtain evidence by applying to courts in order to summon witnesses and compel testimony, subject to the right of a person to remain silent if testimony might tend to be self-incriminating. These powers should extend to obtaining warrants for the inspection of places and search and seizure of documents and material evidence. In addition, a commission should have legally granted powers to protect witnesses, victims and their families from possible reprisal for their testimony.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- In discharging its duties, a commission must be careful to design a strategy for the effective discovery of every fact relevant to its mission, as set out in its terms of reference. To ensure inclusiveness and ownership of a commission's methodology, broad and genuine consultations with relevant international and national actors, including civil society, should be undertaken when drafting the commission's terms of reference. Moreover, it is important to disclose the terms of reference and working methods to the public as a means to ensure their confidence in the proceedings and ultimate findings of the commission.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- The purposes of a commission of inquiry warrant a more flexible approach to rules of evidence, including the credibility of witness testimony. In assessing the credibility of evidence, a commission of inquiry should give special weight to corroborated testimony and to testimony subjected to cross-examination. A commission should also apply general rules in their assessment of the credibility of witnesses, including demeanour, subject to cultural and gender sensitivities. A commission should always accept testimony that is not subject to cross-examination, and should also avail itself of testimony that, if rendered in court, would be excludable as hearsay.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- In all cases, however, certain steps must be taken to ensure that the activities of a commission of inquiry do not jeopardize criminal due process standards, including, importantly, the rights of potential criminal defendants. Commissions of inquiry should not identify individuals as being criminally responsible for acts described in the final report if doing so violates the rights of the identified individuals, who should be presumed to be innocent, and may inject additional bias into any subsequent official criminal investigation or prosecution. It may be possible to "name names" in a non-accusatory manner, without necessarily affirming criminal responsibility. However, where a commission determines that evidence strongly indicates participation by one or more individuals in crimes within its mandate, it should submit the names and the underlying information or evidence to relevant judicial or prosecutorial bodies for the latter to proceed in accordance with procedural and substantive laws applying to criminal justice. Under no circumstances should a commission of inquiry delay or obstruct formal criminal investigation and prosecution of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- The instrument of authorization must clearly empower a commission to issue a public report of its findings. Such a report must be published as an official document and circulated widely without interference of any sort. The contents of the report should be determined exclusively by the commission members and not subject to any form of prior censorship by any governmental authority. If commission members do not agree on every aspect of the report, dissenting and concurring opinions by individual commissioners should be made a part of the record. In additional, to ensure public confidence in the working methods and findings of a commission of inquiry, it is essential that the public be informed in advance of when to expect the publication of the commission's final report.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- The final report of the commission of inquiry should be comprehensive and fulfil all aspects of its terms of reference as set forth in the legal instrument that created the body. Beyond a recitation of facts, the report of a commission of inquiry should attempt to provide an accurate picture of the social and political background against which the acts of torture and other international crimes took place. Crucially, the report should identify loopholes in the public and private institutional order that have allowed for the breakdown of legal and procedural protections and led to a culture of impunity for the crimes investigated by the commission. The report should make concrete and detailed recommendations on how to restore checks and balances or "horizontal accountability" between branches of Government and the effective functioning of institutions of control.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- Evidence will often point to key actors responsible for the collapse of the rule of law, because institutions often break down when public officials in charge of them fail to live up to their duties. Nevertheless, the commission should resist the temptation to "name names". As stated above, officials must benefit from the presumption of innocence, and their conduct should be judged by the courts, not by a quasi-judicial investigatory body. This rule is also applicable to those individuals whose participation in the alleged criminal conduct was indirect. In all cases, the commission should submit the names and the preliminary evidence against each suspected individual to courts or prosecutors for appropriate legal action. If the commission decides to separate institutional failings from potential criminal activity and to name names of persons responsible for the former, it should still institute a measure of due process for those so identified; at the very least they must be able to appear before the commission, confront the allegations about their misconduct and offer their own version of events.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- The report of the commission of inquiry should be published widely and in a manner that is accessible to the broadest audience possible, and should explain the commission's findings of fact and the legal analysis that supports its conclusions. The report should also contain detailed recommendations for all branches of Government (or to the international community, if applicable) on how to fulfil the State's obligations with regard to truth, justice, reparation to victims and guarantees of non-repetition. Through its highest authorities, the State should respond promptly to the publication of the commission's report, indicating its acceptance or rejection of each recommendation, with carefully reasoned explanations, and ideally a timetable for implementation of the recommendations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 86
- Paragraph text
- The global prison crisis has an adverse impact on conditions of detention. The negative impact of the overuse of incarceration on human rights is manifold. The overuse of imprisonment constitutes one of the major underlying causes of overcrowding, which results in conditions that amount to ill-treatment or even torture. The revision of the Rules offers an excellent opportunity to revisit States' commitment to addressing the needs of persons deprived of liberty, with full respect for their inherent dignity and fundamental rights, and to adhering strictly to international human rights instruments.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- The first meeting of the Expert Group established in response to that request was held in 2012 and attended by 143 representatives from 52 States (see UNODC/CCPCJ/EG.6/2012/1, para. 9). At that meeting, there was general agreement that although the Rules had stood the test of time and were universally acknowledged as the minimum standards for the detention of prisoners, some areas of the Rules needed to be reviewed (paras. 4 and 5). The consensus among the Expert Group was that any changes to the Rules should not lower any of the existing standards (para. 4). Moreover, the Expert Group identified nine preliminary areas for possible review (para. 5). The Economic and Social Council, in its resolution 2012/13, and the General Assembly, in its resolution 67/188, subsequently took cognizance of the recommendations of the Expert Group and took note of the areas identified for review. At its second meeting, held in Buenos Aires in December 2012, the Expert Group made substantive progress and identified issues for further discussion within the targeted areas (UNODC/CCPCJ/EG.6/2012/4). By its resolution 2013/35, the Council again took into consideration the nine areas identified for revision and decided to extend the mandate of the Expert Group, authorizing it to continue its work with a view to reporting to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its twenty-third session. In that same resolution, the Council invited Member States to continue to be engaged in the revision process by submitting proposals and to participate actively in the next meeting of the Expert Group, to be held in Brazil towards the end of 2013.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- While the Rules focus mainly on the situation of persons deprived of liberty in prisons, pretrial detention centres and police stations, in practice, States' obligations to ensure respect for human rights extend beyond police custody and prisons. The broad concept of deprivation of liberty is reflected in several international instruments, including the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in which "deprivation of liberty" is understood to mean any form of detention or imprisonment or the placement of a person in a public or private custodial setting which that person is not permitted to leave at will by order of any judicial, administrative or other authority (art. 4 (2)). The language used by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is also enlightening. By its resolution 1/08, the Commission understands the concept of "deprivation of liberty" to encompass the following: Any form of detention, imprisonment, institutionalization or custody of a person in a public or private institution which that person is not permitted to leave at will … This category of persons includes … those persons who are under the custody and supervision of certain institutions, such as: psychiatric hospitals and other establishments for persons with physical, mental or sensory disabilities; institutions for children and the elderly; centers for migrants, refugees, asylum or refugee status seekers, stateless and undocumented persons; and any other similar institution the purpose of which is to deprive persons of their liberty. For the purpose of this report, the broad term of persons deprived of liberty will be used to refer to all the above-mentioned situations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- Furthermore, the provisions in the Rules governing the transfer of detainees from one authority to another should be strengthened. The duties of the State should be extended to the following circumstances, among others: the transfer of prisoners from one establishment to another; judicial proceedings; and hospitals outside the confines of an institution of detention. Even when the administration of a facility is not in charge of ordering a transfer, it is nevertheless acting in an official capacity on account of its responsibility for carrying out the State's obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment, and bears responsibility for permitting or participating in the transfer of a person to the custody or control of an individual or institution known to have engaged in torture or ill-treatment, or for not implementing adequate safeguards, in contravention of the State's obligation to take effective measures to prevent torture or other ill-treatment (Committee against Torture general comment No. 2, para. 19).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Thus, regardless of which authority is competent to authorize and/or execute transfers, the authority releasing the detainee, as guarantor of the right to life and humane treatment of the persons under its custody, must act with due diligence and objectivity in assessing potential risk factors and the feasibility of the transfer, and must inform the judge in charge, prior to carrying out the transfer, to give him or her the opportunity to overturn said transfer. The Rules should allow for available, suitable and effective judicial remedies to challenge transfers when it is believed that they infringe on the human rights of inmates.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur fully endorses the proposal by the Expert Group to include a new preamble that would include a list of the fundamental principles contained in already adopted treaties and guidelines regarding treatment in detention (see Rule 3 and E/CN.15/2012/CRP.2, sect. 4). Some proposed preambles (for example, that proposed in UNODC/CCPCJ/EG.6/2012/NGO/1), however, refer to instruments that set out standards that fall short of those recognized in subsequent instruments; these earlier instruments should not, therefore, be cited in the Rules. For instance, the standards set out in the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care (1991), have, in various important respects, been superseded by the higher standards set out in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (see A/HRC/22/53, para. 58).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- Furthermore, in order to ensure that the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment is enforced as an effective means of prevention, the proposed preamble and subsequent procedural rule should declare unambiguously that the State's obligation to prevent torture also applies to all persons who act, de jure or de facto, in the name of, in conjunction with or at the behest of the State party (Committee against Torture general comment No. 2, para. 7). The Committee against Torture has stated the following: … an order of a superior or public authority can never be invoked as a justification of torture. … At the same time, those exercising superior authority … cannot avoid accountability or escape criminal responsibility for torture or other ill-treatment committed by subordinates where they knew or should have known that such impermissible conduct was occurring, or was likely to occur, and they failed to take reasonable and necessary preventive measures (general comment No. 2, para. 26).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- The principle of humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty constitutes the starting point for any consideration of prison conditions and the design of prison regimes. It complements and overlaps the principle on the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment by requiring States (and consequently the prison authorities) to take positive measures to ensure minimum guarantees of humane treatment for persons in their custodial care (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 21, para. 3). Treating all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and with respect for their dignity is a fundamental and universally applicable rule, the application of which, at a minimum, cannot be dependent on the material resources available in the State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (para. 4). In this regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has consistently affirmed that States cannot invoke economic hardship to justify imprisonment conditions that do not comply with the minimum international standards and respect the inherent dignity of the human being.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- In the light of this interpretation, the Rules should incorporate a provision urging authorities to adopt specific measures aimed at resolving the structural shortcomings of places of deprivation of liberty and earmark the resources necessary to cover basic needs and work and educational programmes. Furthermore, the Rules should set out concrete measures to be taken to ensure minimum guarantees of humane treatment for persons in custodial care, including securing a prompt and effective judicial control of detention; providing adequate, accessible and appropriate health care; ensuring the availability of appropriate judicial resources and effective complaint systems; and allowing contact with the outside world and access to other activities, including for those awaiting trial.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- As a rule of general application, the Rules should refrain from transferring inmates to a distant facility (see the Body of Principles, principle 20) or to a facility with much worse conditions as a form of punishment and from placing heavy restrictions on inmates' contact with the outside world, except as incidental to justifiable segregation or the maintenance of discipline (see Rules 57 and 60). Although the Rules highlight the importance for prisoners under sentence of maintaining contact with the outside world (see part II, sect. A), this principle should be of general application for all persons deprived of liberty, including death row inmates, to mitigate the level of suffering that is inherent to the condition of persons sentenced to death and to ensure that the penitentiary system comprises treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 10 (3)). Furthermore, the Rules should guarantee that segregation and isolation are not used as a subtle form of punishment and that persons who are segregated or isolated are held in conditions applicable to the rest of the prison or penitentiary population and are subject to the full range of protections. The rationale behind this is that in some countries different forms of prison regimes and forms of segregation are used as additional measures of punishment, for example by excluding those imprisoned for life from work, educational or other activities. In some countries, prisoners serving a life sentence are confined, in virtual isolation, for up to 22 hours a day in small, cramped, unventilated cells, often in extreme temperatures, without any type of prison activities.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- Given the excessive use of pretrial detention for long periods of time, it is absolutely necessary to ensure that all persons deprived of liberty have access to activities and can benefit from other privileges to which the general prison population is entitled. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that it may be difficult to implement this principle, given the fairly rapid turnover of persons awaiting trial and the fact that police stations and other detention facilities may not be adapted for this purpose. As the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has noted, however, prisoners cannot simply be left to languish for weeks, possibly months, locked up in their cells (see CPT/Inf (92) 3, para. 47).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- It is important to consider that the deprivation of the right to individual self-determination is not incidental to criminal punishment or any other form of custodial care. The current phrasing of Rule 57 can be misunderstood as meaning that deprivation of liberty results in the withdrawal of individual self-determination. It may be pertinent to redraft Rule 58 in order to clarify that only reasonable boundaries inherent to the regime in the places of detention apply. Likewise, Rule 69 could be amended to omit the reference to the conduct of a study of the personality of prisoners, as potentially in conflict with the right to personal self-determination.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- As a principle of general application, the Rules should explicitly consider all inmates as subjects of rights and duties and not objects of treatment or correction. Given that mental ill-treatment may be inflicted under the name of remedial, educational, moral, spiritual and other forces and forms of assistance, the review process offers an opportunity to revisit Rule 59 in order to limit the applicable methods to those respectful of the prisoners' inherent dignity and value as human beings. In this respect, there is a need to revisit the concepts of "rehabilitation" and "re-education", as well as of "corrective" and "correctional", among others, in order to protect persons deprived of liberty from arbitrary intervention or treatment that may amount to torture or other ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recalls the importance of introducing a rule allowing all who are deprived of their liberty to challenge expeditiously the lawfulness of the detention, e.g. through habeas corpus or amparo, as a safeguard for ensuring protection against torture or other ill-treatment. In all circumstances, the person deprived of liberty should have the right to inform his or her family of the arrest (Rules 44 (3) and 92) and place of detention within 18 hours (E/CN.4/2003/68, paras. 26 (g) and (i)). These rules should apply also to decisions to restrict the personal freedom of an inmate further, for instance by placing him or her in isolation or solitary confinement. In no case may a detainee's contact with the outside world be dependent on his or her cooperativeness, be used as a disciplinary sanction or form part of the sentence. In accordance with principle 19 of the Body of Principles, access to the outside world can only be denied subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law (see E/CN.4/2004/56, para. 43).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Furthermore, given that safeguards are particularly undermined when the detained persons are held in incommunicado or secret detention, the Rules should place an obligation on prison authorities to ensure that persons deprived of liberty are held in officially recognized and accessible places of detention. Police station chiefs and investigating officers should be held criminally accountable for any unacknowledged custody in cases where their responsibility, including command responsibility, has been established. The Special Rapporteur recalls that whether detention is secret or not is determined by its incommunicado character and by the fact that State authorities do not disclose the place of detention or information about the fate of the detainee (see A/HRC/13/42, paras. 8-10).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- It is equally important that interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices be kept under systematic review with a view to preventing cases of torture and other ill-treatment (Convention against Torture, art. 11). The Special Rapporteur recalls that counsel must be present during all interview interrogations, in their entirety. The duration of interrogations and the intervals between interrogations must be recorded (preferably with a video recorder but at least with an audio recorder) and the identity of the officials conducting the interrogation should be registered (Body of Principles, principle 23). Individuals arrested legally should not be held in facilities under the control of their interrogators or investigators for more time than is required by law to obtain a judicial warrant of pretrial detention, which, in any case, should not exceed a period of 48 hours. They should be transferred to a pretrial facility under a different authority at once, after which no further unsupervised contact with the interrogators or investigators should be permitted (see E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (g)).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- Incidents of abuse among prisoners, from subtle forms of harassment to intimidation and serious physical and sexual attacks, are a regular occurrence in all prisons. The Special Rapporteur observes that although Rule 28 (1) prohibits employing prisoners in a disciplinary capacity, in some States guards delegate the authority for maintaining discipline and protecting detainees from exploitation and violence to privileged detainees who, in turn, often use this power to their own benefit. In this context, special consideration should be given to the aggravated risk of violence that women and those from vulnerable groups, including persons with disabilities, people living with HIV/AIDS, drug-dependant individuals, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and sex workers might suffer.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Persons with disabilities
- Women
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recalls that inter-prisoner violence may amount to torture or other ill-treatment if the State fails to act with due diligence to prevent it (A/HRC/13/39/Add.3, para. 28). As stated by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the State assumes a heightened duty of protection by severely limiting an inmates' freedom of movement and capacity for self-defence (A/61/311, para. 51). Despite the unambiguous wording of the Convention against Torture, there is a lack of awareness of the obligation of prison administration to intervene in inter-prisoner violence. The Special Rapporteur on torture notes that acquiescence in inter-prisoner violence is not simply a breach of professional responsibilities but that it amounts to consent or acquiescence to torture or other ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- The State must provide adequate medical care, which is a minimum and indispensable material requirement for ensuring the humane treatment of persons in its custody. The carrying out of a prompt, independent and consensual medical examination upon a person's admission to a place of detention and after every transfer between facilities, and thereafter on a routine basis, constitutes one of the basic safeguards against ill-treatment (see Human Rights Council resolution 10/24, paras. 4 and 9, and A/52/40 (vol. I), para. 109). Among the main challenges in the provision of medical care are the lack of appropriate and sufficient medical personnel; inadequate medicine supplies and equipment; and a lack of capacity and delays in authorizing transfers to hospitals. The Special Rapporteur notes that loss of life or a deterioration in an inmate's well-being occurs because of a lack of or unreasonable delays in the provision of urgent medical care, and that these omissions on the part of the authorities can amount to ill-treatment and even torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- The revision of the Rules offers an excellent opportunity to address these deficiencies. The Rules must include a provision obliging authorities to ensure that medical examinations are not conducted in a superficial manner and to act diligently so as to ascertain the condition of the person examined, allowing that person to freely communicate with the physician (see CAT/OP/MEX/1, paras. 132, 133, 135, 172 and 173). Medical examinations should be thorough enough to detect any psychological consequences of torture or propensity to commit suicide. Furthermore, Rule 24 should insist on the obligation of medical personnel to detect, treat, properly document and refer to the authority responsible for investigating allegations of torture or other ill-treatment any signs of torture or other ill-treatment or any case where there are allegations or reasonable grounds to believe that torture or other ill treatment may have occurred prior to admission or while in detention (see the Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, annex, paras. 6 (a) and (c)).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- Finally, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes that health professionals must not, under any circumstance, consent or acquiesce to torture or other ill-treatment, let alone take active part in any such ill-treatment (Principles of Medical Ethics, principles 2 and 3, and the Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects). Such prohibition extends to such practices as examining detainees to determine their "fitness for interrogation", as well as to providing medical treatment to ill-treated detainees so as to enable them to withstand further abuse (E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (n)). It is important that the Rules exclude the involvement and role of health-care personnel in any disciplinary or security-related measures (Rule 32 (1)). Medical personnel shall, nonetheless, closely monitor the mental and physical health of inmates undergoing punishment and visit them as deemed medically necessary or upon the request of the person deprived of liberty.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur observes that the Rules lack provisions and guidance on how discipline and order should be maintained in order to strike a balance between maintaining security and respecting human dignity. In this context, it is essential that the Rules provide for an obligation for prison authorities to use disciplinary measures on an exceptional basis and only when the use of mediation and other dissuasive methods to resolve disputes proves to be inadequate to maintain proper order. It is also important that punishment always be proportional to the offence for which it is established; doing otherwise would be tantamount to improperly making the nature of the deprivation of liberty harsher. Any act that may amount to a crime should be dealt with by the authorities of justice administration and not by penitentiary or prison staff. All punishments shall be duly recorded.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- Thus, in Rule 33 it should be made explicit that the use of force and instruments of restraint (including the use of non-lethal or incapacitating weapons) should be a last resort that may be used only in exceptional circumstances, when strictly necessary as specified by law and in a manner that complies with the principle of proportionality and for the shortest possible time (see the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, principles 4, 9 and 16). Rule 33 (b), which currently permits the use of restraints (including sedatives, neuroleptics or other drugs) on medical grounds, should be abolished. The Special Rapporteur has previously declared that there can be no therapeutic justification for the prolonged use of restraints and that such use may constitute ill-treatment (see A/63/175, paras. 40, 47 and 48, and A/HRC/22/53, para. 63). The use of physical restraints that are inherently inhuman, degrading or painful (such as electro-shock stun belts and restraint chairs) has humiliating and degrading effects and has been condemned and prohibited by both the Special Rapporteur and the Committee against Torture as methods of restraining those in custody (see A/55/44, para. 180 (c)). The Special Rapporteur is of the view that Rule 31 should be revised to incorporate a prohibition on punishment by suspension or restriction of water or food, as it violates international standards set out in the report of WHO on the social determinants of health and the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (principle XI).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur has received numerous allegations about searches performed arbitrarily in places of deprivation of liberty with a view to punish or humiliate inmates or destroy their belongings. In this respect, the Rules must integrate principles governing searches that meet the criteria of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 16, para. 8). The Rules should place an obligation on prison authorities to ensure that searches are conducted in private by trained personnel of the same sex as the inmate, that alternate screening methods, such as scans, are developed to replace strip searches and body cavity searches and that searches are conducted by suitably trained personnel, including, where appropriate, health professionals from outside the detention facility, following authorization from the competent authorities (see the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners, rule 20, and the World Medical Association Statement on Body Searches of Prisoners (1993, as revised in 2005)).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- Prison regimes of solitary confinement often cause mental and physical suffering or humiliation that amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. If used intentionally for purposes such as punishment, intimidation, coercion or obtaining information or a confession, or for any reason based on discrimination, and if the resulting pain or suffering are severe, solitary confinement even amounts to torture (A/66/268, paras. 76, 87 and 88). Solitary confinement should be imposed, if at all, in very exceptional circumstances, as a last resort, for as short a time as possible and with established safeguards in place after obtaining the authorization of the competent authority subject to independent review.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- The Rules should prohibit the use and imposition of indefinite solitary confinement either as part of a judicially imposed sentence or a disciplinary measure, and alternative disciplinary sanctions should be introduced to avoid the use of solitary confinement. The Rules should also prohibit prolonged solitary confinement and frequently renewed measures that amount to prolonged solitary confinement. The Rules should establish a maximum term of days beyond which solitary confinement is considered prolonged. The Rules should explicitly prohibit the imposition of solitary confinement of any duration for juveniles, persons with psychosocial disabilities or other disabilities or health conditions, pregnant women, women with infants and breastfeeding mothers (see the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners, rule 22, and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, rule 67). No prisoner, including those serving life sentence and prisoners on death row, shall be held in solitary confinement merely because of the gravity of the crime.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Women
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- The State bears the burden of evidentiary proof to rebut the presumption that the State is responsible for violations of the right to life and for inhumane treatment committed against persons in its custody. Accordingly, the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of an individual in custody is particularly stringent where that individual dies (A/61/311, para. 54). In this respect, the lack of a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment or death in custody remains one of the major challenges in fighting impunity for such acts.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- It is important that the Rules provide detailed guidance on the purpose, modalities and overall parameters of effective investigations and documentation of torture and other ill-treatment, as reflected in the Principles on Effective Investigation and the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. More specifically, Rule 44 should, at a minimum, require the administration to ensure that, notwithstanding internal investigations, all complaints or reports of torture or other ill-treatment, including prison violence, threats and intimidation, as well as incidents of deaths in custody (irrespective of their cause) or shortly following release, are transmitted without screening to an external independent body for investigation. In the event that the investigation confirms allegations of torture or other ill-treatment, the victims should be guaranteed both rehabilitation and redress (see general comment No. 3 of the Committee against Torture). There should be protocols and guidelines for the prison administration about cooperating with the authorities by not obstructing the investigation and by collecting and preserving evidence. Even in the absence of an express complaint (including in the case of withdrawal of a complaint, provided that the security of the complainant is guaranteed), an investigation shall be undertaken if there are other indications that torture or other ill-treatment might have occurred (see Principles on the Effective Investigation, principle 2). Furthermore, information related to the circumstances surrounding the death of a person in custody should be made publicly accessible, considering that public scrutiny outweighs the right to privacy unless otherwise justified. The prison administration should systematically identify and collect the patterns of deaths for further examination by independent bodies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- Ensuring non-discrimination and special protection for vulnerable groups and individuals is a critical component of the obligation to prevent torture and other ill treatment. The Special Rapporteur recognizes that while all people deprived of their liberty are vulnerable to neglect, abuse and mistreatment, for certain marginalized groups that vulnerability is heightened. These groups include, in addition to those identified in Rule 6 (see para. 28 above), particular categories of detainees or prisoners (e.g. sex workers, drug users, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, prisoners who have tuberculosis or terminal illnesses and people living with HIV/AIDS) (see A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, paras. 231 and 257).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur notes that while the Rules recognize and address specific needs of different categories of prisoners (such as women, juveniles, persons with disabilities and foreign nationals), it fails to require the extension of special protection measures to other disadvantaged groups of detainees or prisoners. It is essential that the Rules adopt special measures aimed at protecting the rights of other disadvantaged groups of prisoners, in accordance with well-established international standards and norms (see UNODC/CCPCJ/EG.6/2012/2, p. 21). Special care must be taken to ensure that segregating members of these groups does not further marginalize them from the rest of the community or expose them to further risk of torture or ill-treatment (see, for example, the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, principle 9 (a)).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Persons on the move
- Persons with disabilities
- Women
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- Rules 82 and 83 should be replaced with a provision that applies to all persons with disabilities. Such a provision should state explicitly that inmates with disabilities are entitled to be eligible for all programmes and services available to others, including voluntary engagement in activities and community release programmes, and to be housed in the general prison population on an equal basis with others without discrimination. It should also provide a clear articulation of certain rights enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: the duty to provide reasonable accommodation (arts. 5 and 14); the duty to work towards creating an accessible environment (art. 9); the duty to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to all amenities without having to rely on assistance from fellow inmates (e.g., arts. 5, 20 and 28); the duty to respect the choices of persons with disabilities and to establish effective mechanisms to support decision-making in order to enable people with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities to exercise their legal capacity on an equal basis with others (see arts. 12 and 13).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph