Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 99 entities
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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