Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 505 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. 2
- Paragraph text
- In examining the relationship between the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the international legal principles governing the use of force by State agents, and in developing concrete recommendations on the matter, the Special Rapporteur hopes to strengthen the capacity of States to ensure the effective prevention of and accountability for torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including in extra-custodial settings. Moreover, as a complement to existing international standards governing the use of force, the present report is aimed at contributing to the development of seamless guidance on the entire spectrum of the use of force, from non-lethal to deliberately lethal and from custodial to extra -custodial, and therefore at supporting States in complying with their relevant huma n rights obligations. The report is also aimed at facilitating synergies, both at the national and the international levels, between mechanisms tasked with protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and those involved in overseeing and regulating the use of force more generally.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- 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. 8
- Paragraph text
- The principle of necessity requires that any use of force by State agents must be restricted to the least harmful means that can reasonably be expected to achieve the purpose pursued. Thus, law enforcement officials must apply non -violent means whenever possible and may use force only when, and only to the extent, strictly necessary to achieve a lawful purpose.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- 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. 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
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
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- In Georgia, the Special Rapporteur received allegations that victims were encouraged by the prosecution to agree to plea-bargaining agreements without acknowledging their ill-treatment by the police.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- 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
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. 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. 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
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
Role of forensic and medical sciences in the investigation prevention torture and other ill-treatment 2014, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- International standards on the investigation of torture allegations and reports are primarily formulated as obligations of States. However, legal professionals play a crucial and active role in the documentation and investigation of torture, by, inter alia, documenting torture for use in legal proceedings and recording the failure to investigate in spite of the availability of evidence or the shortcomings of any investigations undertaken. Lawyers must assess whether the official investigation undertaken by police or other competent body took into account proper medical evidence or arrangements for independent medical examinations to attest to the victim's version of the events are needed. Understanding the physical and psychological effects of torture is vital when lawyers interview victims with a view to submitting criminal, civil or administrative claims, as well as when defending a victim of torture who was forced to incriminate him or herself under torture. Failure to raise such issues when there is prima facie evidence of ill-treatment is a breach of professional ethics and competency. Securing the services of experts to examine evidence, to advise counsel and to testify at trial is critical.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- It is crucial to recognize explicitly the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in all circumstances. Such an explicit recognition should be included both in the preamble and, through a revision, in Rule 6, dealing with respect for inmates' inherent dignity and value as human beings. As a widely recognized set of rules addressing the administration of penal institutions, the Rules should explicitly condemn torture and ill-treatment, including participation, complicity, incitement and attempts, and certain conduct that amounts to ill-treatment, whether committed by public officials, by other persons acting on behalf of the State or by private persons (Convention against Torture, art. 4). The Rules should also declare unambiguously that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be relied upon to justify acts of torture and other ill-treatment by public officials, that offenders will not be tolerated and that offenders will be subject to prosecution. Naming and defining this crime will promote the aim of the Convention against Torture, inter alia, by alerting everyone to the special gravity of the crime of torture (see Committee against Torture general comment No. 2, paras. 5 and 11).
- 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
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- Hearings that are open to the public, like those pioneered by the truth and reconciliation commissions created in South Africa and Peru, are strongly preferred. Open hearings where victims and witnesses may speak directly to the public in their own voices are crucial to building understanding and trust in the public in the methodology used by the commission of inquiry. At the same time, it is important that open hearings be conducted in a manner that respects the dignity of each victim and witness, and protects the rights of alleged perpetrators, in the criminal law setting, from any breach in the presumption of innocence. The preference for open hearings should be without prejudice to some exceptions made for testimony to be received in camera, as required, for example, to ensure confidentiality and the security of victims or witnesses or when there are legitimate claims of national security interests. Under no circumstances should "secrets of State" be invoked as a justification to conceal the commission of human rights violations. The members of the commission of inquiry should alone be the judges of whether confidential or closed proceedings are necessary. Only in exceptional circumstances should hearings be confidential; in such cases, the precise justification for the confidentiality must be transparent and disclosed to the public.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- The purpose of the present report is to deepen the international community's dialogue on commissions of inquiry and to offer guidance on when such commissions should be created by States in response to patterns or practices of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. When used correctly, a commission of inquiry may be a powerful tool in uncovering and bringing an end to patterns of violations; taking first steps in addressing victims' right to know the truth and identifying reparation measures in consultation with victims; ensuring accountability of State institutions and compliance with international human rights law; and promoting democratic, citizen-driven participation in human rights monitoring. Additionally, commissions of inquiry can play an integral role in facilitating the formal investigation of current systems or legacies of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, and pave the way to effective and fair prosecutions. A wealth of experience has been acquired from commissions of inquiry established within national jurisdictions as well as by the international community in situations in which the discovery and disclosure of the truth is deemed essential to the preservation or restoration of peace and security of nations. Lessons can be drawn from these experiences on what factors lead to successful or unsuccessful commissions of inquiry.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- In his partly dissenting opinion to the decision in the case Ocalan v. Turkey (2005), Judge Lech Garlicki stated that article 3 had been violated because any imposition of the death penalty represented per se inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by the Convention. Thus, while correct, the majority's conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial represented a violation of article 3 of the European Convention seemed to him to stop short of addressing the real problem. He drew attention to the 2002 opinion of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in which it recalled that, in its most recent resolutions, it had reaffirmed its beliefs that the application of the death penalty constituted inhuman and degrading punishment and a violation of the most fundamental right, that to life itself, and that capital punishment had no place in civilized, democratic societies governed by the rule of law. Judge Garlicki stated that, in consequence, the only question that remained was whether the Court had the power to state the obvious truth, namely, that capital punishment had become an inhuman and degrading punishment per se.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of working methods and vision 2011, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur thanks the Human Rights Council for the confidence bestowed upon him by appointing him Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. He looks forward to constructive and open dialogue with the Council with the aim of furthering the universally shared interest in eradicating torture and ill-treatment worldwide. He calls for a redoubling of efforts by the mandate of Special Rapporteur, States, civil society and treaty bodies to achieve this goal. It is the view of the Special Rapporteur that it will also require, at times, some difficult and hard choices. Similarly, the implementation of his mandate will, inevitably, raise differences of opinion with regard to the substance, interpretation and approach, all of which may cause some discomfort for some States; however, the brutal nature of torture requires that all parties work quickly and constructively to address these mutual concerns. The Special Rapporteur intends to point out challenges fairly and objectively, and to acknowledge progress where it exists while working diligently with stakeholders to achieve a world without torture. He urges States to approach this difficult issue in a spirit of openness and good faith as he himself will do.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur asserts that social isolation is contrary to article 10, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that "The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation" (General Assembly resolution 2200 (XXI), annex). Long periods of isolation do not aid the rehabilitation or re-socialization of detainees (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.4, para. 48). The adverse acute and latent psychological and physiological effects of prolonged solitary confinement constitute severe mental pain or suffering. Thus the Special Rapporteur concurs with the position taken by the Committee against Torture in its General Comment No. 20 that prolonged solitary confinement amounts to acts prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant, and consequently to an act as defined in article 1 or article 16 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that, in his view, any imposition of solitary confinement beyond 15 days constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, depending on the circumstances. He calls on the international community to agree to such a standard and to impose an absolute prohibition on solitary confinement exceeding 15 consecutive days.
- 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
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur has received many allegations of excessive violence, during apprehension of a suspect and during demonstrations or public turmoil, including in pre-election and election periods. In many of those cases, people have been peacefully exercising their right to assembly when police or security officers violently dispersed the demonstration by beatings, the use of pepper and tear gas, sound bombs, water cannons, rubber bullets or firearms indiscriminately used on the masses. This all too often has led to persons being injured or killed. Of particular concern are reports of police brutality against vulnerable, disadvantaged groups and minorities. The Special Rapporteur has therefore repeatedly stated that the use of force must be exercised with restraint and only once non-violent means have been exhausted. Law enforcement bodies shall refrain from the use of firearms, except in self-defence or defence of others from an imminent threat of death or serious injury. In this regard, strict rules on the use of force for police and security forces should be applied. Furthermore ways to improve the recording and monitoring of arrests and the control of demonstrations should be explored.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Ethnic minorities
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- The magnitude of impunity has been one of - if not the most - disappointing findings of his tenure as Special Rapporteur. Impunity is almost total in most countries he has visited, despite undeniable, sometimes routine, widespread or even systematic practices of torture and in contravention of the clear obligation under the Convention against Torture to hold perpetrators of torture accountable under criminal law. As soon as there is a suspicion of torture or an explicit allegation, a thorough investigation should be initiated immediately or without any delay. It therefore has to be ensured that all public officials, in particular prison doctors, prison officials and magistrates who have reasons to suspect an act of torture or ill-treatment do report ex officio to the relevant authorities for proper investigation in accordance with article 12 of the Convention against Torture. Moreover, whereas the decision on whether to conduct an investigation should not be discretionary, but rather an obligation irrespective of the filing of a complaint, this is too often not the case. In addition, the lack of criminalization of torture and the mostly inadequate sanctions are the main factors contributing to impunity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph