Human Rights Day: Prohibition on Torture is Absolute by United Nations 12:01pm 10th Dec, 2005   10 December 2005    Message of the Secretary General Kofi Annan on Human Rights Day.    Fifty-seven years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibited all forms of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, torture remains unacceptably common. Recent times have witnessed an especially disturbing trend of countries claiming exceptions to the prohibition on torture based on their own national security perceptions.    Let us be clear: torture can never be an instrument to fight terror, for torture is an instrument of terror.    The prohibition on torture is well established under international law. It is also unambiguous and absolute. It is binding on all States in all territories under their jurisdiction or effective control. It applies in all circumstances, in times of war as in times of peace. Nor is torture permissible when it is called something else: cruel and inhuman treatment is unacceptable and illegal, irrespective of the name we give it.    States must honour this prohibition and vigorously combat the impunity of perpetrators of torture. Those who conceive of or authorize any form of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and those who commit such acts, should not go unpunished. Nor may any State condone torture by a third party. This means that individuals must never be rendered to another State if there is any danger that doing so may subject them to torture.    The international community must speak forcefully, and with one voice, against torture in all its forms. Today, I call on all States who have not done so to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as the Optional Protocol to the Torture Convention. And I urge all States to allow the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Torture independent access to detainees within their control. Unimpeded access is an essential protection for these individuals, whose isolation makes them especially vulnerable to abuse. Together, we must give voice, and redress, to abused detainees as well as to all victims and survivors of torture.    Humanity faces grave challenges today. The threat of terror is real and immediate. Yet fear of terrorists can never justify adopting their methods. Nor can we be complacent about the broader prevalence of cruel and inhuman punishment, which in so many of our societies disproportionately affects the most vulnerable people: the imprisoned, the politically powerless and the economically deprived. Instead, we must respond to this evil wherever we find it by reaffirming humanity’s most basic values.    Today, on Human Rights Day, let us recommit ourselves to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and let us rededicate ourselves to wiping the scourge of torture from the face of the earth.    10th Decemeber    Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour.    The absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle once believed to be unassailable – the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of the person - is becoming a casualty of the so-called "war on terror".    No one disputes that Governments have not only the right but also the duty to protect their citizens from attacks. The threat of international terrorism calls for increased coordination by law enforcement authorities within and across borders. And imminent or clear dangers at times permit limitations on certain rights.    However, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is not one of these. This right may not be subject to any limitation, anywhere, under any condition.    Many United Nations member States disregard this prohibition and continue to subject their citizens and others to torture and ill-treatment, often in a widespread and systematic manner. Although a broad range of safeguards is available now to prevent torture, many states have either not incorporated them in their legislation or, if they have, do not respect them in practice. OHCHR continues to receive numerous reports of state agents resorting to torture in the prosecution of ordinary criminals and, increasingly, in the name of the "war on terror".    Particularly insidious are moves to water down or question the absolute ban on torture, as well as on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Governments in a number of countries are claiming that established rules do not apply anymore: that we live in a changed world and that there is a "new normal". They argue that this justifies a lowering of the bar as to what constitutes permissible treatment of detainees. An illegal interrogation technique, however, remains illegal whatever new description a government might wish to give it.    The intensity of international terrorism may be unprecedented, but its fundamental nature has not changed. Effective and intelligent law enforcement responses are called for. But no credible case has been made for throwing away the progress achieved in extending the protection of the rule of law and human rights around the world. On the contrary, the fight against terrorism can only be won if international human rights norms are fully respected. Torture is not simply immoral and illegal: it is ineffective. The emergence of a particularly vicious form of terrorist action has not changed that. And neither has using a very restrictive definition of torture in order to be able to justify other violent interrogation techniques.    Two phenomena today are having an acutely corrosive effect on the global ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The first is the practice of having recourse to so-called diplomatic assurances to justify the return and "rendering" of suspects to countries where they face a risk of torture; the second is the holding of prisoners in secret detention. The former may make countries complicit with torture carried out by others, while the latter creates the conditions for torture by one"s own.    The trend of seeking "diplomatic assurances" allegedly to overcome the risk of torture is very troubling. The international legal ban on torture prohibits transferring persons - no matter what their crime or suspected activity - to a place where they would be at risk of torture and other ill-treatment (the non-refoulement obligation). Faced with the option of deporting terrorism suspects and others to countries where the risk of torture is well documented, some governments, in particular in Europe and in North America, purport to overcome that risk by seeking diplomatic assurances that torture and cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment will not be inflicted.    There are many reasons to be sceptical about the value of those assurances. If there is no risk of torture in a particular case, they are unnecessary and redundant. If there is a risk, how effective are these assurances likely to be? Assurances that the death penalty will not be sought or imposed are easy to monitor. Not so, I suggest, in the case of torture and ill-treatment. Short of very intrusive and sophisticated monitoring measures, such as around-the-clock video surveillance of the deportee, there is little oversight that could guarantee that the risk of torture will be obliterated in any particular case. While detainees as a group may denounce their torturers if interviewed privately and anonymously, a single individual is unlikely to reveal his ill-treatment if he is to remain under the control of his tormentors after the departure of the "monitors".    But the problem runs deeper: even if some post-return monitoring were functioning, the fact that some Governments conclude legally non-binding agreements with other Governments on a matter that is at the core of several legally-binding UN instruments threatens to empty international human rights law of its content. Diplomatic assurances basically create a two-class system among detainees, attempting to provide for a special bilateral protection and monitoring regime for a selected few and ignoring the systematic torture of other detainees, even though all are entitled to the equal protection of existing UN instruments.    Rather than extending this protection of convenience to a few, efforts should be directed at eliminating the risk of torture faced by many. Instead of attempting to monitor an individual case, with limited chances of effectiveness, efforts should be directed at creating a genuine system for monitoring all detainees in all places of detention. The tools to do this already exist, including the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture, which foresees the creation of mechanisms to access places of detention and interview detainees.    Let me turn to my second concern. Secret detention is not a new phenomenon, but it appears to have gained renewed currency in the so-called war on terror. An unknown number of "war on terror" detainees are alleged to be held in secret custody in unknown locations. Holding people in secret detention, with the detainee"s fate or whereabouts, or the very fact of their detention, undisclosed, amounts to "disappearance", which in and of itself has been found to amount to torture or ill-treatment of the disappeared person or of the families and communities deprived of any information about the missing person. Furthermore, prolonged incommunicado or secret detention facilitates the perpetration of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Whatever the value of the information obtained in secret facilities - and there is reason to doubt the reliability of intelligence gained through prolonged incommunicado or secret detention - some standards on the treatment of prisoners cannot be set aside. Recourse to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment exposes those who commit it to civil and criminal responsibility and, arguably, renders them vulnerable to retaliation.    Like many, I believe firmly in the role of law to guide us through difficult challenges. The law provides the proper balancing between the legitimate security interests of the State with the individual"s own legitimate interests in liberty and personal security. It must do so rationally and dispassionately even in the face of terror. For even though it may be painted as an obstacle to efficient law enforcement, support for human rights and the rule of law actually improves human security. Ultimately, respect for the rule of law lessens the likelihood of social upheaval, creating greater stability both for a given society and for its neighbours. Pursuing security objectives at all costs may create a world in which we are neither safe nor free. This will certainly be the case if the only choice is between the terrorists and the torturers.    On the occasion of Human Rights Day, I therefore call on all Governments to reaffirm their commitment to the total prohibition of torture by:    • Condemning torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and prohibiting it in national law;    • Abiding by the principle of non-refoulement and refraining from returning persons to countries where they may face torture.    • Ensuring access to prisoners and abolishing secret detention    • Prosecuting those responsible for torture and ill-treatment    • Prohibiting the use of statements extracted under torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, whether the interrogation has taken place at home or abroad    • Ratifying the Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol, as well as other international treaties banning torture.    10 December 2005    The following statement was issued today by 33 independent human rights experts of the United Nations:    "On the occasion of Human Rights Day, we express alarm at attempts by many States to circumvent provisions of international human rights law by giving new names to old practices. Whereas international instruments stress that human rights are at the foundation of any democratic society, more and more frequently they are portrayed as an obstacle to government efforts to guarantee security. This trend is illustrated by debates on the absolute prohibition of torture: a ban that recently had seemed an undisputed cornerstone of human rights law, anchored in numerous international legal instruments, but also accepted as a principle of jus cogens.    "For this reason we would like to reaffirm that the very rationale of human rights is that they provide minimum standards that have to be respected by States at all times, in particular when new challenges arise. All human rights, economic, social and cultural as well as civil and political, are inalienable rights of every single person. They cannot be brushed aside by Governments when they become "inconvenient".    "The physical and mental integrity of the person is essential to the web of minimum guarantees of respect for the human dignity, which is at the core of international human rights and a precondition for peace and development. As confirmed by article 2 of the Convention Against Torture and by articles 4 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, torture and any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited in all circumstances, including during a state of emergency.    "We are determined, in the framework of our respective mandates, to continue our work as defenders of all the human rights of all persons. Looking to the values enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and other UN instruments, we reject the artificial opposition between human rights and national security. Indeed, there can be no security without respect for human rights". Visit the related web page
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item