Search Tips
sorted by
300 shown of 1232 entities
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur considers it an absolute priority of the mandate to continue transmitting urgent appeals to States with regard to individuals reported to be at risk of torture, as well as communications on past alleged cases of torture. However, having recently taken up his functions, the Special Rapporteur notes with serious concern that the resources allocated to the mandate are not sufficient to respond to the ever-growing number of urgent requests for intervention on behalf of individuals. The Special Rapporteur therefore appeals to the Human Rights Council, as well as to its members individually, to take every possible measure to allow the Special Rapporteur to carry out the mandate effectively.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- In carrying out his mandate, the Special Rapporteur will always endeavour to engage in an open, respectful and constructive dialogue with States and other international, regional and non-governmental stakeholders, and aim to gain mutual trust and consolidated understanding of all relevant perspectives, concerns and challenges before drawing any conclusions or trying to identify the most suitable manner of action.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is of the firm view that there is no better deterrent to torture than a strong national will to combat and prevent such abhorrent abuse. In addition to visiting places of detention, therefore, the Special Rapporteur will use the opportunity of fact-finding visits to encourage States to take effective legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent torture. In particular, wherever necessary, the Special Rapporteur will call upon States to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Optional Protocol thereto and to establish independent and professional 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
- All
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Throughout his tenure, the Special Rapporteur intends to continue some of the thematic work streams initiated by his predecessors, such as the envisaged protocol on non-coercive interviewing and other issues arising in the area of police custody and pretrial detention. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur will also endeavour to widen the protection space for victims of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. To that end, he intends to take up a number of issues that have not yet received systematic attention from the international community, such as torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment occurring in relation to forced migration, in extra-custodial settings and at the hands of non-State actors.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Therefore, the first priority of the Special Rapporteur will be to unequivocally reaffirm the absolute and universal prohibition of all, and any, forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to further clarify the contours and meaning of these terms in the light of the evolving challenges marking the contemporary international environment, and to call on States and non-State actors alike to renounce, and to prevent impunity for, any such practice.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- At the same time, the Special Rapporteur cannot ignore that, despite more than three decades of dedicated work of the mandate and countless other international, governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are still rampant in most, if not all, parts of the world. In particular, the Special Rapporteur observes with alarm that, since the turn of the century, the rise of transnational terrorism, organized crime and other actual or perceived threats has given way to an increasing tolerance for violent political narratives and popular beliefs that not only trivialize torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment but even promote and incite their use in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur also wishes to salute the outstanding work accomplished by his predecessors since the establishment of the mandate in 1985. He intends to consolidate and build on their achievements throughout his tenure.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that the mandate is part of a wider system and looks forward to working in close cooperation with the Committee against Torture, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, other special procedure mandate holders, regional anti-torture mechanisms, States and civil society actors.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment sincerely thanks the Human Rights Council for the confidence in him demonstrated by his nomination. He is aware of the great responsibility of his office and is fully committed to carrying it out to the best of his ability and for the benefit of humanity as a whole.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- In sum, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that international law must protect every human being from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, whoever the perpetrators may be. Throughout his tenure, the Special Rapporteur will therefore aim to contribute to closing the protection gap for victims of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of non-State actors, including by advocating for the mutual reinforcement of human rights and international humanitarian law obligations. In carrying out his mandate, the Special Rapporteur is also willing to explore, to the extent appropriate and practicable, the benefits of engaging in a direct dialogue with non-State actors, including de facto authorities, other armed groups and private companies, to achieve a positive impact on the ground. The Special Rapporteur will also endeavour to further contribute to the ongoing discussions on holding non-State actors accountable for human rights violations, including for acts of 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- In addition, an increasing number of States delegate part of their law enforcement, intelligence and military operations to private military or security companies. Outsourced tasks and functions may range from the protection of specific persons, objects and infrastructure to running facilities for the processing of asylum seekers or even entire detention facilities for criminal suspects and convicts, and may even include the use of force. In this environment, allegations of individual contractors' involvement in serious human rights violations - including participation in torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment - continue to emerge. It is therefore important to recall that States cannot absolve themselves from international legal responsibility for acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment carried out by private military or security contractors operating on their behalf.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- As far as the due diligence of territorial States is concerned, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that the exercise of control by an organized armed group as de facto authority over the population of a State does not deprive the people living in this territory of their rights. States therefore have a due diligence obligation to protect individuals under their jurisdiction from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on the part of non-State actors. Thus, even where armed groups have brought part of the national territory under their control, Governments are not absolved from doing everything feasible in the circumstances to protect their citizens 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- This focus area raises questions of the due diligence of States as well as, to a certain extent, of the direct obligations of non-State actors as far as the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is concerned. It should be recalled that, although non-State actors are not directly bound by human rights treaties, there are other treaty provisions prohibiting torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that may be directly binding on them. Most notably, under international humanitarian law, both States and non-State actors are absolutely prohibited from resorting to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for reasons related to an armed conflict. Moreover, any person resorting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment amounting to a war crime, a crime against humanity, or even genocide is subject to prosecution under international criminal law. Arguably, the universal prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment can also be based on a general principle of law, namely what the International Court of Justice referred to as "elementary considerations of humanity". According to article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, such general principles of law constitute an independent source of international law along with treaties and custom.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- So far, steps taken by the mandate to combat torture have focused almost entirely on States as potential perpetrators. Yet organized armed groups, private military and security contractors, mercenaries, foreign fighters and other non-State actors are increasingly engaged in conduct that adversely interferes with human rights, including the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to retain its practical relevance, however, it must also provide for practical protection against violations on the part of non-State actors.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- In interpreting the relevant legal provisions, the Special Rapporteur will be guided, among other sources, by State practice, international jurisprudence and two soft law instruments widely recognized to reflect generally recognized conditions and modalities governing the use of force by law enforcement officials: the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. The Special Rapporteur intends to conduct his thematic work in this area based on consultations and expert meetings with relevant stakeholders and experts, and building on earlier analyses by other special procedure mandate holders who explored similar issues.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur therefore aims to clarify how terms such as "torture", "cruel", "inhuman" and "degrading" should be interpreted within the context of extra-custodial use of force, particularly in view of potential justifications such as law enforcement, crowd control, or self-defence or defence of others. He will also examine how this subject area interrelates with the protection of other fundamental rights such as, most notably, the right of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and the right to life. Further, the Special Rapporteur plans to examine the extent to which the use of certain types of weapons, riot control devices or other means and methods of law enforcement would have to be considered intrinsically cruel, inhuman or degrading in the light of their immediate to long-term consequences.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- In the past, the attention of the mandate has focused predominantly on fighting the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment against persons deprived of their liberty. It has not yet systematically examined the extent to which the use of force by law enforcement officers and other officials outside the context of detention (so-called extra-custodial use of force) can come within the purview of the mandate. The question is particularly relevant where State officials resort to unnecessary, disproportionate or otherwise excessive force without, however, directly infringing the right to life. While it is clear that States must be in a position to use all appropriate means, including necessary and proportionate force, with a view to maintaining public security and law and order, experience shows that it is precisely in situations where force is used in insufficiently controlled environments that the risk of arbitrariness and abuse is highest.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur intends to contribute to the ongoing reflection on the links between forced migration and torture. To this end, he hopes to conduct consultations with relevant stakeholders with a view to preparing a thematic report addressing the specific issue of torture and ill-treatment faced by migrants and refugees. Through this report, the Special Rapporteur hopes to contribute to the overall efforts of the international community towards the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration by 2018.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Finally, the Special Rapporteur is also interested in researching how to better assist States in preventing and investigating acts of torture and other ill-treatment suffered by refugees, asylum seekers and other irregular migrants at the hands of non-State actors such as traffickers and smugglers.
- 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
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur fully endorses the long-standing jurisprudence and doctrine stating that the absolute prohibition against refoulement contained in the Convention against Torture is stronger than that found in refugee law under article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. This absolute prohibition means that persons may not be returned even when they may not otherwise qualify for refugee status under the 1951 Convention or domestic law. Accordingly, non-refoulement under the Convention against Torture must be assessed independently of refugee or asylee status determinations, so as to ensure that the fundamental right to be free from torture or other ill-treatment is respected even in cases where non-refoulement under refugee law may be circumscribed.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur will also closely monitor the conditions under which some irregular migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees, are being returned to their countries of origin or relocated to countries of transit under readmission agreements negotiated with countries that may have committed gross human rights violations, including torture. In doing so, the Special Rapporteur will advocate for the full application of article 3 of the Convention, which provides that no State party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture, and that for the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- Of particular interest to the Special Rapporteur's mandate will be the use by many, if not all, Governments of detention as a migration management tool in arrival, transit and removal centres. During his fact-finding visits, the Special Rapporteur intends to visit places where irregular migrants are held with a view to ensuring that they are not subjected to treatment and conditions of detention amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that monitoring both official and de facto places of detention where irregular migrants are held would be instrumental for assisting authorities in addressing possible cases of abuse and improving the conditions of life of this population.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- In this context, the Special Rapporteur intends to look with a renewed degree of scrutiny into the particular risks of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment faced by irregular migrants in today's world. He will do so keeping in mind the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, adopted by the General Assembly on 19 September 2016, in which States committed to protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- This rise in the number of forced displacements is paralleled by a growing and worrying tendency around the world to criminalize irregular migration, to deter applications for asylum and to detain people on the move. In this context, refugees, asylum seekers and other irregular migrants have become more vulnerable to human rights violations, including 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)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- Conflicts, violence, persecution, poverty and food insecurity are driving unprecedented waves of people to cross international borders in a desperate search for safety. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in 2015 alone, 65.3 million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide, the largest number since the Second World War.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Humanitarian
- Movement
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is interested in conducting a global survey on how States implement such safeguards. He will actively cooperate with Governments during his tenure to identify challenges and best practices and to encourage States to live up to their obligations to fully implement relevant safeguards in order to make detainees' rights a reality rather than an aspiration.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Procedural safeguards have been developed to counter the risk of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and their implementation is key to eradicating such abuse in practice (see A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, para. 81). Among the most basic but important safeguards is the immediate and adequate registration of any arrest and detention, as well as the prohibition on holding anyone in unofficial places of detention. Other guarantees include the detainees' right to have prompt access to independent legal counsel and medical assistance and to have their families notified of their arrest. In addition, each individual has the right to challenge the legality of his/her detention and treatment before an independent court. There must be formal procedures by which a detainee is informed of his/her rights, so as to enable him/her to enjoy those 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- International law requires that States guarantee the effective protection of persons at risk of torture and ill-treatment, in particular persons deprived of their liberty who are under the complete control of the detaining authorities. Indeed, arrest and deprivation of liberty are inherently associated with a risk of intimidation, torture and other ill-treatment, and experience shows that this risk is especially high in the very early stages of custody and detention. At times, initial police custody or remand detention is extended beyond the legally permissible period, thus making the detained individual particularly vulnerable to abuse. Moreover, while the physical and psychological conditions of detention in police custody may be acceptable for periods up to 48 hours, they often are completely inadequate for housing persons for any longer periods.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur intends to take the work of his predecessor a step further and commits to contribute actively, in consultation and cooperation with other stakeholders, to the development of universal guidelines on investigative interviewing.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur proposed that the first step in the development of universal guidelines on investigative interviewing would be to hold a broad public consultation. In parallel, OHCHR was tasked by the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 31/31, to organize an intersessional seminar to exchange national experiences and best practices on the implementation of effective safeguards to prevent torture and other ill-treatment during police custody.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur welcomes the proposal put forward by his predecessor in his last report to the General Assembly (A/71/298) in which he advocated for the development of universal guidelines for investigative interviewing practices. These would be grounded in fundamental principles of international human rights law and would identify a set of standards for non-coercive interviewing methods and procedural safeguards that ought, as a matter of law and policy, to be applied at a minimum to all interviews by law enforcement officials, military and intelligence personnel and other bodies with investigative mandates.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Law enforcement officers and officials from other investigative bodies are obliged to respect and protect the inherent dignity and physical and mental integrity of all persons, including suspects, witnesses and victims. Nevertheless, the use of torture, other ill-treatment, coercion and intimidation against persons in custody and during interviews continues unabated in most if not all regions of the world. This is so not only despite the universal and absolute prohibition of such practices, but also despite scientific and historical evidence that abusive and coercive techniques elicit unreliable information and have adverse operational, institutional and public safety consequences.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- An initial stocktaking and risk-assessment process was thus launched in 2016 by several civil society organizations that have been working with the Istanbul Protocol in practice. The Special Rapporteur on torture, as one of the four core United Nations mechanisms dedicated to eradicating torture, will actively contribute to this review process in the coming years. The stocktaking exercise aims to assess the current global experience with using and implementing the Istanbul Protocol and to identify obstacles and possibilities for strengthening its use.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- The Istanbul Protocol is a uniquely and fundamentally important tool for the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment around the world. Discussions have started in recent years about how to strengthen and enhance the Protocol to better support torture victims' pursuit of justice.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- The Istanbul Protocol was developed in the span of three years of analysis, research and drafting undertaken by more than 75 forensic physicians, psychologists, human rights monitors and lawyers representing 40 organizations and institutions from 15 countries. It became an official United Nations publication in 1999.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- The Istanbul Protocol is the first set of international guidelines for the forensic investigation and documentation of torture. It sets standards and procedures for the assessment of persons who allege to have been subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment, for investigation of alleged torture cases and for reporting such findings to the judiciary and other investigative bodies.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- In all his endeavours, the Special Rapporteur will promote adherence to, and ratification of, core relevant human rights treaties. At the same time, the Special Rapporteur will also promote so-called soft-law standards such as, but not limited to, the Nelson Mandela Rules, the Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, the Bangkok Rules, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and other relevant instruments. Ultimately, the Special Rapporteur will prioritize results-based pragmatism rather than formalism without, however, compromising on applicable norms, terms and standards. Therefore, the primary focus of the Special Rapporteur will not necessarily be to achieve universal ratification of relevant treaties, but rather to advocate for the implementation, in actual practice, of norms, procedures and mechanisms for the effective prevention of torture or 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
- Adolescents
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- While the legal framework around torture is uniquely developed, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that certain terms relating to the prohibition of torture that are relied upon require reaffirmation and clarification. For example, while the Convention expressly defines torture in its article 1 (1), no such definition exists of "other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" as a whole, or of its separate elements. A former Special Rapporteur has argued that "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" (see A/HRC/13/39, para. 60). Thus, based on the work undertaken by his predecessors, the Special Rapporteur will aim to further illuminate and interpret the exact parameters and obligations surrounding the absolute prohibition of torture. With a view to contributing to the doctrine on the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur will also endeavour to further clarify the criteria and thresholds rendering a particular treatment or punishment "cruel", "inhuman" or "degrading". In doing so, the Special Rapporteur will aim to ensure that the protection space offered to victims of torture and other ill-treatment remains adequate in the light of the fast-evolving challenges marking the contemporary international environment.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- The prohibition of torture is absolute and non-derogable, meaning that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture". The prohibition of torture must not be limited or balanced against any other right or concern, and States are not permitted to derogate from their obligations even in times of emergency or armed conflict (see A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, paras. 41-42). Likewise, the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is considered to be non-derogable and, therefore, must be observed in all circumstances. The gravity of torture also finds expression in the attendant obligations on States to adopt effective legislative, administrative, judicial and/or other measures to prevent acts of torture or other ill-treatment in any territory under their jurisdiction, the obligation to criminalize acts of torture, and the customary international law obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish all acts of torture and other ill-treatment as codified, inter alia, in 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- The absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a core principle of international law. The legal framework around this subject matter is one of the most developed in international human rights law, and the particular atrocity of torture is reflected in the distinct position its prohibition takes in international law. Acts of torture and other ill-treatment are not only prohibited as a matter of universal and regional treaty law, but the prohibition is also a norm of customary international law and is considered to have the rare status of a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens).
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- In carrying out his mandate, the Special Rapporteur will always endeavour to engage in an open, respectful and constructive dialogue with States and other international, regional and non-governmental stakeholders and aim to gain a consolidated understanding of all relevant perspectives, concerns and challenges before drawing any conclusions or trying to identify the most suitable manner of action.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- In the view of the Special Rapporteur, the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may well constitute the most fundamental achievement of mankind, and any tolerance, complacency or acquiescence in such practices, however exceptional and well argued, will inevitably lead down a slippery slope towards complete arbitrariness and brute force, a disgrace for all of humanity. During his tenure, therefore, the primary focus of the Special Rapporteur will be to unequivocally reaffirm the absolute and universal prohibition of all, and any, forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; to further clarify the contours and meaning of these terms in the light of the evolving challenges marking the contemporary international environment; and to call on State and non-State actors alike to renounce, and to prevent impunity for, any such practices. The Special Rapporteur intends to complement these efforts with reports on certain thematic focus areas relevant to the mandate, some of which are outlined below.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur feels compelled to recall that today, after a century marked by two world wars and some of the most outrageous atrocities in human history, thousands of prisoners, war victims, migrants and other vulnerable men, women and children are still being abused, exploited, murdered or simply left to die every day in a no man's land of indifference; that there are still States openly practising or advocating interrogation methods based on the infliction of excruciating pain and anguish and on the irreparable destruction of human beings; that there are still Governments finding no fault in sacrificing justice for political convenience by choosing not to prosecute officials suspected or known to have resorted to, ordered, justified or enabled the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and that a growing number of States are refusing to subject their citizens to international criminal jurisdiction even for the most barbarous of international crimes.
- 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
- Children
- Men
- Persons on the move
- Women
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- At the same time, the Special Rapporteur cannot ignore a troubling discrepancy between, on the one hand, the professed consensus opinions, solemn declarations and commitments made by States at the diplomatic level and, on the other hand, the disillusioning reality of millions of victims of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Despite more than three decades of dedicated work of the mandate and countless other international, governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are still rampant in most, if not all, parts of the world. The Special Rapporteur observes with alarm that, since the turn of the century, the rise of transnational terrorism, organized crime and other actual or perceived threats has given way to an increasing tolerance of violent political narratives and popular beliefs that not only trivialize torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, but even promote and incite their use in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- In the course of the past three decades, the mandate has contributed significantly to the steady development, expansion and consolidation of an impressive institutional and normative anti-torture framework. This includes, most notably, the growth of a tightly knit treaty-based system including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Committee against Torture, the Optional Protocol to the Convention and the Subcommittee, national preventive mechanisms in various countries as well as the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. It also includes the development of standard-setting instruments such as the revised United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), the Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol), the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers. It further includes the establishment of a plethora of courageous, competent and effective civil society organizations and, not least, an incessant stream of judicial decisions and resolutions adopted by universal and regional bodies unequivocally condemning any form of 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)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur wishes to express his sincere acknowledgement of and gratitude for the outstanding work accomplished by his predecessors since the establishment of the mandate in 1985. Throughout his tenure, he intends to consolidate and build on their achievements, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 25/13 and in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council and the Manual of Operations of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that the mandate is part of a wider system, and wishes to continue to work in close cooperation with the Committee against Torture, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and other special procedure mandate holders as well as with regional anti-torture mechanisms, States and civil society actors. He intends to ensure that the synergies between the guardians of the protection against torture are not only preserved but, if possible, developed even further.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2017
- Document code
- A/HRC/34/54
Document
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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 102
- Paragraph text
- The model promoted by the protocol must promote effective, ethical and non-coercive interviewing and be centred on the principles of presumption of innocence and the pursuit of truth. By moving away from accusatory, manipulative and confession-driven techniques to an investigative interviewing model, States will enhance not only the human rights compliance of their questioning practices, but also their effectiveness in solving crimes and keeping societies safe.
- 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
- 2016
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
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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 99
- Paragraph text
- Coerced confessions are regrettably admitted into evidence in many jurisdictions, in particular where law enforcement relies on confessions as the principal means of solving cases and courts fail to put an end to these practices. The protocol must address the need to change the culture of tolerance and impunity for coerced confessions in such cases. National legislation must accept confessions only when made in the presence of competent and independent counsel (and support persons when appropriate) and confirmed before an independent judge (see A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 and A/HRC/4/33/Add.3). Courts should never admit extrajudicial confessions that are uncorroborated by other evidence or that have been recanted (see A/HRC/25/60). If doubts arise about the voluntariness of a person's statements, as when no information about the circumstances of the statement is available or when pursuant to arbitrary, secret or incommunicado detention, the statement should be excluded regardless of direct evidence or knowledge of abuse (see A/63/223).
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 98
- Paragraph text
- The exclusionary rule also applies to evidence gathered or derived from information obtained under duress (see Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico). States must carry the burden of proving that confessions were obtained without duress, intimidation or inducements. As a matter of best practice, the exclusionary rule should also apply to collecting, sharing and receiving information tainted by any form of coercion.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 97
- Paragraph text
- The exclusionary rule extends to any form of coercion. Confessions of guilt are valid only if made without coercion of any kind (see American Convention on Human Rights, art. 8 (3)). The Luanda Guidelines recall that confessions or other evidence obtained by any means of coercion or force, including during incommunicado detention, cannot be admitted as evidence or considered as probative of any facts at trial or sentencing.
- 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
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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 95
- Paragraph text
- All violations, including of the right to be properly informed of one's rights and to legal assistance, must be impartially investigated upon complaint and subject to appropriate sanctions. The protocol should consider prospective remedies and sanctions, such as disciplinary or administrative action and obligation to undertake additional training, for breaches of standards and attendant procedural safeguards designed to prevent the use of coercive interviewing practices.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 94
- Paragraph text
- The obligation to report mistreatment should be enshrined in national law, with appropriate sanctions for non-reporting and protections for those who report. The duty to report should be extended to violations of other standards and safeguards, including the prohibition against compelling detainees to confess, incriminate themselves or testify against others, and subjecting them to coercion, threats or practices impairing their judgment or decision-making capacities (Body of Principles, principle 7).
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 93
- Paragraph text
- Law enforcement, intelligence and military officials who have reason to believe that torture or ill-treatment has occurred or is about to occur should report it to their superiors and, where necessary, to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial powers, while medical professionals also have an obligation to report and document any signs of mistreatment that they observe (Nelson Mandela Rules, rule 34).
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 92
- Paragraph text
- Where investigations confirm allegations of mistreatment, victims must be provided with effective remedies and redress, including fair and adequate compensation, and as full rehabilitation as possible. Those who encourage, instigate, order, tolerate, acquiesce in, consent to or perpetrate such acts of mistreatment must be brought to justice and punished in a manner commensurate with the gravity of crimes (see Human Rights Council resolution 31/31).
- 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
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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 90
- Paragraph text
- Accountability is critical to preventing the recurrence of human rights violations. The protocol must reiterate States' obligations to combat impunity and ensure accountability and the provision of remedies for torture and ill-treatment committed during 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 88
- Paragraph text
- International standards provide for prompt and regular access to medical care for persons deprived of liberty. States are obligated to guarantee the availability of prompt, independent, impartial, adequate and consensual medical examinations at the time of arrest and at regular intervals thereafter. Medical examinations must also be provided as soon as a detainee enters a custodial or interview facility and upon each transfer. Prompt, independent, impartial and professional examinations in accordance with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment must be carried out pursuant to allegations of mistreatment or any sign that mistreatment may have occurred (see A/68/295 and E/CN.4/2004/56). The well-established prohibition against medical personnel engaging, actively or passively, in acts that may constitute participation in, complicity or acquiescence in, incitement to or attempts to commit torture or ill-treatment (see CAT/C/51/4) merits recalling.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 87
- Paragraph text
- The records should be made available to the interviewee and his or her counsel. The interviewee should have the opportunity to verify that the written record, if used, accurately reflects his or her statements. As a matter of good practice, all persons present during questioning may be asked to sign the written record to attest to their presence and its accuracy. Audiovisual recordings must be clearly identified, properly labelled, safely stored and preserved. Destroying or tampering with records establishing proof of mistreatment should be criminalized under national 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
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
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
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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 83
- Paragraph text
- The interpreter's role during questioning is to facilitate communication neutrally and objectively. His or her presence serves as a safeguard against mistreatment and coercion. The protocol should provide practical guidance as to the role, rights and responsibilities of interpreters during the conduct of interviews and emphasize that the right to interpretation applies to the questioning of all persons who are arrested or deprived of liberty, including during armed conflict and in administrative detention (Body of Principles, principle 14).
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2016
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
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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- With regard to the need to inform persons of their rights during questioning, additional safeguards are required for certain persons, with thorough explanations of the rights of children and persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities being provided directly to, among others, their parents, families, guardians or legal representatives (see general comment No. 35; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Tibi v. Ecuador).
- 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
- Children
- Families
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 79
- Paragraph text
- Given that particular groups are more vulnerable during questioning, the protocol should contain specific provisions for, among others, children, women and girls, persons with disabilities, persons belonging to minorities or indigenous groups and non-nationals, including migrants (regardless of migration status), refugees, asylum seekers and stateless persons. The vulnerability of persons should be promptly identified for special consideration of their needs to be reflected in the conduct of interviews and implementation of additional safeguards.
- 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
- Children
- Ethnic minorities
- Girls
- Persons on the move
- Women
- Year
- 2016
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- Access to counsel must be provided immediately after the moment of deprivation of liberty and unequivocally before any questioning by authorities. Counsel must be present for all interviews, and for their entirety (see A/68/295). This right applies to, among others, detention on criminal charges, prisoners of war, criminal detention relating to armed conflict, detention of individuals considered to be civilian internees under international humanitarian law and administrative detention outside of armed conflict (see WGAD/CRP.1/2015).
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
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
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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- Information should be provided to interviewees in a manner that is sensitive to age, gender and culture and corresponds to the needs of vulnerable persons, and in a language, means, mode and format accessible to and understood by them. Means of verification and documentation that this information was provided must be established, whether by way of printed record, audiotape, videotape or witness accounts (see WGAD/CRP.1/2015).
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- Before the beginning of every interview, the information provided must include, at a minimum, the rights to remain silent during questioning; to a lawyer of one's choice and free legal aid where the interests of justice so require; to consult counsel before questioning and to be questioned in the presence of counsel; and to free and effective interpretation and translation if the individual does not understand or adequately speak the language of questioning (see the Rome Statute, art. 55; and European directive 2012/13/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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- Any person arrested or detained must, at the time of deprivation of liberty and before any questioning, be informed of his or her rights and ways to avail himself or herself of those rights (see the Body of Principles). This includes the right to be informed without delay of the reasons - the factual and legal basis - justifying arrest or detention and the right to bring proceedings before the court and obtain appropriate remedies. Persons arrested or detained in connection with criminal charges are entitled to receive prompt information about the charges (see general comment No. 35).
- 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
Paragraph
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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Judicial control of detention is a fundamental safeguard for persons deprived of liberty in connection with criminal charges. Persons detained on criminal charges must not be held in facilities under the control of their interviewers or investigators for more time than is legally required to hold a judicial hearing and obtain a judicial warrant of pretrial detention. This period should never exceed 48 hours, save absolutely exceptional and justified circumstances (see general comment No. 35). Suspects must be transferred to a pretrial facility under a different authority immediately thereafter, after which no further unsupervised contact with interviewers or investigators may be permitted (see A/68/295). As a matter of best practice, States ought to entrust different bodies with separate chains of command with the detention and questioning of persons, to help to protect detainees from mistreatment and reduce the risk of conditions of detention being used to pressure them during questioning. All detainees must be properly registered from the moment of apprehension, a public centralized detention register must be kept and the chain of custody thoroughly documented (see A/HRC/13/39/Add.5).
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur examines herein several safeguards of key significance to the future protocol, particularly as applicable to persons in detention. The protocol should also consider other scenarios, including the rights of suspects not deprived of liberty, safeguards attendant to informal questioning and additional preventive measures against mistreatment and coercion. The protocol must account for the reality that torture and ill-treatment during arrest or detention can also take place outside the interview room and induce forced confessions during subsequent 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- A number of due process guarantees and procedural safeguards guaranteeing the right to justice and fair trial, and against arbitrary detention, are critical and inextricably linked to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment during questioning. Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides guarantees against the use of all forms of direct or indirect physical or psychological pressure by authorities against a suspect for the purposes of obtaining a confession. The rights not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt and to be guaranteed counsel and legal aid are particularly crucial. Aside from safeguarding the fundamental human rights of individuals, these measures benefit societies generally, by fostering trust in institutions, promoting the reliability of evidence and facilitating the effectiveness of national judicial processes (see A/HRC/WGAD/2012/40). Similarly, safeguards enshrined in article 9 of the Covenant help to prevent torture by reducing opportunities and incentives for mistreatment and coercion during detention.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur underscores the importance of developing corroborating methods of crime investigation, investing in adequate equipment and effectively training investigators on available modern and scientific investigation techniques. These measures can help to facilitate the transition from confession-led to evidence-led investigations and provide surplus information useful to the preparation and conduct of effective interviews, reducing the risk that officers will resort to mistreatment to extract information.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- States must further ensure that supervisors, judicial officers, prosecutors and medical personnel are also trained on international standards relating to the prohibition and prevention of torture, human rights-compliant interviewing techniques and the duties to report, effectively document and investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Raising awareness among all personnel directly or indirectly involved in the questioning of persons is a necessary step towards changing law enforcement culture, especially in jurisdictions in which mistreatment is routine or systematic, and towards the effective implementation of the torture prohibition. It is also essential for law enforcement commanders and leaders to be made aware of the detrimental strategic impact that torture and ill-treatment have on the establishment and maintenance of their legitimacy within and relationships with communities.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- The training of interviewers encompasses several components, beginning with effective training in international human rights law, including the prohibition of torture, ill-treatment and other form of duress; where applicable, training on the Geneva Conventions should also be provided. Training should include but not be limited to theoretical knowledge about international and national standards and guidelines relating to questioning, in addition to practical information, preparation and practice in the steps of investigative interviews and exercises designed to facilitate skills development. The use of scenario-based exercises and the recording and review of interviews constitute best practices in this respect. References to empirical and scientific evidence on the unreliability and counterproductiveness of torture and coercion will also help to effect the needed change in mindsets and interviewing culture. Underlining the adverse impact of mistreatment on memory retrieval would be especially beneficial. Training should also include awareness-raising activities on effective protection of and adaptation to the specific needs of vulnerable persons.
- 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
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- The questioning of persons is a specialist task that requires specific training in order to be performed successfully and in accordance with the highest standards of professionalism. The protocol must insist on the importance of adequate and regular training for law enforcement and other personnel involved in the questioning of persons (see A/HRC/4/33/Add.3 and CAT/C/USA/CO/2).
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- The same guiding principles should apply to interviews of witnesses, victims and other persons in the criminal justice system. The protocol must additionally regulate objective, fair, human rights-based, non-coercive and rapport-based intelligence interviews during intelligence and military operations. Research and experienced practitioners agree that ethical information-gathering approaches similar to those employed in the criminal justice system lead to greater information gains and offer a more effective model than coercive intelligence interviewing.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- As a matter of best practice, interviewers are encouraged to proceed, when necessary, with probing questions designed to elicit information that will test all possible alternative explanations identified during the preparation of the interview. Strategic probing and disclosure of potential evidence allows officers to explore the interviewee's account in depth before proceeding to the next topic, helping to ensure that the presumption of innocence is respected while strengthening the case against a guilty suspect by preventing the subsequent fabrication of an alibi. Although interviewers may be persistent with their line of questioning when probing the interviewee's account, questioning must never become unfair or oppressive.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- It is recommended that interviewers begin each topic by asking open-ended questions and allow the interviewee to provide a free and uninterrupted account of the events under investigation. Contrary to complex, leading or compound questions, open-ended and neutral questions encourage memory retrieval and are less likely to induce admissions against a person's will, influence his or her account or contaminate his or her memory. Broad and open-ended questions will enable innocent suspects to provide information freely, while preventing guilty suspects from understanding their evidentiary significance.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- The development and maintenance of rapport is also a crucial determinant of effective non-coercive interviews. Rapport can help to reduce the interviewee's anxiety, anger or distress, while increasing the likelihood of obtaining more complete and reliable information. Rapport-building techniques must not be used for the purposes of manipulation or to exert undue pressure to induce confessions, which would be incompatible with the purpose and spirit of the investigative interviewing model. The protocol should clearly set out the duty of interviewers to maintain a professional attitude and refrain from using any form of coercion during the entire interview process. It must also emphasize that interviewers ought to obtain the cooperation of persons questioned, rather than to demonstrate their authority or gain control over them, manipulate them or force them to comply with their wishes.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Systematic and solid preparation increases the quality and likelihood of successful interviews. Conversely, insufficient preparation is bound to cause setbacks and creates risks that agents will resort to pressure or physical coercion to elicit information or confessions. Adequate preparation requires full knowledge of and compliance with applicable rules of procedure governing the conduct of interviews. To conduct the most effective interview possible, officers should, among other things, have clear knowledge and understanding of all information pertinent to the case, be fully cognizant of the legal definition of the offence under investigation and identify all potential evidence in the case file and every possible explanation of its origin. The preparation of a strategy and interview structure designed to best elicit information is also essential, as is the ability to remain flexible throughout the interview.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- Objectivity, impartiality and fairness are critical components of investigative interviews. They require officers to keep an open mind, even when the evidence against a person is strong. An objective, impartial and fair interviewing process will reduce the risks of resorting to confession-oriented techniques or coercion and of eliciting false admissions or faulty intelligence. In criminal investigations, a fair police process will form the preparatory basis for a fair trial. Officers must remain professional and not allow their prejudices, preconceptions or emotions to affect their performance during interviews.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- The protocol must reiterate the precise aim of questioning, namely to obtain accurate and reliable information in order to discover the truth of all relevant facts about matters under investigation. The aim of interviews must not be to elicit confessions or other information reinforcing presumptions of guilt or other assumptions held by officers. Interviews are conducted to make the presumption of innocence operational. Officers generate and actively test alternative hypotheses through systematic preparation, empathetic rapport-building, open-ended questions, active listening, strategic probing and disclosure of potential evidence. Such interviews are far more effective and compliant with human 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
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The investigative interviewing model comprises a number of essential elements that are key to the prevention of mistreatment and coercion and help to guarantee effectiveness. Interviewers must, in particular, seek to obtain accurate and reliable information in the pursuit of truth; gather all available evidence pertinent to a case before beginning interviews; prepare and plan interviews based on that evidence; maintain a professional, fair and respectful attitude during questioning; establish and maintain a rapport with the interviewee; allow the interviewee to give his or her free and uninterrupted account of the events; use open-ended questions and active listening; scrutinize the interviewee's account and analyse the information obtained against previously available information or evidence; and evaluate each interview with a view to learning and developing additional skills. The remainder of the present section provides an overview of some of these elements, on which the protocol should provide detailed guidance.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- Encouragingly, some States have moved away from accusatorial, manipulative and confession-driven interviewing models with a view to increasing accurate and reliable information and minimizing the risks of unreliable information and miscarriages of justice. The essence of an alternative information-gathering model was first captured by the PEACE model of interviewing adopted in 1992 in England and Wales. Investigative interviewing models fashioned after that model were subsequently adopted by other jurisdictions and the International Criminal Court. Initially developed for criminal investigations, models of investigative interviewing can provide positive guidance for the protocol and be applied in a wide range of investigative contexts, including during intelligence and military operations.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur expresses serious concern about the practice of holding terrorism suspects in solitary confinement or other forms of isolation in order to break their resistance to questioning. The imposition of solitary confinement of any duration for the purpose of pressuring persons to confess, provide information or admit guilt violates the prohibition of torture (see A/66/268). Practices such as the "separation" technique described in appendix M to the United States Army field manual on human intelligence collector operations, whereby detainees are isolated and prevented from communicating with anyone except medical, detention and intelligence personnel, in an attempt to decrease their resistance to questioning, are coercive tactics and violate international 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
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- International and regional human rights mechanisms have to date developed an extensive body of jurisprudence on practices that amount to physical or psychological torture or ill-treatment, including but not limited to punching, kicking, beatings, electrocution, forms of suffocation, burns, use of firearms, mock executions, threats of reprisals against relatives, death threats, restraints in very painful conditions, rape, sexual abuse and humiliation, sleep deprivation, prolonged stress positions, prolonged solitary confinement, incommunicado detention, sensory deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures or loud music for prolonged periods, dietary adjustments, blindfolding and hooding during questioning, prolonged questioning sessions, removal of clothing, deprivation of all comfort and religious items and exploitation of phobias during questioning (see A/HRC/13/39/Add.5; A/52/44; CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1; CAT/C/USA/CO/2; and CAT/C/KAZ/CO/3). Deplorably, such illegal methods have often been combined with poor conditions of detention - which can alone amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in themselves - to exert additional psychological pressure on detainees to reveal information. The Special Rapporteur recalls that the physical environment and conditions during questioning must be adequate, humane and free from intimidation, so as not to run afoul of the prohibition of 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
- Harmful Practices
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- Depending on their degree, severity, chronicity and type, undue psychological pressure and manipulative practices may themselves amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. This may be the case, among others, when certain techniques are used in combination, over a lengthy period or against vulnerable persons, including children, persons with psychosocial disabilities, persons who do not understand or adequately speak the language of the interviewing officers and other persons who may be particularly sensitive to coercion owing to their specific needs or physical or emotional development.
- 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
- Children
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- It is well established that the term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" must be interpreted to extend the widest possible protection against abuses (see the Body of Principles). When persons are deprived of liberty, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment overlaps with and is supplemented by the principle of humane treatment of detainees (see A/68/295). The European Court of Human Rights, in Bouyid v. Belgium, has highlighted the inherent link between concepts of degrading treatment or punishment and human dignity, finding that treatment that "humiliates or debases an individual, show[s] a lack of respect for or diminish[es] his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance" may be characterized as degrading. Any act by law enforcement that diminishes a person's human dignity, including the use of physical force when not strictly necessitated by his or her conduct, violates the prohibition of 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Coercive techniques, even when not amounting to torture or ill-treatment, are means to the same ends, administered by State agents to confirm their presumption of guilt. They are likely to produce faulty information and give rise to conditions conducive to the use of torture or ill-treatment. Strengthening protection against coercive questioning methods and championing an interviewing model based on the principle of presumption of innocence are accordingly key to preventing mistreatment during questioning and enhancing authorities' effectiveness.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Protracted or suggestive interviews, wherein persons are questioned for extended periods without sufficient rest or asked confusing, ambiguous or leading questions with great intensity (see ibid.), are likely to become coercive and constitute ill-treatment and may induce sleep deprivation, impaired decision-making and a desire to admit anything in order to bring the questioning to an end.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- Inducements may consist of promises of immunity or lighter sentences in exchange for confessions. Misleading practices include the use of trickery or deception, including by presenting false evidence, confronting persons with false witnesses or leading one to believe that his or her co-defendants have confessed. These methods are improper because they ultimately deprive a person of his or her freedom of decision through the use of false representations (see E/CN.4/813 and Corr.1). Techniques designed to minimize or maximize the suspect's perceptions of responsibility or blame, including implicit promises of leniency and presentation of false evidence, claims or insinuations about the existence of evidence against him or her, also increase the likelihood of false confessions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Accusatorial models of questioning tend to be confession driven and characterized by a de facto presumption of guilt and the use of confrontation and psychological manipulation. Common manipulative techniques are coercive in nature and likely to impair the free will, judgment and memory of interviewees. Threats, inducements, misleading practices, protracted or suggestive questioning and the use of drugs or hypnosis are examples of problematic practices. Demeaning or condescending comments or accusations based on individual qualities or cultural identities are also of concern.
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- In situations of armed conflict, the use of torture or any other form of coercion against prisoners of war to extract any type of information from them is strictly prohibited. Those who refuse to provide information cannot "be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind" (Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, art. 17). Physical or moral coercion against protected persons for any purpose, in particular to extract information from them or from third parties, is also forbidden (Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, art. 31). In situations in which persons face criminal prosecutions, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols I and II thereto also provide for the right not to be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt, both during international and non international armed conflicts (Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, art. 99; Protocol I, art. 75; and Protocol II, art. 6). This must also be understood as the absence of any moral or physical coercion in order to induce them to confess. In situations other than the aforementioned, the prohibition of coercion during questioning should apply as a matter of policy, irrespective of the international or non-international character of the conflict and of the status of the person questioned.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- As a rule of general application, all States must refrain from using any type of coercion when questioning persons under any form of detention. International law acknowledges the need for special protection for all detained persons, who, during questioning, must not be subjected to violence, threats or practices that impair their capacity of decision or their judgment or force them to confess, incriminate themselves or testify against another person (Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, principle 21).
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- Persons interviewed in connection with their alleged role in a criminal offence must not be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14 (3) (g)) and investigating authorities may not resort to "any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure" to induce confessions (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)). Accordingly, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is complemented by the prohibition of any form of coercion during the questioning of suspects. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court likewise prohibits "any form of coercion, duress or threat" during investigations (art. 55). The protocol must expressly recognize this prohibition and extend it to interviews of witnesses, victims and other persons in the criminal justice 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- The protocol must provide detailed guidance on the purpose and parameters of a human rights-compliant interviewing model that promotes a human rights-based approach, enhances the professionalism and effectiveness of law enforcement and other State agents and is premised on the aim of ensuring that all interviews are conducted without resort to torture, ill-treatment or coercion.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- The standards and procedural safeguards mentioned herein must be guaranteed in law and practice during all interviews by law enforcement agents and other investigative bodies, including intelligence and military services, and must also apply to private contractors and all persons who act, de jure or de facto, on behalf of, in conjunction with or at the behest of the State, under its direction or control or otherwise under colour of law (see Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2008) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties).
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- The protection offered by international human rights law remains applicable during armed conflict and supplements that offered by international humanitarian law. The humane treatment requirements under the Convention against Torture (and customary international law) and international humanitarian law are substantially equivalent; the obligations relating to the prohibition and prevention of torture and ill-treatment in international and non-international armed conflicts are the same, with common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions constituting a minimum baseline of protection applicable at all times (see A/70/303). Most guiding principles, standards and procedural safeguards applicable to interviews conducted in the traditional law enforcement context must be applicable, as a matter of law or of best practice, during interviews conducted in times of war.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is concerned by the deprivation of liberty of persons for the sole purpose of questioning, a practice that entails severe risks of torture and ill-treatment. Law enforcement, military and intelligence agencies cannot be permitted to detain persons without probable cause and for the sole purpose of gathering information or intelligence, including in armed conflict (see A/HRC/14/46 and A/HRC/10/3). The apprehension and detention of individuals in the absence of reasonable suspicion that they have committed or are about to commit a criminal offence, or of other internationally accepted lawful grounds for detention, are prohibited. Administrative detention outside armed conflict is prohibited save the "most exceptional circumstances"; when justified by a "present, direct and imperative threat" that cannot be addressed by alternative measures, it must be accompanied by adequate safeguards, last no longer than "absolutely necessary" and be subject to prompt and regular review. When authorized, administrative detention must be ordered, implemented and supervised by judicial authorities. Standards and procedural safeguards applicable to interviews of suspects in the criminal justice systems must equally and unambiguously apply, as a matter of law and policy, to the questioning of persons held in administrative or preventive detention outside of armed conflict (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person (article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights); and 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- The protocol must apply to interviews conducted by law enforcement and other investigative bodies such as intelligence and military services and administrative bodies, during counter-terrorism operations and in situations of armed conflict, including extraterritorially. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that in some jurisdictions intelligence services have been empowered to apprehend, detain and question persons in connection with national security offences, as a way to circumvent legal and procedural safeguards applicable to traditional law enforcement agencies - a practice that has at times lamentably enabled the perpetration of egregious acts of torture and ill-treatment. The protocol should emphasize that there are no legitimate reasons for granting intelligence agencies such powers duplicating those held by traditional law enforcement bodies. Intelligence agencies mandated by law to exercise such powers must comply fully with international human rights standards, including those pertaining to the rights to liberty, fair trial, the use of torture-tainted information and the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment (see A/HRC/10/3; A/HRC/14/46; and European Court of Human Rights, Öcalan v. Turkey). Intelligence services entrusted with police powers must comply with rules applicable to the conduct of interviews in the criminal justice system. The above rationale also applies where military services or other investigative bodies are entrusted with police powers in the national law enforcement context.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- The protocol must also acknowledge that the successful eradication of torture, ill-treatment and coercion may require greater concerted efforts in some States, especially in jurisdictions in which such practices are routine or systematic. In such cases, it should underline States' obligations to ensure the proper functioning of their criminal justice system, in particular by taking effective measures to combat corruption and by providing for adequate selection, training and remuneration of law enforcement and judicial personnel (see Human Rights Council resolution 31/31). Such steps are indispensable to bringing about positive changes in the institutional culture and the mindset of law enforcement and other 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- Many safeguards against coercive and abusive questioning techniques can be implemented with limited financial expenditure, in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. Where necessary, however, the protocol may identify additional approaches whereby States with limited material resources can guarantee effective and meaningful implementation and ensure adequate protection against abuses.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- While recognizing that States face an array of challenges in successfully combating and preventing mistreatment during questioning, the Special Rapporteur insists that the future protocol be of universal application. Except for those lawful limitations demonstrably required by the fact of detention and investigation, persons questioned and/or deprived of their liberty unequivocally retain their non-derogable human rights. The prohibition of torture or ill-treatment and the principle of humane treatment of detainees are fundamental and universally applicable rules and cannot be dependent on the material resources available to States (see A/68/295). It follows that the set of minimum standards identified in the protocol should be applied, as a matter of law and policy, to interviews conducted by all agents of all States.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- The adoption and implementation of the protocol in national systems will assist States in fulfilling key legal obligations relating to the questioning of persons and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, by expounding and refining the standards that States must incorporate into national law and practice with regard to the conduct of interviews, and when systematically reviewing their interviewing rules, instructions, methods and practices, as mandated under international human rights law (Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 11).
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- The protocol must also emphasize States' obligations to take measures to incorporate relevant standards into their national systems, promote its use across national institutions and provide training to relevant personnel, including prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges, law enforcement, intelligence and military officials and medical professionals.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- Because the principal safeguard against mistreatment during questioning is the interviewing methodology itself, the protocol must outline the guiding principles of an interviewing model that fully respects this prohibition. The protocol must design a model that is non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and research-based and empirically founded. It should champion a culture of human rights compliance, the highest standards of professionalism and the use of fair and ethical practices that demonstrably enhance the effectiveness of interviews and the elicitation of accurate and reliable information. The protocol must also promote minimum standards and procedural safeguards designed to prevent improper interviewing practices in different investigative contexts. By drawing upon scientific research and documented good practices, the protocol will enhance human rights compliance, improve effective policing and help to keep societies safer.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- Noting the growing attention to and momentum around the issues of investigation, questioning and custody practices at the international, regional and national levels (see Human Rights Council resolution 31/31), the Special Rapporteur identifies an auspicious opportunity to promote the development of much-needed standards and guidelines on these fundamental practices, with the aim of assisting States to meet their fundamental legal obligations to prohibit and prevent torture and ill-treatment. He takes particular note of the successful recent revisions of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (now known as the Nelson Mandela Rules) and the Model Protocol for a Legal Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol) and suggests the organization of a broad public consultation by States and other relevant stakeholders to engage in dialogue on the development of a universal protocol for interviews that is grounded in fundamental principles of international human rights law, including the prohibition of torture, ill-treatment and coercion.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Professional interviewers repeatedly emphasize that interviews are conducted much more effectively without resort to torture, ill-treatment or coercion. The Special Rapporteur welcomes strides made by some States in fashioning and implementing human rights-based standards and guidelines for investigations and non-coercive interviewing practices, but is concerned that mistreatment and coercive questioning remain prevalent in many jurisdictions. Some progress notwithstanding, State practice most often ignores the relevant normative frameworks and fails to heed key due process guarantees and procedural safeguards designed to combat abuses committed during investigations and questioning that are codified in national legislation.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- Political decisions to resort to torture or ill-treatment and the failure to prevent its use jeopardize States' international cooperation and harm their reputations, moral authority and legacies. Ultimately, torture only breeds more crime by fuelling hatred and a desire for vengeance against the perpetrators. Its use in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and during the so-called "war on terror" has served as a recruiting tool for the groups against which it was 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
- Violence
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- Torture, ill-treatment and coercion have devastating long-term consequences for individuals, institutions and society as a whole, causing serious and long-lasting harm to victims and often injuring the humanity and mental health of perpetrators. Such practices corrupt the cultures of institutions that perpetrate, participate in, assist in or overlook them. They debase societies that endorse or accept their use, erode public trust in law enforcement and damage its relationships with communities, with negative consequences for future 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
- Health
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- Reliance on inaccurate information obtained through mistreatment has adverse operational consequences, wasting resources better applied to enhance investigative capacity or pursue other leads. Intentional misinformation also sends investigators on distracting wild goose chases.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Irrefutable evidence from the criminal justice system demonstrates that coercive methods of questioning, even when not amounting to torture, produce false confessions. Coercion can overcome one's will to the point where he or she may doubt his or her own memory, believe accusations made against him or her or confess owing to a conviction that no one will believe his or her innocence (see Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Oickle). DNA exonerations in some jurisdictions reveal that more than one fourth of wrongfully convicted persons made a false confession or incriminating statement. Studies reveal that the more coercive the questioning, the higher the probability that it will result in a false confession, and, in addition, that criminal defendants who falsely confess and plead "not guilty" at trial are nonetheless convicted 81 per cent of the time, often on the basis of their confessions alone.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- Behavioural and brain sciences underlie the recognition that mistreatment and coercion are unreliable and counterproductive means to elicit accurate information. Torture and ill-treatment harm those areas of the brain associated with memory, mood and general cognitive function. Depending on their severity, chronicity and type, associated stressors typically impair encoding, consolidation and retrieval of memories, especially where practices such as repeated suffocation, extended sleep deprivation and caloric restriction are used in combination. Such practices weaken, disorient and confuse subjects, distort their sense of time and render them prone to fabricate memories, even if they are otherwise willing to answer questions. They are also detrimental to the establishment of trust and rapport, and compromise the interviewer's ability to understand a person's values, motivations and knowledge - elements required for a successful interview.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- History and science offer no body of data on the strategic effectiveness of harsh questioning techniques. The popular belief that torture is an effective way of discovering the truth - or more effective than non-coercive interviewing methods - is perpetuated by misleading depictions in popular media. The use of torture and ill treatment has in fact long been associated with high risks of obtaining false confessions and unreliable information. It is well established that victims will say anything - regardless of whether it is true - to appease their tormentors and make the pain stop (see European Court of Human Rights, Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom). It follows that the perpetrators cannot reliably assess whether information elicited through mistreatment - if any - is truthful, false or complete. Research on lie detection reveals that trained interviewers can differentiate fabrications from truths at a rate only slightly better than chance (slightly above 50 per cent). Those employing torture and ill-treatment during interviews tend to misread victims and fail to recognize the truth, often perpetuating a vicious cycle of mistreatment and fabrications.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Violence
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- The absolute and non-derogable nature of the torture prohibition in international law reflects the exceptional gravity of the crime, which constitutes an immoral affront to human dignity that can never be justified. Torture dehumanizes and denies the inherent dignity of victims by treating their bodies and minds as means to achieving particular ends. It constitutes one of the most extreme forms of suffering that a person can inflict on another and often results in lifelong consequences 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
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- The perpetuation of unlawful practices is exacerbated by an absence of determination and commitment to eradicate torture at all times and in all circumstances; a lack of adequate education and training for law enforcement, intelligence, military and medical personnel; deficient complaint, monitoring and investigative mechanisms, and inadequate responses to allegations and complaints; interference with the ability of national monitoring bodies and civil society to gain access to detention places, document violations and represent victims of abuse; and cultures of impunity and pervasive failure to ensure accountability and provide adequate remedies.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- Another recurrent problem is the frequent absence or denial of fundamental procedural safeguards designed to prevent torture and other ill-treatment during questioning. Although international law mandates fundamental safeguards designed to counter the risks of mistreatment in custody, national legislation is often deficient. In cases in which procedural safeguards are enshrined in law, their effective implementation typically remains a major challenge. It is particularly concerning that legal loopholes are frequently exploited to circumvent the rights and safeguards of persons during questioning, giving rise 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)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- Mistreatment is also regularly employed as a means of punishment or reprisals, often owing to the institutional culture of States' law enforcement agencies. In such cases, torture is part of a cultivated culture of fear and used as an instrument of power to exert social control over particular groups or segments of the population.
- 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
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- In some jurisdictions, structural and resource deficiencies in the criminal justice system create conditions conducive to the proliferation of mistreatment. When Governments do not invest sufficient resources in the administration of justice, judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials lack the necessary training and are overworked, underpaid and more prone to corruption (see A/HRC/13/39/Add.5). Under such circumstances, it is not uncommon for law enforcement officials to resort to torture or threats of torture to extract money from detainees or their relatives during 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- Serious concerns arise in legal systems that place a premium on confessions to establish criminal responsibility. While the admission and realization of guilt can be significant to offenders' rehabilitation and reintegration, the ability to convict suspects solely on the basis of confessions without further corroborating evidence encourages the use of physical or psychological mistreatment or coercion. Similarly, legal systems that de jure establish that extrajudicial confessions are probative of guilt only if corroborated by other evidence nevertheless provide de facto incentives for mistreatment.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- In many countries, detainees are mistreated during investigations of common crimes. Pressure from politicians, supervisors, judges and prosecutors to solve high volumes of cases and inadequate measures of police performance, including systems of appraisal focusing only on the number of crimes "solved" or convictions, create perverse incentives for arrests and mistreatment. A lack of forensic methodology, training in modern criminal investigation techniques and equipment often also creates the perception that torture, ill-treatment and coercion are the easiest and swiftest ways to elicit confessions or other information.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- The persistent use of unlawful and improper interviewing practices is triggered by a range of local factors, including the erroneous assumption that mistreatment and coercion are necessary to obtain confessions or elicit information. The misconception that torture is a "necessary evil" is especially prevalent during interviews relating to organized crime and national security offences. In the anti terrorism context, Governments resort to "ticking bomb scenarios" in attempts to justify the use of abusive and unlawful interviewing practices, implicitly challenging the absolute and non-derogable nature of the torture prohibition under any circumstances. While some have sought to proffer faulty legal interpretations to support the use of torture, a more common policy option has been to refute that certain practices amount to torture or ill-treatment under international 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
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- Persons interviewed by authorities during investigations may be confronted with the entire repressive machinery of society. Questioning, in particular of suspects, is inherently associated with risks of intimidation, coercion and mistreatment. The risks are heightened for vulnerable persons and for persons questioned in detention. This holds particularly true during apprehension and the early stages of custody, when the authorities exerting control over the fact and conditions of detention and conducting the investigation are the same.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- Nevertheless, the sophisticated normative frameworks in place often do not translate into a reduction in practices of torture, ill-treatment or coercion during questioning, which are frequently used by State agents worldwide during law enforcement investigations of common and serious criminal offences, during military and intelligence operations and during armed conflict.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- The right to be free from torture and ill-treatment is a rule of customary international law and a peremptory jus cogens norm of international law applying to all States. It is codified in international and regional treaties and national legal systems globally; it constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and a violation of common article 3 and of customary international humanitarian law; and it can constitute a crime against humanity or an act of genocide under international criminal law. The obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment applies at all times, including during the investigation of serious crimes and in situations of armed conflict, and is complemented by a range of attendant standards and procedural safeguards.
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- Law enforcement officials and other investigative bodies, including intelligence and military services, play a vital role in serving communities, preventing crime and protecting human rights. In performing their duties, they are obliged to respect and protect the inherent dignity and physical and mental integrity of all persons under questioning, including suspects, witnesses and victims (see Human Rights Council resolution 31/31).
- 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
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2016
- Document code
- A/71/298
Document
Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2021
- Document code
- A/HRC/49/50
Document
Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment - Report of the Special Rapporteur
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2019
- Document code
- A/HRC/40/59
Document
Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2021
- Document code
- A/HRC/46/26
Document
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83l
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Provide effective, impartial and independent oversight of the intelligence services.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83k (ii)
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Elaborate more comprehensive guidelines at the national level, reflecting international law and standards contained in the absolute prohibitions against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including: Refraining from providing an excuse in the event of exceptional circumstances for using or sharing information which is a product of torture or other ill-treatment, or may lead to 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83k (i)
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Elaborate more comprehensive guidelines at the national level, reflecting international law and standards contained in the absolute prohibitions against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including: Refraining from differentiating between torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with international 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
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83j
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Stress that national guidelines must strictly adhere to the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the resulting ban on any use of information obtained by torture or 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83i
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Ensure that assurances from other States that torture or other ill-treatment was not involved in producing information are not regarded as sufficient, in order to avoid complicity or permit cooperation where a real risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is identified;
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83h
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Restrain from collecting, sharing or receiving information, even if there is no pattern of systematic torture, if it is known, or should be known, that there is a real risk of acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and ensure that opposition to such treatment is clearly communicated to the providing 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83g
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Presume that, in cases of information originating in countries where torture is a systematic or widespread practice, information collected or received is a product of torture or 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83f (ii)
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Take positive preventive measures to ensure that the relationships between executive agencies of different States do not encourage or lead to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, inter alia, by: Establishing requirements in intelligence-sharing agreements that only States that comply with all the obligations under the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment be part of such agreements;
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83f (i)
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Take positive preventive measures to ensure that the relationships between executive agencies of different States do not encourage or lead to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, inter alia, by: Establishing requirements in intelligence-sharing agreements that information obtained in violation of the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment be withheld;
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83e
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Interpret the standards outlined by the exclusionary rule in light of the objective of the rule to prevent and discourage torture and other ill-treatment and apply it by way of analogy to the collection, sharing and receiving of information obtained by torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, even if not used in "proceedings" as narrowly defined;
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83d
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Restrain from creating a market for the fruits of illegal and abhorrent interrogation practices by collecting, sharing or receiving information obtained by torture or 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83c
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Reiterate that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification for torture or 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83b
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Ensure that if States request foreign intelligence services to undertake activities on their behalf, all legal standards regarding the absolute prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment shall apply;
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 83a
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use by executive actors of information tainted by torture, all States should:] Submit all actions by the executive branch of Government, including the collection, sharing and receiving of information, to independent and impartial review under the obligations of States to respect the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including the obligation to prevent and discourage torture and 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 82i
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use of information tainted by torture in any proceedings, all States should:] Elaborate a rule that protects legitimate State secrets adequately and at the same time does not prevent a thorough examination of whether torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has taken place.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 82h
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use of information tainted by torture in any proceedings, all States should:] Ensure that closed material procedures comply with the exclusionary rule and enable the individual effectively to challenge admissibility of evidence, including evidence from the security services;
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 82g
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use of information tainted by torture in any proceedings, all States should:] Ensure that, in order to show that evidence has not been obtained by torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, a court must rely on evidence other than the testimony of the investigating officer and further enhance the admissibility of independent and impartial medical evidence;
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 82f
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use of information tainted by torture in any proceedings, all States should:] Clarify the procedural rules on admissibility, including the burden of proof applied by courts, by ensuring that the burden of proof is shifted to the State when the appellant advances a plausible reason as to why evidence may have been procured by torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and that the court enquires as to whether there is a real risk that the evidence has been obtained by torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and if there is, that the evidence is not admitted;
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 82e
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use of information tainted by torture in any proceedings, all States should:] Ensure that the use of real or other evidence obtained as an indirect result of acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is prohibited and excluded from any 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 82d
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use of information tainted by torture in any proceedings, all States should:] Ensure that the exercise of discretion by national authorities in circumstances where torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is alleged is prohibited;
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 82c
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use of information tainted by torture in any proceedings, all States should:] Ensure that legislation concerning evidence presented in any proceedings is brought into line with the exclusionary rule, in order to exclude explicitly and declare inadmissible any evidence or extrajudicial statement obtained under torture or other ill-treatment at any stage of any proceedings, irrespective of the classification of that treatment as torture or 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 82b
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use of information tainted by torture in any proceedings, all States should:] Review criminal investigation practices with a view to promoting professional standards and eliminating confessions as the primary or sole evidence necessary for a 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
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 82a
- Paragraph text
- [Regarding the use of information tainted by torture in any proceedings, all States should:] Reaffirm the absolute and non-derogable nature of the exclusionary rule;
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- To ensure accountability in intelligence cooperation, truly independent intelligence review and oversight mechanisms should be established and enhanced. As a starting point for further development, the Special Rapporteur commends the guidelines proposed by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism in his report in 2010 on a compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies while countering terrorism, including on their oversight practices (A/HRC/14/46, principles 31-35).
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- Executive agencies should be governed by detailed guidelines, which reflect all the international standards required by the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment, to ensure that they avoid complicity in such acts.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 79
- Paragraph text
- States cannot resort to diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture or other ill-treatment, where there is a real risk of such acts. Such assurances are incapable of mitigating the responsibility of the State that relies on information so obtained.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 78
- Paragraph text
- Information tainted by torture, even when not intended to be used in court proceedings, must therefore be treated in the same way that a court would treat evidence obtained by torture or other ill-treatment. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that every use of such information is an encouragement of torture or ill-treatment after the fact and therefore establishes complicity in such acts and a failure to prevent the next round of 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- This applies in particular to situations of systematic torture where the State cannot avoid knowledge or imputed knowledge of the real risk of such acts, and other situations where it cannot be established that there is no such risk. In cases of systematic torture, the receiving State must presume that the information is a product of torture and therefore refrain from collecting, sharing or receiving such tainted information. Non-compliance with those principles makes the State complicit in acts of torture or other ill-treatment and responsible for an internationally wrongful act.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- The collection, sharing and receiving of information from States where there is a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment suffice to demonstrate State responsibility through complicity. States have to assess the situation and the possible real risk of acts of torture or other ill-treatment and must refrain from "automatic reliance" on information from the intelligence services of other countries, which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the obligation to prevent and discourage torture and other 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
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- Governments cannot condemn the evil of torture and other ill-treatment at the international level while condoning it at the national level. It is hypocritical of States to condemn torture committed by others while accepting its products. Any use of information tainted by torture, even if the torture has been committed by agents of another State, is an act of acquiescence in torture that compromises the responsibility of the State that uses those products and leads to individual and State complicity in acts of torture. Complicity in torture is a direct breach of international human rights obligations under the Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other treaties concerning human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as under customary international law and according to the general principles of the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- The standards of the exclusionary rule should therefore be interpreted in good faith and applied by way of analogy to the collection, sharing and receiving of information tainted by torture, including information obtained by other ill-treatment, even if not used in "proceedings" as narrowly defined.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that the aim of preventing and discouraging torture and other ill-treatment by rendering their products useless in legal proceedings is one strong policy objective of the exclusionary rule. If executive agencies are free to use information obtained by torture or other ill-treatment for other purposes, that constitutes an incentive to torture or ill-treatment in clear contradiction to the object and purpose of the absolute prohibition of such acts, including during interrogation. There is a clear affirmative obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment that includes actions the State takes in its own jurisdiction to prevent torture or other ill-treatment in another jurisdiction. Thus, an interpretation focused on the objective of the norm demands that the collection, sharing and receiving of tainted information be banned, because otherwise the purpose of preventing and discouraging torture and other ill-treatment is negated. It is not sufficient to ensure that the judicial process is free from the taint of torture; torture must not be acquiesced in, encouraged or condoned in any manifestations of public power, whether executive or judicial.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- To allow exceptions by the executive branch for purposes other than legal proceedings, or to find other uses for their outcomes, goes plainly against the spirit of the Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other treaties and standards; against the obligation to prevent torture and other ill-treatment; and against the absolute prohibition of torture and 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- While being aware of the threats posed by terrorism and the duty of States to protect their people against such threats, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment means that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification for 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)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur observes that in practice, the transition from an executive operation to a quasi-judicial or judicial one is often seamless and that operational intelligence is often relied on in the legal proceedings that follow. By utilizing tainted information originally obtained for intelligence and policing purposes the courts tacitly endorse and condone the torture or ill-treatment itself, contradicting the very essence of the exclusionary rule.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- Secret proceedings or "closed material procedures" inhibit the implementation of the exclusionary rule. States should ensure effective legal representation and control of the implementation of the exclusionary rule in all proceedings involving secret evidence, closed material procedures or the invocation of the "State secrets doctrine", in order to enable defendants effectively to challenge evidence, including evidence from the security services. There should be no excuses about State secrets put forward by States for violations of human 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- It is incumbent on States to go beyond the literal remit of article 15 of the Convention and provide procedures in domestic legislation for the exclusion of any and all evidence obtained in violation of safeguards designed to protect against torture and other 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
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur holds that the defendant must only advance a plausible reason as to why the evidence may have been procured by torture or other ill-treatment. Thereafter the burden of proof must shift to the State and the courts must inquire as to whether there is a real risk that the evidence has been obtained by unlawful means. If there is a real risk, the evidence must not be admitted.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- The exclusionary rule covers the exclusion of statements obtained through torture or other ill-treatment of the defendant himself, or of a third party, and evidence obtained in a third State, even if the State seeking to rely on the information had no previous involvement in or connection to the acts of torture or other ill-treatment. Similarly, documentary or other evidence obtained as a result of acts of torture or other ill-treatment must be excluded, irrespective of whether such evidence has been corroborated or is not the only decisive evidence in the case.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- The quality of medical and forensic reports needs to be improved and courts should enhance the admissibility of independent and impartial medical evidence in any proceedings, in order to investigate allegations of torture or other ill-treatment effectively. In addition, courts should never admit extrajudicial confessions that are not corroborated by other evidence, or that have been recanted.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- The inadmissibility of unlawfully obtained confessions and other tainted evidence is not only one of the essential means of preventing torture and other ill-treatment, but is also crucial to guarantees of a fair trial. The ineffectiveness of efforts to put an end to the practice of torture, or other ill-treatment, is often the result of the fact that State authorities continue to admit tainted evidence during trials.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- The exclusionary rule is fundamental for upholding the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment by providing a disincentive to use such acts. The rule forms a part of the general and absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. As such, the exclusionary rule is not derogable under any circumstances and also applies to States which are not party to 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- There is currently a lack of comprehensive or effective independent oversight of the activities of the security and intelligence services. The structure of oversight mechanisms to guarantee that information tainted by torture or other ill-treatment will not be used is of crucial importance, particularly in relation to cooperation between agencies. Any action by the intelligence services should be governed by law, which in turn should be in conformity with international law and standards.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- While normative guidelines must be developed and clarified where they exist, additional safeguards may be taken into consideration to encourage compliance with international law when using information that may have been obtained by 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)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur welcomes recent initiatives by some States to establish and publish guidelines for their intelligence services and commitments they have made not to participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or other ill-treatment for any purpose, to the extent that they accord with their international legal obligations. However, some aspects of published guidelines fall short of the standards required by the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. If a real risk of torture or ill-treatment is detected, a State must not proceed to work with a foreign agency. Any discretion afforded in the guidelines to executive actors to proceed to work with an agency, despite a real risk of the information they receive being tainted by torture or ill-treatment, is incompatible with the obligation of the State as to the prohibition of torture. In addition, no distinction between torture and other ill-treatment should be made. Likewise, the excuse of exceptional circumstances contained in some national guidelines is inconsistent with the prohibition of torture and other 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- In an attempt to regulate the sharing and receiving of information by executive agencies and in order to avoid allegations of complicity in acts of torture or other ill-treatment, States have adopted internal guidelines addressed to executive agencies.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- While such findings have been made in the particular context of international transfers of detainees, the reasoning applies with equal force to the collection, sharing and receiving of information by executive agencies and to the obligation of States to prevent and discourage torture and 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
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- The invocation of "assurances" as a means of eliminating the possible risk of torture or other ill-treatment is of great concern. In the context of the non-refoulement provision, the Special Rapporteur, the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee have found that assurances from other States do not relieve the sending State from its responsibility to prevent torture. Similarly, assurances by providers of information that torture or other ill-treatment was not involved in producing it are not sufficient to permit cooperation where a real risk is identified. Promises of humane treatment given by Governments that practice torture or ill-treatment are not reliable and do not provide an effective safeguard against the real risk of acts of torture or other ill-treatment. States that engage in torture or ill-treatment routinely deny and conceal its use and it is therefore difficult, if not impossible, for executive agencies to verify whether their assurances are truthful. In addition, assurances are not legally binding or enforceable and the States concerned are unlikely to follow up on the assurances provided, since verifying and acknowledging that the abuse has occurred means an admission by both countries that they are responsible for violations of the prohibition of torture.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- In cases where there is no record of "systematic" torture, State responsibility is triggered if the State that collects, shares or receives information knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real risk that it could lead to or was acquired through impermissible means in another State. Due diligence in making such a determination should be demanded from States that rely on information not gathered by their own agents. By accepting information without investigating or questioning the manner in which it was extracted, the receiving State inevitably implies the "recognition of lawfulness" of such practices, even if that information was obtained only for operational purposes, and aids and assists the torturing State in maintaining impunity for the acts of torture. Even by once receiving information tainted by torture, the receiving State does in fact encourage the receipt of information from agencies that pursue investigations in violation of the framework of international human rights law. It creates a demand for information tainted by torture and elevates its operational use to a policy. In order to avoid complicity, executive agencies must assess the situation and rule out the existence of such a risk before interacting with foreign States. After-the-fact acceptance and use of information that is likely to have been obtained by torture or other ill-treatment constitute implicit recognition of the situation created by the torture or ill-treatment as lawful, since it treats the information no differently than legally obtained information.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur therefore finds that the receiving States are responsible because their policies and practices serve to maintain the situation of illegality, which constitutes a serious breach of the peremptory norm prohibiting torture and other ill-treatment and is irreconcilable with the obligation erga omnes of States to cooperate in the eradication of torture. Even if ultimately not used, and therefore not under scrutiny, the receipt of information tainted by torture or other ill-treatment, involving countries with a poor human rights record, condones torture or ill-treatment, makes it less likely that a State concerned will speak out against such practices and leads to State responsibility for complicity in torture and in the commission of internationally wrongful 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Collecting, sharing or receiving information from a country that is known, or ought to be known, to use torture in a widespread or systematic way is turning a blind eye to what goes on and is tantamount to complicity in torture, as it tacitly acknowledges the illegal situation and fails to prevent and discourage the use of torture. Systematic or widespread violations include torture, both as a State policy and as a practice by public authorities, over which a Government has no effective control. Thus, if a State is known to torture detainees, or specific categories of detainees, systematically, no other State may actively collect, share or recognize any information it receives from an agency of that State as "lawfully obtained", nor may it "passively" accept such information. In addition, collecting, sharing or receiving information from a State that is known, or ought to be known, to use torture in a widespread or systematic way would also trigger State responsibility under draft article 41 on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. Commentaries of the International Law Commission specify that the non-recognition obligation contained in draft article 41, paragraph 2, also prohibits acts which would imply such recognition.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- There is State responsibility for complicity in torture when one State gives assistance to another State in the commission of torture or other ill-treatment, or acquiesces in such acts, in the knowledge (including imputed knowledge) of the real risk that torture or ill-treatment will take place or has taken place, and aids and assists the torturing State in maintaining impunity for the acts of torture or ill-treatment. A State would thus be responsible when it was aware of the risk that information was obtained by torture or other ill-treatment, or ought to have been aware of that risk and did not take reasonable steps to prevent it. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur finds that the assistance provided by States does not have to have a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime of torture itself for it to be regarded as responsible.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- However, the responsibility of a State for complicity in torture or other ill-treatment by collecting, sharing or receiving tainted information must be governed by a different standard, especially because for torture and other ill-treatment there is a clear, universal and absolute prohibition of a peremptory nature and an affirmative obligation to prevent. The responsibility of a State is objective and results from a policy or practice of acquiescing in torture in this manner. In addition, the special rules defined by draft articles 40 and 41 on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, referring to a "serious breach" of an "obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law", support the argument for a different, lower standard of intent for State complicity in 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Similarly, draft article 16 on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts requires either the knowledge that the assistance is facilitating the wrongful act, or that there is an intention to do so. Some domestic courts have applied a high threshold for State complicity by ruling that knowingly receiving and relying on information obtained by torture does not constitute complicity under international customary or treaty law if there was no direct encouragement of acts 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- According to article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, interpreted in line with international criminal law jurisprudence, "complicity" contains three elements: (a) knowledge that torture is taking place, (b) a direct contribution by way of assistance and (c) that it has a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime. Thus, individual responsibility for complicity in torture arises also in situations where State agents do not themselves directly inflict torture or other ill-treatment but direct or allow others to do so, or acquiesce in it. In addition, orders from superiors or other public authorities cannot be invoked as a justification or excuse.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- In addition, State responsibility also derives from existing customary rules, as codified in the draft articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session. They confirm that no State should provide aid or assistance to another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act (draft articles 16-18), should not recognize as lawful a situation created by a "serious breach" of its obligations under peremptory norms of international law and should cooperate to bring the breach to an end (draft articles 40 and 41). Therefore, if a State were to be torturing detainees, other States would have a duty to cooperate to bring such a serious breach of the prohibition against torture to an end and would be required not to give any aid or assistance to its continuation (A/67/396, para. 48, and A/HRC/13/42, para. 42).
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- A violation of the prohibition against acts of torture or other ill-treatment and the obligation to prevent can be committed by both active participation and acts of complicity in such acts. Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention refers to the individual criminal liability of a person for complicity or participation in torture. The Committee against Torture considered complicity to include acts that amount to instigation, incitement, superior order and instruction, consent, acquiescence and concealment. It is clear that acquiescence, as contained in article 1 of the Convention, on the part of State officials is sufficient for the conduct of those officials to be attributed to the State and to lead to State responsibility for torture. Although not written explicitly, article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention reflects an obligation on States themselves not to be complicit in torture, through the actions of their organs or persons whose acts are attributable to them.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- As mentioned earlier in this report, the exclusionary rule provides for an absolute prohibition in international law on the use of evidence obtained by torture or ill-treatment in any proceedings. It is considered a preventive measure, reasonably required to give effect to the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and the obligation to prevent and discourage such acts, alongside other provisions of the Convention and customary law. On the basis of the purpose and object of the exclusionary rule and in the general prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment, the exclusionary rule must be interpreted to apply much more widely, to include the activities of executive actors. Information obtained by torture or other ill-treatment, even when not intended to be used in formal proceedings, must always be treated in the same way that a court would treat evidence obtained by illegal means and thus be disregarded. Articles 2 and 16 of the Convention require States to prevent torture and ill-treatment by taking appropriate preventive measures. A failure to do so, by permitting acts of torture, or failing to take appropriate measures, or to exercise due diligence, to prevent, investigate or punish acts of torture gives rise to a violation. This also applies to the judiciary in its role as custodian of the legality of State action. The acceptance and use of information outside formal proceedings, which is likely to have been obtained by torture or other ill-treatment, or the sharing of information that could lead to such acts, constitutes a violation of the underlying general prohibition 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- The interpretation and extension of the prohibition against torture under the non-refoulement provision, provides important guidance regarding the rules applicable to executive actions that purposely and objectively promote torture by taking advantage of its results. The non-refoulement obligation is a specific manifestation of a more general principle that States must ensure that their actions do not lead to a risk of torture anywhere in the world. There is a clear negative obligation not to contribute to a risk of 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- In this sense, the customary non-refoulement provision, as contained in article 3 of the Convention, is one obligation under the overarching aim of preventing torture and other ill-treatment. It contains the obligation of States not to return a person if there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture, even outside the territory and control of a State. In the case of Soering v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that even though the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not contain a specific non-refoulement provision prohibiting the extradition of a person to another State where he would be subject, or be likely to be subjected, to torture or other ill-treatment, such obligation was already inherent in the general terms of the prohibition against torture by referring to the recognition of its absolute nature and its fundamental value for democratic societies.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- The obligation to take effective preventive measures transcends the items enumerated specifically in the Convention. Article 2, paragraph 1, provides authority to build upon subsequent articles (articles 3 to 15 of the Convention), referring to specific measures known to prevent acts of torture and other ill-treatment and to expand the scope of measures required for such prevention. Thus, States must take effective preventive measures, including by good-faith interpretation of the existing provisions, to eradicate 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
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- International law intends to bar not only actual breaches but also potential breaches of the prohibition against torture and any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and obliges States to put in place all those measures that may pre-empt the perpetration of 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Although articles 2, paragraph 1, and 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention and article 2 of the Covenant contain a jurisdictional limitation, it is clear that the obligation to take measures to prevent acts of torture or other ill-treatment includes actions that the State takes in its own jurisdiction to prevent torture or other ill-treatment in another jurisdiction. In Soering v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights found that the extraditing State would be responsible for the breach, even where such treatment is subsequently beyond its control. The prohibition against acts of torture and other ill-treatment requires States to abstain from acting within their territory and spheres of control in a manner that exposes individuals outside their territory and control to a real risk of such acts. The fact that torture or other ill-treatment occurs outside the territory or the direct control of the State in question does not relieve that State from responsibility for its own actions vis-à-vis the incident. States have an international legal obligation to safeguard the rights of all individuals under their jurisdiction, which implies that they have a duty to ensure that foreign agencies do not engage in activities that violate human rights on their territory (including as regards the prohibition against torture or other ill-treatment) and to refrain from participating in any such activities (A/HRC/14/46, para. 50). The International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, recognized that the jurisdiction of States is primarily territorial, but concluded that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights extends to "acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside of its own territory." Moreover, the jus cogens nature of the prohibition against torture implies that States are under an obligation to refuse to accept any results arising from its violation by another 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
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention and article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, oblige States parties to take measures that will reinforce the prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment in their jurisdictions through legislative, administrative, judicial or other actions that must, in the end, be effective in preventing such treatment. States are obligated to adopt effective measures to prevent public authorities and other persons acting in an official capacity from directly committing, instigating, inciting, encouraging, acquiescing in, or otherwise participating or being complicit in acts of torture. The Committee against Torture has authoritatively held that the obligations to prevent torture and other ill-treatment under article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. In addition, conditions that give rise to ill-treatment frequently facilitate torture and therefore the measures to prevent torture must be applied to prevent 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- The prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enjoys the enhanced status of a jus cogens or peremptory norm of general international law and requires States not merely to refrain from authorizing or conniving at torture or other ill-treatment but also to suppress, prevent and discourage such practices. States have not only the obligation to "respect", but to "ensure respect" for, the absolute prohibition against torture. In this context, the Human Rights Committee has authoritatively interpreted article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and found that it is not sufficient for the implementation of article 7 to prohibit such treatment or punishment, or to make it a crime: States should inform the Committee of the measures they take to prevent and punish acts of torture or other ill-treatment in any territory under their jurisdiction.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- There is a tendency to draw a clear distinction between the judicial and the executive use of tainted information by some domestic courts. The latter is often allowed, the argument being, inter alia, that it does not impinge upon the liberty of individuals or that, when it does, as relating to powers of arrest, it is usually of short duration. Alternatively, that argument may refer to the "ticking-bomb scenario", i.e., that the executive agencies cannot be expected to close their eyes to information at the cost of endangering the lives of the citizens of their own countries. In other words, courts tend to endorse the use of information acquired through torture or other ill-treatment by the executive agencies in all phases of operations, except in judicial proceedings. In fact, some courts have ruled that the executive agencies have no responsibility to examine the conditions under which information was obtained, or to change their decisions accordingly. They have also ruled that it is not for the courts to discipline the executive agencies, unless by way of a criminal prosecution, and that their jurisdiction only exists to preserve the integrity of the trial 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- Such policies not only weaken the absolute prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment, but also create a market for information tainted by torture. Inevitably, they raise the question of complicity in torture or other ill-treatment and require a reassessment of the overall responsibility of all States to prevent and discourage acts of torture and ill-treatment. All States refuse to subject the work of their intelligence and security agencies to scrutiny or international oversight. Similarly, domestic courts follow this lead and reject motions to submit these executive practices to judicial review, even when the issue is the absolute prohibition of torture. This leads to the erroneous conclusion that the collection, sharing and receiving by the executive agencies of information tainted by torture is not subject to international law. There are numerous examples of the use of torture or other ill-treatment when there was no intention of using any of the information gained from that ill-treatment in subsequent legal proceedings, in which it would a priori be subjected to scrutiny and exclusion, for instance in administrative or preventive measures or sanctions against individuals or organizations.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- Since the "war against terror" was launched more than a decade ago, executive agencies have been under extreme pressure to obtain information in order to protect the citizens of their countries. In this context, the use of information by the executive agencies that has been obtained by torture or other ill-treatment has been publicly condoned by some Governments. Other States assert that their executive agencies would share tainted evidence in "exceptional circumstances" in order to ensure their effectiveness.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The very secrecy of such evidence undermines the preventive element of the exclusionary rule. Wherever secret evidence is admitted there is an enhanced risk that evidence obtained by torture or other ill-treatment will be admitted, whether deliberately or inadvertently, since such evidence cannot be challenged in open court. In addition, much of the closed evidence used in cases which concern national security is heavily reliant on information from secret intelligence sources. Such evidence may contain second- or third- hand testimony, or other material which would not normally be admissible in ordinary criminal or civil proceedings. Effective control of the implementation of the exclusionary rule and assessment of the compatibility of the conduct of the Government with the exclusionary rule in secret proceedings becomes difficult or even impossible.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- There is an increasing trend towards the use of secret hearings, "closed material procedures" and "secret evidence". Furthermore, there is a trend to extend the use of closed proceedings from military commissions and extradition proceedings to civil cases in which the Government considers that sensitive material should not be made public, because the disclosure would be damaging to national security and the disclosure could potentially undermine the principle of confidentiality on which international intelligence-sharing arrangements are based. The definition of sensitive material is generally construed very broadly, meaning information which relates to, has come from, or is held by, the security and intelligence agencies.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- There is a risk that the standard of proof applied to proceedings in which closed material is used is still much lower than in civil and criminal cases and that the evidence in question may be heard in closed session, from which the individual concerned and the legal representation of his or her choice are excluded.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- Indeed, this test in effect places the burden of proof on the appellant to put forward evidence to satisfy the court that it is more likely than not was obtained under torture or other ill-treatment. The Special Rapporteur has held that the applicant is only required to demonstrate that his or her allegations are well founded, thus that there are plausible reasons to believe that there is a real risk of torture or ill-treatment, and the burden of proof should shift to the prosecution and the courts. The Committee against Torture has also consistently ruled that the burden of proof rests with the State, stating that the general nature of [article 15] derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and therefore implies an obligation for each State party to ascertain whether or not statements included in an extradition procedure under its jurisdiction were made under torture. It is therefore for the State to investigate with due diligence whether there is a real risk that a confession or other evidence was not obtained by lawful means, including torture or other ill-treatment. Similarly, in the case of El Haski v. Belgium, the European Court of Human Rights held that it would be necessary and sufficient for the complainant, if the exclusionary rule were to be invoked, to show that there was a "real risk" that the impugned statement was obtained under torture or other ill-treatment. Similarly, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights held that "once a victim raises doubt as to whether particular evidence has been procured by torture or other ill-treatment, the evidence in question should not be admissible, unless the State is able to show that there is no risk of 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- In their judgment on the case of A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, a majority of the House of Lords agreed that evidence should be excluded from judicial proceedings if it is established, by means of diligent inquiries into the sources and on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence invoked was in fact obtained by torture. However, three Law Lords, in a minority opinion, strongly rejected the test applied for the burden of proof preferred by the majority, arguing that it placed a burden on the appellants that they can seldom discharge. They concluded that "it is inconsistent with the most rudimentary notions of fairness to blindfold a man and then impose a standard which only the sighted could hope to meet", thereby effectively denying detainees the standard of fairness and undermining the effectiveness of the Convention.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- It is of great concern that, in practice, the burden of proof on the admissibility of material obtained by torture or other ill-treatment in courts, seems to lie with the defendant rather than with the State, creating a real risk that such evidence is admitted in court because the individual is unable to prove that it was obtained under torture. The Special Rapporteur finds that the central question is the interpretation of the word "established" in article 15 of the Convention. In this context, it is necessary to have due regard for the special difficulties in proving allegations of torture, which is often practised in secret by experienced interrogators who are skilled at ensuring that no visible signs are left on the victim. In addition, all too frequently those who are charged with ensuring that torture or other ill-treatment does not occur are complicit in its concealment.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- The admission of evidence, including real evidence obtained through a violation of the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment in any proceedings, constitutes an incentive for law enforcement officers to use investigative methods that breach those absolute prohibitions. It indirectly legitimizes such conduct and objectively dilutes the absolute nature of the prohibition. The exclusionary rule is not limited to criminal proceedings but extends to military commissions, immigration boards and other administrative or civil proceedings. Moreover, the use of the phrase "any proceedings" suggests that a broader range of processes is intended to be covered; essentially, any formal decision-making by State officials based on any type of information.
- 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
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- The exclusionary rule extends not only to confessions and other statements obtained under torture, but also to all other pieces of evidence subsequently obtained through legal means, but which originated in an act of torture. In some jurisdictions, this approach is called the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. There is no doubt that this includes real evidence obtained as a result of ill-treatment but falling short of 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- The exclusionary rule applies not only where the victim of the treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment is the actual defendant, but also where third parties are concerned. Such a conclusion is plainly intended by the wording of article 15, which provides that "any statement…in any proceedings" shall come within the scope of exclusion and not just one given by the accused in a domestic court. The Committee against Torture, the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have firmly ruled against the use of evidence tainted by torture that has been extracted from third parties, regardless of whether such evidence may be used in domestic proceedings or in proceedings in a third 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Some States have deemed evidence obtained in a third State as a result of torture or ill-treatment admissible, as long as this evidence had been extracted without the complicity of the authorities. However, the exclusionary rule applies no matter where in the world the torture was perpetrated and even if the State seeking to rely on the information had no previous involvement in or connection to the acts of torture (CAT/C/CR/33/3, para. 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Although the exclusionary rule is not expressly listed among the rules that apply both to torture and to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the Committee against Torture, as the authoritative interpreter of the Convention, has made it clear that statements and confessions obtained under all forms of ill-treatment must be excluded. That ambiguity has led some courts to decide that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the ill-treatment that has resulted in a confession does not reach the gravity required for torture. The Human Rights Committee has authoritatively interpreted article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and found that the exclusionary rule applies to both torture and other ill-treatment. Similarly, the Committee against Torture in its general comment No. 2 (para. 6), has held that "articles 3 to 15 of the Convention are likewise obligatory as applied to both torture and other ill-treatment" and article 12 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment explicitly excludes statements made under 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- In jurisdictions where independent medical examinations must be authorized by investigators, prosecutors or penitentiary authorities, those authorities have ample opportunity to delay authorization, so that any injuries deriving from torture have healed by the time such an examination is conducted. Additionally, such medical and forensic reports are often of such poor quality that they provide little assistance to judges or prosecutors when deciding whether to exclude statements. Some judges are willing to admit confessions without attempting to corroborate the confession with other evidence, even if the person recants before the judge and claims to have been tortured. In addition, cases submitted to the courts are sometimes based solely on confessions by the accused and lack any material evidence, or else judges establish prerequisites, such as visible or recognizable marks, for ruling that evidence obtained under torture or other ill-treatment is invalid. The Committee against Torture has stated that physical marks or scars should not be a prerequisite for ruling that evidence obtained under torture is invalid (CAT/C/SR.1024, para. 29). In addition, in order to show that evidence has not been obtained by torture, a court must rely on evidence other than the testimony of the investigating officer.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- In some States, due to a lack of capacity and expertise in investigating crimes, extracting confessions through ill-treatment or torture is still seen as the most efficient or only way to secure evidence and conviction. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur draws attention to the international standards intended to provide assistance to national law enforcement, including the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. To ensure compliance with international standards, all applicable procedures should be reviewed regularly. During his country visits, the Special Rapporteur has observed that some States are unable to provide information on cases where evidence has been excluded because it was either found to have been obtained under torture, or the national provisions did not accurately reflect the exclusionary rule by, for example, not defining the measures to be taken by courts if evidence appears to have been obtained through torture or other ill-treatment, or by not putting the mechanisms in place by which evidence may be declared inadmissible. The legislation of some countries does meet the standards set by the exclusionary rule, but that is not true of all countries.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Some progress has been made. Confessions, once considered the "queen of evidence", now require corroboration in most countries. Extrajudicial confessions are not generally considered as full evidence or given weight as presumptive or even circumstantial evidence. However, the practices in a number of countries show that forced confessions are still deemed admissible and that judges and prosecutors fail to investigate promptly and impartially allegations of 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- As the prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment is absolute and non-derogable under any circumstances, it follows that the exclusionary rule must also be non-derogable under any circumstances, including in respect of national security. Further, since the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment is part of customary international law, it follows that the exclusionary rule, as a component of that prohibition, must also apply to States that are not party to the Convention against Torture. In the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001, the Committee against Torture specified that the obligations in article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention, whereby "'no exceptional circumstances whatsoever…may be invoked as a justification of torture'"; the exclusionary rule contained in article 15; and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in article 16 are three provisions of the Convention that "'must be observed in all circumstances'".
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- The rationale behind the exclusionary rule is manifold and includes the public policy objective of removing any incentive to undertake torture anywhere in the world by discouraging law enforcement agencies from resorting to the use of torture. Furthermore, confessions and other information extracted under torture or ill-treatment are not considered reliable enough as a source of evidence in any legal proceeding. Finally, their admission violates the rights of due process and 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- Both the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture have concluded that the exclusionary rule forms a part of, or is derived from, the general and absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. In article 12 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (resolution 3452 (XXX)), the General Assembly expressly stated that "any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may not be invoked as evidence … in any proceedings." Article 15 of the Convention provides that "each State Party shall 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."
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- The present report will elaborate on the scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- Of particular concern are attempts to undermine the prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment by using tainted statements outside of "proceedings", narrowly defined, for other purposes, such as intelligence gathering or covert operations. Cooperation in sharing intelligence between States has expanded significantly in the fight against terrorism and some police, security and intelligence agencies (collectively, executive agencies) have shown a willingness to receive and rely on information likely to be obtained through torture and other ill-treatment and to share that information with one another. The global trend of giving executive agencies increased powers of arrest, detention and interrogation have retracted the traditional safeguards against torture or other ill-treatment and led to further abuse of individuals. The practice by executive agencies of using information obtained by torture or other ill-treatment outside court proceedings must be examined to ensure that the prohibition against torture is upheld, a practice made even more dangerous because of the secrecy and lack of transparency that surrounds it. Regrettably, some States have diluted the cardinal principles necessary for preventing and suppressing torture and 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- The exclusionary rule is fundamental for upholding the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (other ill-treatment) by providing a disincentive to carry out such acts. It contains an absolute prohibition on the use of statements made as a result of torture or other ill-treatment in any proceedings. However, in practice, this prohibition is not always upheld. Moreover, the wording of article 15 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment may be its weakest aspect and the one most frequently flouted by States that practice torture. Some States interpret "any proceedings" narrowly, to mean judicial proceedings of a criminal nature against the person who has made the statement. More importantly, some insist that the exclusionary rule is triggered only when it is established that the statement was made under torture. However, the exclusionary rule is a norm of customary international law and is not limited to the Convention, which is only one aspect of it. The exclusionary rule must be considered as one element under the overarching absolute prohibition against acts of torture and other ill-treatment and the obligation to prevent 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2014
- Document code
- A/HRC/25/60
Document
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- In accordance with article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further customary law, the Special Rapporteur calls upon all States not to expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a danger of the person being sentenced to death and subsequently subjected to detention on death row, severe mental or physical suffering or executed in a manner inconsistent with 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
- All
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 80f
- 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 respect the rights of the families and relatives of persons sentenced to 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
- Families
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 80e
- 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 use solitary confinement on death row only in accordance with the recommendations made in his previous report to the General Assembly (A/66/268);
- 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
- 2012
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
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
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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 79
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to reconsider whether the use of the death penalty per se respects the inherent dignity of the human person, causes severe mental and physical pain or suffering and constitutes a violation of the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. He recommends a more comprehensive legal study on the emergence of a customary norm prohibiting the use of the death penalty under all circumstances.
- 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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- Death by stoning or gas asphyxiation is already clearly prohibited under international law. Furthermore, there is no categorical evidence that any method in use today can be said to comply with 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
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur finds that even if the emergence of a customary norm that considers the death penalty as per se running afoul of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is still under way, most conditions under which capital punishment is actually applied renders the punishment tantamount to torture. Under many other, less severe conditions, it still amounts to 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
- All
- Year
- 2012
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- The evolving practice of States shows a clear trend towards abolition of the death penalty. Even in retentionist countries, practices and opinions have changed. Significantly, the trend to abolish and the trend to restrict are both informed by a stated conviction that capital punishment is cruel, inhumane and degrading, either per se or as applied.
- 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
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
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
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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- Five years later, the European Court held in the case Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom (2010) that judicial execution involved the deliberate and premeditated destruction of a human being by the State authorities and that, whatever the method of execution, the extinction of life involved some physical pain. In addition, the Court held: that the foreknowledge of death at the hands of the State must inevitably give rise to intense psychological suffering; the fact that the imposition and use of the death penalty negated fundamental human rights had been recognized; and that in the preamble to Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Contracting States had described themselves as convinced that the abolition of the death penalty was essential for the full recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings. It therefore could be stated that the European Court, by referring not only to the destruction of a human being but to the physical pain and moreover the intense psychological suffering that the foreknowledge of death gives rise to, acknowledged that the death penalty constituted also a violation of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In addition, on 26 June 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted resolution 1560 on the promotion by member States of an international moratorium on the death penalty, in which it confirmed that the death penalty was the ultimate form of 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)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- In his partly dissenting opinion to the decision in the case Ocalan v. Turkey (2005), Judge Lech Garlicki stated that article 3 had been violated because any imposition of the death penalty represented per se inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by the Convention. Thus, while correct, the majority's conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial represented a violation of article 3 of the European Convention seemed to him to stop short of addressing the real problem. He drew attention to the 2002 opinion of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in which it recalled that, in its most recent resolutions, it had reaffirmed its beliefs that the application of the death penalty constituted inhuman and degrading punishment and a violation of the most fundamental right, that to life itself, and that capital punishment had no place in civilized, democratic societies governed by the rule of law. Judge Garlicki stated that, in consequence, the only question that remained was whether the Court had the power to state the obvious truth, namely, that capital punishment had become an inhuman and degrading punishment per se.
- 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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- A growing concern at the irreconcilable conflict between the legally imposed death penalty and the infliction of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is evident even where some organs of protection have hesitated to pronounce accordingly. In the case Ng v. Canada (1993) of the Human Rights Committee, dissenting opinions show resounding disapproval of the majority's attempt to make a distinction among various methods of execution, because the death penalty as such constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, regardless of how it is carried out.
- 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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- Not only is the enforcement of the death penalty in these cases considered a violation per se of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment but the related State practice has led to the emergence of a jus cogens provision regarding the execution of juveniles.
- 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
- Year
- 2012
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- The death penalty cannot be applied for crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age. In Michael Domingues v. United States (2002), the Inter-American Commission canvassed international legal and political developments and State practice concerning the execution of juveniles and reached the conclusion that the state of international law had evolved so as to prohibit, as a jus cogens norm, the execution of persons who were under 18 years of age at the time of committal of their crimes. This is in line with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that under the evolving standards of decency test, it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the age of 18 years at the time of the murder. Remarkably, in January 2012, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the most persistent retentionist countries, adopted the Islamic Penal Code which established new measures to limit the sentencing to death of juveniles (A/HRC/21/29 and Corr.1, para. 8). The abolition of the death penalty for juveniles is based on the fact that their limited capacity has a direct impact on their effectively benefiting from the right to a fair trial and that it is inherently cruel to execute children and would therefore amount 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- Accordingly, in Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden (2005), the European Court of Human Rights held that the applicant had a justified and well-founded fear that the death sentence imposed on him after an unfair trial would be enforced if he were compelled to return to his home country, and that since executions were carried out without any public scrutiny or accountability, the surrounding circumstances would inevitably cause him considerable fear and anguish. The Court concluded that the death sentence imposed following an unfair trial would cause the applicant and his family additional fear and anguish as to their future if they were forced to return to the Syrian Arab Republic and, accordingly, would give rise to a violation of articles 2 and 3 (referring to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention. In Ocalan v. Turkey (2005), the European Court held that the fear and uncertainty about the future generated by a death sentence, when a real possibility existed that the sentence would be enforced, inevitably caused strong human anguish. Such anguish could not be disassociated from the unfairness of the proceedings underlying the sentence, which, given that human life was at stake, became unlawful under the Convention. Consequently, the imposition of the death sentence following an unfair trial by a court whose independence and impartiality were open to doubt was held to amount to inhuman treatment, in violation of article 3 of the European Convention.
- 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
- Year
- 2012
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- Accordingly, the mandatory death penalty, a legal regime under which judges have no discretion to consider aggravating or mitigating circumstances with respect to the crime or the offender, violates due process and constitutes inhumane treatment. Starting with the case of Hilaire v. Trinidad and Tobago (2002), there have been remarkable developments within the Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court, leading to the conclusion that the automatic imposition of the death penalty without consideration of the individual's circumstances is incompatible with the rights to life, humane treatment and due process. National courts have re-examined the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty and, with the exception of Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, considered it as a violation of the prohibition of inhumane treatment. In Woodson v. North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court held the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional and in violation of the fundamental respect for humanity. In Africa, the Supreme Courts of Malawi and of Uganda and, more recently in July 2010, the Court of Appeal of Kenya, rendered the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional. In all of those cases, the courts held that it violated protection against subjection to inhuman or degrading punishment or 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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- International law imposes severe restrictions on the death penalty and demands serious safeguards for it to be lawfully applied. It also outlaws it in some specific circumstances or with regard to specific groups of vulnerable persons. As stated by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in regard to the death penalty, non-compliance with these standards leads to arbitrary and thus unlawful deprivation of life.
- 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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- The question therefore arises of whether or not there is an evolving standard regarding the death penalty comparable to that regarding the prohibition of slavery and corporal punishment. In order to answer that question, the present report examines recognized standards on the enforcement of the death penalty and normative developments at the international and regional levels.
- 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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur's predecessor demonstrated the evolving standard regarding the prohibition of corporal punishment, asking whether, if even comparatively lenient forms of corporal punishment, such as 10 strokes on the buttocks, were absolutely prohibited under international human rights law, methods such as hanging, the electric chair, execution by firing squad and other forms of capital punishment could ever be justified under the very same provisions (A/HRC/10/44 and Corr.1, para. 38).
- 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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Developments with regard to methods of execution and the death row phenomenon show the dilemma of international jurisprudence and national courts in regard to the actual application of the death penalty and the contradiction with the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. While international human rights bodies have yet to take the step of holding the death penalty to per se run afoul of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, there is clearly a trend in this direction at the regional and national levels.
- 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
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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- In addition, death row prisoners constantly face unimaginable anxiety over their own imminent death. Additional circumstances, including lack of notice as to the date of the execution, public executions and mistakes in administering the execution increase the mental trauma of persons sentenced to death. Numerous scholars have documented the severe mental trauma associated with death sentences. The anxiety and foreknowledge of death affect the mental integrity of a person sentenced to death and can amount to torture or 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
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
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
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
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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- The Human Rights Committee and national courts have recognized the existence of the death row phenomenon as a possible breach of article 7 of the Covenant. The African system provides substantial evidence for this claim. In Catholic Commissioner for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v. Attorney General and Others (1993) the Supreme Court recognized judicial and academic acceptance of the existence of the death row phenomenon. The Court held that, having regard to judicial and academic consensus concerning the death row phenomenon, the prolonged delays and the harsh conditions of incarceration, a sufficient degree of seriousness had been attained to entitle the applicant to invoke the protection afforded by the Constitution under section 15, paragraph 1 (concerning the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading punishment). The Court held that 52 and 72 months, respectively, on death row constituted a violation of the prohibition of torture and would render an actual execution unconstitutional. In Attorney General v. Susan Kigula (2009), the Supreme Court of Uganda acknowledged that a prolonged stay on death row constituted cruel and inhuman treatment. The Court found that execution after an inordinate delay would be inconsistent with the Ugandan Constitution which ensures freedom from 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
- 2012
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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- The death row phenomenon is a relatively new concept, albeit one that has become firmly established in international jurisprudence. It consists of a combination of circumstances that produce severe mental trauma and physical deterioration in prisoners under sentence of death. Those circumstances include the lengthy and anxiety-ridden wait for uncertain outcomes, isolation, drastically reduced human contact and even the physical conditions in which some inmates are held. Death row conditions are often worse than those for the rest of the prison population, and prisoners on death row are denied many basic human necessities. Examples of current death row conditions around the world include solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day in small, cramped, airless cells, often under extreme temperatures; inadequate nutrition and sanitation arrangements; limited or non-existent contact with family members and/or lawyers; excessive use of handcuffs or other types of shackles or restraints; physical or verbal abuse; lack of appropriate health care (physical and mental); and denial of access to books, newspapers, exercise, education, employment, or other types of prison activity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Water & Sanitation
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2012
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- The method of firing squad has so far been considered as the fastest way of execution and as not causing severe pain and suffering. However, executions conducted in public often expose convicts to undignified and shameful displays of contempt and hatred. Conversely, secret executions violate the rights of the convict and family members to prepare for 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
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- This new evidence, however, was rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Baze et al. v. Rees (2008). The Court agreed to hear a challenge to the use of lethal injection as a method of execution following a case in which the administration of a second dose of poison was required and where the convicted man took 34 minutes to die. However, the Court rejected the arguments that the lethal injection process created an unacceptable risk of suffering due to a drug combination that masked pain; that the use of potassium chloride could cause an incredibly painful death if the prisoner were not properly anaesthetized; and that other drugs were available that would cause a painless death. The Court also rejected the argument that the lethal injection process was flawed because of deficiencies in the way in which the drugs were administered, lack of the training required for those responsible for administering the drugs, and lack of clinical evidence showing the safety and effectiveness of certain drugs used in executions. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that these defects, in combination with a lack of regulatory oversight by the United States administration and an absence of meaningful State oversight, established that lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Remarkably, the Court also stated that a stay of execution might not be granted unless the condemned prisoner established that the State's lethal injection protocol created a demonstrated risk of severe pain.
- 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
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
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
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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- In Mwamba v. Zambia (2010), the petitioner argued before the Human Rights Committee that hanging constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee did not address the issue, choosing instead to locate a violation of the petitioner's rights in article 10, concerning human dignity. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have left open the question as to whether hanging constitutes 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
- All
- Year
- 2012
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
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
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
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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- Even if considered legal under international law, the actual practice of the death penalty is not left to the unfettered discretion of the State but must itself comply with the other requirements of the Covenant, notably the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, set out in article 7. In practice, executions today often violate the absolute prohibition, either because of the death row phenomenon or because the method applied involves unnecessary suffering and indignity.
- 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
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- At first glance, the language in article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture appears to carve out an exception under which pain or suffering stemming from lawful sanctions categorically cannot be torture. Yet, this reading of article 1 is belied by extensive treaty body authority findings of a violation of the prohibition in article 1 with regard to various forms of lawful corporal punishment. The proper understanding is that the exclusion refers to sanctions that are lawful under both national and international law. Since it is widely accepted that corporal punishment at least amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, it does not qualify as a lawful sanction and, accordingly, is not immune from being categorized as torture. As far back as 1988, the Special Rapporteur appointed to examine questions relevant to torture stated that it was international law, not domestic law, which ultimately determined whether a certain practice might be regarded as lawful, and that practices which might initially be considered lawful might become outlawed and viewed as the most serious violations of human rights (E/CN.4/1988/17, paras. 42 and 44).
- 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
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
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
Paragraph