Convention Against Torture

Convention Against Torture

Laws Against Torture: Convention Against Torture

Introduction to Convention Against Torture

In 1984 the UN adopted the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). The convention went into effect in 1987. CAT defined torture as the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering, for the purpose of obtaining a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or discrimination. The definition reads in part “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

Under CAT, torture is never permitted, even in times of war. Article 2 explicitly states that “no exceptional circumstance whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” Article 3 stipulates that states parties (countries that have ratified CAT) are prohibited from returning or extraditing a person to another state where there are substantial grounds to believe the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

The United States ratified CAT in 1994, giving it the status of U.S. law. The U.S. ratification was based on the understanding that the definition of torture would conform to the language used in an earlier U.S. law, the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) of 1991. The TVPA established civil procedures for torture victims to recover damages. Damages can be recovered from anyone who, under the authority of a foreign nation, engages in torture or carries out executions not sanctioned by law.

Although the language in the two laws was similar, the TVPA definition of mental suffering was more specific than that used in CAT. The TVPA defined mental pain or suffering as “prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from- (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another individual will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances.…” This definition also became part of United States Code Title 18, section 2340a, a criminal statute that provides for imprisonment and other penalties, up to and including the death penalty, for its violation.

Canada ratified the CAT without any reservations. Canada also amended its criminal code to punish torture with a sentence of not more than 14 years. However, if a torture victim dies, Canadian law provides for a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.

As of 2004, 136 states had ratified CAT. In 2002 the UN General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, which will allow independent international and national experts to conduct regular visits to places of detentions within the states parties, to assess the treatment of prisoners and make recommendations for improvement. The treaty was adopted by a vote of 127 in favor, 4 against, and 42 abstentions. The United States was joined by Nigeria, Marshall Islands, and Palau in opposing the optional protocol. The United States opposed the optional protocol because some provisions conflicted with the U.S. Constitution’s provisions on search and seizure and because the protocol would be “overly intrusive.” It also expressed budgetary concerns.” (1)

Resources

Notes and References

Guide to Convention Against Torture


Posted

in

,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *