Cruel, inhuman or degrading CID treatment, as compared to torture, involves a lower level of suffering and need not be inflicted for a specific purpose. The prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment is enshrined in the following regional and universal human rights instruments:. Taking the various treaties together, the right to freedom from torture includes the following rights and obligations:.
It defines torture as:. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. Thus, the Convention Against Torture identifies the following three elements that, if combined, constitute torture: 1 intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering; 2 for a specific purpose, such as to obtain information, as punishment, or to intimidate, or for any reason based on discrimination; and, 3 by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of State authorities.
Torture is distinguished from other forms of mistreatment based on a context-and fact-specific analysis of the intent with which the suffering is inflicted and the severity of the treatment. Some of the most common methods of physical torture include beating, electric shocks, stretching, submersion, suffocation, burns, rape and sexual assault. While the forcible administration of so-called "truth serums"—drugs such as sodium pentothal, sodium amytal, and scopolamine —does not involve the infliction of severe pain, its use to secure information from a person would nonetheless be prohibited under international law.
Human Rights Watch believes that at a minimum it would violate the person's right to be free from "inhuman or degrading" treatment. We note that Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture expressly defines torture as including "the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.
The prohibition against the ill-treatment of persons under interrogation is rooted in respect for human dignity and the inviolability of the human body and mind. To force a person to talk through the application of drugs is as much a denial of human dignity as to coerce talk through the use of physical force.
Securing testimony through the involuntary administration of drugs would also violate the right against self-incrimination if it were not done under a grant of use immunity. But even if such immunity were given—thus solving the problem of self-incrimination—drugging would still be prohibited because of its inhuman and degrading nature. Because of its profound compromise of the human personality, the use of drugs is quite different from the forcible taking of physical evidence—hair, blood, DNA, etc.
The administration of any of the drugs identified as having the potential for causing a person to talk is an involved medical procedure requiring delivery of the drug intravenously over a period that can range from two to twelve hours.
The international Principles of Medical Ethics Relevant to the Role of Health Personnel provide that the participation of doctors or other medical practitioners in the administration of such drugs for interrogation purposes would violate medical ethics. The use of truth serums is not an authorized method of interrogation in the United States. Under U. Sain , U. Investigators are not severely handicapped by not being able to use "truth serums. Under the influence of such drugs, people may become highly suggestible, picking up cues from the interrogators and agreeing to information that is not true; they may relate fantasies; and they may still be able to deliberately mislead.
According to a study by medical and legal experts:. On the other hand, some are able to withhold information and some, especially character neurotics, are able to lie. Others are so suggestible they will describe, in response to suggestive questioning, behavior which never in fact occurred But drugs are not 'truth sera. As another expert noted, "the intravenous injection of a drug by a physician in a hospital may appear more scientific than the drinking of large amounts of bourbon in a tavern, but the end result displayed in the subject's speech may be no more reliable.
Q: Are there any situations in which torture is permitted? Under customary international law as well as underinternational human rights treaties, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is prohibited at all times and in all circumstances. It is a non-derogable right, one of those core rights that may never be suspended, even during times of war, when national security is threatened, or during other public emergencies.
According to the U. The European Court of Human Rights has applied the prohibition against torture contained in European Convention on Human Rights in several cases involving alleged terrorists. As it noted in one case, "The Court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced by States in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence.
However, even in these circumstances, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct. United Kingdom , Nov.
Similarly, the Committee against Torture, reviewing Israel's use of torture as a method of interrogation against suspected Palestinian terrorists, stated, "The Committee acknowledges the terrible dilemma that Israel confronts in dealing with terrorist threats to its security, but as a State party to the Convention Israel is precluded from raising before this Committee exceptional circumstances as justification for [prohibited] acts" [United Nations Committee against Torture.
Q: Shouldn't torture be permitted if its use will save lives? Some people argue that the goal of saving innocent lives must override a person's right not to be tortured.
This argument is presented in its starkest form in the "ticking bomb" scenario: a bomb has been set to explode that will kill thousands of people and a detained person is known to have information on where the bomb is and how to defuse it. Is torture justified in such a case to force the detainee to talk? Those who say that it is argue that governments should be permitted to choose torture as the lesser of two evils in such a situation.
The international community, however, rejected the use of torture even in the "ticking bomb" case. International human rights law - as well as U. There are practical as well as moral reasons for not permitting a "ticking bomb" -or terrorist attack -- exception to the ban on torture.
Although such an exception might appear to be highly limited, experience shows that the exception readily becomes the standard practice. For example, how imminent must the attack be to trigger the exception and justify torture - an hour, a week, a year? How certain must the government be that the detainee actually has the necessary information?
Under the utilitarian logic that the end saving many innocent lives justifies the means, torture should be permitted even if the disaster might not occur until some point in the future, and it should be permitted against as many people as is necessary to secure the information that could be used to avert the disaster. Israel provides a good example of how this logic works in practice.
For years Israel justified its use of torture - what it called "moderate physical force" - by citing the "ticking bomb" scenario. But despite a genuine security threat, Israeli security forces rarely if ever were able to identify a particular suspect with knowledge about a particular bomb set to explode imminently.
Rather, they ended up applying the scenario metaphorically to justify torturing virtually every Palestinian security detainee - thousands of people - on the theory that they might know something about some unspecified, future terrorist act.
In , the Israeli Supreme Court rejected the use of torture, although the practice seems to have increased in the past year. In addition, the ticking bomb scenario offers no logical limitations on how much or what kind of torture would be permitted. If the detainee does not talk when shaken or hit, why shouldn't the government move unto more severe measures, such as the application of electric shocks?
Why not threaten to rape the suspect's wife or to torture his children? Once torture is allowed, setting limits is extraordinarily difficult. Q: Does the U. These include the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and the sex, age, vulnerability and health of the victim. This concept is based on the principle of dignity - the innate value of all human beings.
Your right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way is absolute. This means it must never be limited or restricted in any way. For example, a public authority can never use lack of resources as a defence against an accusation that it has treated someone in an inhuman or degrading way.
A young man with mental health problems was placed in residential care. During a visit, his parents noticed bruising on his body. They raised the issue with the care managers but their concerns were dismissed.
They were also banned from visiting their son. Article 3 prevents the UK from deporting or extraditing people to another country where they would face a real risk of being tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. This also applies when there is a real risk of torture evidence being admitted in court proceedings against the person who is being threatened with deportation or extradition. Like the right to life under Article 2, Article 3 requires official, effective investigations into credible allegations of serious ill-treatment by public officials.
Article 3 also requires authorities to take positive steps to prevent torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. This means laws must be put in place to protect people from torture or other ill treatment. It also means public officials must act to protect people from harm inflicted by others. A devastating catalogue of police failures meant black cab taxi driver John Worboys was left free to attack women in London for years before he was convicted in Two of his victims fought a four-year legal battle to show police had a legal duty to properly investigate serious crimes under Article 3 — and to stop them failing victims in this way again.
The two women were raped by Worboys in and This was a crucial victory in the battle to end violence against women and girls in the UK. Lauri Love, a dual British-Finnish citizen, was accused of hacking into United States government computer systems in and The US sought to extradite him there to face charges. Lauri has Asperger syndrome and had been diagnosed with other significant mental health issues.
0コメント