Search Tips
sorted by
15 shown of 15 entities
Children deprived of their liberty from the perspective of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2015, para. 86h
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to conditions during detention, the Special Rapporteur calls upon all States:] To facilitate contact to the outside world, in particular with families and legal representatives;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on 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
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Children deprived of their liberty from the perspective of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2015, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur believe that there should be a formal obligation to notify a relative or another adult trusted by the child about his or her detention regardless of whether the child has so requested, except if this would not be in the best interests of the child. Parents or adults trusted by the child should furthermore be allowed to be present with the child during interrogation and any court appearances. An essential issue is the manner in which children are questioned. Interrogation should be age-sensitive and individualized, and undertaken by authorities that are skilled in interviewing children. Video recording should be given due consideration in certain circumstances, to avoid causing distress to children because of repeated questioning, and numerous visits to courts. Children should also have immediate access to a lawyer and a health professional. A specific information sheet setting out the above-mentioned safeguards should be given to all children taken into custody immediately upon their arrival at a law enforcement establishment, and this information should be verbally explained to children in terms that they understand.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on 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
- Children
- Families
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 51a
- Paragraph text
- [According to the Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the main purposes of effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are:] Clarification of the facts and establishment and acknowledgement of individual and State responsibility for victims 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
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- The ultimate aim must be to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment before they occur. There are numerous methods of prevention that have been developed in the past, which, if adequately implemented by States, could easily eradicate torture: abolition of secret and incommunicado detention; proper registration of every detainee from the moment of arrest or apprehension; prompt access to legal counsel within 24 hours; access to relatives; prompt access to an independent judge; presumption of innocence; prompt and independent medical examination of all detainees; video/audio recording of all interrogations; no detention under the control of the interrogators or investigators for more than 48 hours; prompt, impartial and effective investigation of all allegations or suspicions of torture; inadmissibility of evidence obtained under torture; and effective training of all officials involved in the custody, interrogation and medical care of detainees. As previously emphasized by the Special Rapporteur and his predecessors, the most effective preventive measure against torture and ill-treatment is the regular inspection of places of detention. Regular inspections can ensure the adequate implementation of the above-mentioned safeguards against torture, create a strong deterrent effect and provide a means to generate timely and adequate responses to allegations of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- Finally, the Court repeatedly found States to have violated their duty to protect persons from torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment by, for example, failing to provide an adequate legal framework against rape or to protect applicants from a real and immediate risk of ill-treatment at the hands of an abusive family member.
- 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
- Families
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Children deprived of their liberty from the perspective of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2015, para. 82
- Paragraph text
- Children deprived of their liberty and their parents or legal representatives should have avenues of complaint open to them in administrative systems, and should be entitled to address complaints confidentially to an independent authority. Upon admission, children should be given information on lodging a complaint, including the contact details of the authorities competent to receive complaints, as well as the address of any services that provide legal assistance. In this context, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the establishment of independent, local, socio-legal defence centres that provide children with the effective opportunity to have access to justice and subsequently to obtain remedies and advocate for systematic training in children's rights for professionals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Families
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Children deprived of their liberty from the perspective of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2015, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- Within the context of administrative immigration enforcement, it is now clear that the deprivation of liberty of children based on their or their parents' migration status is never in the best interests of the child, exceeds the requirement of necessity, becomes grossly disproportionate and may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of migrant children. Following the advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the rights and guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or in need of international protection in 2014, the Special Rapporteur recalls the different procedural purposes between immigration and criminal proceedings, and that, in the words of the Court, "the offenses concerning the entry or stay in one country may not, under any circumstances, have the same or similar consequences to those derived from the commission of a crime." The Special Rapporteur therefore concludes that the principle of ultima ratio that applies to juvenile criminal justice is not applicable to immigration proceedings. The deprivation of liberty of children based exclusively on immigration-related reasons exceeds the requirement of necessity because the measure is not absolutely essential to ensure the appearance of children at immigration proceedings or to implement a deportation order. Deprivation of liberty in this context can never be construed as a measure that complies with the child`s best interests. Immigration detention practices across the globe, whether de jure or de facto, put children at risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the detention of children who migrate to escape exploitation and abuse contravenes the duty of the State to promote the physical and psychological recovery of child victims in an appropriate environment. Therefore, States should, expeditiously and completely, cease the detention of children, with or without their parents, on the basis of their immigration status. States should make clear in their legislation, policies and practices that the principle of the best interests of the child takes priority over migration policy and other administrative considerations. Also, States should appoint a guardian or adviser as soon as the unaccompanied or separated child is identified, and maintain such guardianship arrangements until the child has either reached the age of majority or has permanently left the territory and/or jurisdiction of the State (A/HRC/20/24, para. 41). While the Special Rapporteur acknowledges that, in certain circumstances it is possible for States to place children in a shelter or other accommodation when it is based on the purpose of child care, protection and support, this should not become a proxy for expanded unnecessary restrictions to the liberty of child migrants and families. States are required to favour measures that promote the care and well-being of the child rather than the deprivation of liberty. Facilities that grant accommodation for migrant children should have all the material conditions necessary and provide an adequate regime to ensure comprehensive protection from ill-treatment and torture, and allow for their holistic development. Migrant children should be separated from children who have been accused or convicted of criminal offences and from adults. The Special Rapporteur notes, however, that separating child migrants from unrelated adults can sometimes itself result in harm by depriving children of important interactions; ample opportunities for broader human interaction and physical activity must therefore be given to unaccompanied migrant children. When children are accompanied, the need to keep the family together is a not sufficient reason to legitimize or justify the deprivation of liberty of a child, given the prejudicial effects that such measures have on the emotional development and physical well-being of children. The Special Rapporteur shares the view of the Inter-American Court of Human
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on 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
- Children
- Families
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Children deprived of their liberty from the perspective of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2015, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- An important safeguard against torture and other forms of ill-treatment is the support given to children in detention to maintain contact with parents and family through telephone, electronic or other correspondence, and regular visits at all times. Children should be placed in a facility that is as close as possible to the place of residence of their family. Any exceptions to this requirement should be clearly described in the law and not be left to the discretion of the competent authorities. Moreover, children should be given permission to leave detention facilities for a visit to their home and family, and for educational, vocational or other important reasons. The child's contact with the outside world is an integral part of the human right to humane treatment, and should never be denied as a disciplinary measure.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on 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
- Children
- Families
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Children deprived of their liberty from the perspective of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2015, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- In many instances, the worst situations for children arise at the time of arrest by the police, and during transportation or subsequent questioning in police custody (see A/HRC/16/52/Add.5, para. 43 and A/HRC/22/53/Add.1, para. 73). During the period immediately following apprehension, children are at particularly high risk of physical, verbal and psychological violence, such as verbal abuse, threats and beatings, and they are too often not provided with information on their human rights and the allegations brought against them in a manner that they can understand. Following their arrest, children often do not have prompt and private access to legal assistance or notification of their parents or caregivers, which makes them even more vulnerable and subject to a higher risk of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Families
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- In relation to the enforcement of the death penalty, the Human Rights Committee has recommended that families of death row inmates be given reasonable advanced notice of the scheduled date and time of execution, with a view to reducing the psychological suffering caused by the lack of opportunity to prepare themselves for that event (CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5, para. 16). Similarly, in Staselovich v. Belarus, the Committee found that the failure of the authorities to notify the mother of the scheduled date for the execution of her son and their subsequent persistent failure to notify her of the location of her son's grave amounted to inhuman treatment of the mother. Secrecy and the refusal to hand over remains to families are especially cruel features of capital punishment, highlighting the need for total transparency and avoidance of harm to innocents in the whole process.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- Although 146 States are party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, most Governments have failed to effectively implement its provisions. Despite the obligation to criminalize torture and prosecute perpetrators of torture under different types of jurisdiction, only very few torturers have been brought to justice worldwide. Impunity continues to be one of the main factors in widespread torture. Despite the obligation to provide victims of torture with an effective remedy and adequate reparation for the harm suffered, only a very small number of victims of torture are able to enjoy this right in the country responsible for inflicting the torture. If victims manage to access medical, psychological and other forms of rehabilitation, this important form of reparation is usually provided by private organizations in countries in which torture victims are granted asylum. Despite the obligation to effectively investigate every allegation or suspicion of torture and ill-treatment, almost no country has established bodies with effective powers of criminal investigation which are also fully independent from the law enforcement officers subject to their investigations. Despite the obligation to take all legislative, administrative, political and other measures necessary to prevent torture, including prompt access of detainees to lawyers, judges, doctors and families, audio- or videotaping of interrogations, the prohibition of using confessions extracted by torture before courts and regular inspections of all places of detention and interrogation by independent bodies, most of the some 10 million detainees around the world can only dream of enjoying such measures.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
15 shown of 15 entities