Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 558 entities
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- Studies have found continued sleep disturbances, depression, anxiety, phobias, emotional dependence, confusion, impaired memory and concentration long after the release from isolation. Additionally, lasting personality changes often leave individuals formerly held in solitary confinement socially impoverished and withdrawn, subtly angry and fearful when forced into social interaction. Intolerance of social interaction after a period of solitary confinement is a handicap that often prevents individuals from successfully readjusting to life within the broader prison population and severely impairs their capacity to reintegrate into society when released from imprisonment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- The assessment of whether solitary confinement amounts to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should take into consideration all relevant circumstances on a case-by-case basis. These circumstances include the purpose of the application of solitary confinement, the conditions, length and effects of the treatment and, of course, the subjective conditions of each victim that make him or her more or less vulnerable to those effects. In this section, the report discusses a few circumstances where the use of solitary confinement constitutes torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Attempts to restrict the applicability of the exclusionary rule represent a serious threat to international efforts to eradicate torture. It is of deep concern that States regularly receive and rely on information - either as intelligence or evidence for proceedings - whose sources present a real risk of having been acquired as a result of torture and ill-treatment from third party States. Receiving or relying on information from third parties which may be compromised by the use of torture does not only implicitly validate the use of torture and ill-treatment as an acceptable tool to gain information, but creates a market for information acquired through torture, which in the long term undermines the goal of preventing and eradicating torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- While article 15 of the Convention covers judicial and administrative proceedings, it is silent on the question of the applicability of its provisions to intelligence or other executive decisions not directly arising from judicial or administrative proceedings. This is rendered more troublesome by difficulties in delineating purely "non-formal preventative" action by executive decisions arising from formal administrative proceedings. For instance, a State may rely on information provided by a third party, and which may have been obtained through torture, to arrest and detain an individual for the purpose of investigating his alleged suspicious activities. In such a case, aspects of administrative proceedings such as a deportation order may be used in the process of arresting the suspect. Thus, by virtue of article 15, it is argued that State institutions must take appropriate measures to ascertain whether or not the information on which a decision is based has been obtained as a result of torture. However, does the fact that the information was obtained through torture prevent the State from arresting the individual in the first place? Can it be used as intelligence or as the subject of an executive decision? Are diplomatic assurances relating to the origins of the information provided by third parties sufficient? We should be mindful of the real possibility that a policy of using such information for purposes other than trials, could provide an incentive to State agents to forego prosecutions altogether, and instead engage in disappearances, extra-judicial executions, and other illegal repressive measures that could lead to a total breakdown in the rule of law. These and other equally important questions relating to the applicability of the exclusionary rule to executive decisions and intelligence gathering merit further consideration in future reports of this mandate.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- In previous reports , conditions of detention have been documented extensively based on information received from various sources, in particular, factual observations made as a result of fact-finding missions. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by the large number of places of detention that do not meet minimum international standards. He plans to engage with States that permit such conditions as well as with those that lack the ability or resources to institute minimum standards. He will seek to address the systematic deprivation of the most basic human rights standards relating to conditions of detention, including those related to food, water, clothing, health care and minimum space, as well as hygiene, privacy and security necessary for a humane and dignified existence, as conditions that in and of themselves can constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- It has long been the view in doctrine and jurisprudence that article 6 of the Covenant (as well as the exclusion of "pain and suffering arising only, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions" from the definition of torture in art. 1, para. 1, of the Convention against Torture) means that the death penalty cannot be considered per se a violation of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. However, as noted by the Special Rapporteur's predecessor in his 2009 report on the death penalty (A/HRC/10/44) in reference to judicial bodies, such interpretation may change over time, as was the case with the prohibition of corporal punishment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- In paragraph 7 of its resolution 1996/15, the Economic and Social Council urged Member States in which the death penalty might be carried out to effectively apply the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners in order to keep to a minimum the suffering of prisoners under sentence of death and to avoid any exacerbation of such suffering. Taking into account new forensic evidence and discussions concerning the various forms of executions and the situation of persons sentenced to death awaiting execution on death row, the Special Rapporteur urges serious reconsideration of whether the actual practice of the death penalty amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, or even torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- The jurisprudence of regional human rights bodies and national judiciaries leaves no doubt that death by stoning constitutes torture and is, beyond dispute, a violation of the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In Jabari v. Turkey (2000), the European Court of Human Rights held that death by stoning was a violation of the prohibition on torture and that the possibility of being stoned to death would make deportation of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran contrary to article 3 of the European Convention. At the United Nations, the Commission on Human Rights described execution by stoning as a particularly cruel or inhuman means of execution. During the period from July 2011 until June 2012, no execution by stoning was recorded and in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the new Islamic Penal Code of January 2012 no longer provides for such punishment (A/HRC/21/29 and Corr.1, para. 46).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- In the light of this interpretation, the Rules should incorporate a provision urging authorities to adopt specific measures aimed at resolving the structural shortcomings of places of deprivation of liberty and earmark the resources necessary to cover basic needs and work and educational programmes. Furthermore, the Rules should set out concrete measures to be taken to ensure minimum guarantees of humane treatment for persons in custodial care, including securing a prompt and effective judicial control of detention; providing adequate, accessible and appropriate health care; ensuring the availability of appropriate judicial resources and effective complaint systems; and allowing contact with the outside world and access to other activities, including for those awaiting trial.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- The report of the commission of inquiry should be published widely and in a manner that is accessible to the broadest audience possible, and should explain the commission's findings of fact and the legal analysis that supports its conclusions. The report should also contain detailed recommendations for all branches of Government (or to the international community, if applicable) on how to fulfil the State's obligations with regard to truth, justice, reparation to victims and guarantees of non-repetition. Through its highest authorities, the State should respond promptly to the publication of the commission's report, indicating its acceptance or rejection of each recommendation, with carefully reasoned explanations, and ideally a timetable for implementation of the recommendations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- The State must provide adequate medical care, which is a minimum and indispensable material requirement for ensuring the humane treatment of persons in its custody. The carrying out of a prompt, independent and consensual medical examination upon a person's admission to a place of detention and after every transfer between facilities, and thereafter on a routine basis, constitutes one of the basic safeguards against ill-treatment (see Human Rights Council resolution 10/24, paras. 4 and 9, and A/52/40 (vol. I), para. 109). Among the main challenges in the provision of medical care are the lack of appropriate and sufficient medical personnel; inadequate medicine supplies and equipment; and a lack of capacity and delays in authorizing transfers to hospitals. The Special Rapporteur notes that loss of life or a deterioration in an inmate's well-being occurs because of a lack of or unreasonable delays in the provision of urgent medical care, and that these omissions on the part of the authorities can amount to ill-treatment and even torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- The revision of the Rules offers an excellent opportunity to address these deficiencies. The Rules must include a provision obliging authorities to ensure that medical examinations are not conducted in a superficial manner and to act diligently so as to ascertain the condition of the person examined, allowing that person to freely communicate with the physician (see CAT/OP/MEX/1, paras. 132, 133, 135, 172 and 173). Medical examinations should be thorough enough to detect any psychological consequences of torture or propensity to commit suicide. Furthermore, Rule 24 should insist on the obligation of medical personnel to detect, treat, properly document and refer to the authority responsible for investigating allegations of torture or other ill-treatment any signs of torture or other ill-treatment or any case where there are allegations or reasonable grounds to believe that torture or other ill treatment may have occurred prior to admission or while in detention (see the Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, annex, paras. 6 (a) and (c)).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Role of forensic and medical sciences in the investigation prevention torture and other ill-treatment 2014, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- All States have a clear obligation to investigate acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (other ill-treatment). This is one obligation in the much broader legal framework of the fight against torture, including prevention, accountability and redress. Forensic science has a key role to play regarding the obligation of States to investigate and prosecute allegations of torture or other ill-treatment, especially with regard to individual responsibility and the fight against impunity. Effective medical and forensic documentation can bring evidence of torture and other ill-treatment to light so that perpetrators may be held accountable. Forensic specialists provide expert analysis of whether there is a correlation between the medical evidence and the allegations and can provide the evidentiary basis on which prosecutions can successfully be brought against those directly responsible and their superiors. Medical records can be instrumental in overcoming the otherwise lack of objective evidence with which survivors of torture are so commonly confronted, given that torture mostly takes place without witnesses. The work of a forensic scientist is germane to the efforts to address impunity for acts of torture, as the expert opinion forms the evidential basis for prosecution of allegations of torture. Similarly, the corroborative effect of this professional opinion, and its role in assessing the overall credibility of alleged victims, provides a stronger basis for prosecutions. This does not only increase the chance of a successive prosecution; but also enhances the possibility to receive immediate medical and other assistance and, in the longer term, other forms of redress and reparation. Similarly, scientific evidence may help in assessing whether incriminating statements were made under torture and should therefore be excluded at trial, and assist States to fulfil their obligations towards non-refoulement, reparations and rehabilitation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Role of forensic and medical sciences in the investigation prevention torture and other ill-treatment 2014, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- During fact-finding missions, the Special Rapporteur has observed that States are reluctant to carry out criminal investigations into torture allegations and accurate statistics on the incidence of torture are difficult to obtain. The lack of investigation, together with the lack of accountability, perpetuates the practice of torture and other ill-treatment. Scientific evidence obtained by thorough, impartial and independent forensic evaluations assists States to comply with their obligation systematically to investigate, prosecute and punish each incident of torture, and plays a major role in preventing future acts of torture by fighting impunity and holding perpetrators accountable. This report is about forensic "medical" science and its value in fulfilling the obligations attached to the prohibition of torture in international law. The Special Rapporteur is aware that forensic science encompasses also other disciplines and technologies and methods, such as ballistics, graphology, crime scene investigations, among others. Several of those other forensic sciences can also aid in the investigation and prevention of torture and its redress; medical forensics, however, are both central to the effective application of the international law on torture and sorely lacking or neglected in many parts of the world. Enhancement of all forensic capabilities - but especially legal medicine - would result in much better and more humane ways to fight crime of any sort, and would go a long way to abolishing torture. The focus of this report is to urge improvements in the quality of investigations through effective documentation of evidence of torture, to establish standards for the effective use of expert forensic evidence in legal investigations, including procedural safeguards, and to urge sharing of scientific knowledge and technological advances.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Role of forensic and medical sciences in the investigation prevention torture and other ill-treatment 2014, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- International law provides for absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment envisages three main pillars in the fight against torture, which are the obligation of States to ensure justice and to prevent and to redress all acts of torture. The obligation to investigate is central to the realization of all three main pillars. The evidence collected during investigations may form the basis for civil, administrative and criminal proceedings seeking justice; it may support claims made under the exclusionary and non refoulement rules; and it may help assess victims' claims for reparation. Lastly, thorough investigation is necessary to ensure that official bodies and the general public can monitor and be made aware of such practices in order to prohibit them and encourage reform.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- In this sense, the customary non-refoulement provision, as contained in article 3 of the Convention, is one obligation under the overarching aim of preventing torture and other ill-treatment. It contains the obligation of States not to return a person if there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture, even outside the territory and control of a State. In the case of Soering v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that even though the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not contain a specific non-refoulement provision prohibiting the extradition of a person to another State where he would be subject, or be likely to be subjected, to torture or other ill-treatment, such obligation was already inherent in the general terms of the prohibition against torture by referring to the recognition of its absolute nature and its fundamental value for democratic societies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Role of forensic and medical sciences in the investigation prevention torture and other ill-treatment 2014, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- Forensic evidence is a type of expert evidence. The purpose of expert evidence is to provide the court with information based on scientific methods, the interpretation of which is outside the experience and specialized knowledge of a court. It is the task of the court to decide whether there is a need for expert evidence, to order its procurement and to establish the competency of each expert witness. Accordingly, where forensic evidence forms only part of the total factual matrix, as in most cases, the issue for a decision-maker in a criminal trial is to determine what use can and should be made of that forensic evidence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- There is State responsibility for complicity in torture when one State gives assistance to another State in the commission of torture or other ill-treatment, or acquiesces in such acts, in the knowledge (including imputed knowledge) of the real risk that torture or ill-treatment will take place or has taken place, and aids and assists the torturing State in maintaining impunity for the acts of torture or ill-treatment. A State would thus be responsible when it was aware of the risk that information was obtained by torture or other ill-treatment, or ought to have been aware of that risk and did not take reasonable steps to prevent it. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur finds that the assistance provided by States does not have to have a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime of torture itself for it to be regarded as responsible.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur reminds States that the core purpose of the Convention against Torture was the universalization of a regime of criminal punishment for perpetrators of torture, building upon the regime already in existence under international human rights, customary international law and international humanitarian law. By its terms, the Convention provides for far-reaching extraterritorial obligations to bring perpetrators of torture to justice. Article 5 (1) obliges States to establish jurisdiction over all acts of torture on the territoriality, flag, active nationality and passive nationality principles. All States have a customary international law obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish all acts of torture and other ill-treatment as codified, inter alia, in the Convention.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Aside from the stated obligation to refrain from actions prohibited by international law and to respect the prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment, States also have an obligation to ensure or protect individuals' rights when they are in a position to do so by virtue of control over an area or over the persons in question. In this vein, the Human Rights Committee mandates that States are responsible for ensuring the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in respect of acts perpetrated by actors, such as armed groups, abroad to the extent that they exercise influence amounting to "effective control over their activities" (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, para. 6).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur examines herein States' obligations to respect and ensure the right of all persons to be free from torture and ill-treatment and to comply with attendant legal obligations imposed by customary and applicable treaty law whenever they engage in acts or breach the human rights of individuals outside their borders, and to ensure a broader range of positive obligations when they are in a position to do so extraterritorially. Denying the applicability of extant legal standards to torture or other ill-treatment committed, sponsored, aided or effectively controlled or influenced by States outside their territories can create incentives for States to avoid absolute legal obligations and amount to serious breaches of international law. The Special Rapporteur considers that it is essential to ensure that there is no vacuum of human rights protection that is due to inappropriate and artificial limits on territorial jurisdiction.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- The exclusionary rule contained in article 15 of the Convention, mandating that States not invoke as evidence in any proceedings statements obtained as a result of torture, is not territorially limited on its face. The exclusionary rule forms a part of, or is derived from, the general and absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment (Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992); Committee against Torture, G.K. v. Switzerland) and, as such, is not derogable under any circumstances and will apply to States that are not party to the Convention (A/HRC/25/60). The prohibition is considered a rule of customary international law that flows from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture. Its object is to discourage and disincentivize torture by disallowing admission of "tainted" evidence and to provide for fair trials.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- According to the principle of legality, any use of force by State agents must pursue a lawful purpose and must be based on and regulated by national law. Lawful purposes typically include effecting the arrest or preventing the escape of a person suspected of having committed a crime, self-defence or defence of others against an unlawful threat of death or serious injury, or dispersing violent assemblies. A further parameter of legality is the equal treatment of all persons before the law in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination (see A/HRC/26/36, para. 74, and A/HRC/31/66, para. 15). States must provide express authority for the use of force in their national law and must regulate the matter in line with their obligations under international law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- The principle of necessity has a qualitative, a quantitative and a temporal aspect. In qualitative terms, any use of force must be “unavoidable” in the sense that non-violent or other less harmful means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the desired purpose. In quantitative terms, whenever the use of force is unavoidable, the degree to which and the manner in which force is employed may not be more harmful than strictly necessary. Finally, in temporal terms, the use of force is unlawful if, at the moment of its application, it is not yet or no longer unavoidable to achieve the desired lawful purpose. Therefore, any law enforcement operation involving the use of force requires a constant reassessment of its necessity to achieve the desired purpose. Should the circumstances evolve so as to permit the achievement of that purpose through less harmful means, force may no longer be used.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- Third, while the notion of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may include a wide range of actions amounting to unlawful infliction of pain or suffering, the aggravated threshold of torture requires a number of additional criteria that may vary slightly depending on the applicable treaty definition and its interpretation by the relevant oversight bodies. Thus, according to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, “an act constitutes torture when the ill-treatment: (a) is intentional; (b) causes severe physical or mental suffering, and (c) is committed with a specific purpose or objective”. Similarly, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has interpreted torture as “the intentional and systematic infliction of physical or psychological pain and suffering in order to punish, intimidate or gather information” and usefully pointed out that torture could be carried out by “State or non-State actors at the time of exercising control over such person or persons”. According to the European Court of Human Rights, torture, as opposed to other inhuman and degrading treatment, involves “deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering”. Both the European Court and the African Commission have used article 1 of the Convention against Torture as a reference point for defining torture for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, whereas inter-American bodies have tended to refer to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- In sum, in the view of the Special Rapporteur, while the notion of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment includes essentially any unlawful infliction of pain and suffering by State agents, the aggravated threshold of torture is always reached when, additionally, severe pain or suffering is intentionally and purposefully inflicted on a powerless person. Depending on the applicable treaty definition and its contemporary interpretation by the relevant bodies, either the aggravated threshold of torture may not require that the inflicted pain and suffering be “severe”, or the interpretation of the requirement of severity may have evolved to significantly lower the relevant threshold.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur believes that frequent and unannounced visits, including timely and unlimited internal monitoring by independent mechanisms in all places of deprivation of liberty, are crucial for the prevention of torture. The Special Rapporteur further recalls the recommendations made by the experts of the joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism to, inter alia, fully respecting safeguards for persons deprived of their liberty and providing victims with judicial remedies and adequate, effective and prompt reparation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- In Mwamba v. Zambia (2010), the petitioner argued before the Human Rights Committee that hanging constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee did not address the issue, choosing instead to locate a violation of the petitioner's rights in article 10, concerning human dignity. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have left open the question as to whether hanging constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- This new evidence, however, was rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Baze et al. v. Rees (2008). The Court agreed to hear a challenge to the use of lethal injection as a method of execution following a case in which the administration of a second dose of poison was required and where the convicted man took 34 minutes to die. However, the Court rejected the arguments that the lethal injection process created an unacceptable risk of suffering due to a drug combination that masked pain; that the use of potassium chloride could cause an incredibly painful death if the prisoner were not properly anaesthetized; and that other drugs were available that would cause a painless death. The Court also rejected the argument that the lethal injection process was flawed because of deficiencies in the way in which the drugs were administered, lack of the training required for those responsible for administering the drugs, and lack of clinical evidence showing the safety and effectiveness of certain drugs used in executions. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that these defects, in combination with a lack of regulatory oversight by the United States administration and an absence of meaningful State oversight, established that lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Remarkably, the Court also stated that a stay of execution might not be granted unless the condemned prisoner established that the State's lethal injection protocol created a demonstrated risk of severe pain.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- In addition, death row prisoners constantly face unimaginable anxiety over their own imminent death. Additional circumstances, including lack of notice as to the date of the execution, public executions and mistakes in administering the execution increase the mental trauma of persons sentenced to death. Numerous scholars have documented the severe mental trauma associated with death sentences. The anxiety and foreknowledge of death affect the mental integrity of a person sentenced to death and can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Paragraph type
- Other
Paragraph