Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 38 entities
Role of forensic and medical sciences in the investigation prevention torture and other ill-treatment 2014, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- There is a pressing need to step up the overall involvement of forensic medical science across the various sectors of the criminal justice cycle, and where persons are at particular risk, including administrative, pretrial and juvenile detention and psychiatric institutions. If police officers, prison wardens, hospital administrators, prosecutors and judges were under a legal obligation to request proper forensic medical examinations as a standard procedure whenever there are suspicions or allegations of torture or other ill-treatment, victims would be in a considerably stronger position. In addition to their role in prosecution, forensic medical services can also play a transforming role in prevention. As required in the Body of Principles and expanded in the standard-setting Istanbul Protocol, routine medical examinations of detainees after admission to every place of detention create a system of "checkpoints" that minimizes the number of unaccounted cases of torture and renders impossible a shifting of blame and accountability among various detention facilities and 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
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Children deprived of their liberty from the perspective of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2015, para. 86e
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to conditions during detention, the Special Rapporteur calls upon all States:] To prohibit 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
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Children deprived of their liberty from the perspective of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2015, para. 86b
- Paragraph text
- [With regard to conditions during detention, the Special Rapporteur calls upon all States:] To consider case-by-case assessment to decide whether it is appropriate for a particular inmate to be transferred to an adult institution after reaching the age of majority;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 88e
- Paragraph text
- [The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to:] Endeavour to reduce pretrial detention and undertake comprehensive justice reforms with a view to enhance the use of alternatives to pretrial detention and custodial sentences;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- States also use solitary confinement to isolate individuals during pre-charge or pretrial detention. In some States, such as Denmark, holding individuals in solitary confinement is a regular feature of pretrial detention (A/63/175, para. 78 (i)). The purposes for the use of solitary confinement in pre-charge and pretrial detention vary widely, and include preventing the intermingling of detainees to avoid demoralization and collusion, and to apply pressure on detainees to elicit cooperation or extract a confession.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- 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. 62
- Paragraph text
- Judicial control of detention is a fundamental safeguard for persons deprived of liberty in connection with criminal charges. Persons detained on criminal charges must not be held in facilities under the control of their interviewers or investigators for more time than is legally required to hold a judicial hearing and obtain a judicial warrant of pretrial detention. This period should never exceed 48 hours, save absolutely exceptional and justified circumstances (see general comment No. 35). Suspects must be transferred to a pretrial facility under a different authority immediately thereafter, after which no further unsupervised contact with interviewers or investigators may be permitted (see A/68/295). As a matter of best practice, States ought to entrust different bodies with separate chains of command with the detention and questioning of persons, to help to protect detainees from mistreatment and reduce the risk of conditions of detention being used to pressure them during questioning. All detainees must be properly registered from the moment of apprehension, a public centralized detention register must be kept and the chain of custody thoroughly documented (see A/HRC/13/39/Add.5).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 88j
- Paragraph text
- [The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to:] Actively engage with the open-ended intergovernmental Expert Group on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners established by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, to exchange information on good practices and challenges with a view to ensuring that the revised Rules reflect the recent advances in correctional science and best practices and to implement the Rules at the national level.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 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. 44
- Paragraph text
- In Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, the Court found the unjustified destruction of private homes to be inhuman treatment because it was “premeditated and carried out contemptuously and without respect for the feelings of the applicants”, who “had to stand by and watch the burning of their homes” while inadequate precautions were taken to ensure their safety and no subsequent assistance was provided.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 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. 98
- Paragraph text
- The exclusionary rule also applies to evidence gathered or derived from information obtained under duress (see Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico). States must carry the burden of proving that confessions were obtained without duress, intimidation or inducements. As a matter of best practice, the exclusionary rule should also apply to collecting, sharing and receiving information tainted by any form of coercion.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- 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. 83
- Paragraph text
- The interpreter's role during questioning is to facilitate communication neutrally and objectively. His or her presence serves as a safeguard against mistreatment and coercion. The protocol should provide practical guidance as to the role, rights and responsibilities of interpreters during the conduct of interviews and emphasize that the right to interpretation applies to the questioning of all persons who are arrested or deprived of liberty, including during armed conflict and in administrative detention (Body of Principles, principle 14).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2016
- 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. 61
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur examines herein several safeguards of key significance to the future protocol, particularly as applicable to persons in detention. The protocol should also consider other scenarios, including the rights of suspects not deprived of liberty, safeguards attendant to informal questioning and additional preventive measures against mistreatment and coercion. The protocol must account for the reality that torture and ill-treatment during arrest or detention can also take place outside the interview room and induce forced confessions during subsequent questioning.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- 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. 41
- Paragraph text
- The Court has also made numerous findings of inhuman or degrading treatment in cases involving the unnecessary or excessive use of force in the context of demonstrations. In Abdullah Yasa and Others v. Turkey, the Court found the launch of a tear gas grenade along a direct flat trajectory aimed towards protestors to be contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because it was not “proportionate to the aim pursued, namely to disperse a non-peaceful gathering” and because the severity of the resulting injuries to the applicant’s head were not “commensurate with the strict use by the police officers of the force necessitated by his behaviour”.
- 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
- Violence
- 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. 54
- Paragraph text
- As a matter of best practice, interviewers are encouraged to proceed, when necessary, with probing questions designed to elicit information that will test all possible alternative explanations identified during the preparation of the interview. Strategic probing and disclosure of potential evidence allows officers to explore the interviewee's account in depth before proceeding to the next topic, helping to ensure that the presumption of innocence is respected while strengthening the case against a guilty suspect by preventing the subsequent fabrication of an alibi. Although interviewers may be persistent with their line of questioning when probing the interviewee's account, questioning must never become unfair or oppressive.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Year
- 2016
- 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. 49
- Paragraph text
- The protocol must reiterate the precise aim of questioning, namely to obtain accurate and reliable information in order to discover the truth of all relevant facts about matters under investigation. The aim of interviews must not be to elicit confessions or other information reinforcing presumptions of guilt or other assumptions held by officers. Interviews are conducted to make the presumption of innocence operational. Officers generate and actively test alternative hypotheses through systematic preparation, empathetic rapport-building, open-ended questions, active listening, strategic probing and disclosure of potential evidence. Such interviews are far more effective and compliant with human rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Year
- 2016
- 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. 40
- Paragraph text
- Inducements may consist of promises of immunity or lighter sentences in exchange for confessions. Misleading practices include the use of trickery or deception, including by presenting false evidence, confronting persons with false witnesses or leading one to believe that his or her co-defendants have confessed. These methods are improper because they ultimately deprive a person of his or her freedom of decision through the use of false representations (see E/CN.4/813 and Corr.1). Techniques designed to minimize or maximize the suspect's perceptions of responsibility or blame, including implicit promises of leniency and presentation of false evidence, claims or insinuations about the existence of evidence against him or her, also increase the likelihood of false confessions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- A State's failure to investigate, criminally prosecute or allow civil proceedings - or efforts to block or hinder such proceedings - relating to allegations of torture or other forms of ill-treatment constitutes de facto denial of an effective remedy. The Special Rapporteur regrets that this has been the case regarding victims of rendition and other extraterritorial acts of torture and ill-treatment seeking redress from Governments and reminds States that an essential component of the obligation to provide redress is the obligation not to obstruct redress or obstruct access of an individual to an effective remedy, for example by invoking "State secrets" to dismiss lawsuits in limine litis.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recognizes several potential scenarios of complicity in torture and other ill-treatment with an extraterritorial component. First, a State may acquiesce to an extraterritorial human rights violation by a second State on its territory (European Court of Human Rights, El-Masri v. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Second, complicity itself can be extraterritorial, as in cases where the individual suffering a violation is located in a territory outside the complicit State's control and under the control of the principal. Examples include the alleged collusion, connivance, presence or participation of Canadian and British intelligence services in the interrogation and mistreatment abroad of Omar Khadr, Maher Arar and Binyam Mohamed.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 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. 32
- Paragraph text
- In their judgment on the case of A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, a majority of the House of Lords agreed that evidence should be excluded from judicial proceedings if it is established, by means of diligent inquiries into the sources and on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence invoked was in fact obtained by torture. However, three Law Lords, in a minority opinion, strongly rejected the test applied for the burden of proof preferred by the majority, arguing that it placed a burden on the appellants that they can seldom discharge. They concluded that "it is inconsistent with the most rudimentary notions of fairness to blindfold a man and then impose a standard which only the sighted could hope to meet", thereby effectively denying detainees the standard of fairness and undermining the effectiveness of the Convention.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Role of forensic and medical sciences in the investigation prevention torture and other ill-treatment 2014, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Therefore, where a detainee or any other person alleges torture or other ill-treatment or where there is reason to believe that torture or other ill-treatment has happened, alleged victims should be given an immediate examination by a doctor who can make an accurate report without interference by the authorities. Forensic evaluation must conform to established standards of medical practice, be undertaken only with prior informed consent, conducted in private and take full account of the victim's statements. The undertaking of such evaluation should not be dependent on the initiation of an official investigation or subject to prior authorization by an investigating authority. Furthermore, the right to request an independent medical evaluation should also extend to members of the detainee's family and other bodies designated to receive complaints. In cases of death in custody, the deceased's family and, in their absence, other interested parties, must have the right to request an autopsy to be performed by an independent health professional of their choice.
- 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
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recalls that inter-prisoner violence may amount to torture or other ill-treatment if the State fails to act with due diligence to prevent it (A/HRC/13/39/Add.3, para. 28). As stated by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the State assumes a heightened duty of protection by severely limiting an inmates' freedom of movement and capacity for self-defence (A/61/311, para. 51). Despite the unambiguous wording of the Convention against Torture, there is a lack of awareness of the obligation of prison administration to intervene in inter-prisoner violence. The Special Rapporteur on torture notes that acquiescence in inter-prisoner violence is not simply a breach of professional responsibilities but that it amounts to consent or acquiescence to torture or other 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Furthermore, given that safeguards are particularly undermined when the detained persons are held in incommunicado or secret detention, the Rules should place an obligation on prison authorities to ensure that persons deprived of liberty are held in officially recognized and accessible places of detention. Police station chiefs and investigating officers should be held criminally accountable for any unacknowledged custody in cases where their responsibility, including command responsibility, has been established. The Special Rapporteur recalls that whether detention is secret or not is determined by its incommunicado character and by the fact that State authorities do not disclose the place of detention or information about the fate of the detainee (see A/HRC/13/42, paras. 8-10).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recalls the importance of introducing a rule allowing all who are deprived of their liberty to challenge expeditiously the lawfulness of the detention, e.g. through habeas corpus or amparo, as a safeguard for ensuring protection against torture or other ill-treatment. In all circumstances, the person deprived of liberty should have the right to inform his or her family of the arrest (Rules 44 (3) and 92) and place of detention within 18 hours (E/CN.4/2003/68, paras. 26 (g) and (i)). These rules should apply also to decisions to restrict the personal freedom of an inmate further, for instance by placing him or her in isolation or solitary confinement. In no case may a detainee's contact with the outside world be dependent on his or her cooperativeness, be used as a disciplinary sanction or form part of the sentence. In accordance with principle 19 of the Body of Principles, access to the outside world can only be denied subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law (see E/CN.4/2004/56, para. 43).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- It is important to consider that the deprivation of the right to individual self-determination is not incidental to criminal punishment or any other form of custodial care. The current phrasing of Rule 57 can be misunderstood as meaning that deprivation of liberty results in the withdrawal of individual self-determination. It may be pertinent to redraft Rule 58 in order to clarify that only reasonable boundaries inherent to the regime in the places of detention apply. Likewise, Rule 69 could be amended to omit the reference to the conduct of a study of the personality of prisoners, as potentially in conflict with the right to personal self-determination.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 80c
- Paragraph text
- [Whether or not a customary norm prohibiting the death penalty has crystallized, the Special Rapporteur calls upon all retentionist States to observe rigorously the restrictions and conditions imposed by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture. The Special Rapporteur calls upon retentionist States:] To refrain from carrying out executions in public or in any other degrading manner; end the practice of secret executions; and end the practice of executions with little or no prior warning given to condemned prisoners and their families;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Other harsh conditions currently employed on death rows throughout the world may themselves constitute violations of the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Human Rights Committee has expressed concern over the living condition of inmates on death row in terms of visits and correspondence, cell size, food, exercise, extreme temperatures, lack of ventilation, and lack of time outside of cells as constituting violations of articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant. The Special Rapporteur's predecessor, in the report on his visit to Mongolia, declared that physical conditions on Mongolia's death row alone might be so poor as to amount to cruel treatment (see E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.4).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Health
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- Prolonged delay is, however, only one cause of the death row phenomenon and, considered alone, may be harmful to a prisoner's rights. This approach risks conveying a message to States parties to carry out a capital sentence as expeditiously as possible after it is imposed. The Human Rights Committee declined to find that delay alone is enough to warrant a finding of death row phenomenon and a violation based on torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Consequently, even in cases of detention on death row for more than 10 years, the Committee maintained its previous practice of not finding a violation of article 7 of the Covenant unless such detention was aggravated by particularly harsh prison conditions. However, prolonged detention, as with any other delay in the process, must be subject to judicial review and the highest standards of regular review must be applied. Medical assistance and psychological follow-up should also be considered. It is the combined deprivation of basic human rights on death row which amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment or even torture.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- In 1993, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the British House of Lords took the approach that length of time is the sole factor in constituting cruel or inhuman punishment. The case of Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica created a presumption that spending more than five years on death row met the criteria necessary for a finding of death row phenomenon. The Privy Council's reasoning was that the domestic appeals process should take approximately two years and an appeal to an international body should take approximately 18 months. By combining the two, and adding an appropriate amount of time for reasonable delay, the Court was able to come up with a timetable of five years. In a number of cases, the Privy Council relied on the five-year principle as a guide. In Guerra v. Baptiste (1996), it found that four years and ten months under sentence of death, as a result of factors beyond the prisoner's control, constituted the death row phenomenon and therefore a violation. In Henfield v. Bahamas (1997), three and a half years was deemed an appropriate time limit. Similarly, in the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of Uganda in January 2009, the Court held that to execute a person after a delay of three years in conditions that were not acceptable by Ugandan standards would amount to cruel, inhuman punishment. With regard to the reasons for the delay, the Privy Council found that delay inappropriately caused by the prisoner could not be used to the advantage of the inmate but where a State caused the delay, it was logical to hold the State responsible for violating the prisoner's rights. However, where delay was caused by a prisoner exercising his legitimate right to appeal, the fault was to be attributed to the appellate system that permitted such delay and not to the prisoner who took advantage of it. The Privy Council recognized that a prisoner would cling to any hope in order to protect his or her life, and that such human instinct could not be treated as a prisoner's fault. The European Court went even further and took the position that even if the delay was the result of the inmate's actions, he or she was not to be blamed for pursuing life as the fact remained that individuals were pursuing life under death row conditions with mounting tension over their own death.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- Regional courts have confirmed the existence and destructive nature of the death row phenomenon. In the landmark decision Soering v. United Kingdom (1989), the European Court of Human Rights held that the death row phenomenon as practised in the State of Virginia in the United States of America violated the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court was presented with facts detailing the extensive period of time people spend on death row in extreme conditions and the ever-mounting anguish of awaiting execution. The European Court in subsequent decisions reaffirmed this view.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has suggested that hanging, as a matter of law, is contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In 2007, the High Commissioner submitted an amicus curiae application to the Iraqi Supreme Criminal Tribunal because of the real risk that the method of execution would itself amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Acknowledging that the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment was a core provision of international human rights law, the High Commissioner found that the executions (by hanging), were so flawed as to amount, in their implementation, to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur reiterates that solitary confinement should be used only in very exceptional circumstances, as a last resort, for as short a time as possible. He emphasizes that when solitary confinement is used in exceptional circumstances, minimum procedural safeguards must be followed. These safeguards reduce the chances that the use of solitary confinement will be arbitrary or excessive, as in the case of prolonged or indefinite confinement. They are all the more important in circumstances of detention where due process protections are often limited, as in administrative immigration detention. Minimum procedural safeguards should be interpreted in a manner that provides the greatest possible protection of the rights of detained individuals. In this context, the Special Rapporteur urges States to apply the following guiding principles and procedural safeguards.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph