Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 51
Párrafo- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur regrets evidence that States have employed restrictive doctrines, such as State secrets and political questions doctrines, in both territorial and extraterritorial contexts, in an effort to obstruct prosecution and evade responsibility (El-Masri v. The United States), and reminds States that competent courts in States parties to the Convention are obligated to exercise jurisdiction over acts of torture and ill-treatment, irrespective of the locus where wrongfulness took place. This obligation should also encompass situations wherein a State may be held responsible for its failure to pre-empt or remedy illicit conduct not directly attributable to it, such as when it failed to meet its due diligence obligations to prevent and protect persons from grave violations of human rights. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands recognized in the Dutch battalion case that the State was responsible for the deaths of three men at Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, by failing to shield the victims when they sought refuge in a Dutch compound over which the State exercised "effective control" - defined as "factual control over specific conduct" - under article 8 of the draft articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the indication that States are not simply required to abstain from causing prohibited acts but are obligated, to the extent possible, to fight wrongfulness, including through investigation and prosecution of torture.
- Condicón jurídica
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Organismo
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Tipo de documento
- Special Procedures' report
- Medio de adopción
- N.A.
- Temas
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Año
- 2015
- Tipo de párrafo
- Other
- Paragraph number
- 51
ordenados por
Fecha de adición
63 conexiones, 63 Entidades