A/HRC/43/49

Advance Unedited Version Distr.: General

14 February 2020

Original: English

Human Rights Council

Forty-third session
24 February–20 March 2020
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development

Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment of punishment

Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment*

Summary
In the present report, the Special Rapporteur examines conceptual, definitional
and interpretative questions arising in relation to the notion of “psychological torture” under
human rights law.

1
Contents
Page
I. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 3
II. Activities relating to the Mandate .................................................................................................... 3
III. Psychological Torture ...................................................................................................................... 3
A. Background.............................................................................................................................. 3
B. Concept of psychological torture............................................................................................. 6
C. Applying the constitutive elements.......................................................................................... 8
D. Predominant methods of psychological torture........................................................................ 12
E. Cyber torture............................................................................................................................ 18
IV. Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 19

2
 I. Introduction
⦁ The present report has been prepared pursuant to Human Rights Council
resolution 34/19.

II. Activities relating to the Mandate

⦁ In 2019, the Special Rapporteur transmitted 114 communications, jointly
with other mandates or individually, on behalf of individuals exposed to torture
and other ill-treatment.
⦁ Since his last report to the Human Rights Council in March 2019, the
Special Rapporteur participated in various consultations, workshops and events
on issues relating to his mandate, the most notable of which are listed below.
⦁ From 9 to 10 May, the Special Rapporteur and his medical team conducted
a visit to Mr. Julian Assange, detained at Belmarsh prison in London, United
Kingdom, as well as meetings with relevant British authorities, in order to
assess Mr. Assange’s state of health and conditions of detention, as well as
alleged risks or torture or ill-treatment arising in relation to his possible
extradition to the USA.
⦁ On 5 June, the Special Rapporteur participated in a conference on
“Effective multilateralism in the fight against torture: Trends in the OSCE
region and the way forward” organized by the OSCE Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights in Vienna, Austria.
⦁ From 12 to 15 June 2019, the Special Rapporteur conducted a country visit
to Comoros (A/HRC/43/49/Add.1)
⦁ On June 26, in support of the International Day in Support of Victims of
Torture, the Special Rapporteur co-organised a Side-Event at HRC41 on the
“Fault lines between non-coercive investigation and psychological torture”.
⦁ On 15 October, the Special Rapporteur presented his thematic report
(A/74/148) to the General Assembly in New York on the relevance of the
prohibition of torture and ill-treatment to the context of domestic violence.
⦁ On 18 October, the Special Rapporteur participated in a high-level
conference on “Tackling ill-treatment by police” in Bečići, Montenegro,
organised by the Council of Europe.
⦁ From 17 to 24 November, the Special Rapporteur conducted a country
visit to the Maldives. The Special Rapporteur issued extensive preliminary
observations after the visit and will present his report to the Human Rights
Council in March 2021.

3
III. Psychological Torture

A. Background

⦁ The universal prohibition of torture is recognized to be of absolute, non-

derogable and even peremptory character and has been restated in numerous
international instruments of human rights, humanitarian and criminal law. Since
its first proclamation in Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948), the international community has established an impressive normative
and institutional framework for its implementation (A/73/207, para 5-18). At
the same time, however, numerous States have invested significant resources
towards developing methods of torture which can achieve purposes of coercion,
intimidation, punishment, humiliation or discrimination without causing readily
identifiable physical harm or traces (A/73/207, para 45).
⦁ In continuation of experiments conducted by the Nazi-regime on
concentration camp inmates during World War II, the Cold War era saw the
emergence of classified large-scale and long-term projects involving systematic
“mind control” experimentation with thousands of prisoners, psychiatric
patients, and volunteers unaware of the real character and purpose of these
trials and the grave health risks generated by them. These experiments resulted
in the adoption and international proliferation of interrogation methodologies
which – despite their euphemistic description as “enhanced”, “deep”, “non-
standard” or “special” interrogation, “moderate physical pressure”,
“conditioning techniques”, “human resource exploitation”, and even “clean” or
“white” torture – were clearly incompatible with both medical ethics and the
prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. While some of these methods involved significant physical
violence, others were of a specifically psychological nature. In the recent past,
some of these approaches have resurfaced most prominently in connection with
interrogational torture in the context of counter-terrorism, ‘deterrence’-based
detention of irregular migrants, alleged mass-internment for purposes of
political ‘re-education’, and the abuse of individual prisoners of conscience.
Moreover, new and emerging technologies give rise to unprecedented tools and
environments of non-physical interaction which must be duly considered in the
contemporary interpretation of the prohibition of torture.
⦁ The mandate of the Special Rapporteur has long recognized
‘psychological’ or ‘mental’ torture as an analytical concept distinct from
physical torture (E/CN.4/1986/15), has addressed specific methods or contexts
of psychological torture, and has pointed to specific challenges arising in
connection with the investigation and redress of this type of abuse
(A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, para.55), as well as to the inextricable link of
psychological torture to coercive interrogation (A/71/298, para.37-45). The
mandate has also dedicated a full thematic report to the practice of solitary
confinement (A/66/268), has advocated the development of guidelines for non-
coercive interviewing (A/71/298), has supported the recent update of the
“Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” (Istanbul
Protocol) and has raised awareness for the challenges of psychological torture
in numerous individual communications. On 26 June 2019, on the occasion of
the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the Special Rapporteur

4
launched his thematic consultations on the topic at a side-event of the 41st
Session of the Human Rights Council including an expert panel on the “Fault
lines between non-coercive investigation and psychological torture”, and the
screening of “Eminent Monsters”, a documentary film on the origins and
devastating effects of contemporary psychological torture.
⦁ Although these initiatives have been generally well-received by States,
national practice still tends to deny, neglect, misinterpret or trivialize
psychological torture as what could be euphemistically described as “torture
light”, whereas “real torture” is still predominantly understood to require the
infliction of physical pain or suffering (so-called “materialist bias”). Some
States have even adopted national definitions of torture excluding mental pain
or suffering, or interpretations requiring that, in order to constitute torture,
mental pain or suffering must be caused by the threat or infliction of physical
pain or suffering, threats of imminent death, or profound mental disruption.
Both the Committee against Torture and this mandate have rejected these
approaches as contrary to the Convention against Torture. Beyond that,
however, the use of the term “psychological torture” in jurisprudence and
human rights advocacy remains fragmented, and both legal and medical experts
have long called for its clarification.
⦁ In the light of these considerations, the present report:
⦁ examines the predominant conceptual discrepancies arising in
relation to the notion of “psychological torture”;
⦁ proposes working definitions of “psychological” and “physical”
torture from the perspective of international human rights law;
⦁ offers recommendations regarding the interpretation of the
constitutive elements of torture in the context of psychological torture;
⦁ proposes a non-exhaustive, needs-based analytical framework
facilitating the identification of specific methods, techniques or circumstances
amounting or contributing to psychological torture;
⦁ illustrates how various combinations of methods, techniques and
circumstances - not all of which may amount to torture if taken in isolation and
out of context - can form “torturous environments” violating the prohibition of
torture;
⦁ encourages the interpretation of the prohibition of torture in line
with contemporary possibilities and challenges arising from emerging
technologies and explores, in a preliminary manner, the possibility and basic
contours of what could be described as “cyber torture”.
⦁ To this end, the Special Rapporteur has conducted extensive research and
stakeholder consultations, including through an open call for contributions by
questionnaire. The present report reflects the resulting conclusions and
recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. Given the substantive scope and
complexity of the topic and the applicable constraints in terms of time and
word-count, this report examines the notion of psychological “torture” only.
Given that, in practice, “torture” and “other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment” are often closely interlinked, further research efforts
should be undertaken to clarify the broader topic of psychological ill-treatment.

5
B. Concept of psychological torture

1. Working definition
⦁ “Psychological torture” is not a technical term of international law, but has
been used in various disciplines, including legal, medical, psychological,
ethical, philosophical, historical and sociological, for different purposes and in
varying interpretations. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that all of these
understandings have their own legitimacy, validity and purpose in their
respective fields. In line with the mandate bestowed upon him, the present
report examines the concept of “psychological torture” from the perspective of
international human rights law.
⦁ According to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture (CAT) the
substantive concept of “torture” comprises, most notably, the intentional and
purposeful infliction of severe pain or suffering “whether physical or mental”.
It is this explicit juxtaposition of “mental” and “physical” pain or suffering
which is generally referred to as the legal basis for the concept of psychological
torture. Accordingly, in human rights law, “psychological” torture is most
commonly understood as referring to the infliction of “mental” pain or
suffering, whereas “physical” torture is generally associated with the infliction
of “physical” pain or suffering.
⦁ In line with this position, shared by previous mandate holders
(E/CN.4/1986/15, para118), the Special Rapporteur is of the view that, under
human rights law, “psychological torture” should be interpreted to include all
methods, techniques and circumstances which intend or are designed to
purposefully inflict severe mental pain or suffering without using the conduit or
effect of severe physical pain or suffering. The Special Rapporteur is further of
the view that “physical torture” should be interpreted to include all methods,
techniques and environments which intend or are designed to purposefully
inflict severe physical pain or suffering, regardless of the parallel infliction of
mental pain or suffering.

2. Distinguishing “methods” from “effects” and “rationales”

⦁ Although the proposed distinction between “physical” and “psychological”
methods of torture seems to be fairly straightforward and to flow directly from
the treaty text, its consistent and coherent application is subject to a number of
caveats arising from the fact that the broader discussion of the psychological
dimension of torture can be divided into at least three parallel and equally
important strands, which relate to the psychological methods (i.e. techniques),
psychological effects (i.e. sequelae) and psychological rationale (i.e. target) of
torture.
⦁ First, the distinction between psychological and physical methods of
torture should not obscure the fact that, as a matter of law, “torture” is a unified
concept. All methods of torture are subject to the same prohibition and give rise
to the same legal obligations, regardless of whether the inflicted pain or
suffering is of “physical” or “mental” character, or a combination thereof.
Thus, the distinction between “psychological” and “physical” methods of
torture does not aim to suggest any difference in terms of legal implications or
wrongfulness, but to clarify to what extent the generic prohibition of torture

6
 covers methods not using the conduit or effect of severe physical pain or
suffering.
⦁ Second, the discussion of psychological methods (i.e. techniques) of
torture should not be conflated with that of the psychological effects (i.e.
sequelae) of torture. In reality, both physical and psychological methods of
torture each have both physical and psychological effects (E/CN.4/1996/15,
para118). Thus, the infliction of physical pain or suffering almost invariably
also causes mental suffering, including severe trauma, anxiety, depression and
other forms of mental and emotional harm. Likewise, the infliction of mental
pain or suffering also affects bodily functions and, depending on intensity and
duration, can cause irreparable physical harm or even death, including through
nervous collapse or cardiovascular failure. Moreover, in terms of severity,
psychological and physical stressors have been shown to inflict equally severe
suffering (A/HRC/13/39, para.46). From a psychophysiological perspective,
therefore, the distinction between “physical” and “psychological” torture is of
predominantly conceptual, analytical and pedagogic benefit and does not
suggest the parallel existence, in practice, of two separate and mutually
exclusive dimensions of torture, or of any hierarchy of severity between
“physical” and “psychological” torture.
⦁ A third, distinct aspect of the psychological dimension of torture is its
inherently psychological rationale (i.e. target). From a functional perspective,
any form of torture deliberately instrumentalizes severe pain and suffering as a
vehicle for achieving a particular purpose (A/72/178, para.31).
Methodologically, these purposes can be pursued through the infliction of
“physical” or “mental” pain or suffering, or a combination thereof and, in each
case, will cause varying combinations of physical and psychological effects.
Functionally, however, torture is never of exclusively physical character, but
always aims to affect the mind and emotions of victims or targeted third
persons. Many methods of physical torture deliberately create and exploit
debilitating inner conflicts, for example by instructing captives to remain in
physically painful stress positions under the threat of rape in case of
disobedience. A similar inner conflict can be induced without physical pain, for
example, by instructing the detainee to masturbate in front of guards and
inmates, again under the threat of rape in case of disobedience. Thus, the
distinction between “physical” and “psychological” torture does not imply any
difference in functional rationale but, rather, refers to the methodological
avenue through which that rationale is being pursued by the torturer.

3. Distinguishing psychological from physical “no marks” and “no touch”

torture
⦁ While methods of torture entailing visible bodily injury generally are not
referred to as “psychological torture”, the term is sometimes conflated with so-
called “no marks” torture, which aims to avoid visible traces on the victim’s
body, and with “no touch” torture, which aims to avoid inflicting pain or
suffering through direct physical interaction. In reality, however, both “no
marks” torture and “no touch” torture can also be of physical nature and, in that
case, are distinct from psychological torture.
⦁ More specifically, although physical “no-marks” torture aims to avoid
visible traces on the victim’s body, it still pursues its purposes through the
deliberate infliction of severe physical pain or suffering. Some physical “no
marks” techniques achieve the intended physical pain or suffering immediately
and directly, such as beatings with insulated objects on selected parts of the

7
 body, simulated drowning (“waterboarding” or “wet submarine”) or
asphyxiation with plastic bags (“dry submarine”). Other physical “no marks”
techniques involve the prolonged and/or cumulative infliction of initially “low
intensity” physical pain or suffering, which is calculated to gradually evolve to
unbearable levels of severity, such as forced standing or crouching, or
shackling in stress positions. While all of these techniques are calculated to
avoid physical marks visible to the naked eye and inexpert observer, many of
them still produce physical sequelae - such as swellings, abrasions, contusions
and irritations - which experienced forensic experts can reliably detect and
document for periods ranging from days to several weeks. In practice, however,
obstruction and delays, as well as lack of expertise, capacity and willingness on
the part of the investigative authorities entail that the vast majority of
allegations regarding “no marks” torture are either not investigated at all, or are
easily dismissed for lack of evidence.
⦁ Likewise, physical “no-touch” torture avoids direct physical interaction,
but still intentionally manipulates or instrumentalizes physiological needs,
functions and reactions to inflict physical pain or suffering. This typically
includes pain inflicted through threat-imposed stress positions, or powerful
sensory or physiological irritation through extreme temperatures, loud noise,
bright light, or bad smell, deprivation of sleep, food or drink,
prevention/provocation of urination, defecation or vomiting, or exposure to
pharmaceutical substances or drug-withdrawal symptoms. Although these
techniques deliberately use the conduit of the victim’s body for the infliction of
pain and suffering, they are sometimes discussed as psychological torture,
mainly because of their psychological rationale and intended destabilizing
effect on the human mind and emotions, and the limited physical contact
between the torturer and the victim. As long as “no-touch” techniques inflict
severe physical pain or suffering of any kind, however, they should be regarded
as physical torture.

C. Applying the constitutive elements

⦁ The concept of psychological torture as defined above gives rise to a

number of questions concerning the interpretation of the defining elements
constitutive of torture beyond what has been stated in previous reports
(A/73/207, paras 6-7; A/72/178, para. 31, E/CN.4/2006/6, paras. 38–41). All of
these questions relate to the “substantive” components of the definition, which
define the conduct that amounts to torture, whereas the “attributive”
component, which defines the level of State agent involvement required in
order for torture to give rise to State responsibility, has been discussed in depth
in previous reports and does not need to be re-examined here (A/74/148,
para5).

1. Severe pain or suffering

⦁ International anti-torture mechanisms have left no doubt that the definition
of torture does not necessarily require the infliction of physical pain or
suffering, but may also encompass mental pain or suffering. It is worth
underlining, however, the devastating effects of psychological torture are
frequently underestimated.
⦁ More controversial than this basic dichotomy between physical and mental
is the interpretation of the required level of “severity” of the pain inflicted.

8
While the objective measurement of physical pain or suffering gives rise to
insurmountable difficulties and has entailed numerous unsatisfactory attempts
at authoritatively categorizing methods of torture based on resulting physical
injuries and irreversible impairment, these problems are further exacerbated
when trying to objectively evaluate mental or emotional pain or suffering. On
the one hand, it has been emphasized that the term “severe” does not require
pain or suffering comparable to the pain accompanying serious physical injury,
such as organ failure or impairment of bodily functions or even death
(E/CN.4/2006/6; A/HRC/13/39, para. 54). On the other hand, the term
“torture” also should not be used to refer to mere inconvenience or discomfort
clearly incapable of achieving the purposes listed in the definition.
⦁ Whether the required threshold of severity is reached in a particular case
may depend on a wide range of factors that are endogenous and exogenous to
the individual, such as age, gender, health, and vulnerability, but also duration
of exposure and accumulation with other physical or mental stressors and
conditions, personal motivation and resilience, as well as contextual
circumstances. All of these elements must be holistically evaluated on a case-
by-case basis and in the light of the specific purpose pursued by the treatment
or punishment in question. For instance, the threat of overnight detention
combined with verbal abuse may be sufficiently severe to coerce or intimidate a
child, whereas the same act may have little or no effect on an adult, and even
less on a hardened offender. Moreover, the severity of pain or suffering
resulting from a particular type of ill-treatment is not necessarily constant, but
tends to increase or fluctuate with the duration of exposure and the
multiplication of stressors. Also, while torture constitutes an “aggravated” form
of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, “aggravation” does
not necessarily refer to aggravated pain and suffering, but to aggravated wrong
in terms of the intentional and purposeful instrumentalization of pain and
suffering for ulterior purposes. Thus, the distinguishing factor between torture
and other forms of ill-treatment is not the intensity of the suffering inflicted, but
rather the purpose of the conduct, the intention of the perpetrator and the
powerlessness of the victim (A/72/178, para.30; A/HRC/13/39, para.60).
⦁ Several treaty provisions even suggest that the concept of torture includes
conduct which, at least potentially, does not involve any subjectively
experienced pain or suffering at all. Thus, Art. 7 ICCPR expressly prohibits
“medical or scientific experimentation without free consent”. Although the
provision does not clarify whether such conduct would amount to “torture” or
to other “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” its explicit mention suggests
that it was regarded as a particularly grave violation of the prohibition. Even
more explicit in this respect, but only of regional applicability, is Article 2 of
the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which expressly
defines “torture” as including “methods 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”. Relatedly, upon ratification of the
CAT, the United States expressed its understanding that “mental pain or
suffering” refers to “prolonged mental harm” caused by, inter alia, the
threatened or actual “administration or application of mind-altering substances
or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the
personality”, which intended to ban some of the interrogation methods
developed by the CIA during the Cold War, but also to deliberately narrow
down the definition established in the Convention. Although the Committee
rejected this interpretation as too narrow and stated that psychological torture
cannot be limited to “prolonged mental harm” (CAT/C/USA/CO/2 (2006) para
13; CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5 (2014), para 9), it did not clarify whether the use of

9
 “procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality”
could amount to torture even in the absence of subjectively experienced pain or
suffering. While this was a salient question already for the drafters of the
various treaty texts during the Cold War era, its practical relevance has
exponentially increased in present times.
⦁ Given rapid advances in medical, pharmaceutical and neurotechnological
science, as well as in cybernetics, robotics and artificial intelligence, it is
difficult to predict to what extent future techniques and environments of torture,
as well as the “human enhancement” of potential victims and perpetrators in
terms of their mental and emotional resilience, may allow to circumvent,
suppress or otherwise manipulate the subjective experience of pain and
suffering while still achieving the purposes and the profoundly dehumanizing,
debilitating and incapacitating effects of torture. Given that States must
interpret and exercise their international obligations in relation to the
prohibition of torture in good faith (Art. 26 and 31 VCLT) and in the light of
the evolving values of democratic societies (A/HRC/22/53, para.14), it would
appear irreconcilable with the object and purpose of the universal, absolute and
non-derogable prohibition of torture, for example, to exclude the profound
disruption of a person’s mental identity, capacity or autonomy from the
definition of torture only because the victim’s subjective experience or
recollection of “mental suffering” has been pharmaceutically, hypnotically or
otherwise manipulated or suppressed.
⦁ Previous Special Rapporteurs have stated that “assessing the level of
suffering or pain, relative in its nature, requires considering the circumstances
of the case, including (…) the acquisition or deterioration of impairment as
result of the treatment or conditions of detention in the victim”, and that
“medical treatments of an intrusive and irreversible nature”, when lacking a
therapeutic purpose and enforced or administered without free and informed
consent, may constitute torture or ill-treatment (A/63/175, para.40, 47;
A/HRC/22/53, para.32). Building on this legacy, the Special Rapporteur is of
the view that the threshold of severe "mental suffering” can be reached not only
through subjectively experienced suffering but, in the absence of subjectively
experienced suffering, also through objectively inflicted mental harm alone. In
any case, even below the threshold of torture, the intentional and purposeful
infliction of mental harm would almost invariably amount to “other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

2. Intentionality
⦁ Psychological torture requires the intentional infliction of mental pain or
suffering and, thus, does not include purely negligent conduct. Intentionality
does not require that the infliction of severe mental pain or suffering be
subjectively desired by the perpetrator, but only that it be reasonably
foreseeable to result, in the ordinary course of events, from the purposeful
conduct adopted by the perpetrator (A/HRC/40/59, para.41; A/HRC/37/50,
para.60). Further, intentionality does not require proactive conduct, but may
also involve purposeful omissions, such as the exposure of substance addicted
detainees to severe withdrawal symptoms by making the replacement
medication or therapy dependent on a confession, testimony or other
cooperation (A/73/207, para.7). Where the infliction of severe mental pain or
suffering may result from the cumulative effect of multiple circumstances, acts
or omissions on the part of several contributors, such as in the case of mobbing,
persecution and other forms of concerted or collective abuse, the required
intentionality would have to be regarded as given for each State or individual
10
 knowingly and purposefully contributing to the prohibited outcome, whether
through perpetration, attempt, complicity or participation (Art. 4(1) CAT).

3. Purposefulness
⦁ In order to amount to psychological torture, severe mental pain or suffering
must not only be inflicted intentionally, but also “for purposes such as
obtaining from the victim 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” (Art. 1 CAT). Although the
listed purposes are only of an indicative nature and not exhaustive, relevant
purposes should have “something in common with the purposes expressly
listed” (A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, para.35). At the same time, the listed purposes
are phrased so broadly that it is difficult to envisage a realistic scenario of
purposeful infliction of severe mental pain or suffering on a powerless person
that would escape the definition of torture (A/72/178, para.31).
⦁ While the interpretation of purposes such as “interrogation”,
“punishment”, “intimidation” and “coercion” is fairly straight-forward, the way
the treaty text addresses “discrimination” requires clarification, because it is the
only qualifier which is not crafted in terms of a deliberate “purpose”. In order
for discriminatory measures to amount to torture, it is sufficient that they
intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering “for reasons related to
discrimination of any kind”. It is therefore not required that the relevant
conduct have a discriminatory “purpose”, but only a discriminatory “nexus”. As
a matter of treaty law, this includes any distinction, exclusion or restriction on
the basis of discrimination of any kind, which has either the purpose or the
effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an
equal basis with others, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the
political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field (A/63/175,
para.48).
⦁ It must be stressed that purportedly benevolent purposes cannot, per se,
vindicate coercive or discriminatory measures. For example, practices such as
involuntary abortion, sterilization, or psychiatric intervention based on
“medical necessity” of the “best interests” of the patient (A/HRC/22/53,
para.20, 32-35; A/63/175, para.49), or forcible internment for the “re-
education” of political or religious dissidents, the “spiritual healing” of mental
illnesses (A/HRC/25/60/Add.1, para.72-77), or for “conversion therapy”
related to gender identity or sexual orientation (A/74/148, para.48-50),
generally involve highly discriminatory and coercive attempts at controlling or
“correcting” the victim’s personality, behaviour or choices and almost always
inflict severe pain or suffering. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, therefore,
if all other defining elements are given, such practices may well amount to
torture.
⦁ Last but not least, given that information gathering is an intrinsic part of
legitimate investigative and fact-finding processes, it is necessary to clarify the
fault-lines between permissible non-coercive investigative techniques and
prohibited coercive interrogation. Although of great practical importance, this
particular distinction will not be discussed in the present report, as it has
already been examined in depth in a full thematic report submitted by the
previous Special Rapporteur (A/71/298), triggering an important and still
ongoing process at developing international guidelines on investigative

11
 interviewing and associated safeguards.

4. Powerlessness
⦁ This mandate has consistently held that, although not expressly mentioned
in the treaty text, the “powerlessness” of the victim is a defining prerequisite of
torture (A/73/207, para.7; A/HRC/22/53, para.31; A/HRC/13/39, para.60;
A/63/175, para.50). As has been shown, “[a]ll purposes listed in Article 1 CAT,
as well as the TP [travaux préparatoires] of the Declaration and the
Convention, refer to a situation where the victim of torture is a detainee or a
person ‘at least under the factual power or control of the person inflicting the
pain or suffering’, and where the perpetrator uses this unequal and powerful
situation to achieve a certain effect, such as the extraction of information,
intimidation, or punishment”.
⦁ In practice, “powerlessness” arises whenever someone has come under the
direct physical or equivalent control of the perpetrator and has effectively lost
the capacity to resist or escape the infliction of pain or suffering (A/72/178,
para.31). This is typically the case in situations of physical custody, such as
arrest and detention, institutionalization, hospitalization or internment, or any
other form of deprivation of liberty. In the absence of physical custody,
powerlessness can also arise through the use of body-worn devices capable of
delivering electric shocks through remote control, given that they cause the
“complete subjugation of the victim irrespective of physical distance”
(A/72/178 para.51). A situation of effective powerlessness can further be
achieved through “deprivation of legal capacity, when a person’s exercise of
decision-making is taken away and given to others” (A/HRC/22/53, para.31;
A/63/175, para.50), through serious and immediate threats, or through coercive
control in contexts such as domestic violence (A/74/148, para.32-34), through
incapacitating medication and, depending on the circumstances, in collective
social contexts of mobbing, cyber-bullying, and state-sponsored persecution
depriving victims of any possibility to effectively resist or escape their abuse.

5. “Lawful sanctions” exception

⦁ The treaty definition of torture explicitly excludes “pain or suffering
arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions” (Art. 1 (1)
CAT). At the same time, the savings clause of Art. 1 (2) CAT makes clear that
this exception may not be interpreted in a manner prejudicial to other
international instruments or national legislation which does or may define
torture more widely. The term “international instrument” has been shown to
cover both binding international treaties as well as non-binding declarations,
principles and other ‘soft law’ documents. Most notably, the “lawful sanctions”
clause can only be accurately understood in conjunction with the 1975 UN
Declaration, from which it is directly derived, and which excludes only those
lawful sanctions from the definition of torture that are “consistent with the
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners” (Art. 1). For
example, therefore, even if permitted by domestic law, none of the following
methods of inflicting mental pain or suffering can be regarded as “lawful
sanctions”: prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement; placement in a dark or
constantly lit cell; collective punishment; and prohibition of family contacts.
⦁ Importantly, in order to be “lawful”, sanctions cannot be open-ended,
indefinite or grossly excessive to their purpose, but must be clearly defined,
circumscribed and proportionate. For example, while it may be lawful to punish

12
 a witness for refusing to testify in court with a fixed monetary fine or even
imprisonment of a pre-defined length, the use of open-ended detention and
accumulation of monetary fines as a progressively severe means to coerce the
recalcitrant witness to testify would defeat the very object and purpose of the
Convention against Torture and, therefore, amount to psychological torture
irrespective of its “lawfulness” under national law. More generally, the Special
Rapporteur aligns with the understanding that the word “lawful” refers to both
domestic and international law.

D. Predominant methods of psychological torture

⦁ The present section aims to provide an overview of the characteristics,

rationale and effects of some of the most predominant methods of
psychological torture. In contrast to physical torture, which uses the body and
its physiological needs as a conduit for affecting the victim’s mind and
emotions, psychological torture does so by directly targeting basic
psychological needs, such as security, self-determination, dignity and identity,
environmental orientation, emotional rapport, and communal trust.
⦁ The following, separate discussion of specific methods, as well as their
categorization based on commonly experienced psychological needs, does not
aim to be authoritative, comprehensive or free from overlaps, or to exhaust the
ways in which methods of psychological torture could or should be described
or classified for a variety of purposes. Rather, it aims to provide an easily
accessible, basic analytical framework facilitating the identification of
individual methods, techniques or circumstances which, without using the
conduit or effect of severe physical pain or suffering, may amount or contribute
to torture as prohibited under international human rights law, whether alone or
in conjunction with other psychological or physical methods, techniques and
circumstances.
⦁ Given the virtually unlimited forms torture can take, the selected examples
are of illustrative character only. Moreover, various methods of torture may
have similar or overlapping effects or reinforce each other in various other
ways. In practice, specific methods of torture are rarely applied in isolation, but
almost always in combination with other methods, techniques and
circumstances, forming what has been aptly described as a “torturing
environment”. Therefore, the following, separate discussion of specific
methods has primarily didactic and analytical purposes and should not be taken
to suggest that any such rigid classification maps neatly onto the varied
practical manifestations of torture.

1. Security (inducing fear, phobia and anxiety)

⦁ Perhaps the most rudimentary method of psychological torture is the
deliberate and purposeful infliction of fear. The fact that the infliction of fear
itself can amount to torture has been widely recognized, not only by this
mandate, but also by the Committee against Torture, the European Court of
Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee, the Inter-American Court and
other mechanisms
⦁ In practice, fear can be induced through a virtually limitless variety of
techniques, some of the most common of which include the following:
⦁ direct or indirect threats of inflicting, repeating, or escalating acts of
13
 torture, mutilation, sexual violence or other abuse, including against relatives,
friends, or other inmates;
⦁ withholding or misrepresenting information about the fate of the
victims or their loved ones, mock executions, witnessing the real or purported
killing or torture of others;
⦁ provoking personal or cultural phobia through actual or threatened
exposure to insects, snakes, dogs, rats, infectious diseases etc.
⦁ inducing claustrophobia through mock burials or confinement in
boxes, coffins, bags and other cramped spaces (depending on the
circumstances, these methods may also inflict progressively severe physical
pain or suffering).
⦁ The extreme psychological distress and enormous inner conflicts triggered
by fear are often underestimated. In reality, especially the prolonged experience
of fear can be more debilitating and agonizing than the actual materialization of
that fear, and even the experience of physical torture can be experienced as less
traumatizing than the indefinite psychological torment of constant fear and
anxiety. Especially credible and immediate threats have been associated with
severe mental suffering, post-traumatic stress disorder, but also chronic pain
and other somatic (i.e. physical) symptoms.

2. Self-determination (domination and subjugation)

⦁ A psychological method which is applied in virtually all situations of
torture is to purposefully deprive victims of their control over as many aspects
of their lives as possible, to demonstrate complete dominance over them, and to
instill a profound sense of helplessness, hopelessness and total dependency on
the torturer. In practice, this is achieved through a wide range of techniques
including, most notably:
⦁ arbitrarily providing, withholding or withdrawing access to
information, reading material, personal items, clothing, bedding, fresh air, light,
food, water, heating or ventilation;
⦁ creating and maintaining an unpredictable environment with
constantly changing and erratically disrupted, prolonged or delayed schedules
for meals, sleep, hygiene, urination and defecation, and interrogations;
⦁ imposing absurd, illogical or contradictory rules of behavior,
sanctions and rewards;
⦁ imposing impossible choices forcing victims to participate in their
own torture.
⦁ All of these techniques have in common that they disrupt the victim’s sense
of control, autonomy and self-determination and, with time, consolidate in total
despair and complete physical, mental and emotional dependency on the
torturer (“learned helplessness”).

3. Dignity and identity (humiliation, breach of privacy and sexual integrity)

⦁ Closely related to the suppression of personal control, autonomy and self-
determination, but even more transgressive, is the proactive targeting of
victims’ sense of self-worth and identity through the systematic and deliberate

14
 violation of their privacy, dignity and sexual integrity. This may include, for
example:
⦁ constant audio-visual surveillance, through cameras, microphones,
one-way glass, caging and other relevant means, including during social, legal
and medical visits, and during sleep, personal hygiene, including urination and
defecation;
⦁ systematic derogatory or feral treatment, ridicule, insults, verbal
abuse, personal, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious or cultural humiliation;
⦁ public shaming, defamation, calumny, vilification or exposure of
intimate details of the victim’s private and family life;
⦁ forced nudity or masturbation, often in front of officials of the
opposite gender;
⦁ sexual harassment through insinuation, jokes, insults, allegations,
threats, exposing genitalia;
⦁ breach of cultural or sexual taboos, including involvement of
relatives, friends or animals;
⦁ dissemination of photographs or audio/video recordings showing
the victim being tortured or sexually abused, making a confession or otherwise
in compromising situations.
⦁ It must be stressed that the humiliating and degrading character of abuse
does not necessarily relegate it to the realm of “other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment”, which is sometimes (incorrectly) regarded as a ‘lesser’
wrong than torture. Systematic and prolonged violations of privacy, dignity and
sexual integrity are known to instill severe mental suffering, including emotions
of profound vulnerability, humiliation, shame and guilt, often exacerbated by
anxiety of social exclusion, self-hatred and suicidal tendencies. Like with other
methods, therefore, it is the intentionality and purposefulness of degrading
treatment, and the powerlessness of the victim, which are decisive for its
qualification as either torture or other ill-treatment.

4. Environmental orientation (sensory manipulation)

⦁ Sensory stimuli and environmental control are a basic human need.
Deliberate sensory manipulation and disorientation through sensory deprivation
or hyperstimulation involves both the sensory organs and the cognitive
processing of sensory perception. Particularly sensory hyperstimulation is
therefore situated at the very interface between physical and psychological
torture.
⦁ While short-term sensory deprivation can already trigger extreme mental
torment, prolonged deprivation generally produces apathy, followed by
progressively severe disorientation, confusion and, ultimately, delusional,
hallucinatory and psychotic symptoms. Accordingly, the UN Body of
Principles explicitly prohibit holding a detainee “in conditions which deprive
him, temporarily or permanently, of the use of any of his natural senses, such as
sight or hearing, or of his awareness of place and the passing of time”. In
practice, such deprivation involves the partial or complete elimination of
sensory stimulation through an accumulation of measures such as:

15
 ⦁ suppression of oral communication with the victim;
⦁ constant monotonous light;
⦁ visually sterile environment;
⦁ sound proof insulation of the cell;
⦁ hooding;
⦁ blindfolding;
⦁ gloves;
⦁ facial masks;
⦁ ear muffs.
⦁ Sensory hyperstimulation below the threshold of physical pain, such as
through constant bright light, loud music, bad odors, uncomfortable
temperatures or intrusive ‘white’ noise, induces progressively severe mental
stress and anxiety, inability to think clearly, followed by increasing irritability,
outbursts of anger and, ultimately, total exhaustion and despair. Extreme
sensory hyperstimulation which, immediately or with the passage of time,
causes actual physical pain or injury should be regarded as physical torture.
This may include, for example, blinding victims with extremely bright light, or
exposing them to extremely loud noise or music, or to extreme temperatures
causing burns or hypothermia.

5. Social and emotional rapport (isolation, exclusion, betrayal)

⦁ A routine method of psychological torture is to attack the victim’s need for
social and emotional rapport through isolation, social exclusion, mobbing and
betrayal. Persons deprived of meaningful social contact and subjected to
emotional manipulation can quickly become deeply destabilized and
debilitated.
⦁ The predominant method of isolation and social exclusion is ‘solitary
confinement’, which is defined as ‘the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or
more a day without meaningful human contact’. Under international law,
solitary confinement may only be imposed in exceptional circumstances, and
‘prolonged’ solitary confinement, in excess of 15 consecutive days, is regarded
as a form of torture or ill-treatment. The same applies to frequently renewed
measures which, in conjunction, amount to prolonged solitary confinement.
Even more extreme than solitary confinement is so-called ‘incommunicado
detention’ which deprives the inmate of any contact with the outside world,
particularly to medical doctors, lawyers and relatives, and has repeatedly been
recognized as a form of torture.
⦁ Other methods of targeting the victim’s need for social rapport include the
deliberate medical, linguistic, religious or cultural isolation within a group of
inmates, as well as the instigation, encouragement, or tolerance for oppressive
situations of harassment, bullying or mobbing against targeted individuals or
groups. For example, the discriminatory or punitive detention of individual
homosexual men in collective cells together with violent, homophobic inmates
will foreseeably create a situation of mobbing involving social isolation,
threats, humiliation and sexual harassment and inflict severe levels of constant
stress and anxiety likely to amount to torture regardless of the occurrence of

16
 physical violence.
⦁ The severe psychological and physical effects of incommunicado
detention, solitary confinement and social exclusion, including mobbing, are
well documented and, depending on the circumstances, can range from
progressively severe forms of anxiety, stress, and depression to cognitive
impairment and suicidal tendencies. Particularly if prolonged or indefinite, or
combined with the death row syndrome, isolation and social exclusion can also
cause serious and irreparable mental and physical harm.
⦁ Apart from, and generally in combination with, isolation and social
exclusion, torturers frequently target victims’ need for emotional rapport
through deliberate emotional manipulation. This may include methods such as:
⦁ fostering and then betraying emotional rapport and personal trust;
⦁ provoking ‘misconduct’ through “guilty/guilty”-choices and then
inducing emotions of guilt or shame for betraying the torturer’s trust;
⦁ destroying emotional ties by forcing victims to betray or participate in
the abuse of other prisoners, relatives and friends, or vice versa;
⦁ deceptive, disorienting or otherwise confusing information or role-
play.

6. Communal trust (institutional arbitrariness and persecution)

⦁ Every human being has the inherent need for communal trust. Confronted
with the overwhelming power of the State, individuals must be able to
compensate their own powerlessness by relying on the community’s ability and
willingness to exercise self-restraint, most notably through adherence to the
rule of law and the principles of due process. As long as administrative or
judicial error, negligence or arbitrariness can be effectively, though at times
imperfectly, addressed and corrected through a regular system of institutional
complaints and remedies, the resulting inconveniences, injustices and
frustrations may have to be tolerated as an inevitable side-effect of the
constitutional processes that govern democratic societies.
⦁ As discussed in detail in the Special Rapporteur’s previous report on the
interrelation between corruption and torture (A/HRC/40/59, para 16, 48-60),
these constitutional processes are fatally corrupted when administrative or
judicial power is deliberately misused for arbitrary purposes, and when the
relevant institutional oversight mechanisms are complacent, complicit,
inaccessible or paralyzed to the point of effectively removing any prospect of
due process and the rule of law.
⦁ Typical of contexts marked by systemic governance failures, or by the
persecution of individual or groups, sustained institutional arbitrariness
fundamentally betrays the human need for communal trust and depending on
the circumstances, can cause severe mental suffering, profound emotional
destabilization and long-lasting individual and collective trauma. In the view of
the Special Rapporteur, when institutional arbitrariness or persecution
intentionally and purposefully inflicts severe mental pain or suffering on
powerless persons, it can constitute or contribute to psychological torture. In
practice, this question is of particular, but not exclusive, relevance in relation to
the deliberate instrumentalization of arbitrary detention and related judicial or
administrative arbitrariness.

17
 ⦁ Apart from incommunicado detention and solitary confinement discussed
above, some of the most notable forms of arbitrary detention include:
⦁ Enforced disappearance: This practice involves the arrest, detention,
abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by or with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of State officials, followed by a
refusal to acknowledge such detention or by concealment of the fate or
whereabouts of the disappeared persons, which places them outside the
protection of the law. Enforced disappearance can amount to a form of
torture in relation both to the disappeared person and to their relatives
(A/56/156, para.9-16).
⦁ Coercive detention: This practice involves the deliberate
instrumentalization of the progressively severe suffering inflicted by
prolonged arbitrary detention for the purpose of coercing, intimidating,
deterring or otherwise ‘breaking’ the detainee or third persons.
⦁ Cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment: This involves excessively
long or harsh prison sentences, imposed for the purpose of deterrence,
intimidation and punishment, but grossly disproportionate to the
seriousness of the offence and incompatible with fundamental principles
of justice and humanity. This can also include the severe mental and
emotional suffering inflicted by the so-called “death row syndrome”.
⦁ Whether a particular situation of confinement qualifies as “detention”
depends not only on whether the concerned person has a de jure “right” to
leave, but also on whether they are de facto able to exercise this right without
exposing themselves to serious human rights violations (principle of non-
refoulement).
⦁ Whether arbitrary detention and related judicial or administrative
arbitrariness, as such, amount to psychological torture must be determined on a
case-by-case basis. As a general rule, the longer a situation of arbitrary
detention lasts, and the less detainees can do to influence their own situation,
the more severe their suffering and desperation will become. Victims of
prolonged arbitrary confinement have demonstrated post-traumatic symptoms
and other severe and persistent mental and physical health consequences.
Particularly the constant exposure to uncertainty and judicial arbitrariness and
the lack, restrained or insufficient communication with lawyers, doctors,
relatives and friends induce a growing sense of helplessness and hopelessness
and, over time, may lead to chronic anxiety and depression.
⦁ Therefore, as the Special Rapporteur has repeatedly stressed both in the
context of irregular migration (A/HRC/37/50, para.25-27) and in individual
communications, where arbitrary detention and judicial arbitrariness is
intentionally imposed or perpetuated for purposes such as coercion,
intimidation, deterrence or punishment, or for reasons related to discrimination
of any kind, it can amount to psychological torture.

7. Torturous environments (accumulation of stressors)

⦁ The above outline of specific methods should not obscure the fact that, in
practice, torture victims are almost always exposed to a combination of
methods, techniques and circumstances deliberately designed to inflict both
mental and physical pain or suffering. If applied in isolation or for a short
period of time, some of these techniques and circumstances may not necessarily
amount to torture. In combination and with increasing duration, however, they
18
 have a devastating effect. Thus, a finding of torture may depend not only on the
specific characteristics of particular techniques or circumstances, but also on
their cumulative and/or prolonged effect, sometimes in conjunction with
external stress-factors or individual vulnerabilities that are not under the control
of the torturer and may not even be consciously instrumentalized by him. As
aptly stated by the ICTY: torture “may be committed in one single act or can
result from a combination or accumulation of several acts, which, taken
individually and out of context, may seem harmless ... The period of time, the
repetition and various forms of mistreatment and severity should be assessed as
a whole”.
⦁ Particularly in the absence of physical pain and suffering, due
consideration must always be given to the context in which certain methods are
used. For example, while in normal circumstances, publicly expressed insults
and defamation may amount to a criminal offence, but not to torture, this
assessment might change significantly when the same conduct becomes a
matter of systematic, state-sponsored vilification and persecution involving
additional measures such as arbitrary detention, constant surveillance,
systematic denial of justice, and serious threats or intimidation. Moreover, each
person may react differently to a particular method of torture. In practice,
therefore, torture techniques must always be evaluated by reference to the
targeted victim’s individual vulnerabilities (A/73/152), whether due to
disability (A/63/175), migration status (A/HRC/37/50), or for any other reason.
⦁ In such situations, rather than looking at each factor in isolation and asking
which ones cross the “severity” threshold, it is more appropriate to speak of a
“torturous environment”, that is to say, a combination of circumstances and/or
practices designed or of a nature, as a whole, to intentionally inflict pain or
suffering of sufficient severity to achieve the desired torturous purpose. This
reflects the reality that victims tend to experience and respond to torture
holistically, and not as a series of isolated techniques and circumstances, each
of which may or may not amount to torture.

E. Cyber torture

⦁ A particular area of concern, which does not appear to have received

sufficient attention, is the possible use of various forms of information and
communication technology (“cyber-technology”) for the purposes of torture.
Although the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the
internet has been repeatedly addressed by the Human Rights Council
(A/HRC/32/L.20; A/HRC/38/L.10/Rev.1), torture has been understood
primarily as a tool used to obstruct the exercise of the right to freedom of
expression on the internet, and not as a violation of human rights that could be
committed through the use of cyber-technology.
⦁ This seems surprising given that some of the characteristics of cyber-space
make it an environment highly conducive to abuse and exploitation, most
notably a vast power asymmetry, virtually guaranteed anonymity, and almost
complete impunity. In fact, States, corporate actors and organized criminals not
only have the capacity to conduct cyber operations inflicting severe suffering
on countless individuals, but may well decide to do so for any of the purposes
of torture. It is therefore necessary to briefly explore, in a preliminary manner,
the possibility and basic contours of what could be described as “cyber
torture”.

19
⦁ In practice, cyber-technology already plays the role of an “enabler” in the
perpetration of both physical and psychological forms of torture, most notably
through the collection and transmission of surveillance information and
instructions to interrogators, through the dissemination of audio or video
recordings of torture or murder for the purposes of intimidation, or even live
streaming of child sexual abuse “on demand” of voyeuristic clients
(A/HRC/28/56, para.71), and increasingly also through the remote control or
manipulation of stun-belts (A/72/178, para.51), medical implants and,
conceivably, nano- or neurotechnological devices. Cyber-technology can also
be used to inflict, or contribute to, severe mental suffering while avoiding the
conduit of the physical body, most notably through intimidation, harassment,
surveillance, public shaming and defamation, as well as appropriation, deletion
or manipulation of information.
⦁ The delivery of serious threats through anonymous phone calls has long
been a widespread method of remotely inflicting fear. With the advent of the
internet, particularly State security services have been reported to use cyber-
technology, both in their own territory and abroad, for the systematic
surveillance of a wide range of individuals and/or for the direct interference
with their unhindered access to cyber technology (A/HRC/32/L.20;
A/HRC/38/L.10/Rev.1). Moreover, electronic communication services, social
media platforms and search engines provide an ideal environment both for the
anonymous delivery of targeted threats, sexual harassment and extortion, but
also for the mass-dissemination of intimidating, defamatory, degrading,
deceptive or discriminatory narratives.
⦁ Individuals or groups systematically targeted by cyber-surveillance and
cyber-harassment generally are left without any effective means of defense,
escape, or self-protection and, at least in this respect, often find themselves in a
situation of “powerlessness” comparable to physical custody. Depending on the
circumstances, the physical absence and anonymity of the perpetrator can even
exacerbate the victim’s emotions of helplessness, loss of control, and
vulnerability, not unlike the stress-augmenting effect of blindfolding or hooding
during physical torture. Likewise, the generalized shame inflicted by public
exposure, defamation and degradation can be just as traumatic as direct
humiliation by perpetrators in a closed environment. As various studies on
cyber-bullying have shown, already harassment in comparatively limited
environments can expose targeted individuals to extremely elevated and
prolonged levels of anxiety, stress, social isolation and depression, and
significantly increases the risk of suicide. Arguably, therefore, much more
systematic, government-sponsored threats and harassment delivered through
cyber-technologies not only entail a situation of effective powerlessness, but
may well inflict levels of anxiety, stress, shame and guilt amounting to “severe
mental suffering” as required for a finding of torture.
⦁ More generally, in order to ensure the adequate implementation of the
prohibition of torture and related legal obligations in present and future
circumstances, its interpretation should evolve in line with new challenges and
capabilities arising in relation to emerging technologies not only in cyber-
space, but also in areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics, nano- and
neurotechnology, or pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences including so-
called “human enhancement”.

20
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
⦁ Based on the above observations and considerations on the
substantive dimensions of the concept of “psychological torture”, and
informed by broad stakeholder consultations, the Special Rapporteur, to
the best of his knowledge and judgment, proposes the conclusions and
recommendations set out below.
⦁ Prevalence: Psychological torture occurs in a wide variety of contexts,
including ordinary criminal investigations; police detention; “stop-and-
search” operations; intelligence gathering; medical, psychiatric and social
care; immigration, administrative and coercive detention; as well as in
social contexts such as domestic violence, mobbing, cyberbullying and
political or discriminatory persecution.
⦁ General recommendations: Psychological torture constituting a sub-
category to the generic concept of torture, the Special Rapporteur
herewith reiterates the general recommendations of his mandate
(E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26) and emphasizes their full applicability, mutatis
mutandis, to methods, techniques and circumstances amounting to
“psychological torture”.
⦁ Non-coercive investigation: Given the practical importance of
continuing to clarify the fault-lines between permissible non-coercive
investigative techniques and prohibited coercive interrogation, the Special
Rapporteur reaffirms the conclusions and recommendations made in the
thematic report submitted by his predecessor (A/71/298) and invites States
to actively support the ongoing process towards developing international
guidelines on investigative interviewing and associated safeguards.
⦁ Istanbul Protocol: Personnel tasked with medical examinations, the
determination of migration status or the judicial adjudication of potential
cases of torture should be provided with function-specific training in the
identification and documentation of the signs of torture and ill-treatment,
in accordance with the updated “Istanbul Protocol”.
⦁ Specific recommendations: More specifically with regard to the notion
of “psychological torture”, the Special Rapporteur recommends that
States adopt, incorporate, and implement the following definitions,
interpretations and understandings throughout their national normative,
institutional and policy frameworks including, in particular, their training
and instruction of medical, judicial, administrative, military and law
enforcement personnel.
⦁ Working definitions: For the purposes of human rights law,
“psychological torture” should be interpreted to include all methods,
techniques and circumstances which intend or are designed to
purposefully inflict severe mental pain or suffering without using the
conduit or effect of severe physical pain or suffering. Conversely,
“physical torture” should be interpreted to include all methods, techniques
and environments which intend or are designed to purposefully inflict
severe physical pain or suffering, regardless of the parallel infliction of
mental pain or suffering.
⦁ Constitutive elements: In the context of psychological torture,

21
 ⦁ “Mental suffering” refers primarily to subjectively experienced
mental suffering but, in its absence, can also refer to objectively inflicted
mental harm alone.
⦁ “Severity” of mental pain or suffering depends on a wide range
of factors that are endogenous and exogenous to the individual, all of
which must be holistically evaluated on a case-by-case basis and in the
light of the specific purpose pursued by the treatment or punishment in
question.
⦁ “Powerlessness” refers to the victim’s inability to escape or
resist the infliction of mental pain or suffering, and can be achieved not
only through physical custody but also, for example, through
incapacitating medication, deprivation of legal capacity, serious and
immediate threats, and social contexts marked by coercive control,
mobbing, cyber-bullying, and persecution.
⦁ “Intentionality” is given as soon as the perpetrator knew or
should have known that, in the ordinary course of events, his or her acts
or omissions would result in the infliction of severe mental pain or
suffering, whether alone or in conjunction with other factors and
circumstances.
⦁ “Purposefulness” is given when mental pain or suffering is
inflicted for purposes such as interrogation, punishment, intimidation and
coercion of the victim or a third person, or with a discriminatory nexus,
regardless of purportedly benevolent purposes such as “medical
necessity”, “re-education”, “spiritual healing”, or “conversion therapy”.
⦁ “Lawful sanctions” cannot include any sanctions or measures
prohibited by relevant international instruments or national legislation,
such as prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement, sensory
manipulation, collective punishment, prohibition of family contacts, or
detention for purposes of coercion, intimidation, or for reasons related to
discrimination of any kind.
⦁ Predominant methods: In contrast to physical torture, which uses the
body and its physiological needs as a conduit for affecting the victim’s
mind and emotions, psychological torture does so by directly targeting one
or several basic psychological needs, such as:
⦁ Security (inducing fear, phobia and anxiety)
⦁ Self-determination (domination and submission)
⦁ Dignity and identity (humiliation, breach of privacy and sexual
integrity)
⦁ Environmental orientation (sensory manipulation)
⦁ Social and emotional rapport (isolation, exclusion, emotional
manipulation)
⦁ Communal trust (institutional arbitrariness and persecution)
⦁ Torturous environments: In practice, torture victims are almost
always exposed to a combination of techniques and circumstances
inflicting both mental and physical pain or suffering, the severity of which
depends on factors such as duration, accumulation and personal

22
vulnerability. Victims tend to experience and respond to torture
holistically, and not as a series of isolated techniques and circumstances,
each of which may or may not amount to torture. Accordingly,
psychological torture may be committed in one single act or omission or
can result from a combination or accumulation of several factors which,
taken individually and out of context, may seem harmless. The
intentionality, purposefulness and severity of the inflicted pain or
suffering must always be assessed as a whole and in the light of the
circumstances prevailing in the given environment.
⦁ Challenges of new technologies: In order to ensure the adequate
implementation of the prohibition of torture and related international
legal obligations in present and future circumstances, its interpretation
should evolve in line with new challenges and capabilities arising in
relation to emerging technologies not only in cyber space, but also in areas
such as artificial intelligence, robotics, nano- and neurotechnology, or
pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences including so-called “human
enhancement”.

23