Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 939 entities
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Studies suggest that up to 80 per cent of women in prison are mothers. Many female prisoners are single mothers or primary caregivers, and imprisonment can result in considerable hardship for their children. Contact between detained mothers and their children is often difficult due to the remote location of female prisons. Concern about their children is a primary factor leading to the high incidence of mental health problems and self-harm among female detainees. The Bangkok Rules require that parental and child-caring responsibilities be taken into account in the allocation and sentence-planning processes. The best interests of the child, including the need to maintain direct contact with the mother, must be carefully and independently considered by competent professionals and taken into account in all decisions pertaining to detention, including pretrial detention, sentencing and the placement of the child (CRC/C/THA/CO/2).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Families
- Women
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights noted in a 2001 report on prisons in Malawi that prisons were not safe place for pregnant women, babies and young children and that it was not advisable to separate babies and young children from their mothers. Even very short periods in detention settings can undermine a child's psychological and physical well-being, compromise cognitive development and result in higher rates of suicide, self-harm, mental disorders and developmental problems (A/HRC/28/68). Children living in prison with their mothers may be at heightened risk of suffering violence, abuse and conditions of confinement that amount to torture or ill-treatment. In this context, the imprisonment of pregnant women and women with young children must be reduced to a minimum.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Infants
- Women
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Gender perspectives on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 2016, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- Adequate and effective complaint and oversight mechanisms are critical sources of protection for at-risk groups that experience abuses in detention. All too often proper safeguards are absent or lacking in independence and impartiality, while fear of reprisals and the stigma associated with reporting sexual violence and other humiliating practices discourage women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons from reporting. In many cases, the vulnerability and isolation of women and girls is compounded by limited access to legal representation, inability to pay fees or bail as a result of poverty, dependence on male relatives for financial support and fewer family visits.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Girls
- LGBTQI+
- Women
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 85
- Paragraph text
- In order for national preventive mechanisms to carry out their functions effectively, they must have a clear understanding of their tasks and roles. Particular problems can arise for a national preventive mechanism that functions within a previously existing institution such as a national human rights institution, for a national preventive mechanism composed of several bodies and for a national preventive mechanism that cooperates institutionally with civil society organizations. Those models all require a particular effort of planning and coordination and a clarification of the exact roles and tasks within the institution. In national human rights institutions designated as national preventive mechanisms, the roles of the members of the national preventive mechanism and the staff of the national human rights institution may not always be clear and the different tasks of the national human rights institution may impede the effective and autonomous functioning of the national preventive mechanism. Therefore, it is recommended that national human rights institutions designated as national preventive mechanisms create separate units or departments where employees are explicitly and fully assigned for the performance of the tasks of the national preventive mechanism, as in Costa Rica, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mexico and Spain. The units should have an autonomous agenda and programme of action, and their own staff and budget. Concerning the designation of several existing institutions as national preventive mechanisms, as in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, adequate coordination of the work of the bodies is necessary in order for them to function effectively and coherently. An equal need for coordination and coherence arises in cases where national preventive mechanisms cooperate institutionally with non governmental organizations, as in the Republic of Moldova and Slovenia. In the Republic of Moldova, their institutional involvement has led to a serious internal conflict over the competences and roles of the different members. Additionally, there is a risk of the dilution of their mandates for non-governmental organizations and of a loss of independence and credibility for the national preventive mechanism if the division of tasks is unclear.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 77e
- Paragraph text
- [In building upon the general recommendations elaborated by his distinguished predecessor, Theo van Boven, in 2003, the Special Rapporteur wishes to particularly stress the following recommendations:] The Human Rights Council should consider drafting a United Nations convention on the rights of detainees to codify all human rights of persons deprived of liberty, as laid down in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and similar soft law instruments, in a legally binding human rights treaty with effective monitoring and implementation mechanisms;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur's predecessors have noted that prolonged solitary confinement may itself amount to prohibited ill-treatment or torture (E/CN.4/1999/61, para. 394, and E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (m)).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 96
- Paragraph text
- Persons held in solitary confinement must be provided with a genuine opportunity to challenge both the nature of their confinement and its underlying justification through a process of administrative review. At the outset of the imposition of solitary confinement, detained persons must be informed of their alleged criminal or disciplinary infraction for which solitary confinement is being imposed and must immediately have an opportunity to challenge the reasons for their detention. Following the imposition of solitary confinement, detained persons must have the opportunity to file a complaint to prison management through an internal or administrative complaints system.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 98
- Paragraph text
- Detained persons held in solitary confinement must be afforded genuine opportunities to challenge both the nature of their confinement and its underlying justification through the courts of law. This requires a right to appeal all final decisions by prison authorities and administrative bodies to an independent judicial body empowered to review both the legality of the nature of the confinement and its underlying justification. Thereafter, detained persons must have the opportunity to appeal these judgements to the highest authority in the State and, after exhaustion of domestic remedies, seek review by regional or universal human rights bodies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 100
- Paragraph text
- There should be a documented system of regular monitoring and review of the inmate's physical and mental condition by qualified medical personnel, both at the initiation of solitary confinement and on a daily basis throughout the period in which the detained person remains in solitary confinement, as required by rule 32, paragraph 3, of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Medical personnel monitoring detained persons should have specialized training in psychological assessment and/or the support of specialists in psychology. Additionally, medical personnel must be independent and accountable to an authority outside of the prison administration. Preferably, they should belong to the general national health structure. Any deterioration of the inmate's mental or physical condition should trigger a presumption that the conditions of confinement are excessive and activate an immediate review.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- United Nations treaty bodies consistently recommend that juvenile offenders, children or minors should not be subjected to solitary confinement (CAT/C/MAC/CO/4, para. 8; CAT/OP/PRY/1, para. 185; CRC/C/15/Add.151, para. 41; and CRC/C/15/Add.232, para. 36 (a)). Juveniles are often held in solitary confinement either as a disciplinary measure, or to separate them from the adult inmate population, as international human rights law prohibits the intermingling of juvenile and adult prison populations. Regrettably, solitary confinement as a form of punishment of juvenile detainees has been prevalent in States such as Jamaica (A/HRC/16/52/Add.3, para. 211), Paraguay (A/HRC/7/3/Add.3, appendix I, para. 46) and Papua New Guinea (A/HRC/16/52/Add.5, appendix). In regard to disciplinary measures, a report has indicated that solitary confinement does not reduce violence among juvenile offenders detained in the youth prison.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Children
- Year
- 2011
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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Under the rubric of fighting the war on terror, confronting organized crime and insecurity in the streets or maintaining an effective immigration policy, States have, regrettably, attempted to dilute cardinal principles necessary to preventing and suppressing torture and ill-treatment. Of particular concern are attempts to justify restrictions or limitations to the applicability of article 15 of the Convention, citing, as primary arguments, a supposed "necessity to avert serious imminent harm" or the "ticking bomb scenario" or, where the State is not complicit in the torture, that information provided by third parties, even if obtained under torture, is admissible.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- In his report to the 13th session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism takes the view that "reliance on information from torture in another country, even if the information is obtained only for operational purposes, inevitably implies the "recognition of lawfulness" of such practices and therefore triggers the application of principles of State responsibility. Hence, States that receive information obtained through torture or inhuman and degrading treatment are complicit in the commission of internationally wrongful acts. Such involvement is also irreconcilable with the obligation erga omnes of States to cooperate in the eradication of torture." The Special Rapporteur shares this view and believes that this is a good starting point for future deliberation on the subject.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- In view of this, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that the basic good faith measure that States can undertake to show their commitment to addressing torture remains the ratification, without reservation, of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol (the "Protocol"). The Convention and its Protocol are important first steps towards eradicating this serious international crime. This notwithstanding, ratification is not a substitute for States to take effective measures as necessary to prevent and suppress torture and ill-treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recognizes the work of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the various non-governmental organisations working for the rehabilitation of victims of torture. He recalls the obligation of States to ensure the right of torture victims to obtain reparation, including redress, fair and adequate compensation and the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In this regard, he calls upon Governments to make voluntary contributions to the Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture so as to enable it to continue providing organizations with funds for psychological, medical, social, legal and economic assistance. He also entreats States to support the work of the organizations through financial and other means, as well as create an enabling environment for the organisations to provide redress and rehabilitation for torture victims.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 77a
- Paragraph text
- [In building upon the general recommendations elaborated by his distinguished predecessor, Theo van Boven, in 2003, the Special Rapporteur wishes to particularly stress the following recommendations:] All States should ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture and fully implement its provisions. In particular, they must criminalize torture, as defined in article 1, with appropriate sanctions taking into account the gravity of the crime of torture; investigate all allegations and suspicions of torture by independent and effective "police-police" bodies; bring perpetrators of torture to justice under the various forms of criminal jurisdiction mentioned in article 5 of the Convention; provide victims of torture with an effective remedy and adequate reparation for the harm suffered - in particular medical, psychological and other forms of rehabilitation; and take all measures necessary to prevent torture, including prompt access of all detainees to lawyers, judges, doctors and their families;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2010
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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur considers the issues of torture and ill-treatment of victims in secret detention as a key concern that falls squarely within his mandate. He intends to follow up on any new and credible allegations concerning the ongoing use of places of secret detention by States or their complicity regarding their existence. Eradicating such practices is central to the prevention of torture and the Special Rapporteur believes that engagement in this issue cannot be seen as an unwarranted expansion of the definition of torture set forth in article 1 of the Convention or of the treaty's establishment of responsibility for its occurrence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- There are also examples of commissions of inquiry that have had limited success owing to other factors. In 2009, the Government of Sri Lanka dissolved the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, established to look into serious violations of human rights committed since 2006. The Commission was unable to complete its mandate as no extensions were granted owing to a lack of resources and political will. The final report of the truth and reconciliation commission in Liberia received criticism that it was poorly drafted, lacked transparent explanation of the evidence on which it was based and contained inconsistent policy recommendations. The law that established the truth and reconciliation commission in Indonesia in 2005 was struck down by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the prerequisite of granting amnesties to perpetrators violated victims' rights as protected by the Constitution of Indonesia. The truth and reconciliation commission established in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2003 suffered from a number of critical flaws in its structure, including, most prominently, a lack of transparency in the selection of the commissioners, who included individuals with ties to those implicated in the crimes to be investigated.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- In the 1978 case of Tyrer v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights referred to the European Convention as a living instrument that needed to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions. In the Selmouni case (1999), the Court invoked this reasoning and argued that the definition of torture had to evolve with a democratic society's understanding of the term. Similar shifts in international law and, in particular, evolution of the understanding of prohibition of torture as encompassing prohibition of slavery and domestic violence or, more recently, the qualification of rape as falling within the scope of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, show that the notion of torture has developed over time, and acts originally considered as lawful become unlawful and prohibited under the right to be free from torture (e.g., see A/HRC/13/39, para. 60).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- In addition, and especially relevant to the emergence of a customary norm to consider the death penalty as running afoul of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, is evidence of a consistent global practice by States that reflects the view that the imposition and enforcement of the death penalty in breach of those standards is a violation per se of the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This conclusion originates from the fact that international law does not attribute a different value to the right to life of different groups of human beings, such as juveniles, persons with mental disabilities, pregnant women or persons sentenced after an unfair trial, but considers the imposition and enforcement of the death penalty in such cases as particularly cruel, inhuman and degrading and in violation of article 7 of the Covenant and articles 1 and 16 of the Convention against Torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Women
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- 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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- 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. 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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
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
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph