View previous stories
	Torture can never, ever be accepted by Thomas Hammarberg Council of Europe   27/06/06   Torture is totally banned in international law. Under no circumstances should anyone have to suffer torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. This is clearly established in UN treaties, the humanitarian Geneva Conventions and the European Convention on Human Rights. No exceptions are allowed, ever.   The absolute nature of this prohibition has given it a moral dimension: torture has been made “unthinkable”. This has been one of great landmarks in the struggle for human rights in modern times. On this basis, mechanisms have been created to secure that persons arrested or imprisoned are treated in a humane manner.   One example is the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture which visits countries - sometimes without prior announcement - in order to inspect places of detention. The advice given by the Committee has been of great support to governments wanting to secure the respect for human rights.   European and international human rights treaties also stipulate that governments are responsible for the protection of individuals against substantial risks of torture. To return asylum seekers or migrants to countries where they risk being tortured is therefore also a human rights violation.   These standards have been severely undermined since September 2001. The US administration has introduced interrogation methods which clearly violate the international prohibition of torture. Some of them have been physically brutal, for instance “water boarding” during which the prisoner is forcefully held under water.   Religious or sexual humiliation and threatening dogs have also been used to “soften-up” the prisoners. Sleep deprivation, long periods of hooding, loud sounds and very high or low temperatures have been combined in a systematic manner. Such methods of “sensory deprivation” were once used in Northern Ireland but found unacceptable by the European Human Rights Court of the Council of Europe and stopped by the UK government.   These methods have been approved by the current US government in its so called “war on terror”. In order to square that policy with binding international norms the administration has attempted to change the very definition of torture to include only treatment which causes severe bodily injuries. Rightly, the UN Committee on Torture refused this innovation.   The fact that the US administration no longer respects in practice the international standards on torture can only increase our concern about its policy of secret detention and extraordinary rendition. Such methods are in themselves clearly illegal, also in relation to persons suspected of terrorist activities.   This is the background to Senator Dick Marty’s report to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. It documents evidence of European complicity in what he describes as a US spun “spider’s web” of secret extra-judicial arrest, transport and detention extending across the globe.   The Marty report does not pretend to establish the whole truth – how could it, considering all secrecy? But it presents facts indicating governmental cooperation with unlawful CIA activities, either directly or indirectly through failure to control them. These facts are corroborated by reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. General unsubstantiated denials ignoring the detailed charges no longer suffice; governments need to respond in detail. They have a positive obligation to do so.   The Secretary General of the Council of Europe has asked all member states about their control over activities by foreign agents and their responses to the deprivation of liberty or transport of anyone in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. His final report will contain recommendations.   This is useful because lessons must now be drawn. European governments should ensure that their territories are not used for illegal transport of detainees and they should absolutely not hand anyone over to security agencies in the hands of which they may be tortured or made to “disappear”.   “Diplomatic assurances”, whereby receiving states promise not to torture specific individuals if returned are definitely not the answer to the dilemma of extradition or deportation to a country where torture has been practiced. Such pledges are not credible and has also turned out to be ineffective in well-documented cases. The governments concerned have already violated binding international norms and it is plain wrong to subject anyone to the risk of torture on the basis of an even less solemn undertaking to make an exception in an individual case. In short, the principle of non-refoulement should not be undermined by convenient, non-binding promises of such kind.   Terrorism is an abhorrence. The murder of innocent persons in order to terrorize a whole society can never, ever be defended. However, to respond with illegal means is to capitulate to the evil forces. Experience has shown that torture and illegal detention are ineffective for the purpose of information gathering. But even if such methods would yield results in an individual case, they must still not be used – because they undermine the very values we want to defend in a society built on the respect for human rights.   (Thomas Hammarberg, is the Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe)
	Justice must not be sacrificed to end conflicts by Nicolas Michel United Nations Legal Counsel   22 June 2006   Justice should never be sacrificed by granting amnesty in ending conflicts, the United Nations Legal Counsel told the Security Council today, stating that ending impunity for perpetrators of crimes against humanity is one of the principal evolutions in the culture of the world community and international law over the past 15 years.   “Justice and peace should be considered as complementary demands,” Nicolas Michel told an open debate on strengthening international law.   “There can be no lasting peace without justice,” he stressed. “It is not an issue of choosing between peace and justice, but of finding the best way to exercise one with regard to the other, taking into account particular circumstances, without ever sacrificing justice.”   Mr. Michel pointed out that amnesty for international crimes was now considered unacceptable in international practice, citing the recent transfer of former Liberian President Charles Taylor to the Netherlands to stand trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone on charges related to devastating civil wars in West Africa. “It is now a matter of ensuring that this standard is respected,” the Legal Counsel added.   The question of granting impunity in an effort to restore peace and freedom to countries in conflict has become a major issue in UN human rights forums. In April, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said the battle against impunity was a vital element for bringing true peace.   “Many continue to argue that undue concentration on human rights jeopardizes the possibility of either concluding a peace agreement in the first place, or of a peace agreement that has been concluded proving durable,” she stressed. “To the contrary, I suggest that human rights are central to and indispensable for both peace and justice.”   Like Mr. Michel today, Ms. Arbour hailed the detention of Mr. Taylor as “a powerful and welcome affirmation of this basic principle.”
	View more stories