Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 80 entities
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. 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
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- The Court has also made numerous findings of inhuman or degrading treatment in cases involving the unnecessary or excessive use of force in the context of demonstrations. In Abdullah Yasa and Others v. Turkey, the Court found the launch of a tear gas grenade along a direct flat trajectory aimed towards protestors to be contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because it was not “proportionate to the aim pursued, namely to disperse a non-peaceful gathering” and because the severity of the resulting injuries to the applicant’s head were not “commensurate with the strict use by the police officers of the force necessitated by his behaviour”.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on 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
- Violence
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- It should be noted that the above-mentioned principles govern the use of force, not only in extra-custodial settings, but also where riots, unrest or other violent incidents occur within places of detention. Depending on the circumstances, they may also be relevant in determining the permissibility of invasive health and security procedures, such as the taking of bodily samples or a strip search. In their relations with persons deprived of their liberty, law enforcement officials may not use force, except when strictly necessary for the maintenance of security and order within the institution or when personal safety is threatened, and they may not use firearms, except in self-defence or in the defence of others against the immediate threat of death or serious injury or when strictly necessary to prevent the escape of an inmate presenting a threat of death or serious injury.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- According to the European Court of Human Rights, States should also take steps to reduce the negative impact of solitary confinement. Where the damaging effects of solitary confinement on a particular individual are known, the regime cannot continue. The conditions of confinement are relevant in this respect, because where conditions are beyond reproach, the Court considers it unlikely that the minimum threshold of severity to find a violation of article 3 will be reached. Routine examination by doctors can be a factor in determining that there was no violation of article 3.
- 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
- 2011
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- The European Court of Human Rights also recognizes that States are responsible for the physical and mental integrity of persons under their authority, power or control, finding that States' responsibilities "may arise in respect of acts and events [taking place] outside [their] frontiers" and due to the acts of their agents, "whether performed within or outside national boundaries, which produce effects outside their own territory" (Loizidou v. Turkey; mutatis mutandis, M v. Denmark). Such scenarios recognized by the Court include the "exercise [of] authority and control over individuals killed in the course" of security operations by one State on the territory of another State (Al-Skeini v. The United Kingdom); the handover of individuals to the custody of a State's agents abroad (Öcalan v. Turkey); the interception and imposition of control over a ship (and persons therein) in international waters (Jamaa and others v. Italy); the detention of individuals in prisons operated or controlled by the State party abroad (Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. The United Kingdom); exercise of control over an area outside national territory as a consequence of military action (Hassan v. The United Kingdom); or the exercise of physical control over an individual, including outside formal detention facilities (Issa and others v. Turkey). Whenever a State exercises control over an individual extraterritorially through its agents, it must secure the substantive rights and freedoms under the Convention that are relevant to the situation of that individual (Al-Skeini).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 88j
- Paragraph text
- [The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to:] Actively engage with the open-ended intergovernmental Expert Group on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners established by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, to exchange information on good practices and challenges with a view to ensuring that the revised Rules reflect the recent advances in correctional science and best practices and to implement the Rules at the national level.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur regrets evidence that States have employed restrictive doctrines, such as State secrets and political questions doctrines, in both territorial and extraterritorial contexts, in an effort to obstruct prosecution and evade responsibility (El-Masri v. The United States), and reminds States that competent courts in States parties to the Convention are obligated to exercise jurisdiction over acts of torture and ill-treatment, irrespective of the locus where wrongfulness took place. This obligation should also encompass situations wherein a State may be held responsible for its failure to pre-empt or remedy illicit conduct not directly attributable to it, such as when it failed to meet its due diligence obligations to prevent and protect persons from grave violations of human rights. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands recognized in the Dutch battalion case that the State was responsible for the deaths of three men at Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, by failing to shield the victims when they sought refuge in a Dutch compound over which the State exercised "effective control" - defined as "factual control over specific conduct" - under article 8 of the draft articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the indication that States are not simply required to abstain from causing prohibited acts but are obligated, to the extent possible, to fight wrongfulness, including through investigation and prosecution 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
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- In 1990, the General Assembly adopted resolution 45/111, the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. Principle 7 states that efforts to abolish solitary confinement as a punishment, or to restrict its use, should be undertaken and encouraged.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- There is no international standard for the permitted maximum overall duration of solitary confinement. In A.B. v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights held that detaining an individual in solitary confinement for three years constituted a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. By contrast, in the United States of America, it is reported that two prisoners have been held in solitary confinement in a Louisiana prison for 40 years after failed attempts at judicial appeal of the conditions of their confinement. As explained in paragraph 26 above, the Special Rapporteur finds that solitary confinement exceeding 15 days is prolonged.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- If a commission of inquiry precedes formal criminal prosecutions, or the two mechanisms exist simultaneously, care must be taken to ensure that the work of the commission does not inhibit prosecutions in any way. In establishing an international commission of inquiry to investigate the assassination of former Prime Minister of Pakistan Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, the Secretary-General agreed that the international commission should be fact-finding in nature and not be a criminal investigation; the duty of carrying out a criminal investigation, finding the perpetrators and bringing them to justice, remains with the competent Pakistani authorities.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Furthermore, given that safeguards are particularly undermined when the detained persons are held in incommunicado or secret detention, the Rules should place an obligation on prison authorities to ensure that persons deprived of liberty are held in officially recognized and accessible places of detention. Police station chiefs and investigating officers should be held criminally accountable for any unacknowledged custody in cases where their responsibility, including command responsibility, has been established. The Special Rapporteur recalls that whether detention is secret or not is determined by its incommunicado character and by the fact that State authorities do not disclose the place of detention or information about the fate of the detainee (see A/HRC/13/42, paras. 8-10).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
Paragraph
Certain forms of abuses in health-care settings that may cross a threshold of mistreatment that is tantamount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2013, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The numerous calls by various international and regional organizations to close compulsory drug detention centres, as well as the numerous injunctions and recommendations contained in the recently released guidelines by WHO on pharmacotherapy for opiate dependence, the UNODC policy guidance on the organization's human rights responsibilities in drug detention centres, and resolutions by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, are routinely ignored. These centres continue to operate often with direct or indirect support and assistance from international donors without any adequate human rights oversight.
- 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
- 2013
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- A State's failure to investigate, criminally prosecute or allow civil proceedings - or efforts to block or hinder such proceedings - relating to allegations of torture or other forms of ill-treatment constitutes de facto denial of an effective remedy. The Special Rapporteur regrets that this has been the case regarding victims of rendition and other extraterritorial acts of torture and ill-treatment seeking redress from Governments and reminds States that an essential component of the obligation to provide redress is the obligation not to obstruct redress or obstruct access of an individual to an effective remedy, for example by invoking "State secrets" to dismiss lawsuits in limine litis.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on 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
- 2015
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- When used by States, a commission of inquiry can serve as a valuable tool in addressing the State's duty under international human rights law to investigate and hold an independent inquiry into torture, deaths (for example, in the case of extrajudicial executions) and other atrocities (A/HRC/8/3, para. 12).
- 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
- 2012
Paragraph
Role of forensic and medical sciences in the investigation prevention torture and other ill-treatment 2014, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- Ensure that the fundamental principles of investigation, such as competence, impartiality, independence, promptness and thoroughness are enshrined in legislation and officially recognized among relevant departments and personnel, including prosecutors, defence attorneys, judges, law enforcement, prison and military personnel, forensic and health professionals and those responsible for detainee health care.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- Ex officio investigations, as required by article 12 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, are one of the strongest tools for preventing torture and combating impunity. As victims are often unaware of existing complaints mechanisms, they lack confidence that their complaints will be effectively addressed or they are afraid to file them. This problem is worse in countries where the obligation to initiate ex officio investigations is not enshrined in the law, as was observed by the Special Rapporteur in some of his missions, including those to Jamaica and Sri Lanka. Whenever there are reasonable grounds, including credible evidence, that an act of torture has been committed, States should conduct an investigation, irrespective of whether a complaint has been filed. In Jordan, the Special Rapporteur found that even though the Court of Cassation had overturned a number of convictions on the grounds that security officials had obtained confessions under torture, this did not trigger official criminal investigations against the perpetrators. The same holds true for Sri Lanka.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2010
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- It is important to note that the services provided by rehabilitation centres for the victims of torture go beyond the medical aspects of rehabilitation. They also contribute to raising awareness of the issue of torture and the establishment of justice. Alerting and informing society of the prevalence of torture and States' involvement in it can trigger public pressure and eventually bring about policy changes. During his visit to the Republic of Moldova, the Special Rapporteur was impressed with the work of the Medical Centre for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims in Chisinau, which had managed to inform, train and mobilize lawyers, journalists and other professionals in order to support victims and disseminate information about cases of torture, both within the country and abroad. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture initiates programmes of survivor activism, encouraging victims to share with the public their stories, images and communications about survival, and works to make their voices heard. Similarly, centres in Argentina, Brazil and Chile are at the forefront when it comes to dealing with the legacy of the national security regimes and the continuing impunity for the crimes committed during those periods. In many countries, rehabilitation centres engage in campaigns advocating for legal reform and the passing of laws that comply with the Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol. In Pakistan, Struggle for Change, aside from providing multidisciplinary services to survivors, played a leading role in national advocacy efforts that eventually contributed to the ratification of the Convention.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Year
- 2010
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur reiterates that solitary confinement should be used only in very exceptional circumstances, as a last resort, for as short a time as possible. He emphasizes that when solitary confinement is used in exceptional circumstances, minimum procedural safeguards must be followed. These safeguards reduce the chances that the use of solitary confinement will be arbitrary or excessive, as in the case of prolonged or indefinite confinement. They are all the more important in circumstances of detention where due process protections are often limited, as in administrative immigration detention. Minimum procedural safeguards should be interpreted in a manner that provides the greatest possible protection of the rights of detained individuals. In this context, the Special Rapporteur urges States to apply the following guiding principles and procedural safeguards.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
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. 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 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
Role of forensic and medical sciences in the investigation prevention torture and other ill-treatment 2014, para. 72b
- Paragraph text
- [Recommendations regarding capacity-building and training:] Enhance the skills of health and legal professionals on the effective medical documentation of torture and other ill-treatment through training on the use of the Istanbul Protocol and other relevant materials to forensic pathologists, medico-legal officers, general practitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists, Ministry of Health officials and social workers; as well as lawyers, State investigators, prosecutors, judges, prison officials, police officers, immigration officers, NGO activists, members of national human rights commissions and similar bodies, representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- Article 5 (1) requires States to take legislative measures to establish jurisdiction based on the territoriality, flag and active and passive nationality principles with a view to prosecuting any act of torture committed in "any territory under [the State's] jurisdiction" and to take all measures necessary to investigate the crime, arrest the alleged offender and bring him or her to justice before its domestic courts. In the example provided by a former mandate holder, if an Egyptian intelligence agent on board a Central Intelligence Agency rendition aircraft registered in the United States were to torture a Jordanian citizen when flying through Irish airspace, Egypt, the United States and Ireland would all be required to investigate the case and issue an arrest warrant (as would be Jordan, upon accepting the passive personality principle). In recognition of the obligation to investigate and prosecute all acts of torture, Italian courts convicted in absentia 23 United States and two Italian officials involved in the abduction and extraordinary rendition of Abu Omar to Egypt, where he was tortured.
- 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
- 2015
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- The European Court has consistently held that the absolute nature of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment implies a positive obligation not to send individuals to States where they face a real risk of prohibited treatment (Saadi v. Italy). A State's responsibility is engaged whenever its agents fail to take reasonable steps to avoid a risk of ill-treatment about which they knew or ought to have known at the time of transfer (Abu Zubaydah v. Poland). The Committee against Torture similarly has found that State decisions to expel or render individuals to places where they face a real risk of ill-treatment breaches the Convention (P. E. v. France).
- 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
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Similarly, in the case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights considered “that rape may constitute torture even when it consists of a single act or takes place outside State facilities … because the objective and subjective elements that define an act as torture do not refer to the accumulation of acts or to the place where the act is committed, but rather to the intention, the severity of the suffering and the purpose of the act”. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights also regarded as torture the intentional, violent beating of a person prior to arrest.
- 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
- 2017
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
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- In terms of prosecutions, the Special Rapporteur was sadly surprised at the low number of people prosecuted for torture in the countries he visited. He came across cases of officials being subject to disciplinary or administrative procedures for offences such as abuse of power and, in some cases, convictions for offences such as causing physical injuries, as in Jordan and Paraguay. These types of convictions not only result from the lack of a specific criminal offence of torture, but are in some instances used to treat the act of torture as a minor offence.
- 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
- 2010
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
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- Through its jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights emphasizes that certain procedural safeguards must be in place during the imposition of solitary confinement, for example, monitoring a prisoner's physical well-being, particularly where the individual is not in good health and having access to judicial review.
- 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
- 2011
Paragraph