Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 939 entities
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- In the past, the Special Rapporteur and other mechanisms against torture, including some of the most important treaty-based monitoring mechanisms,1have focused predominantly on preventing the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in “custodial” settings, that is, once persons have been arrested, interned, imprisonedor otherwise deprived of their liberty. The extent to which and how the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is applied to the use of force by State agents outside custodial settings (“extra-custodial” use of force) has not yet been systematically examined. This question is particularly relevant where State agents resort to unnecessary, excessive or otherwise unlawful force without necessarily infringing the right to life, for example, during arrest, stop andsearch or crowd control operations. While States must be in a position to use all lawful and appropriate means, including necessary and proportionate force, with a view to maintaining public security and law and order, experience shows that the use of force in insufficiently controlled environments carries a significant risk of arbitrariness and abuse. In his most recent report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/34/54), the Special Rapporteur expressed his intention to examine how the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should be applied and interpreted in extra-custodial settings, particularly in view of potential justifications such as law enforcement, public security, crowd control or self-defence and the defence of others. The Special Rapporteur also expressed his intention to examine the extent to which the use of certain types of weapons, riot control devices or other means and methods of law enforcement would have to be considered intrinsically cruel, inhuman or degrading in the light of their immediate to long-term consequences.
- 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 3
- Paragraph text
- While the present report is focused on the extra-custodial use of force by State agents, its conclusions generally will also be relevant, mutatis mutandis, for non-physical forms of coercion and for ill-treatment committed by non-State actors. Owing to constraints of time and space, the Special Rapporteur intends to more systematically consider those issues in subsequent thematic reports. Moreover, in the present report the extra-custodial use of force under the law enforcement paradigm both in peacetime and in armed conflict is covered, but the use of force as a means of warfare under the hostilities paradigm is not examined. The terms “State agent” and “law enforcement official” will be used interchangeably to denote any person exercising, de jure or de facto, public authority on behalf of the State, whether of military or civilian status and whether appointed, elected, employed or contracted, including private security personnel. 2 Finally, the implications of the extra-custodial use of force are examined in the present report under human rights law only, and not under potentially applicable international humanitarian 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 4
- Paragraph text
- Building on the work undertaken by his predecessors and other mandate holders and mechanisms, the Special Rapporteur conducted extensive research and broad stakeholder consultations with academic experts and representatives of governments, international organizations and civil society organizations, including through a multi-stakeholder expert meeting held in Geneva on 1 and 2 May 2017 and a general call for submissions in response to a thematic questionnaire posted on the website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissio ner for Human Rights from 29 May to 30 June 2017. 3 The present report reflects the resulting conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- Apart from prohibiting the arbitrary deprivation of life and providing a few principles on the lawful use of lethal force, human rights treaties do not expressly regulate the extra-custodial use of force. 4 Instead, the contemporary legal principles governing the use of force by law enforcement officials (“use of force principles”) have been derived primarily from State practice and the application and interpretation of these very general treaty provisions in case law. The principles have been restated in two soft law instruments, namely, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and today can be regarded as general principles of law. 5 In particular, the use of force by State agents is governed by the following cumulative principles: • Legality: any use of force must have a legal basis and pursue a lawful purpose . 6 • Necessity: force must only be used when, and to the extent, strictly necessary for the achievement of a lawful purpose. 7 • Proportionality: the harm likely to be inflicted by the use of force must not be excessive compared to the benefit of the lawful purpose pursued. 8 • Precaution: law enforcement operations must be planned, prepared and conducted so as to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the resort to force and, whenever it becomes unavoidable, to minimize the resulting harm.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- In order for the use of force by State agents to be lawful, full adherence to all of the above principles is required.
- 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 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. 10 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 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. 12 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. 13 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- Even if the use of force is necessary and proportionate in the immediate circumstances of a case, it may nonetheless be unlawful if it results from a failure to plan, organize and control operations so as to minimize harm, respect and pr eserve human life and avoid any excessive use of force.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- In practice, the required standard of precaution does not impose an unrealistic burden but always relates to what is reasonably possible in the circumstances.
- 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- Applying the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and precaution to the particular context of policing assemblies, any decision to forcibly disperse a peaceful assembly or protest must be taken with due regard to the freedoms of assembly and of expression. In particular, article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that “no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of [the right to peaceful assembly] other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. Moreover, it must be emphasized that individuals cannot lose their protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under any circumstances whatsoever, including in the context of violent riots or unlawful protests.
- 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- It should be noted that the above-mentioned principles govern the use of force, not only in extra-custodial settings, but also where riots, unrest or other violent incidents occur within places of detention. 20 Depending on the circumstances, they may also be relevant in determining the permissibility of invasive health and security procedures, such as the taking of bodily samples or a strip search. 21 In their relations with persons deprived of their liberty, law enforcement officials may not use force, except when strictly necessary for the maintenance of security and order within the institution or when personal safety is threatened, and they may not use firearms, except in self-defence or in the defence of others against the immediate threat of death or serious injury or when strictly necessary to prevent the escape of an inmate presenting a threat of death or serious injury.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- The absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been codified in a wide range of universal and regional instruments 22 and today is universally recognized as a core principle of customary international law. 23 The prohibition of torture is also one of the few norms of customary international law that is universally recognized as having attained peremptory status (jus cogens). Furthermore, the prohibition of torture, cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment “at any time and in any place whatsoever” is also included in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which the International Court of Justice has held to reflect a general principle of law, namely, “elementary considerations of humanity”.
- 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- The absolute and non-derogable character of the prohibition entails that any use of force amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is conclusively unlawful and cannot be j ustified under any circumstances, 25 whereas the peremptory character of the prohibition of torture means that any contradicting national administrative act or legislation, international agreement or judicial decision is automatically devoid of any legal effect.
- 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- States have a corollary obligation to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction. 26 Wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that extra-custodial force amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been used, States have a duty to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation in order to ensure full accountability for any such act, including, as appropriate, administrative, civil and criminal accountability, and to ensure that victims receive adequate redress 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
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- Torture has been defined in many universal and regional instruments, albeit not always in precisely identical terms.
- 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- The revision of the Rules offers a good opportunity to insist on the obligation of authorities to ensure free, fair and transparent access to a facility's medical services by providing a sufficient number of qualified, independent physicians in all facilities. The Rules should insist on the obligation to guarantee the availability of prompt, impartial, adequate and consensual medical and psychological examination upon the admission of each detainee. Medical examinations should also be provided when an inmate is taken out of the place of detention for any investigative activity, upon transfer or release and in response to allegations or suspicion of torture or other ill-treatment. Likewise, medical examinations must take place if a victim makes a complaint or upon his or her lawyer's motion, subject to judicial review in the event of delay or refusal. It is essential that medical examinations be conducted in a setting that is free of any surveillance and in full confidentiality, except for when the presence of prison staff is requested by the medical personnel. Health personnel must be free from any interference, pressure, intimidation or orders from detention authorities.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- In the international human rights context, commissions of inquiry are independent investigative commissions created in response to human rights violations including, but not limited to, torture, genocide, extrajudicial killings, disappearances and incidents involving multiple or high-profile killings (A/HRC/8/3, para. 12). Most commissions of inquiry are established at the initiative of national Government authorities. International experts may be part of their composition. In the present report, commissions of inquiry are defined as national commissions of inquiry and truth commissions, as well as investigations undertaken by national human rights institutions. The quest for accountability and victims' rights are common denominators for commissions of inquiry and truth commissions. While a commission of inquiry is likely to be established at the height of violence, a truth commission may only be established once a conflict is over. Both national and international commissions of inquiry often result from concerted demands by civil society or the international community. International commissions of inquiry tend, however, to have comparatively briefer temporal mandates which seek to identify patterns of violations during a protracted period of armed conflict.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- The prohibition of torture is absolute and non-derogable, meaning that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture". The prohibition of torture must not be limited or balanced against any other right or concern, and States are not permitted to derogate from their obligations even in times of emergency or armed conflict (see A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, paras. 41-42). Likewise, the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is considered to be non-derogable and, therefore, must be observed in all circumstances. The gravity of torture also finds expression in the attendant obligations on States to adopt effective legislative, administrative, judicial and/or other measures to prevent acts of torture or other ill-treatment in any territory under their jurisdiction, the obligation to criminalize acts of torture, and the 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Certain forms of abuses in health-care settings that may cross a threshold of mistreatment that is tantamount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2013, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- The mandate continues to receive reports of the systematic use of forced interventions worldwide. Both this mandate and United Nations treaty bodies have established that involuntary treatment and other psychiatric interventions in health-care facilities are forms of torture and ill-treatment. Forced interventions, often wrongfully justified by theories of incapacity and therapeutic necessity inconsistent with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, are legitimized under national laws, and may enjoy wide public support as being in the alleged "best interest" of the person concerned. Nevertheless, to the extent that they inflict severe pain and suffering, they violate the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (A/63/175, paras. 38, 40, 41). Concern for the autonomy and dignity of persons with disabilities leads the Special Rapporteur to urge revision of domestic legislation allowing for forced interventions.
- 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
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 62c
- Paragraph text
- [In the present report, the Special Rapporteur examined whether and in which circumstances the extra-custodial use of force by State agents amounts to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Special Rapporteur’s substantive conclusions can be summarized as follows:] Any extra-custodial use of force that does not pursue a lawful purpose (legality), or that is unnecessary for the achievement of a lawful purpose (necessity), or that inflicts excessive harm compared to the purpose pursued (proportionality) contradicts established international legal principles governing the use of force by law enforcement officials and amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Moreover, failure to take all precautions practically possible in the planning, preparation and conduct of law enforcement operations with a view to avoiding the unnecessary, excessive or otherwise unlawful use of force contravenes the State’s positive obligation to prevent acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within its 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
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- While the lawfulness of specific weapons and other means of warfare has long been regulated in international humanitarian law, it has more recently also become an issue of consideration under human rights law with regard to the wider context of law enforcement. It is increasingly recognized that certain weapons and other means of law enforcement may be inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading by nature or design and, accordingly, that their use, production and trade would be incompatible with the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (General Assembly resolution 66/150, para. 24, and resolution 68/156, para. 30). Ever since the establishment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, mandate holders have expressed concern in this respect, starting in the very first report of the Special Rapporteur to the Commission on Human Rights, in 1986 (E/CN.4/1986/15, paras. 120-121), but most notably in a report prepared at the express request of the Commission in 2003 (E/CN.4/2003/69).
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- Case law thus suggests that the criteria determining whether the extra-custodial use of force amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are closely aligned with the use of force principles. In principle, any use of force by State agents exceeding what is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances to achieve a lawful purpose is regarded as an attack on human dignity amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of whether that excess occurred intentionally or inadvertently. The precise characterization of the relevant ill-treatment as cruel, inhuman, degrading or a combination thereof will depend on the particular characteristics and circumstances of the case but cannot prevent the unlawfulness of the act. Moreover, failure to take all precautions practically possible in the planning, preparation and conduct of law enforcement operations increases the risk of unnecessary or disproportionate force being used and, in principle, breaches the State’s obligation to prevent 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
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- Although all major universal and regional human rights treaties expressly prohibit cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, none of them offers a definition of the term as a whole or of its components (namely, “cruel”, “inhuman” and “degrading”). The concept has been interpreted and applied in a wide range of cases before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, albeit with varying precision. Thus, for example, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights indicated that “inhumane treatment includes unjustifiable conduct that causes severe physical, mental or psychological pain or suffering, and that treatment or punishment of an individual may be degrading if he is severely humiliated in front of others or he is compelled to act against his wishes or conscience”, whereas the Human Rights Committee did not “consider it necessary to draw up a list of prohibited acts or to establish sharp distinctions between the different kinds of punishment or treatment; the distinctions depend on the nature, purpose and severity of the treatment applied”.
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- It is well established that the term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" must be interpreted to extend the widest possible protection against abuses (see the Body of Principles). When persons are deprived of liberty, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment overlaps with and is supplemented by the principle of humane treatment of detainees (see A/68/295). The European Court of Human Rights, in Bouyid v. Belgium, has highlighted the inherent link between concepts of degrading treatment or punishment and human dignity, finding that treatment that "humiliates or debases an individual, show[s] a lack of respect for or diminish[es] his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance" may be characterized as degrading. Any act by law enforcement that diminishes a person's human dignity, including the use of physical force when not strictly necessitated by his or her conduct, violates the prohibition of torture and ill treatment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- Persons interviewed in connection with their alleged role in a criminal offence must not be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14 (3) (g)) and investigating authorities may not resort to "any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure" to induce confessions (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)). Accordingly, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is complemented by the prohibition of any form of coercion during the questioning of suspects. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court likewise prohibits "any form of coercion, duress or threat" during investigations (art. 55). The protocol must expressly recognize this prohibition and extend it to interviews of witnesses, victims and other persons in the criminal justice system.
- 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
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- The obligation to provide an effective remedy applies "irrespective of who may ultimately be the bearer of responsibility for the violation", which is essential to ensuring that all persons, including migrants and non-citizens, are afforded their fundamental rights without discrimination. States' obligations to provide redress are both substantive and procedural, wherein States must establish judicial or administrative bodies capable of determining a torture victim's right to redress, awarding such redress and ensuring accessibility of these forums to victims (A/69/277). In the case of migrants, the recommended principles and guidelines on human rights at international borders developed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights note States' obligation to afford remedies against removal orders where there are substantial grounds for believing that the persons removed would be at a risk of torture or other ill-treatment if "returned to, readmitted, or subject to onward return to a place where they might be at such risk" (guidelines 9), and further to ensure that torture and ill-treatment survivors are referred to proper rehabilitation services.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- The European Court of Human Rights, in El-Masri, held that a State was responsible for acts performed by foreign officials on its territory with the "acquiescence or connivance of its authorities", imputing to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia harmful conduct that was "carried out in the presence of [its] officials" and within its jurisdiction". The Court further found that Poland had an obligation to do more than refrain from collaborating with and facilitating the Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme when it knew or ought to have known that detainees would be subject to extraordinary rendition and exposed to a risk of torture or other ill-treatment upon transfer. Even when the Polish authorities did not "know exactly or witness what was happening in the facility", they were required to take measures to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction were not subjected to mistreatment, including harm administered by private individuals (Abu Zubaydah v. Poland). The State should have taken steps to "inquire into whether [the activities of the Agency] were compatible" with the international legal obligations of Poland and indeed acted to prevent the activities in question (Al Nashiri v. Poland).
- 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
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur welcomes recent initiatives by some States to establish and publish guidelines for their intelligence services and commitments they have made not to participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or other ill-treatment for any purpose, to the extent that they accord with their international legal obligations. However, some aspects of published guidelines fall short of the standards required by the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. If a real risk of torture or ill-treatment is detected, a State must not proceed to work with a foreign agency. Any discretion afforded in the guidelines to executive actors to proceed to work with an agency, despite a real risk of the information they receive being tainted by torture or ill-treatment, is incompatible with the obligation of the State as to the prohibition of torture. In addition, no distinction between torture and other ill-treatment should be made. Likewise, the excuse of exceptional circumstances contained in some national guidelines is inconsistent with the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- There is a tendency to draw a clear distinction between the judicial and the executive use of tainted information by some domestic courts. The latter is often allowed, the argument being, inter alia, that it does not impinge upon the liberty of individuals or that, when it does, as relating to powers of arrest, it is usually of short duration. Alternatively, that argument may refer to the "ticking-bomb scenario", i.e., that the executive agencies cannot be expected to close their eyes to information at the cost of endangering the lives of the citizens of their own countries. In other words, courts tend to endorse the use of information acquired through torture or other ill-treatment by the executive agencies in all phases of operations, except in judicial proceedings. In fact, some courts have ruled that the executive agencies have no responsibility to examine the conditions under which information was obtained, or to change their decisions accordingly. They have also ruled that it is not for the courts to discipline the executive agencies, unless by way of a criminal prosecution, and that their jurisdiction only exists to preserve the integrity of the trial process.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph